 This is the OGM weekly call on Thursday, July 6th, 2023. We today our format is five minute universities so we're going to see what we got in that realm. I know I know several that want to present and I'm hoping other people would like to jump in as well. I've got a timer on hand and we will see how this runs. But before we do that, how is everybody? Where is everybody? Well, as we said, here I am in Montenegro still. The weather is pretty good but beginning to heat up. Yeah. And I've learned that the rich understand climate change and they say, but so what just let me spend my money the way I want. Don't tax it and don't do any fancy projects. Yeah. Yeah. It's a rush costs. Is it rush costs latest book, the billionaires on the bus or whatever. Yeah. He was pointing pointing pointing that out. Hey Mike, hey Pete, hey Ken, hey Hank. How's everybody. Had a three or four day weekend can't complain. Nice. Excellent. Where are you now Mike. I am sitting in my house in Arlington, Virginia. It's fabulous. Excellent. I visit, come and visit. But now it's ugly. Really? Yeah. Pretty hot where you are too, isn't it. We had a little spike a couple of days ago at like 97, and it's going to level off. And then I've got some travel coming up. It always blows my mind that when the civil war starts, you can look across at Lee's plantation, you can look across the Potomac at where Lee's plantation was. That's like the enemy headquarters were that close to each other in some sense, although Richmond winds up being the HQ, but that was crazy. And when Lincoln arrives in DC to get inaugurated, there's nobody there to protect him. There are no troops, nobody's like, yeah, whatever. And he has to call in some Pennsylvania regiment to basically come and defend the city in case Confederates organize themselves and decide to come take over the capital. Well, they kept the Confederates at least 3040 miles away. Yeah, what's the first battle of bull run was, you know, that was 30 miles, 20 miles out of town, all the Washingtonians gotten their carriages and went out there to watch the war. Because that's what you do is a spectator sport. It was like NASCAR. Yeah. Without the bleachers. Without the corporate logos. Yeah, that chance. Oh, no, no, each state had its logo. Oh, that's true. It was it was all about advertising how brave your state was. I often feel that way that spectator sports as we see the reports of wars in various parts of the country. It's still that. Yeah, what parts of the world. Yeah, we're still at it. The Virginia part back, like, because it was a 10 mile square, but they tried to try to get keep Virginia from, but ended up being Arlington National Cemetery and National Airport and the Pentagon is basically that space. Yep. They have a brand new monument at the Amazon headquarters, which is just south of the Pentagon. And it's actually a monument to all of the black families that were displaced in the late 30s and early 40s when they built the Pentagon. So there were about 950 families that just pushed out of these, you know, low income housing. And given very little money was eminent domain right out of there. But it's a quite a quite a stunning monument has sort of has bricks with the name of each, each family. Very cool. Yeah, that new Amazon headquarters is pretty, pretty incredible. Even if you're just flying through Washington, you can do a one mile. John can go see this place. It's our little bit of Silicon Valley. I hadn't heard much about it at all. I've got, I've got a few of just three five minute universities set up me Stuart and Gil happy to go in whatever order you guys would like to go in. I don't know. I don't know who ever sounds fine. That order sounds fine sounds great. I don't know if anybody else wants to jump in or whatever but I think why don't we do those and then see where we are. And I've got a speakers talk and I also have a, there's a couple websites where you can do a timer but I think what I'm going to do is kind of hold this up to my clock. And I will watch it while I do my talk because I don't know how to, if anybody else wants to hold this a timer up while we're doing it because I'd like to, I'd like to hue to the five minutes as much as possible. And doing this so the idea of five minute universities is to take some topic that we care about and know something about. We can speak about it for exactly five minutes, could be shorter, but try not to go over, and then to do Q&A for just five minutes. And I know that there's no way to exhaust the Q&A is in that period. But really the idea is to kick up who you want to go talk to at the copy break or later or whatever. From what they just said. So, so five minutes gives us enough time to sort of expand into that space. Since that is our order. I think what I'll do is jump into mine. Let's find. Jerry, do you have a loud horn, or should we provide that. So, we should all scream. Well, actually, I was that I was at the BJ fog and I'm forgetting who else it was hosted a Facebook contest at Stanford University. And they started to go with their class. And this was back when you loaded apps into your Facebook profile, and, you know, the number of the number of people who had loaded your app was like a contest at the time. And they expected the winner, the winning team to maybe get 10,000 installs or loads I'm forgetting what we called it of the app. I think it was installs. The team got like a million or more than a million dollars of their app. It just blew everybody away. And the reason I tell the story is that he every team had two and a half minutes to present their pitch for what they did and describe exactly what they did. And he had a person with a glockenspiel sitting in the first row of the audience with a timer. And he gave instructions to the room which is really one of the things he did as we walk in was if there's an empty seat next to you hold your mouth. And that's a great way to pack the room like we're super easy. And then he said at the two and a half minute mark the glockenspiel was on everybody. Loud applause, and you can't talk over a lot of plots like and so the speakers were like, they laughed and they were done and they got off stage. So we could do a pause that would work out fine if you if you want to do that, or whatever. It was very elegant when Hunter and I were 111 and I were teaching at Presidio graduate school and had the students do their their pitches with a timer on it. We had a big air horn. Yeah. The air horn makes it hard to be a speaker is that thing is that thing going to go off. What's what's going to happen. I don't want that to happen. And that's what Bob Metcalfe used to do and Stuart Alsop at agenda. They actually gave everybody their own little note, a little, little number pad. So you could rank the speaker as they were speaking. Oh, okay. And the higher the ranking, the slower the clock. Oh, I don't remember that at all. Right in front of the stage. And it actually wasn't a major thing. It was maybe if you were an amazing speaker, you got an extra two minutes and your 10 minutes slot. Yeah. But it was really effective. I mean, people really made sure they were saying something important with every sentence. That's awesome. I love that. I remember the days of agenda. I think I went to one or two of those. You were with the competing team. They were our competitors, but we comped each other to our conferences so but I don't think I went to that many agendas and also demo was back in the day I went to a couple demos, my gym bag now is my demo 2002 back. That was the swag from that conference. Cool. So I am ready I've got my, I've got my timer which I'm going to hold up a little bit every now and then but when I go to share screen, which I will do now. So I'm kind of ready. I'm going to go to slideshow mode. All right, does that look reasonable for everybody. Good. So I'm going to hit the timer and and if I'm going to do this and start. This is a history of artificial intelligence and machine learning and a little bit about where we are back in the 40s when the first computers were being built. A lot of people were trying to figure out how do we model human thinking was a natural thing to do was one of the first things people started to try to do. And I'm going to over generalize brutally here just to tell you the story, but this split into two different paths. A group of people tried to emulate the logic of the brain. How do we reason. So if you have sniffles and cough, then you probably have the flu, except when you have the chills and you might have malaria, etc, etc. This got pretty, pretty complicated. And then a bunch of other researchers decided to model just the neuro biology the neuro chemistry of how we think where they were modeling. So basically neurons, and how neurons fire so they get activated they have inputs into a neuron, there's a threshold function and then they fire and activate other neurons downstream. And then these this took a lot of matrix math. This first group were called expert systems back in the day, and this other group were known as neural networks. The expert systems were interesting because you would sit a knowledge engineer down with a domain expert, they would derive these explicit rules and this gave you a really nice audit trail because when the expert team said, you have the flu, it could show you which rules had fired neural networks learn from big data sets all these this matrix math basically creates weights inside of these artificial neurons. It's very calculation intensive. Every now and then it gives you amazing results but it left no audit trail. This is a black box. It's very hard to tell not impossible just really hard to tell what the neural network was doing. Then in 1969, these two famous people Marvin Minsky and Seymour Pappert very big dogs in the machine intelligence world, write a book titled perceptrons. This book freezes almost all research into neural networks because they prove that neural networks are impossible. And what they proved was that simple single layer neural networks were impossible because mathematically they couldn't represent enough complexity. It turns out that they are really wrong, but they managed to successfully hold off research in the field for 15 years or so and a few people who are in the field sort of keep digging luckily. Then we get this era of machine intelligence and expert systems got better and found mainstream use, but but neural network started to get layers so we call this deep learning because you start to get hidden layers inside the neural net. Hardware went from just normal CPUs to graphic processing units out of graphics places and we got some breakthrough performance in very narrow, narrow domains and a bunch of research like convolutional neural nets recurrent neural nets and a variety of models were developed that got more and more complicated. And because I bear a little bit of a grudge against the expert systems people, I tend to think of artificial intelligence as the expert system side of things so for me, I think of machine intelligence as the blanket term and machine learning I tended to put over on deep learning. Now this is me in the late 80s at new science associates, looking through a deck of foils, basically on acetate about to give a speech. In 1988 I wrote this report neural networks prospects for commercial use so I have a little bit of history in this field and I love the field that neural networks are what attracted me into technology in the first place. So machine intelligence basically got better but really didn't improve as much as machine learning did where we suddenly got gigantic data sets the hardware got better we went from GPUs to tensor processing units to dedicated hardware for these things, and we got breakthrough networks in broader domains, and a bunch of new language comes up generative adversarial networks are GANs large language models transformers GPT is the generative pre trained transformer and latent diffusion models like stable diffusion. All this stuff is really like suddenly starts doing really great things. So, my conclusions. This is real like this is this is not blockchain this is not 3D TV this is not a bunch of other thing the metaverse. This is actually very real and very useful machine learning its tasks, not jobs, but that's interesting because you eat enough tasks and the job is in danger so really important question here is, are we looking to augment humans or replace them. The future is cyborg I am convinced that more and more we are going to be blending symbiotically with technology. And there is a flourishing ecosystem of organizations trying to build all this technology, many of which are busy replacing things. Now, this is not artificial general intelligence. This is not as smart as humans but this is not a way to progress this the all these systems are self improving the fusion of these different kinds of intelligence is going to happen. And whether we head into a utopia or a dystopia matters because what we do today is going to make all the difference in the world. And I am out of five minutes and that's the end of my presentation so be a good cyborg is my punchline. And now we have five minutes of q amp a. And take questions. And all improvements anything I got wrong all improvements send me because I want this I'm going to rerecord this and I want this to be better and more accurate. So tell me how to make this better Doug. You're muted. Sunday all learned. What strikes me is that this division between thinking and the rest of human activity is somewhat artificial. And that we made a mistake by thinking that human beings with different mother animals, because of being sapient. Because that may be the most interesting thing about human beings is their capacity for caring, like other animals, and not their capacity for thinking. So if we'd started out with a and this is a question I hope that we'd started out with a model of caring, of which thinking would be a subset, because it would support or not support caring. But we have different kinds of models today. Absolutely. And, and there's a whole bunch of directions we could take that in. We were, this is a very linear left brain young kind of a scientific branch that has pursued that side of things rather than the relational side of things. The interesting thing is that neural networks are really good at mapping different kinds of relations. The bad part is that a lot of this stuff is not measurable in any particular way. Pete Stewart gil. Just real quick, great, very concise presentation and I particularly like the fact that you didn't just say AI AI AI and I like the machine intelligence term. Although I still think machine learning is the best term. In my two comments. It would be great if you spent a little time talking about how the financial sector is just going crazy with this stuff and making billion dollar decisions. David Brin thinks that's where the killer robots will come from. But the question I have for you very quickly. What myth or misperception about machine learning, would you like to just erase, you know what what's mean there's a lot of people going in the wrong direction, both in government and the corporate sector. Yeah, is there is there some fundamental misunderstanding that you would like to get rid of this one easy one, which is approximating human like robots or androids that approximate human motion and dexterity and all that is a stupid idea. Holding holding computers up to that. Is it like a human does it think like a human the touring test kind of thing is also seems like a stupid idea, because these are different intelligences and there's lots of forms of locomotion and activity. So, I think that people who say, Oh, this isn't a danger because it's not as smart as a human are naive. People who are busy trying to replace us with something that looks like seriously. There's the uncanny valley is the problem too. So, so that's one, one myth I'd love to dispel is like that this stuff is only going to be good or should be aiming to try to be like humans. Forget that. Pete. representation Jerry, your top one or two tips for keeping it exactly at five minutes. After keeping it short, I'm rehearse. Five minutes, not not just short you've nailed it. It's very funny we had a guest at an IFTF conference Gary Wolf gave a talk about quantified self, and I was sitting right behind him and I watched him sort of read his speech, and he came. He came to the second at the time we gave him and I just stood up and gave him a standing ovation because of that. So that kind of influenced me a little bit way back then. Yeah. So for a non I agree with your conclusion that we're heading to a cyborg universe I don't think there's any question about that we don't know exactly what that means. But my question is for a non techie. Could you give me a 20 or 30 second summary of what you said. Computers are emulating computers are able to reason whatever that means and I'm not saying that they're conscious or intelligent or any of those loaded words, but they're able to create reasoning that is now helping us solve a whole bunch of different things and we need to figure out how to integrate that well into our lives. There's a bunch of distractions and everything else but that's the gist of it. Thank you. Terrific presentation. I like what Doug said, we're very confused about thinking and even the neural network model is presumed is based on a kind of computational model in the neurology. And we live in a hormonal system endocrine system skeletal muscular system not all of our being is in thinking, and the Eastern traditions are focused on trying to quiet the thinking part of being human, all of which is missing from this game. Totally agree. And I'd love to pursue that further. And we are out of question. Me too. Thanks everybody. Send me email whatever. I would love to make this a better presentation but that's our first five minute you. Thank you. I am going to who and I think we've got Stuart next. Let me let me go hold on let me stop my presentation from taking over my screen come back to zoom. Good. Thank you everybody I really appreciate it. I am going to start my clock when you start speaking and Stuart, I'm going to occasionally hold up my timer to my little window, even though, are you screen sharing or are you just talking. I'm going to speak I'm going to screen share one, one, not a slideshow just one, one screen. Great. And that should be all set. And then what when we, what, what kind of warning do you want, or do you want to, will you be able to see what I'm doing. I'll see, I'll see what you're doing. And I'm pretty good with time. That's great. And at the five minute mark, I'm going to make a sound like a glockenspiel and hopefully we'll applaud. Ready, whatever you start whenever you start talking, I'll hit go. And I can see you. We are seeing your document you're fine. Great. I'll see I see you just fine so here we go. So a little bit of history. I wrote a book called The Book of Agreement around 2002 or 2003. And the article reviews called it more practical than getting to yes. It is also the foundation for the concept of conscious contracting, which is a movement in the legal profession. One of the things I noticed practicing law for 10 years was that all the commercial work the contracts were what I come to call agreements for protection, all the things that go wrong. And I focus on so what is the joint vision of people that are trying to collaborate together going going forward. How can you kind of facilitate that. So anyway, I put together this model for agreements for results, creating shared vision. And I used it. I tested it. The Book of Agreement contains about 35 different agreements and various different contexts. And so I want to share with you over the next few minutes, the essential elements of agreements. I'll put a link to this file in the chat. There are some expanded definitions here. So anytime we have collaboration, and why is collaboration critical because everything I've seen in terms of predicting the future talks about how essential it will be for us to work together. When, if everything kind of collapses and we've got to rebuild, or if somehow miraculously we're able to kind of push back against the emerging forces that are kind of bringing the species down right now. So intent and vision, and this is a conversation, whether it's to whether it's for whether it's sick, whether it's 20 people gathered. Alright, what's our intent and vision, what is it that we want to accomplish. What's our vision for six months down the road a year down the road, whatever the right timeframe happens to be roles, who's taking responsibility to make sure that any particular essential function needs to be taken care of whose responsibility is to make sure that that's part of the of the of the of the project moving forward. By the way project moving forward. I was on a circuit of project managers in the early 2000s presented all over the state of California. Number three promises. What does each person agreed to actually do to bring that vision into reality. And when everybody makes their promises. Is that going to bring that vision into reality, or we didn't do we need something else time and value. How long are we going to be at this for value more important. People know that if people perceive they're not getting anything out, their performance kind of falls off and they don't continue. So everybody's got to understand what their value is metrics. One of the great causes of conflict is people disagreeing, whether or not they achieve what they set out to do. So what are the objective metrics by which they're going to measure that number six concerns and fears. Some projects often fail as people don't voice their concerns and fears at the beginning. And I want people talking about that number seven renegotiation. We know what we know when we begin we don't what we don't we don't know what we don't know. So it's real important for everyone to be able to come back and renegotiate from time to time. But I've actually changed this word. Consequences is a bad consequences really means what's at stake here. What's at stake for the individuals what's at stake for the community they serve. What's at stake for the broader social good conflict resolution. We know in the history of projects of collaboration that conflict often arises differences a good thing. When people get ego identified conflict comes out. So it really is kind of critical for people to have a preordained way about how they are going to deal with conflict. Obviously I have models for that. And number 10 agreement question mark. After you've discussed these nine elements. Are you in agreement. Do you have a path forward. Is there a clear shared vision. And if not, there's more conversation or you can choose to walk away. There ought to be an app for this. Anybody want to work on that. I'm very very happy to engage. Pleasure to share this material with you. Woo hoo. Congratulations. Yay. All right, I want to stop sharing your screen and five minutes of questions. Doug. Yeah, I don't see where I am. But okay there. Every lovelace used to talk about how you could get agreement among means when people would disagree about vision. And it was important to keep that in mind because often all you needed was the agreement on means. So my question is, how does that fit in your model. What are the means of promises. Okay, what are the promises that each person makes. In other words, how are you going to kind of move this forward by people actually doing stuff. That's where the means would come in Doug. It feels though that Doug is trying to cut through that that advice was trying to cut through the negotiation process by separating. Gosh, we don't have we'll never going to agree on on what our goals are. But boy, there's a couple of things we could do together and appreciative inquiry fits in here really nicely. So is there is there a way these these frameworks kind of fit with each other. Beautiful. So, in some ways, having an agreement with a shared vision. It's not so much about negotiation and word Smith and Jerry, it really is about shared vision cumulative vision. Everybody's vision for the future. How, how is it we're going to get there. I have found that to be a much better way of operating in this context, because otherwise you can get bogged down. I thought Doug said needs, which is also often the case. We all need the same. We have different needs. We can often agree that we have a common need. We just don't know that fulfilled. I'm sorry. It's your turn. No, no, that's okay. That's that's that I heard the same thing. And the other alternative to vision and means and needs is care is like what do people care about because often behind all the disagreements people have common cares and that can be a starting point as well. That can go to means or go to vision or go to various other directions. Yeah, needs also comes up in terms of value. Okay, what's the value people perceive they're getting, because that would be the context in which they can articulate what their needs are. Right. In terms of keeping them engaged, moving forward. Love that. Doug, not me. Doug be sorry. I'm curious. I'm curious to the, the essence of contract current form is is in contemplation of breach. In contemplation of failure of commitment or obligation and it's intrinsically about in the breaking of punishment. So those two things go together. Taking that dimension out of the equation. What's the replacement within the frame of agreement for punishment for damage for mapping to those quotients as opposed to something. We've taken that out of the equation. Okay. Quote, these are not legal agreements. And I decided to take that out of the equation completely. Okay, why because it creates as we all know when you get involved with lawyers negotiating agreements. It creates an adversarial context, which is the exact opposite in the antithesis of what's intended in this in this in this frame. But the 10 elements are a model, like any model you innovate, you know, it's a it's a it's an art form, as you learn to work with and use these, these elements. Thank you. Talk about subjective measures. I mean, there's things like falling in love. There's things like, you know, bonding there's things like aspects of teen building or organization building that are subject to rather than object. Beautiful. One of my one of my favorite questions more thank you for that. Under the notion of metrics, if you take any metric, if you keep drilling down, you can turn it into something that's objective. So falling in love. Okay, what would be the indisha of falling in love. Boom, boom, boom, boom. And then you get something that's measurable. measurable in a subjective measurable in a subjective sense. Not everyone's going to agree. Okay. But but the parties to this particular agreement, and it's a private contract, a piece of private legislation, people get to agree on that. Dude, I'm a metrics guy and I can't disagree with you more. We are out of time on this particular topic. Hey, hey. By the way, I offered this work to the writing project. And my only hope is that you guys are doing something that's close and I think Pete indicated that he had something that that covered the bases in this. Okay, but I'm here anytime if you run into trouble. Thank you Stuart and we're sort of trying to run quick so that we get a quick first book. We're a little bit on hiatus right now because I have some trouble coming up and class has trouble coming up. By the by everybody I got to meet Klaus in person this weekend because he was in town in Portland for a blues festival, and I came down to a like a pub nearby and we had a beer in Portland, which is what you do. And we actually got to talk without being imprisoned by little rectangles it was lovely. It was really terrific. Where is close space these days. Bend, he lives in Bend, Oregon. Oh, okay. It's very. Is he tolerant person. No, he was about the height I expected, but totally get the joke. All right, and we have Gil. Are you prepared. I'm just about prepared I let me see if the screen sharing is going to work. Because I don't know I'm experimenting not just the five minutes but with using the slide function in obsidian for someone. I've not seen this happen this is going to be fun. And I don't know if I'm going to be able to see you can you go can you go. We can see this thing but yeah there you go can you go full screen with it. Yeah, let me see a little green button. Okay and I can still see you. Awesome. All right, ready to when you start talking I'll hit the go. Okay, I'll start talking. So I want to dive into some of the wiring underneath what Stuart was talking about and talking about words and worlds and how we create worlds with our words. And this comes out of, as many of you know the work I've been doing for the last 10 or 15 years with Fernanda Flores and Sean C ball has had profound impact on me and how I work in the world. And it also comes out of the last living between worlds conversation that Ken and I host where a couple of people were were complaining about talk versus action enough talk we need action and struck me if there is no action without talk. We generate ideas possibilities agreements is through it was talking about and coordinate our actions in the world through conversations so it's fundamental to look at that. I'm going to skip the history but about what 70 years ago. Austin in the UK said they're not they're not that there's two different kinds of language there's language that describes something there's language that creates something that actually changed the social reality. And there are five that I want to talk about here there may be others on the list but here you see them. Declaration is very familiar. Wow, time goes fast. You know, the ref calling foul with a basketball game the justice of the peace saying I declare you men and wife the Supreme Court of the United States, over turning 50 years of precedent. These are speech acts that change reality by virtue of the authority of the speaker, either granted or claimed. And we all do this their requests and promises and Stuart was talking about this some and offers which are kind of a conditional promise. Component requests have a what is it by when is it going to happen the conditions of satisfaction for fulfillment and the for the sake of what the reason behind this and you hear the overlap with stewards agreements here. We instituted this at natural logic 15 years ago as necessary conditions for requests and if anybody made a request, including of their superiors that didn't include these elements. The request would not be accepted on just on procedural grounds and it was rocky at first but very powerful once we dialed it in. Assertions and assessments really key because we can confused about this honey it's hot in here. No it's not I'm cold. What's that. An indirect request. It's an assertion. It's a statement that it's it's an it's an assessment it's a subjective interpretation of a person's experience in the world. It's 72 degrees in here is an assertion. It's testable provable verifiable objectively so there's objective and not. We are assessment creatures we make interpretations and judgments all the time they're subjective we can't not do that. But we get confused between the two of these and we fight over them. And the assessment potentially invites a conversation about rather than hey you're a jerk for saying that. Why did you say that I'm interested to know what brought you to that perception in the world and gets more interesting you're talking about politics not temperature in the room. Then there's this thing called moods, which Bob Dunham distinguishes from emotion by saying this is kind of the characteristics stance that you're in the world that's there before your feet even hit the ground when you get out of bed in the morning. And interestingly they are tangled up with assessments because the mood you're in will shape the interpretations that you make. And the interpreters that through interpretations that you make will shape the moods that you find yourself in. And very quickly here's here's for kind of familiar moods you can look at look at the two axes. Where do you find yourself on this map, mostly. Is there a characteristic place that you happen to be I have my guesses about you all. Chauncey bell observes that resignation is the dominant mood in organizations in North America. Wow. But then think about then walking into that as either a member of the organization and advisor to the organization and what becomes possible and how do you shift interpretations about the future through the conversations that people have. What can you do about moods you can observe them which is the place to start to just start noticing listening listening for care in particular and listening to notice what is the mood here. Cultivating mood like a musician cultivates the capacity in their body to bring forth music or an athlete cultivates capacity or a gardener cultivates the soil we use that word to create the conditions for growth to happen. And at an advanced level there's a possibility of orchestrating well we see that orchestras do this we see how music can move mood in a group of people. The possibility here is to find some serenity and what floor Fernando florist calls emotional fortitude in the midst of the turmoil that we are living in and will likely live the rest of our lives in. For me a part of that has been surrendering prediction addiction, not trying to guess what's going to happen next but being more of a surfer, moving in the world paying attention and navigating as best I can. Those who want to dig deeper I'm done. You nailed it. Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you. It's very helpful to have the timer in your face. Yeah, yeah. And I was gonna, Pete and I found a couple of like web timers that I was going to put in my background and like, I don't know how to get my head out of the way I'm just going to do this. So we have five minutes of q amp a who would like to ask questions. If you want to surrender the screen so we can see each other. Yep, I've got the timer going on q amp a. Mike real quick question I love the two, the two by two diagram. Is there a reference. Can I cite it can I put it out on Twitter. I mean I just that was just perfect. It's it's it's it's my graphic from Bob Dunham of the Institute for regenerative leadership I can send you the graphic. Thank you. Have you posted it online in a post any place that Mike could actually sort of site and give you some. But I can do that if you give me a little time I'll do that. Cool. I think that would be really useful. Gil. No, sorry, someone else had a question. I have no questions for myself today. Perfect. Tell me a little bit about your work with speech act theory because it's sort of notorious and famous and cool and like it gets out a bunch of it gets at the essence of a bunch of things that make communications, much crisper and better. And yet humans have rejected it when it's manifest as software for example. I'm sorry about speech act theory. Yeah. There's a bunch of folks built an application called the coordinator in the 1980s which embodied this this technology and philosophy for the coordination of organizations and people embraced it enough they actually got bought out by Novel. At a fair penny but on the left where I tried to introduce this thing people said this is fascist. This is fascist software I don't want any part of it. And my sense is that what people felt was fascist was being held to account for their commitments. No, to me is politically neutral in in a in a hierarchical organization with the kind of consequences that Stuart is rejecting. I can see how it be that way in the in the work of teams like us who have common values and common concerns. The ability to help us coordinate our actions more clearly more crisply without misunderstanding seems to be a very powerful opportunity. And I've been lobbying these guys to reinvent this thing. There's a little company called force buyers that showed up and pitched me basically a reinvention of the whole thing and I'm like, isn't this the coordinator and they were like, but it actually exactly was and I don't think they went any place. So people have tried there been a few attempts nothing has landed yet but I mean, I see in my work. I see all the breakdowns that I'm seeing in organizations and groups. Well, I don't mean all a lot of the breakdowns tie back to the failure to attend to these distinctions will come back to that in a second Hank then Doug C. Yeah, I just like to emphasize how much this is a good presentation. You did say, Gil, that talking sometimes or made perhaps all the time has to come before action. And they've put stories and narratives in the chat and I agree stories and narratives often should come before action. And I'd like to cite Barbara marks Hubbard. The future exists first in imagination that in will that in reality. Thanks for the presentation. Thank you. So I remember being on the edge of the coordinator in the 80s. The complaint about it was not that it was fascist although that caught us in the spirit, but that it forced you to label your communication as being a this or that. And that was felt like it got in the way of the fuzzy communication that might be necessary to create it. And think about all the apps programs that use in the 1980s and how, how, how they, how they stack up compared to what we know now. So yeah, I'm not saying we should do that, but these, these ways of interacting and coordinating among people have great power. And that's, that's, that's an assessment. I'm really ambivalent about this because I just, I heard a guy saying that his interactions with chat GBT were making his interactions with his staff better. Because he was learning how to be more precise about what he was requesting of his people, which is very interesting like because we don't, we don't achieve that kind of precision very often we take things for granted. Stuart. Pardon me just to tie the loose end. I also work with Fernando in the late 1980s, and his work was informative in a number of ways of mine. As a matter of fact, for, for those relationships, he had this body of work called the, I think 10 domain domains of permanent concern, which are actually included in the book of agreement in a model of a couples agreement. So thank you, Gil. Thank you. Awesome. We have eight seconds left. And so I think I think I'll just echo Jerry my experience with chat GPT is that if I use these distinctions with chat GPT I get far better results than if I don't. Love that. Can you drop the screen share for a sec. Yeah, so you can see each other or permanently. Excellent. First, is there anybody else who wanted to step in with five minute you if not we will switch into more conversational mode but I just wanted to see if anybody else. Shut up with one. No. Okay, good. Doug. You're asking for another voluntary five minute. Yes. Okay. So this is kind of impromptu, obviously. I want to talk about is the book I published recently called garden world politics, which is a reaction to climate change. The first thing is how I got there is in the 80s, I started doing what people wanted. And what came out clearly despite politics was they wanted to live in a community they wanted safety for their children they wanted good education. Wow, a lot of things that were in common. So I started a book called the 80% solution is the 80% of people that would vote for a solution if it was offered. Of course it wasn't. So that climate change came along. And what I was struck by is that the climate change was not being dealt with the same way by the values that people cared about. So there was no image of where the climate work was trying to go. And it seems to me it's awfully hard to do progressive work. You don't have a shared image of what you're trying to do. So coming out of my own background in many ways, I thought of the idea that if we put food production and habitat living in the same space, we could make really attractive communities like the arts and crafts movement of the 1880s. So I've been working on that with the idea in fact that the any solution to climate change requires that people get fed in the house. So why don't we make that an aesthetic project as well as a practical one, in order to make people comfortable with where that can be going. So that's what I've been working on. And it's been thrilling and exciting. And I recommend everybody that you write down your ideas. It's really helpful. Awesome. Thank you. I'm going to reset and go to Q&A. Thank you very much. That was really great. Questions, thoughts? I'll jump in first, Doug. The Great Transformations is one of my favorite books in part because he very nicely describes what life was like before the Industrial Revolution changed everything. And beforehand, like people, like everything didn't have a price. We didn't have salaries. We didn't work as work needed to be done. We shared resources and this idea that we could grow, we grew our own food a lot. It's called householding. We shared a lot with each other. That's called reciprocity or redistribution, etc. And we have so adopted the industrial modernist civilized framing that the first of the SDGs is no poverty. And we insist that people have money in order to not starve. And it's like, we could do better than that. And I think Garden World is an example of that. It's like, hey, people need food and shelter for starters. And we have abundance and sort of going back to what AI is doing for us. One of the funny, one of the better named visions of where this is going is called FALC, fully automated luxury communism. And it comes from the idea that if machines, if we do this right machines can do all the work and make abundance, and then we can sort of enjoy leisure life as happy communists together. Sorry for the really long question comment, Doug, but Well, I think that the abundance view is not going to happen. I think that we're going to see major losses in arable land and food. And we're going to have to live with it. And some people will have the opportunity of creating garden worlds and many people will not. And that's the world we're going to have to live in. I have the view that Garden World, while it has a certain kind of nostalgia quality to it, of the old world, the world we had lost. I really think that high tech plays a role in it in terms of coordinating across communities and providing information on production resources, labor and stuff like that. And hopefully to come up with a new model of how we distribute wealth. So there's going to be a lot of emergence in any case, but let's put it into the most positive scenario can, which has got to be an image of where we're going. And the great thing about Garden World is it's safe. It's safe for artists. It's safe for children. It's safe for pets. And kind of the way we're talking about this and what you're presenting is an illustration of agreements on means but not ends or ends but not means and a bunch of the stuff that we were talking about in the other five minute use and some interesting ways. Gil, did you want to jump in? Yeah, the food and housing provocation is an important one is really where I started my sustainability work 50 years ago. Looking at urban agriculture, rooftop agriculture, permeable cities, 70% of Los Angeles is paved hardscape. Los Angeles had the rainfall there is half of the water needs of the city, but most of the water goes down the drain down the sewers out to out to sewage treatment plants with energy load and out to the sea. The possibility of cities being living systems that capture water, grow food, feed people cycle waste is rich and it can be beautiful and to Doug's point, one of the most powerful adopters we've seen of so called green buildings is to have people step inside them and feel how differently they feel in the building that's well designed and has clean air and adaptive to their bodies. You know, the vision of what's possible is great the tangible experience with what's possible is really powerful. Because I thought Kenneth Boulding said this but I can't find a site to him so it might be me that existence is proof of the possible. If you can show me something that's on the ground you can't say it's impossible anymore. Well I had a big influence on me was Frederick Law Olmsted, who did Central Park in New York he did the Stanford campus he did Niagara Falls, a lot of things. He created those falls that's impressive. He created the entrance in and the same for Yosemite. I had the view that nature could be a cleaning process for human nature, and that it could be beautiful, and that we should build in that view. Awesome, thank you. Looks like we're out of out of question time. I love to have this sounds a little bit like the prime minister's question time which is always entertaining in the UK why don't we do question time. Yeah, it's kind of it's like fun you could you could heckle hoot and holler. Stuart where you're going to do it. Another question for Doug. You're muted. I have a question more, more a brief comment on on, you know, all the presentations. If I may. So I woke up at three in the morning, and I had this book on my pile. Right. And I just want to read it. It's called for giving it's a, it's a, it's a 80 page book. Peter Russell, who I'm sure people here are familiar with forgiving humanity, how the most innovative species became the most dangerous, the curse of exponential change by Peter Russell. And then, and in some ways what Peter has put down is, it's an analog to the slideshow that Ken shared a while back about how did we get here. He talks about, you know, exponential change that's coming down the pike. When we talk about emergence. We really don't know. And listening to presentations. It's so clear and comments and citations in the chat. It's so clear to me that that, you know, we kind of know what to do. And in some ways we have the technology to actually do it to be taking action. But there are so many things that are uncoordinated. And I don't mean, I don't mean a very, very specific plan. But I think we touch on the edges of what might need to happen to go forward. You know, Gil talked about, you know, the moods and the internal stuff. I talked a little about, you know, collaboration. And Doug talked about garden world, which is kind of essential piece of the puzzle, you know, as we as as we go forward. And Jerry, the technology and AI. I mean, here we do, we hit, we hit, you know, the essential pieces of what needs to happen going forward. And it's, you know, back to Al Gore statement, you know, denials not just a river in Egypt. Quoting dire straits, I believe. Cool. So I just needed to, I needed to say that, but the book was a kind of a wonderful read for giving humanity. What a great title. So thanks for the taking the year. That's good. So I think several things I think we're slipping into conversation time, which is great. We can talk about any and all of these things, unless somebody else wants to step in with a five minute you. I think this is your first call. I wanted to say hi. And thank you for being here. If you would like to say hi to the group, feel free to step in but no pressure. But thank you for being here. We don't usually use this format. This is kind of our first time doing it this frenzied way. And we've been working a lot on actually slowing down our conversations but I, I don't know, I found this pretty fun. But let me know if you'd like to jump in. And if not, let's go back to Ken, who is in the cube. Thank you. Doug, you seem to have your hand up not raised on on here. Did you want to say something before I go to see. Well, I have something that's more than a minute. It's something that we published in Pete's magazine yesterday or today that responds to this issue of whether we're going to survive or not. So I'll interject. I was going to say, Gil talked about coordinating action. The other thing we do in languages coordinate language and I excuse me coordinate coordination. And I wasn't clear on this for a while. So I'd asked somebody who was teaching a course on this and they said, well, okay, wolves have language and wolves can coordinate their actions. A wolf pack can take down an elk that no single elk, no single wolf could take down its own. That's the coordination of action. But what they can't do is say that was awesome. Let's be back here tomorrow at four o'clock. We'll do it all over again. That's the coordination of coordination, which is a different level level and a different order of magnitude that humans can do that other animals do not. And I just wanted to throw that in there as something really important to pay attention to, because what Stuart just pointed to is we have all these, we have plenty of solutions for our problems, but we lack a coordination of So sure, we can coordinate action to solve lots of problems, but we at the moment are failing to coordinate our coordinations around making that happen in a way that is coherent. So end of rant. Thank you. And then just to add to that, like, and Sue, when you when you're going to bear your fangs, you got to pull your teeth, you got to show more teeth and bark louder. Like, yeah, that kind of thing. That's the the judging wolf. The coach wolf, like, like the coach will the right. Exactly. By the way, it turns out that alpha wolf may be an error. Maybe it may be a human projection on to wolfness. Do you mean that wolves don't behave socially in that way, or do you mean that alpha animal is not a thing. I mean a claim that alpha animal is not a thing the way that we understand it to be. That's interesting. That's that's that's the way that ethologists who live in monarchies would look at animals. Yeah, a different way to say it is we understand alpha wolf the way we think humans are. And we use each to to explain the other, which is a mutually reinforcing set of fantasies perhaps, which are, you know, back in my little framework of assessments these are interpretations that we're making based on who we are who we've been what we live in. And our interpretations of other people's interpretations of their interpretations of our interpretations tangled mess, and it's really powerful to be attentive to it and to start to tease it apart a little bit. I took a local training that involved horses learned a whole bunch of really interesting things, including that horses appear to be matriarchal. So the senior mayor is in charge, and in a herd, everybody's paying attention to what she's doing and if she changes her breathing or looks up everybody will stop and look up and look around. Because she's in charge and she leads from behind so if the herd is running. She won't be out in front leading the herd she'll be in back. Very, very interesting dynamics and again amateur interpretation of said dynamics. Here's an article limits of the alpha wolf. Thanks Pete. Stuart, go ahead. Yeah, just to pick up and provide a little context and background. You know, Gil has mentioned Fernando floor is his work a number of times. I don't know how many people here are familiar with it. Fernando floor is at 26 was the finance minister of Chile and then was imprisoned under an imprisoned and freed by Amnesty International and came to the United States and developed this consultancy, and he took these amazing Chilean intellectuals. And they wrote papers ontologically unpacking all of the phenomenon that are critical in society, i.e. relationships commerce communication and just really drill drill drill down into the bottom of these things so you could understand them it was just an amazing series of papers and beautiful to study with him. And in some ways that's why, you know, when you look at the language that we use in the conversations we have, it just so important to be able to drill down into it and understand what is really being said and what is not being said, and where does it come from. So just a little bit of my, my two minute, my, my two minute overview of the work of a Fernando not to mention, you know, the software because I was on the, I was on the coordinator to Gil in the early 1980s. Yeah. This is probably not as most. Yeah, this is probably not as most accessible book, understanding computers cognition disclosing the world's trust. Those are all really heavy duty academics this is a little bit more accessible so I recommend it. Very accessible and disclosing new worlds is very much relevant to the kind of conversations we've been having here these last few years. Super cool. So where does that leave us. At the top of the hour. Let's try my longer two minute round. Hold on a second let's go a little hold that thought that let's go a little bit meta on what we've just been talking about grad student. Yeah, so where does that leave us it's a great question Jerry. So one of the things that came out is the notion that we kind of know what to do. And we need a coordinator of coordinators or something like that. And that would be, you know, a most interesting project not that I'm saying that this group ought to do the project. But I think it's something that's that's needed. And boy when you think about the potential grunt work involved with that. What a perfect project for AI. To amass all of the, the, the, the, the positive kind of movements that are bubbling up all over the place all over the world right now, because you know we're not the old obviously we're not the only people in this conversation there are thoughtful people everywhere that are thinking about where we are in the trajectory that we're on so just, you know, some food for thought. One of the organizing energies of GM is very much. I hadn't thought about it in this language but very much about coordinating human activity so that we can solve things together and make a better world. And not and almost almost in an opposite way to what the coordinator software was doing back in the day of trying to achieve clarity and Christmas of communications. But I'll just put that in and go to Mike. This is going to sound like a bit of a rant as well but I guess I am a huge believer in the power of coordination and the wisdom of crowds and the ability to find new insights by getting enough minds to share in a, in a safe way. But Nelson's first law of online discussions is that the people with the least to say have the most time to say it. That can be incredibly disruptive. I mean, in a group this size, it would take one person to kind of destroy the whole ethos and to get us off track and and to really destroy any chance of taking our words into action. And so I, I wonder if anybody has seen a good book on on how to to handle this I'm, I'm, I'm particularly feeling this because this last 10 days we've seen a whole flurry of really sad things happening with the internet and internet policy. I mean one of a new study on on how good reads. This wonderful place where millions of people share their observations on the books they're reading and how much they love them. Well that's now become an attack platform. People write a new book and thousands of people will write one star reviews and just troll the authors I mean it's Yelp is also suffered a little bit of this. On the policy side we have, and just an out a ridiculous new court ruling in Louisiana, saying that the Biden administration can't talk to the social media platforms because that would imply censorship. And again it's one wacko crazy judge using legal theories that nobody agrees with, and he's getting a huge amount of publicity and agencies throughout the federal government are backing away from meetings that they already had planned to highlight ways in which the private sector can take action to make the internet a better place and get rid of the trolls and get rid of the hate speech. It's again it's it's one or two people can just cause havoc, and the latest one, the latest one which should be making everybody in America live it is that our former president the orange guy doxxed President Obama. He put out on his social media platform he said here's where Barack Obama lives, and one of the people who was in the Capitol on January 6, and hadn't been apprehended showed up in Obama's neighborhood with two semi automatic weapons and molotov cocktails. How do we, how do we stop the trolls, and I, even though this is a huge problem. I have seen no good discussion on how to maintain the spirit of community, particularly online where you can't take somebody aside and say, hey bill you're being a jerk. I may rant over, but this is a serious problem and if we're ever going to have international peace. We need to start with small groups. Thank you for bringing those those recent events into the conversation there, they really are saddening. And, and I thought you're going to mention the continued gradual destruction and erosion of Twitter. Well, how about the Supreme Court case where the guy who was named as he's this the gay guy wants to be married didn't even he exists but he's married woman never approached the woman it's like, doesn't matter we're going to make this a test case anyway. I, I'm sorry but for me scotus has lost all legitimacy. I mean they clearly they're corrupt they're they're out of out of bounds here, and I don't know what we can do about it but man I'm just so disappointed and angry about the whole thing. But I think the organization that brought that suit was created in order to bring that suit and win that case. And then they invented their story. And that seems that works that's that I didn't think that's how the law work but. And the organization is associated with Clarence Thomas's wife. Oh, perfect. If you have an article or whatever please post it in the chat let's go to Gil and Stuart. So, Mike your rant is over but it's not over in my body. Thank you very much. You know, Nelson's laws may be handled by met met caps timer. So there's that. God, where was I going with this. It's not a single crazy person. Obviously, it's a coordinated well funded strategic campaign to destroy what Doris lesson called the substance of we feeling in society and to politicize everything and trollize everything. And it's not, you know, it's not one guy's a lot of money and it's a lot of fake humans and so forth designed that, you know, to do what it's doing. Where was I going with this. Well, I'll come back to I had a point before for my cute you're fired up got me fired up and so memories like on to the next person. No worries. Thanks. It'll come back to you. Stuart then Doug C. Yeah, so thinking about this and doing a little bit of writing about this. There's always going to be a marginal criminal element. Okay. And it's a question of how big it is. There's always going to be some marginal criminal element that's going to need policing of some kind, whatever that might look like in the future, you know, this ties in obviously to reinventing what police do. The other piece is, and I think it's so important. And it picks up on the, what Gil talked about earlier is the dominant mood in the company in the country. And in the world, perhaps a lot of people in resignation out there. Total resignation. And that's how they become radicalized. And how understood this, you know, he thought the way to stop the radicalization and the terrorist world was to provide provide funding and a social safety net. Obviously, the politics didn't enable him to do that. But I think and this goes back to someone talked about, you know, I'm sure it's a communist world or could be, and that is, you know, a social safety net for everyone as part of a real potential reorganization. Why, because if people have a social safety net, they, the tendency is not so much to become radicalized, you know, everybody's looking for an axe to grind somebody to blame, who's fault is it. And, and, and people without some level of education reeducation will resort to, to violent means. So that's just, that's just, you know, my two cents on this, this cosmology that we're talking about. Doug, and also Doug, if you want, Doug C, sorry. And also Doug, if you want to do your two minute rant, this is a good moment for that. Yeah, this is, this is going to be it. And I'm going to make a very challenging statement, which is that if we look at the work of Joseph Tainter, Jared Diamond, and Arnold Toynbee, they all say all civilizations collapse because they cannot manage complexity sufficiently to the kind of complexity we're actually creating. So I have the view that human humanity might be organized such that we create lots of new babies, and lots of new ideas and relationships. And the two together, weave in that, that's so close that, that new motion becomes very hard until we are basically on a place where we're stuck. So the proposal is that in fact all civilizations do this period. Now, what that suggests is that the sweet spot to live in is not at the beginning of the end of the civilization, but in the middle, where things feel open, creativity is rewarded, the music in the arts and science are doing well. But it's not going to last the whole cycle. And that we, there's a lot of evidence are at the end of a cycle for this civilization. Thanks, doc. Thank you. Mr. Cronza. Oh, I'd just like to welcome Jose. Hey, Jose, how you doing? And pay. We welcome pay a little while ago. Morning guys. That's it. Sorry, I'm enjoying enjoying listening but actively working simultaneously so apologize for being incognito here. Thanks for being here. I'm often incognito and going back to in company. Just wanted to slow some space and say, hey, I've never seen these names before. Hello. Thank you for doing that. Stuart, take your time and stepping in. Yeah. Thank you, Doug. I didn't find it provocative at all, because I don't think there's any questions in my mind that the emergent vectors are going to collapse us at some point in time. You know, absent some unknown thing, but that's, that's where we're headed. I would say that everything I say is also in service of. So when we do hit the fan, when the civilization that we know and are living in, you know, does in fact collapse when the internet shuts down when the food shortages start to emerge when climate creates massive disruption. In my own work. There is something else after conflict. There's some resolution. There's something new. It's cyclical. You know, like the stock market goes up and down governments rise and fall. We're going to work out for a while and we're very happy, and then they collapse. So I just wanted to kind of, you know, kind of punctuate that in some way the vectors are all pointing in that direction and Peter Russell certainly validates that in his book. So thank you, Doug. Yeah, so thank you to both Doug and steward on that one because that leads me to the question. How invested are we in a system that we know where it's collapsing. And how much time and effort do we spend worrying both about how it's falling apart. And, and trying to either correct it or address it, rather than on building something new. And is there is our attention towards the thing that's falling apart and losing sight of the fact that once it continues to follow down where we know it's going to follow. If we're tied to it and we're bound to it that we will go with it. And if we jump to something new to creating something new. Does that provide us with a new, a new focus, one that isn't tied to a cycle that is a downward trend. Are there other people here who wrestle with the question of, can the present system and let's maybe sort of call it capitalism plus other things be rescued or fixed. Or do we need to somehow switch shift, wipe it out to a new post capitalist society is that a. Are you wrestling with that. Who's who's we Jerry. People in this room. I'm very specific about the way this time, like, like people here. So Dave Mike Gill. Yeah. My view is that is that is that capitalism which I've come to hyphenate as capitalism has structural defects that none of the reform efforts on the on the landscape today are addressing in at their root. It's not, you know, ecological social responsible conscious, you know, stakeholder, et cetera, all, all fine things but none of them are getting through the problem it's bandits on a pig. Sorry, Jerry, do you mind restating your question. I'm not sure I understood. I think my question was who are any of us kind of fretting about this meta question of can capitalism as a placeholder for the present system be fixed or healed, or do we need to shift to some other kind of system and if so if so what, and lots of people like the majority of people here were like yep, yep me. Does that help. So does the raising of the hand mean. I think that the system is screwed and we have to do something else, or does it mean, I think the system is recoverable. I don't know it means that they're wrestling with that particular. Okay, okay, it's the wrestling not where they stand on one side of the. I didn't ask for one way or the other. Okay, thank you. I wasn't sure I understood, which we could do totally. Yeah, thanks. Anybody not anybody not wrestling with that question. Everybody's got a different version of it I wouldn't use the word capitalism because I think really free markets could actually work here. It's where politics and capitalism collide and lead to markets that don't work and people who are uninformed and uneducated I mean there's a whole range of things that need to be fixed and capitalism is just one facet of it. I think you need to broaden your question Jerry. It certainly is. It certainly is something every one of us should be thinking about and I have, and I have not seen as Gil said I mean I don't see people who take on the fundamental problems that are causing what all of us sees as a failure. I'm sharing out that my collection of variants of capitalism and then I have a subset called dysfunctional variants of capitalism like corporate crony disaster, and disaster capitalism would lead us to the shock doctrine which is Naomi Klein's book about this you know using crises to catalyze change etc etc. And then there are also some more heartening. Compassionate capitalism, you have surveillance capitalism. Of course. Okay, a feral capitalism that's pretty cool. I have found a whole lot of variants of capitalism so here's articles about surveillance capitalism and here's the here's surveillance capitalism and it's under dysfunctional variants of capitalism so I will, I will actually send a link to this thought in the chat here I'll put this in the chat and attach it to today's call and go to Pete, who's Jerry where's your thought for the viable alternatives to capitalism. I will share that as well. Okay, cool. Thank you. Yeah. Pete, go ahead. I appreciate Mike's, Mike's suggestion is the wrong word but observation that it's actually more complicated and complex. Thanks Mike. I wanted to say that the way you asked to Jerry kind of sounded like an either or, you know, can we fix capitalism or something new going to have to emerge. I mean, I think of it differently. I think, I think it's clear that the current system is unsustainable in insustainable and and we can either work to make the collapse and renewal of that softer landing or harder landing. So, the, so to restate that, I think, changes inevitable essentially collapses inevitable. And then what can we do to make that either, you know, lower impact or higher impact and impacts will be, you know, probably millions of deaths and and displacements and you know, pain and suffering. And so how can we lessen that this way I think about and Peter, I like that a lot and thank you for the reframe I think my way I posed my question assumed a whole bunch of things that I don't even necessarily hold. And one of my framings for this is I think we're, we're busy developing the next two stacks one stack I don't know, but the current stack is democracy capitalism money and a bunch of other things and the current organizational you know, C Corpse and nonprofits and a couple other little things. And I'm curious about what is the next societal stack, if the software metaphor isn't just too abrasive there, but but then we come into new can you show can you show us the current stack. Sure. So, today's societal stack is the American dream free markets neoclassical economics neoliberalism possessive individualism systemic racism. The Washington consensus, which involves a bunch of sort of neoliberal beliefs etc etc that seems to be that that's my best explanation of today's stack. That's a kind of that but that conflates causes and effects. I would just be happy to get the operating system right. Yes, yes. And, and, and there's a bunch of people working on what is our next OS etc that's an interesting question as well and these things are all neighbor questions. And there's a lot of people doing sincere and deep work on this and I'd love to figure out which are the best of these and 150 years from now we're going to be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the one that that took over. But, but it'd be nice to detect it and help it take over right now. Doug I've got you mentally in the queue but I've got Dave Hank and Stuart ahead of you and we're running out of time for today's call. Go ahead, Dave. Yeah, thanks. I apologize if my internet's deeply deeper this so let me know if I should give up. You, you start you coming in fast and you're. I'll stop the video. No, I find myself thinking about this a lot because there is definitely a group of people who are, we have to have collapse. And then there'll be something and I'm kind of open. We don't have to have collapse but there'll be change to change is kind of normal. And I was thinking about it as I was visiting Nantucket last week, you know the home of the whaling industry, and you know what what saved the whales right like well it was digging for oil in Pennsylvania. Right, it was, it was that evolution to a new thing. And so, you know, I kind of think Stuart's on the right path, which is, we need a new form of collaboration right all of capitalism is the way we organize our work. We need to be able to be better at collaboration so can we, can we shift to a new generation of collaboration quickly enough that we don't destroy the country and don't destroy the world in the meantime. I just to add a story to that John Jacob Astor made his fortune in part on beaver pelts because top hats were made of beaver beaver fur. What changed that was one day the Prince of Wales wore a black silk top hat. And voila for Monday to the next fashion shifted. Silk was in and all of a sudden the silk trade went up, and the beavers were like, damn, we were almost extinct. Hank beavers are known to say damn a lot. That's true. Good point. That's why they pay can't homer the big bucks. Okay. Thanks for your question Jerry because it's something I'm thinking about quite a lot. And my version of the question is the following. After all the money and the time and the human energy spent on addressing major societal issues, huge amounts of money time and energy. For example, in addressing the 17 SDGs. Why aren't we getting better results and capitalism or some other economic system. Help us get a better return on the investment of our collective intelligence and our collective tax money on that. The oracy lab which I've talked about earlier in various calls is going to do a series of sessions on question like this later in the summer at the moment we only have Europeans. I'm looking to get some Japanese as well but it'd be great to have some Americans. Anyone in the OGM as well to take part in these discussions. We're going to get more details. Send me a note on WhatsApp or on our internet. So, um, one of the things that informs me is my introductory economics course which is my undergraduate major. And, and the thing that jumped out at me was, quote we are in a tertiary economy, which means that there is so many choices people have as a result of marketing and sales and packaging. And the cost of goods sold is approximately two thirds of the value of items produced. Now as someone who at that moment in time was thinking about being an efficiency expert wherever that met. It was like, what the fuck. This is insane. We're wasting all these resources. And yet, we are, you know, kind of brainwashed in the sense of, you know, luxury brands growing up in New York City. You know, people gave you the once over what brands were you wearing what was your grooming like, you know, and that was and you could feel it you could sense it. And that's, that's kind of, you know, why current capitalism in some ways needs to be re jiggered or re educated to get that frame of reference out of our out of our minds in some ways to actually kind of celebrate the real essential values, because everything today seems to be analyzed through that lens I've said this before, but, you know, just this this graphic of the fact that two thirds of the cost of goods. When you think about resource use. It's just insane in some ways. Thanks, Stuart. Doug, I've got you in the queue but Ken has got a bounce in a second and I suspect he might have a poem for us. Yeah, I listen to this conversation I think only God can save us so I have a poem called Jesus. Nice. I have a poem called Jesus incognito by Allison Luterman. Don't tell anyone but I love Jesus. I love his big dark Jewish eyes, so full of suffering soul, like an unemployed poet and his thick sensuous Jewish lips and his kinky curly hair, just like mine, uncontrollable despite the conditioners at the way he always argues everyone, and he will go to hell for love. He's just like that Buddhist God avokiteshvara, the immense the the emanation of compassion, except his name is easier to pronounce. When you're in trouble it's hard to remember to yell for avokiteshvara but oh Jesus arises naturally every time a crazy hot dog a crazy driver hot dogs passed me on the freeway. I know I should say the shema when I'm about to die, but will I be able to remember the Hebrew at the right time? I don't want to die saying oh shit. I'd like to leave my body consciously like a tippet and llama, sitting in philotis, my head turned towards where I'll reincarnate next. But let's be realistic. I probably don't have time to meditate enough to get enlightened in however many years I have left. Jesus seems easier. All you have to do is love everyone. Well, love is the key word here. Sometimes the more you try to love people, the more you hate them. Maybe it would be better to try not to love people and then watch the love force its way out of you like grassroots cement. Anything is better than organized religion. Plus, I don't like singing in churches, all those hymns and major keys. I don't think religion should sound so triumphant. It should be humble and aware of the basic incurable pathos of the human condition. And then a minor key and sung in an ancient mysterious language like Sanskrit or Hebrew. Is it okay if I want to love Jesus but not be Christian? I could just open my heart and give away my possessions. It's not that different from being a Buddhist after all, except for history of witch burning, the Inquisition, subjugation, rape, pillage of indigenous peoples over the world, not to mention 20 centuries of vicious antisemitism. That's a lot to overlook. To get back to being a baby born among the animals to a Jewish mother Miriam and that other Mary, the sexy one. Jesus, I don't believe you died a virgin. I think you needed to taste everything human inhabit the whole mess blood shit flies regret envy why me I owe you and all the other bodhisattvas and sages and newborn babies and a debt of thanks for agreeing to come back and marry yourselves to our painful predicament again and again. And I do thank you bowing to the infinite directions. See y'all next week. I can thank you that was just pitch perfect. Somehow this works out. I don't know what it is very mysterious process. It's like, it's like terror readings. It's like, wait, it is, it is kind of work. All right, I gotta run. Bye bye. Thanks Ken. Doug see you may have the last word today. You're muted. Oh, he's got to go. Never mind. He's gone. I'm interested in feedback on the five minute university experience and adventure. Love it. We should do this again. I'm interested in collecting up who else would like to do five minute universities and one way to do it is to batch them up and as soon as we have for volunteers we do another session drop it in the queue. I could force the dates I could do something else don't know. I think three was exactly the right number by mistake. Okay. Yeah, I think four would actually mean three, you can then dive into a discussion about all three. If you did four, I think the first two would kind of blur. Interesting. And we did have four because Doug sort of stepped in with his impromptu one, which wasn't a full it was three minutes long, which is fine, which would work actually pretty well. But I think you're right like three is a digestible usable stimulating number. Gil. For people who've been wondering about doing this, this is not just great for the people getting getting to absorb the five minute university, but it's a kick to present it. And to really force yourself to focus it down and be clean. It's really great exercise. I was nervous about it and I'm, I'm glad I did it. You rocked it. Thank you for doing that and thank you for using obsidian slides. That was my first viewing of somebody using obsidian slides. Yeah, there's a lot of formatting capacities and so forth that I haven't gotten to yet, but I just figured, you know, in the spirit of doing this, I just dive in and see what happened. And Pete, thanks for the suggestion of slides. And my intention is to rerecord the one I did and posted on YouTube openly and etc, etc, because I'm hoping it's useful. So on from there. Cool. See everybody. I'm, oh, sorry, quickly. I'm probably not going to be able to make the next three calls, maybe the next two calls. I'm going to be in Baja California and traveling. I'll figure out the dates and put posted on the matter most but we might need someone to step in and play with the format next Thursday. Certainly next Thursday. It would be great to have someone who'd like to host and play with the format. We can figure that out on chats but please consider that we can handle that and we have no objection to you coming in from Baja. Excellent. I will see everybody soon. Thanks. Bye.