 This is a pop-up call in OGM on Wednesday, January 26th, 2022. It's motivated by a lovely conversation that was happening in the OGM Google group, where Sunil and Sam and Kevin and Grace and a bunch of different people and Jack were sort of riffing on and building on a conversation about collective sense making or collective intelligence or a hive mind or whatever you want to call it. And Sam had posted a particularly interesting riff on stuff that he had done so I sort of called that one out of the thread, and Sam I'll ask you if you just want to sort of take us back in. But kind of what I want to do is add some water to the dried remains of that thread online and stir it back into life, and then see where it takes us. I also want to invite us to do some active weaving on the call, as anybody is called or motivated to do small side note. I've been trying to figure out how to show my brain as my virtual background, so that people, so that instead of screen sharing and interrupting the entire call for everybody with my brain, which for like two out of 10 people is like, Oh, that's cool. And for the rest of us I can't wait a minute I can't see people. They could just selectively pin me and watch me, you know, use that particular tool for sense making. But it turns out that the resolution of the brain as virtual background goes to crap and is unpleasant and illegible. So we haven't solved that problem yet and I've tried turning the zoom to HD which is the current setting and it doesn't make any perceptible difference. It's not working with the brain people and they answered like, Have you tried this and this and not, you know, we see the problem too. So that's not working so well but Pete in the past has shared his background as he was busy, crabbing with as we're sort of calling it now, but using sense making tools like obsidian and taking note taking or hack and D or other kinds of things. And anybody else who feels inspired please, please do so. It's lovely to see everybody in the room and maybe a way to walk into this conversation that would work pretty well is. Let me just pass the mic to you Sam, and set up some of what you know reconstituted some of that conversation, and then we'll go around the room and see as a kind of by way of check in what what we all feel about think about what you bring up. Sure. Thanks for thanks for giving me a chance to talk about this in front of everyone. Well, in the in the conversation in the email list, it was just a kind of riffing off of other people's discussions. And I talked more about tools and processes, but I realized that I also did not talk about the higher level thing that I repeated in all of those examples that I gave of how I went about doing this. And a long time ago in like, you know, 2007 or so well relatively long time ago. Michelle Bowen's invited a bunch of academics to this first peer to peer, you know, academic conference, and I was presenting a sense making approach there, along with some other concepts and topics and some one of the other that studies peer to peer issues. He spoke up and he was like what makes you think that I want to work with you. And I thought, hmm, you know nobody are actually put it to be that way before. And that stuck with me for a long time. And we are we talked about that and so on and I realized, like, when we a lot of times when we're in these groups and we talk about sense making open-ended and assuming that everybody wants to kind of like jam together and put a big one big soup together and explore open-ended. And I think that that is true or otherwise we wouldn't have OGM and all these things. But in a lot of the processes that I was helping facilitate, I started to realize that I probably needed to address like what's the outcome that people want to arrive at, and whether they actually want to really pool their work together to get to that outcome, or whether like in the threads we heard some people say, let's pool our outcome together. And some people respond, well, I want to see and then they would tell you what they would want to get out of that. And what it means is you could, and to me it means that you probably could either do a hybrid where people are getting what they want plus a common pool resource, or people could focus more on common pool resource or people could focus more on exploring together but getting what they want out of it mostly and leaning more toward that end. And usually I tend to try to help people choose that when I was doing these processes. So the first thing that I do is try to choose, are we working together in a collaborative way and try to do like a complete, let's say group inquiry. Then I actually try to turn this into an inquiry and say, okay, now that we know what we're doing, what our motivation is and what's what's what's the pull and the demand for this and what the outcomes we hope to see, whether we're working together, or just trying to meet everyone's individual outcomes. What are the questions that we're going to ask. And the questions define the reality that people are in often. And that's a quote from somebody but I can't remember who there's some famous person says this, you know, but, but if we were all doing this right now, we would probably do well to think about like what are the questions we should ask here, even if you give yourself the permission to revisit the questions and enhance them or break them down. I'm wrong in doing this and this is also what I did in the example that I talked about with Howard Ryan gold in social media classroom. There was already a defined way there to define how we'll work together, but then it was the students are coming up with with sets of questions, and then they're using these tools to answer the questions together. In that case so defining these questions that we're asking, and then from there then it does the process is the same. I first I'm deciding, you know we're deciding how we want to work together, what the goals are defining the questions, then trying to model what we think we've got to draw some kind of boundary of around this about how we're going to answer the question are we talking about infinity or we talking about something less than infinity we have to do it. We're talking about what the model is, and those who are good at modeling could be better at doing that task, you know, and it could be that different people have different talents, and they could recognize that and say like I have, you know, I've modeled things before, where someone else has said, Well, I'm really good at pulling in data and querying it, you know and someone else may not be doing it, but it doing that, and so on so you could also figure out the roles that are needed in these kind of efforts. And then I do try to, I tend to look for data or qualitative quantitative input into this model, whether it's environmental scanning of news articles whether it's data sets that are available or whether it's creating a way to gather our own data, processing this and trying to figure out then for the people who are asking the question, and everyone that is hoping for the answer is how to disseminate that information back to them in a way that's valuable for them. That different people have a different way of, of needing this information and using scientific jargon for people that are in the community might not work, or using language for people in the community might not work for people that are expecting jargon. So maybe there's multiple we could try to identify what's that's in all the, the only reason I'm saying this is like that is the system, no matter which way I've done this or what tools I've used or what it's been named or framed or however. That's right there is what I really was doing and what I described in that thread. And I, and there may be that what people have in mind here. It's not kind of on the same track perhaps or maybe it is. But I think what we're all nearby. I mean I think I think each of us has our own perspective and history on this topic and we're coming at it and I'm actually trying to sort of surface that right now just in starting with you and going around. And the last thing I'll say is I could, and to your point, I'm sure I could learn a huge massive amount from all of you in the ways that you've gone about trying to solve, or try to achieve these kind of outcomes and the creativity that you all put into it. So I just described that I don't pretend to be, I've gotten good results and using that approach. And that's what I was, that's the systematic way that I was describing this and I can try to get into my own experience with using tools and, you know, I've spent a lot of time in the field of science but I also spent a lot of time, kind of like Peter Kaminsky and other people's building and supporting tools that people use to collaboratively work together online. So I have that knowledge, but I feel like it would be awesome to hear what other people think not just about what I'm, how I go about doing this but how they go about doing this stuff and what you all actually want to see come out of this discussion. So that's, that's what I got. That sounds great Sam thank you that's a great that's a great entry point. So let me go around the room and let's see sort of what this, what you would like to add to that in the conversation. And so I'll just sort of pick from where my boxes are. So let's go Jack, Pete Stacy for starters. My. My thinking is somewhat jumbled. I think Sam did a really nice job of summarizing a huge picture, an umbrella of what's really going on do we want to work together that sort of thing. But what I what I do is I dive underneath that umbrella and think what do I want to do. And what I want to do. I started this out, wanting to build a computer program back in the 80s that would make the human and the computer together smarter than either of them alone that was the idea and I got that from watching Paul McCready talk about the Gossamer condor when he first built it he spoke about, about the Gossamer condor was this monster 80 foot mylar wing that practically weighed nothing, which meant meant that it was very much like a flee in the air in other words the Gossamer had more power than the airplane mass. So he spoke about the apparent mass of the airplane and he had to make the apparent mass of the airplane sufficient enough that it could remain remain controllable otherwise it would just be flitted around by breezes. And so I thought about the apparent IQ of the human computer. I think Engelbart corrected me and said no it's not about you and the computer it's about us and the computers. And so that's when I changed but fundamentally I'm interested in remembering stuff because I have a terrible memory. And the first ones told me that I was lucky that people that have perfect memories really aren't very creative because they, everything's there and they, they can't, they can't cut through the mass and think of something new. And so I thought okay it's okay to have a bad memory and of course it's getting worse, which of course has something to do with the color my hair but but other than that. I'm interested in reminding systems and and those came to light in, in, in, in, basically in various places. But I'm also interested in connecting things. I found that I'm very good at sitting there quietly in a meeting watching people, and then I will see a connection that nobody else saw. And so how do I how in Engelbart in sense how do I augment that but not just for me, but for us. And so I'm interested in, first of all conversation conversation is king. It's, it's where your, your, your, your, your brain's kind of on an autopilot it's making your mouth do things that it's all pre wired and so on and so forth and you never know what you're going to say until you say it I'm not the kind of guy who will get up and in front of a mirror to practice a speech I'm going to get I just go out and give it the hell with it. And, and whatever comes out comes out and sometimes I really screw it up and sometimes I knock a ball out of the park and that's fun. The conversation for me is king, not debate, not, not argument not debate is an important part, but not the argument side of what usually happens in, in pissing contest and polarized conversations. So I'm very interested in taming conversations that's my big stick. But in so doing those conversations have to be meaningful so I need a backside database system that is able to be there with me in real time while I'm thinking and talking and doing and we are thinking and talking and doing. So that's, that's the big picture of what interests me over. Thank you so much. That's, that's awesome. That's perfect. Let's go Pete Stacy Doug. Thank you. Pete has, Pete has dissolved into the ether apparently that is weird. Is it your phone doing something that's here what's happening. I don't know, doesn't look like a choice on your part. It's, it's switched to the wrong camera. I got it. I got excited. I've got kind of in the background and and opening up and switch to a wrong camera. Thanks. Sorry for, sorry for that glitch. I am, I'm kind of going to pass. I would be interested in answering a question or two but I'm not interested in expounding today. This passing is totally legit. Stacy Doug Eric. Stacy you're muted. So I like the question that Sam started with what makes you think I want to collaborate with you, because that's what struck me at the time that I read his comments. There was another thread happening, which was the money thread on OGM. And I saw this is like a perfect example is if, is if we isolated the different parts of money, then you would know which conversation you want you would want to go in on. I'm also somebody that sees a lot of different kinds of connections. I can't do that if I'm deep in one thing, but if I can see an overview. So like, so I may not be able to get into a certain conversation on a very deep level. But I can see something on the surface and if something is mapped out well enough, then I can know how to follow the threads. I don't know if I'm making any sense. I'm looking at very some people. So that's why I was really interested to hear what he had to say, because I also think that it would aid in actually doing the work and doing the collaborating, if you knew exactly where to move yourself. Thanks, Stacy. I think that makes sense. And funny enough, you and I just got off an hour's call talking about sort of those dynamics like, like, as I typed in the chat basically power personal safety group dynamics what makes people, what makes people feel a sense of safety to pipe up in a conversation, and share a lot and participate and engage and sort of, you know, make it make it better or stand up and say hey this isn't working for me for X reason, and you know, prompt a change in the group dynamics or whatever else. So we were there for a while. Let's let's go Doug Eric David. We have a long history with attempts to deal with sense making online. Everybody who shares this please raise your hand. Doug you are in really good company. Well, I'll go back. 1982, I was part of a thing called the international leadership forum out of La Jolla that was sponsored by a deck who gave everybody rainbow computers. And we had conversations around the world and it was incredible, because the empowerment that came from being able to get a bunch of smart people to comment on current events was great and it was so striking that it brought really interesting people like Michael Crichton and Marlon Brando were part of that group. And as it got as time went on it got set. There was not it wasn't new anymore. And so people started dropping out. I was very affected by that I became part of two companies. Meta systems design and big minds media that had conferencing software, but we could never make a solid business case for it so it kind of fell by the wayside. What made me to be in this conversation is my puzzlement over the word sense making. What are the hidden assumptions. The I think that the metaphor sense making shifts us closer to the physical input of photons and waves going into the ear that we, we then make sense of, and whether that's the right way to deal with knowledge and conversations. I think that I just am puzzled by that. My own preference for an approach to sense making is doing scenarios with multiple paths that can be compared with each other as a basis for conversation. But anyway, that's enough. That's super dark. Thank you. Eric, David. Hi everybody. One thing I like about the way you run these meetings, it's around Robin format so everybody can get a turn to talk there are other places we have to shout out and be a boss. The, when I, the models that I see are for people curating their own knowledge bases outside of corporate boundaries. I'm looking long term, and being able to share them with each other with people they trust and then decide what to share. And going back to some of the older models of early internet early bbs is just the quality that we had before it all became corporate Facebook and everything else. So, I'm going to be exploring some things with Mark Antoine. He's got some good ideas, but I'm also like, looking at my own path, what were the simple things that can be done. And I've been making a series of videos. I just did the fourth one. I'm going to post a link to it. I called it Harry Stelton's vault. So if you knew that the world is going to hell in a hand basket, what would you put in the vault? Like I said, there's going to be 1000 years of darkness. Well, we should put Jerry's brain in the vault, definitely. I think people rebuild and learn from mistakes of the past, or will they just make all the same mistakes all over again. Just an interesting way of thinking about that. But since I mean there's a lot of censorship going on and my recent video addresses some of that how that could be if people save their own stuff and shared it peer to peer. Okay, I'll stop for now. Thanks. Thanks, Eric. And I when you said when you broadcast that around I connected to you and to Harry Stelton and didn't have a chance to finish watching the video but but I'm interested. So let's go David Ken Richard. Hi everybody, nice to meet you. I've been interested in sense making collective sense making for a couple of decades. I've built systems for the intelligence community for collaborative analysis and very interested in futures and foresight analysis. We, we design and build these kinds of systems. We also build knowledge management systems. I have designs for personal knowledge graphs, which you can query and add structured knowledge into or add unstructured knowledge and then add whatever structure you want later. The problem that I run into with personal knowledge management is, there's a huge barrier to adoption. Most people will not spend the time to manually type stuff in. So, if you really want to be a player, you'd have to integrate with a lot of the tools that people are using anyway. You've got like their calendar, an email to name one, because if you wouldn't, then you'd expect the human to have to manually move a lot of stuff and how can we claim to be really helping people with personal knowledge management. If we leave email and calendar etc etc etc app out of out of the equation. Right. And we can't expect people to do that knowledge management entry not everyone is as diligent as Jerry. I have a friend of mine named Howie who lives with the brain open all the time. I've tried to identify and give credit to the people who came before us on who stand shoulders we were standing whether we realize it or not in the chat I put in some names. John Warfield Alexis Christakis who hopefully is still alive I haven't spoken to him in a couple of years and Tom Malone and MIT there are many others who Stafford beer, who saw the need for collaborative sense making to support decision making and and didn't just, you know, spout collaboration is a good thing, but actually developed really thoughtful methodologies and analytic and conceptual frameworks for this, some inspired by physics and math and some very, you know, multi disciplinary approach. So, I've collected a lot of documents about sense making that term has been used a lot in the DoD community and the intelligence community. Yesterday I got the new edition of Harvard Business Review and a Gartner analyst is talking about sense making in the context of sales where anybody talk about sense making. Right, we're moderate basically they're saying that when you're selling B2B solutions, the most successful sellers are actually engaging in support for their, they're engaging in sense making on behalf of the prospective customer, who is overloaded with information about our products in the market, and a need sort of this very gentle facilitation to formulate the business case for why why this product might be a good fit not a heavy handed. Here's a ton of information about our product we're the best we're the best we're the best but really kind of very curated. So, I'll wrap up by saying that if anyone wants to be a thought partner in the domain of personal knowledge management, and I so is this being publicly released, Jerry? Yes, I'm recording and I'm my habit with these calls I should have said that's at the top for those of you who are in these calls is I post these openly on YouTube. Well, so if anyone wants to to take sort of a parallel track or additional like specialized track on either personal knowledge management tools of the future what could they look like, or a big topic for us, we focus now on law firms, we used to focus on emergency preparedness and national security. Now we exclusively help law firms, we want to help law firms look over the horizon at the risks and opportunities that their clients are going to face. And, you know, it's, it's not like even large law firms, and I would guess even most large enterprises have a lot of people sitting around with time in their hands, waiting to be tasked with the kinds of activities that people do in the context of scanning and and strategic foresight analysis using structured analytic techniques. No, they don't. So that's why there's a market for consulting firms that do this kind of work and yet shouldn't this be a core capability, at least for a small group of people in large corporations everyone is so, you know, short term oriented with very cursory potential over the horizon attention. It really, there is a there is a profession of future studies that has developed tons of methodologies for doing this in a very organized way. So if anyone wants to brainstorm about these things in the future. It's easy to find me and I'm happy to to talk to you about it. That is awesome. David thank you so much that's great. Thank you for the amazing stuff together here. Let's go Ken Richard Mark. Hello everybody. A couple of questions come from me. What makes sense in the world of sense making what kind of sense are we trying to make. I'm really aware, as I always am on these calls of how many white guys there are. Thank you Stacy for being the loan. Thank you everyone here and, you know, we have us we live inside structures that bound our sense making abilities that we need to open up and have other people involved with right. So, another question arises to me is, what kind of listening, are we applying. So, auto show was not the first but he did a very good job of articulating four levels of listening, downloading which is just looking for agreement. When somebody comes up says no I see things differently how do you interact with someone when they have a really different point of view and and how do you stay in your body when that goes on. The level of empathy, how do we build systems, both human and computer augmented systems that have empathy built in that have us understand what it's like for the other person to be who they are. Then the last one I rename as in liveening listening which is comes out of my work the world cafe we believe that the future is always born in conversation in the moment so every moment there's the future is being born there's something there that's alive, and how do we listen for what's alive what what's going to bring us alive if we follow it what's going to create a good future. So those are some types of questions that are popping up in my mind around that. One of the things since the customer condor and albatross is brought up. I use that as a great example of how businesses completely ignore the limits of humans. The pilot for the customer albatross was someone who was sort of a tour de France level bicyclist, and they discovered by being very careful and analyzing that he could sustain 70% of his output over time. And as long as he had fuel water and glucose and stuff, if he went over that for very long, like to 80% you have to drop down to 60. If you went to 90, you might have dropped down to 50 or 100 you have to come to a complete stop so they had to couple the pilot with the plane so they didn't go in the and I assert and posit that the body and the brain are one and if your body can't sustain more than 70% long term over time, either can your brain answer this idea we have to always be working 100% is actually quite in dehumanizing, and it's a terrible way to go about the business of business and it doesn't make any sense. Thank you. Is there, do you remember if there's an article or a research study about that aspect of physiology relative to the design of the condor and I'm sure Pete is googling it as we speak. I'm recalling this from I think it was a frontline report back in the 80s because it was when I still had a TV I got my TV 1990. So as a frontline or one of the PBS, you know, stations, the whole thing on this and so I'm dragging this up out of memory, but I have actually looked a couple times online and it does say it's 70%. So, if you're if you're an audiophile, you know that you want overhead in your stereo so if our really big passage comes on with a lot of volume that your speakers can handle it and your amp can handle it. Same thing with humans we want to be working at a level where we have overhead to really put forth a super effort when required but that we are taking care of ourselves and not overstressing our bodies because too many of us are overstressing our bodies and we can't make sense when we're too stressed. Makes sense. Make sense. Jack, how about that. So this is kind of fun. Those are the rid the the gossamer condor flying tests were done at a little airport near Bakersfield, California. I didn't know Paul McCrady so I stopped by there on my way to LA once and ended up having lunch with with Brian Allen and Paul McCrady and Peter Lisman and, and the rest of the tribe. A very short story. Paul McCrady's young son Tyler was one of the first to actually pedal the condor and he did that in the in the in the stadium in Pasadena where they do the Rose Bowl. And McCrady told me this story when he was he was getting ready to build this thing he built the prototype, and they took it over to the Rose Bowl Stadium and his son Tyler was doing the pedaling and actually got it to fly. Well Tyler was walking around in the hangar where these airplanes were with a little piece of styrofoam that was cut in the shape of a like a boomerang. He put it over his forehead and started walking, and the boomerang just stayed right there as as because it was flying on the bow wave of a little tiny breeze over his forehead. But it was, it was at that time we went out and had lunch that they had been doing those dynamometer tests on on Brian Allen and so it the numbers are exactly as they reported them back then. He could do 70%. And, and that he would have these short bursts. Now, when they actually flew the albatross across the English Channel. He, he got cramps, and they were, they were busy in the process of bringing them down to anchor him to the to a tow boat and just take him away. And so when he got a second wind of some kind and managed to make it to the shore. But those numbers that that are reported are exactly right. Love that. Thank you. It's funny how few, how few degrees we are from life events and world events and things like that, even in this group. And the small thing I wanted to pull back into the conversation that can that you brought in at the beginning or at least that you triggered in my mind. And it takes me over to a book called the healing wisdom of Africa by Maladoma so many, because I think to a group of white guys sense making may be very much about only sensory information only facts only logic and making arguments that are crystal clear and so forth. And there's this other side of that which we've talked about a little bit which is trust, and you know, you could try to convince me with facts all you want that that doesn't seem to work I'll just double down on whatever it is my my system believes. But then there's this other side and one of the things I learned from healing wisdom of Africa was that shamans are gatekeepers to the other world, and that in many cultures around the world, that other world is as real as our sensory world which in the western world is privileged, and I said that is the only reality. And so sense making in other cultures and I think we need maybe more of this involves crossing over through those gates into other realms other senses other places other spaces I don't know. I don't even have the language for it, but but not losing those sorts of things because if we approach sense making or collaborative sense making with only the kind of Western stereotypical description I just gave it. We need to be able to attract and lose contact and lose a lot of important things that are actually in, in our space in our shared spaces. So I just wanted to bring that back into the conversation a little bit. And wow, he found the vo2 max levels and all that kind of stuff that's super cool. So see facts are good too. But thank you for this. Let's go. Richard, Mark, Rick. Hi, Richard here. I'm new to the group. This is my second call but Jack has been kind enough to take me under his wing a little bit and when I asked the question suffering from imposter syndrome I would probably ask the question what makes me think that you would want to work with me but I'll toss that as a different view but I'm freshly retired from the United States Environmental Protection Agency where I spent a lot of time both in the field as a geologist and then in the latter half of my career I worked a lot with communities and communicating with them so I'll just give my perspective I don't know if it has much to do with sense making but I think it does. One of the things that I uses my tagline people say what do you do. What I generally have come to say is that I take 1000 page scientific document turning into a Twitter feed. So the challenge is to communicate with people who are heavily vested to live near potentially hazardous way sites which is the worst condition of all. If they knew it was hazard or they knew it was safe they could move on with their decision. In a potential world it's terrible and so I had to go into these communities and talk to them and one of the things that I came to understand is that if you're not delivering the information in a way to the audience so that they can have an actual impact on the outcome then they're not going to be able to communicate. So it's important to understand that while we can develop all kinds of great technical you know documents and all that if we can't deliver it to the audience that's going to be affected by it. It's it's not we're not doing our job I'll one other thing that Stacy said about scale. If we were to look from the universe in we would see the answers and you know as we move closer in we get more and more myopic but I'll close the story that happened to me when I was working up at the Oak Ridge Reservation the nuclear bomb factory up there. And we did this wonderful presentation we had the people with the white coats and the whole bit standing up in front and they showed a lot of graphs and charts and it was really great we really proved our case. And afterward this fellow stood up he was a probably a fifth generation farmer and as I remember to even put his fingers behind his overall straps and he said yeah that's all great but I don't believe in science. And it went down my back like a lightning bolt because I realized that I'm being paid by him. And so I can't just blow him off I can't just say well too bad you know, sciences the way it is. So it really changed my course of my career to become much more in vogue of communication, as opposed to just understand you know instead of understanding. We have to be able to communicate in fact I'm blocking that word but it says we're drowning in information but starving for wisdom. So unfortunately I can't get credit to it I just found it out there in the information web and so I don't know where it comes from but anyway that's why I'm here and so that's my viewpoint on things. I'm really sure I love that thank you and I think that quote comes from conciliants by EO Wilson but it may come from other places but that's where I've got it in my brain. And I've just added you to the thought science popularizers because that that notion of turning, you know, 1000 page scientific reports into a tweets is, is like really important and listening to people who don't believe in in the science and communicating with them in some appropriate way. We've had several conversations in OGM recently about the movie don't look up. You know, is that reaching people who might not otherwise listen to other arguments about climate change to they see the metaphor. Is it working. I don't know I'd love to find you know studies that are trying to figure that out. Let's go Mark, Rick Jordan. Thanks. And since I don't normally do the OGM calls the Thursday OGM calls I'll just briefly introduce myself so I'm another brainiac in terms of. I've put together a brain for climate change and it's it's certainly the largest and only one that I know of in terms of trying to use the brain technology to tackle a wicked problem. And so we've, we've spent about 20,000 plus hours putting information and organizing information in the climate web and it's open access and we're what our primary challenge right now is trying to figure out ways to to overcome the challenges that we're facing. And so I'm going to go first to people using something like the climate web and we've got several things going on along those those lines, but, but the very pragmatic thing that I'm grappling with right now in terms of the topic of this call is that for any of you following climate change you've probably heard of carbon offsets. Carbon offset 34 years ago, and they almost died out the way they probably should have. But now they're back with a huge vengeance and all sorts of people are saying carbon offsets are going to save the world voluntary carbon markets are going to save the world. Most of these people have no idea what they're talking about, and you know what history tells us etc etc etc. So I'm, but what I'm going to try and do is set up sort of carbon offset office hours with the brain, and using, you know, having conversations, and going through the first questions that were asked, not, you know, not to convince people of anything but both to show people that resources exist, but also more just to share information among potentially sort of this universe of people that are suddenly working on carbon offsets at at eight different cross purposes, not knowing about each other's work not having any idea what's come in the past what the literature is. And is there some way to do that with the brain, and then exporting the information from the brain that that perhaps accelerates our progress if we're going to use carbon offsets which we probably shouldn't but if we're going to put billions of dollars into carbon offsets, couldn't we make it a little more evidence based and is there a way to use sort of sense making with the brain to help that process along and that that's what I'm going to be trying to do. Yeah, Mark thanks I put a couple links to your work and also mentioned that you and Pete have collaborated to try to simplify access to the brain by creating these micro sites. So the link I added was a link into my brain where I've collected up all the micro sites that you've broadcast to us. There's probably a bunch more you've worked on but those are the ones that I've seen. Thanks for joining us. I'm explaining a Sam sort of put a stake in the ground at the beginning of the conversation we're all building on top of that and I think you'll see the pattern as we go. Heading toward you but your last in my in my Google this in my zoom display right now so. At this point, it'll be Rick Jordan Shim on fascinating conversations the second time I've come and I'm a lurker and this is drawing me in so. It so happens yes indeed indeed I'm drawn in. I'm in Dubai at the moment and I'll just share one piece of information, and it triggers on the brain talk you had at the beginning, but I went to the Russian booth, I mean they're they're pavilion, and they had this three dimensional brain up. And it was it was unbelievable trying to explain how the brain function I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole, but the end of the conversation ended on what they regarded the most important thing. Can anybody guess the word I'm not going to I'll just say what is it was cooperation from Russia. What's going on. So, I mean I was just, you know, flabbergasted by it. And actually, I want to, I want to reframe the original question by saying, Why are we not working together better. And I think that might be a better way of framing it from my point of view but you have to address the flip side of the argument to go to the other side of the argument. And the other reason I came was because somebody was about civil war. And I'm thinking about the uncivil war of neoterrorism I'll share my definition that in the, in the, in the link here, but the question that I came up with listening to this conversation was and it ricochets from the, the experience I've had today, So why have we not figured out how to develop the long term governance systems and processes needed to redress the political abuse of power. I'm Rick, I'm done speaking. Rick, thank you so much. Speaking of Russians and cooperation, long ago and a couple of you have heard the story before but long ago I decided to read some something from an anarchist. So I did like Peter Kropotkin and I started reading one of his books from you know a feared anarchist, and the first half of the book is completely lovely stories about cooperation in nature among animals and about how wolves hunting packs and termites and ants and all the stuff that you would learn from you before you know Wilson had written all these great books, and it was all about cooperation and, and I fear that a great deal of why we don't cooperate is is about the politics of the world and power. And we don't talk about power often enough. I did a bunch of work with the Institute for the future and power was always the 800 pound gorilla in the room and politics was something we just never almost never touched. It was really interesting. That's a big mistake. I totally agree. Jordan Simone Rob. Jerry may I, Matt, until after I hear from a few more people. Of course you may just just throw me at the back end. Sounds great. Simone Rob Michael. Well this is a fascinating conversation. My interest is actually in computational brain development. Recently I've been focusing on how the brain and mind are created to make sense of the world, and more from a trying to understand some of even the mathematical probabilistic framework in which we make sense of the world, how we predict things, and what happens when our predictions are not met by the reality we face. I just retired as a psychiatrist so I think for me kind of bring development, how people make sense of their environment in the universe are very important. And I apply it in terms of the conversation here about somebody spoke about politics, how to apply some of it to our political sense and belonging. It was interesting when someone was talking about I think the gentleman who was working for the EPA. I actually come to this conversation from another conversation or you know seminar of the National, the National Academy of medicine together with Robert Wood Johnson, who have this notion of culture of health. And this is an ongoing process where they're trying to understand how to create health in communities, how to create flourishing people, how to deal with inequality, how to deal with, you know, equity, and those are areas that I'm very interested in, in terms of making sense in communities. And the thing that they were talking about and they had a lot of their grantees, trying to figure out a new way to measure outcomes for grants, because until now grants have gone to people who had power, who were able to put together a good grant, you know proposal, and then they measured the outcome they had organizations measuring outcome, based on whether they're able to get more grants and things of that kind. So the thing that struck me the most was they had people from Native American tribes, and they talked about how to measure outcomes by incorporating the community before they do anything else to make sense of what's going on. And the thing that was intriguing to me was they mentioned the different sense of knowledge. And one of the knowledge bases that they work with is lucid dreams, people talking about the information they get from their elders, and that just as real for them, in terms of making sense of the grant or whatever they're working on as the scientific information. So I found that fascinating. That's it for me. Yeah, thank you. That's great. Rob, Michael Wendy. Hey, thanks for having this call. I often can't make the OGM calls even though I kind of track them and stay included as best I can. I think I think sense making is why I've been attracted to OGM all along. And so I'm excited to see kind of a focus. Maybe I'll approach it from a consumer of OGM, like what would I be looking for. And I think a couple people talked about the overwhelm we're all feeling. There are things, there are things that I take as facts. There are probably things that are facts that I don't know about. So I want to get more exposure to those, those things. Things that I take as fact that are actually not true, whatever true, true means in today's age. So I look at sense making as trying to gain perspectives points of view data that are in context, and maybe more important than reading of those things. So as Mark was talking about climate change and as I've been through a lot of his, his brain efforts on that. You know, I'm looking for something that helps me allocate my time and attention into, Hey, this aspect of it's really important and maybe as under under discussed underrepresented. I'm looking at energy usage. You know, are we are we considering peaks and valleys and we're considering distribution costs and we're considering mining of materials to make solar panels and the recycling of batteries, you know, none of these issues are easy. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. And so I'm, I'm looking for a shared knowledge understanding to be built over time. One of the challenges I have with looking at someone else's web or brain or, or knowledge base is because I wasn't part of building it, it may not feel as familiar. It's been working on that point. So how can we meet people where they are. Have them learn through the collective and learn and contribute back to the collective collective around key issues of our day. And I think it's very challenging. And so that's, that's kind of where I, you know, I use the brain that's why I found Jerry that's why I found GM. I use it a lot less than, than, than I know he does. I do like connecting things and the act of connecting things feels important to me. I don't know how much I go back and use my connections but I think the climate regenerative agriculture, energy, economy, Bitcoin, health, all seem related to me, and I don't know how to necessarily connect all the dots. And at the end of the day, why do I want to do that I want to, I want to either take actions in my life consistent with making things better, whatever that means. And I want, I want to have, I want to start having more of a holistic consistent view of things across those different domains. So I'll, I'll pause there and that's kind of my, my take on sense sense making. Rob, thank you and I just want, I just want to express my gratitude to you for in our various and funny conversational media and GM and all that for trying to pull us back toward making sense together and actually practicing what we preach, eating our own dog food, which is such an awful metaphor like who came up with that. So really, your, your, your efforts to bring us back to do this. Who did pets.com. So, so thank you, thank you for that I really, I appreciate it and I want to live up to that. And I'm off at the fungus face of my own little brain tool which you know mark trexler and I are really familiar with and a few of the rest of you have used a little bit. It's not a collaborative sense making tool at this point and so how do we, how do we bridge that gap and start doing this together in ways that touch the different things that we've been bringing into the conversation. And I'm not sure a mirror board is either but you know there's, there's some, some space to live in. And I'm really interested in what that shared idea space looks like it's not, it's not, it's not Wikipedia. Somehow it's it's different. Kevin go ahead. I'm spending some time working with the donut economics folks K Rayworth folks. In some places that works really deeply locally. But it only works really deeply locally in places that have an incredibly dense social and capital networks who have looked at what their town is so there is zero carbon Guildford in the UK. And it was arising where the Tottness group did the transition town. There's one in North Devon where the UNESCO biosphere reserve is kind of their global model, and they've got two things plastic free Devon 25 towns have signed on to, and then a donut Devon. And then the other is in Birmingham, UK, where the best of the impact hubs did the most deep community work in real transformation of zoning and other things and urban settings, where Amy Cower and Indy Joe are building and so for places that have gotten really deep grounding in one generation iteration ago the donut is making sense to get everybody engaged. And you know it's where you measure your yourself against the planetary boundaries that Rockstrom cooked up but in a really pleasant way that, you know, and it's the one that gets environmentalists to care about poor neighborhoods, because they're in it together, which is isn't particularly and it also gets the economic justice folks engaged with the environmentalists which is often, you know, a dedicated community away. So those three places are really exemplary but it's because I've known of their work for 20 years that now donut is making sense. So it's interesting stuff happening. I think that the first thing you said is really crucial which is this is all taking off in communities that have really strong bonds that that the, the web of relationships and trust is essential to these things to actually sort of take off. In some cases, the work can build that trust, but but you need an opening you need a door somewhere and this needs to have a spark someplace. Rick and Sam then let's complete our round. I'll be very brief. What I'm struck by is the richness and the wisdom of the collective of this group and all the information and the limitation of singular monologues. We're not really having gender and I understand the limitations. But I was just thinking is there's some way of sort of making this public. Okay, you've got this, you've got this YouTube, you know, would there be a monthly LinkedIn newsletter that we then all commit once it's published to be going and share and and try and create this sort of self organizing self generating system that goes beyond. You may already be thinking along these lines but I'm just thinking that there's so much here. So many threads that I could go off that it would allow us a venue to go to sit to go off on a different threads to see where they might and then anchor that on a regular basis and you can you've got this public document out there on LinkedIn or wherever you want to do it. Reactions. So you are speaking the gospel of GM, and at least our intentions, if not our actions. We have been having very similar conversations to what you just said in the last couple of days, among the different sort of standard calls that we have during the week. We're, we're trying to puzzle this thing through, and I'll say that we have almost two years coming up now of calls that go to YouTube, different artifacts woven and different memories, whether it's in, you know, markdown documents with notes taken or other sorts of places. We want to see something else Rick, go ahead. Very quickly, I'm, I'm listening to the book Rules for revolutionaries, which was, was about Bernie Sanders campaign. And there are so many lessons from that one of them was you have to think incredibly big to get people in. You get everyone involved, you let them tell their stories, their personal stories, particularly people who are not involved, who don't have a voice to try and try and sort of crowdsource people around a central issue which is the future of humanity. What could be more important than that. Love that. So, so you're, you're, you're preaching to the choir in some sense and yet, you know, Rob's frustration with us not sense making enough and what you just stated like, I would love for more of this to actually be a thing in the world. We're leaving a trail. It's just that our trail is hard to love and hard to pick up and hard to sort of participate in. I, you know, kind of related to what Rick just talked about what responding to what to what Kevin Jones talked about with donor economics I didn't. And then this is all relevant to what we're talking about but I'll just try to say it really quick. I wasn't aware of the concept of donor economics until Kevin Jones introduced it other than just hearing a little bit about it. But once I looked at it I realized that was exactly what I was trying to do in the community, you know, economic development work that I was working on. And one of the things that I uncovered was that everyone else that was working on this left out the voice of the people in the community and they never asked them like how was this, you know, it wasn't part of the picture. And that really seems related to the sense making discussion here. And many times, if we come up with these processes tools approaches. You know, it would follow the pre existing pattern so you can't really blame people. And it's the other thing that I found is when I actually dove in and try to do this. It is hard to have assist a good way to support ongoing feedback from people in the community. So to get the voice of people that you're, and actually have them, not just not just being studied like subjects but have them be a constant part of whatever is making us happening through these lenses so you can put it lens of the donor economics or anything, but to make this a way that actually has there you're taking information at the very least you can produce insights that they can use immediately is one of the goals that I had. And that's a that's a sense making cycle. So I think it's relevant. It's probably a whole nother side discussion to this core discussion, but I thought I just wanted to reflect that from what, you know, the participation with Kevin on donor economics. Thanks Sam. I just want to before going to Pete I just want to throw in a little bit of personal experience from long ago. One of my mentors was Russell a cough, who taught at Penn. So I went to pen for grad school and West Philly is kind of a mess. And there was a very interesting conversation that came out around development of people or place, like is it is it humans that you want to focus on or place that you want to focus on. And one of the things that the a cough one of doing was they created like a young great society working with folks who didn't have a lot of privilege who were in West Philly, and some really brilliant stand out humans came out of it, who then kind of graduated out and went on to other programs and launch other things and if you follow the people's trajectory. It was pretty awesome. And if you look back on the young greats program it kind of languished and died. And so so I started thinking that like the more contagion there is among people and the more leveling up there is among people and connecting across the people probably the better, but I'm not sure. And all of that was happening in the days before the inner tubes, where you could share stories and make all this stuff really kind of available in different places. So we're we are in new waters now and I think that the easy availability and overwhelming availability of information is our opportunity as well. We just need to make this make sense like the tweets that Richard is busy crafting, as opposed to some tangly web of forums that you know that you need to some acacia tree that you need to climb in order to gain some some piece of wisdom because acacia is a very unpleasant to Pete. Thank you Jay, and I wanted to give a shout out to Rick or thumbs up or whatever you would say. Taking conversations like this and kind of annotating them with knowledge facilitation and then kind of making them public and making them persistent over time. I think that is is a core part of what I'm doing in OGM. And we've had some experimental successes. I took a call not kind of not unlike this one, and made a wiki out of it with lots of links and you know rich detail. I'm also working on just the wiki technology for that with some of the other folks including Bill, hey Bill. Wendy Elford and I have got a project right now where we're doing that for a panel discussion that Wendy. Wendy moderated about water in Australia. There's a, there's a really amazing river in Australia that the Aboriginal people have lived with for 20,000 years or whatever and they think of it as a being, not as a resource. It's a, you know, it's part of the living earth. So then there are also more recent people in people who've come to Australia who think of water as a resource. So, working through kind of the conversation of that. Wendy had a great, a great like hour and a half discussion earlier this year. And we've taken the recording of that made a nice transcript added some links to the resources and made a bibliography out of it and have put that on a website. So we're probably going to start to release that soon. It's an in final final betting and we'll probably get it out next week. It's been watched it interesting watching Wendy do that work. So on the panel where all women, there were three women and Aboriginal women, somebody who's from blockchain because blockchain is potentially a way to kind of manage water going forward. And then an expert in water law and policy. She's, she specializes in personhoods, personhoods for rivers. They can be legal people and then they can, you can sue, you know, for damages against your person. So that's a technology legal technology that people are inventing in different places in the world and using to better and worse effect. Anyway, that that kind of stuff is happening. I want to say it's hard work. It takes a lot of hours and a lot of intelligence and I guess Wendy's Wendy's kind of figure she's partnering with a Kenevan Australia which Kenevan is kind of related to Dave Snowden's Kenevan in the UK. And she kind of sees a path forward for continuing the conversation about water, which is really important in Australia, kind of like it is in the Western US. Over time and continuing to do these kinds of workshops and continuing to build kind of a public presence of the information. This could be done with with any topic could be water it could be soil health it could be regenerative agriculture it could be monetary policy. So there. I guess, yes, let's do this. And it turns out that we have to figure out how to pay for, pay for time for people like me and Wendy and, and you know the person who helped do the transcription and the person who helped do the web graphics and all that kind of stuff. And really, it's actually not a huge investment compared with all the other investments that we could make but it's also not a free thing. And so that's, that's the message that I come back with from doing it in the trenches for a while. Thank you. Let's complete our tour let's go Wendy Jordan. Yeah, fabulous discussion thank you so much for everybody and hi to people I have not met before. So I'm the kind of person who loves to think about systems and I'm also a kind of person who loves to be efficient. I'm also the kind of person who really doesn't want to make something else that already exists just slightly different. So I've really spent the last year listening to what's going on. And with all the different people would all they're doing and what really started to merge from me about a month ago and it's turned into a project I call the tapestry is this. It really relates to everything everyone's saying so it gets me excited you hear my voice start to crack of it, because I am. What I'm hearing is that we need a framework, where we can put our own pieces in where we can take the puzzle that we can't yet understand and break it up into parts so we can at least start putting our puzzle pieces in grids or so that we can find each other and smaller and smaller spaces, and see the resources see the funding that are relate to that space. And so what I did was I put together something that ended up being kind of a cube of a grid. And so it's complex enough that it needs technical support, but it allows people to say answer questionnaire and have the piece to be put in the grid and then have them be able to see where they fit inside the grid. And this is super important, I think is because, first of all, it's focusing on the people, not necessarily on measurable outcome so it shifts our perspective and valuing measurable outcome to say quality outputs what what what does this community feel like. It also puts a framework around seeing things holistically, rather than in parts. So while there might be one sector or one domain that sees something they feel from a completely holistic and full perspective. We don't even know the things that they're missing. So that's the third thing is that by putting things in a framework or or attempting to create a holistic framework. We're starting to identify the holes, which sometimes there can be just as important if not more important as the synergies and the connections. So this finally would enable us to have a sense of a feedback loop, right we could start asking questions we can't even begin to ask now, or that only few of us see clearly enough to begin to ask now, which is why does this whole exist. Should we maybe continue to talk to people from this particular domain, or this particular sector. I think this kind of thing if this it's in its beginning stages I literally was running late because I was deep in thought about how to frame the questionnaire that would allow people to self identify their pieces. I could see this being used not just for large communities like this one but when people leave conferences or when people have a, you know, a group has a solution and they're trying to see if the solution has a holistic application and what ripple effects it has on what it might be missing in terms of considerations. I think there's a lot of different ways to use it a lot of different ways to set up the x y and z axis on this. To me, this is the reason why it came into a grid form was because I've been trying to do this on a much more complicated much larger level with a user interface that is too complex for what technology can actually do right now. And so I backed myself down into, oh wait, I think we can do this in a grid, and I started to come up with ways in which to frame it so I'm happy to give a separate presentation if other people feel that this would be valuable to either learn about or know about more, or even just even send the questionnaire around when I've got it in a somewhat usable form some of us and subgroups of this of OGM are starting to play around with it already. But to me whether it's that and I'm not attached to that at all. It's just I feel like I'm putting together one potential stepping stone towards what we've all been talking about because that's what I'm hearing we need, and we need it sooner rather than later so I wanted to stop waiting for the technology to be developed to create the ultimate version, and let's get something like stuck to the wall and see what happens if we start playing with it. So thanks everyone. Thanks Wendy. I think a bunch of us are throwing spaghetti I think not enough of it is actually sticking to the wall. Jordan, and then Bill and Gil with you guys joined well into the call but we've just been making a go around around a steak in the in the sand that Sam put at the beginning of the conversation. But I think by now you've seen kind of the kinds of contributions so happy to go to you after Jordan. See if you would like to sort of check in with reflections on where we are. Let's go Jordan first. All right. Hello everybody. I've been waiting for the first time. So I'm coming in just for a little background on mindset as a as a builder of large scale infrastructure, who's been held accountable every day for the last 20 years for whether intention is or isn't coming into reality, measurably every day in the form of you know roadways and reservoirs and, you know, projects like that. So what I'm thinking deeply about is how we, how we transition from from discussion to action that actually brings into reality the things that we've all had in our hearts for the last decades. So I'm going to pull a little, a couple threads and then I'm just going to, I'm going to make a fairly pragmatic suggestion in case anybody is interested in moving forward. So there's been a lot of a lot of conversation about how we're seeing parts but there's some kind of whole. You know, Jack talked about conversation and dialogue being king. And, and so then the question is like well what are we here talking about. Ken talked about you know what is it that we're trying to make sense of, and you know Stacy talked about how do we know, you know where to look how to inform ourselves how to move ourselves. Doug talked about, you know, being able based on trying to figure out where we are to project multiple scenarios and paths out in the future and to be able to compare those and then act in the wise right manner to bring forth the future that we want. You know David talked about the strategic foresight and the actual career and skill set that that is, and I would think that all of our different vessels whether they're organizations or nations or tribes or societies, you know ought to be ought to be doing that. Ken talked about the integration of sense making not only as a human species but in a sense that honors the totality of the living system that were inextricably embedded in and in service of Jerry talked about in addition to the facts and logic the whole other side of the realm of spirituality and wisdom and and the wisdom of the elders and the visionaries and the people who can maybe see beyond into something more eternal than the temporal problems that were that were stuck in. Richard talked about how maybe if we could look from that universal view, we could start to see the answers we could start to maybe locate ourselves and look down and see where we are, how we got here, you know where we might go. You know Jerry talked about how we neglect power and the 800 pound gorilla that we have set up an entire structure as a species dominated by very powerful. Political and systems and oligarchies that are all competing and buying for space and power so you can't you ignore that to your peril. And, you know, shaman if I'm saying it right talked about about the sense of belonging and maybe we're trying to do something like flourish in a functional community that meets all our needs and maybe we should be more intelligently measuring how we're allocating resources as we try to figure out what stands in the way of human flourishing and how we create it. And Kevin talked about the silos between people working on environmental issues and social justice issues and economic concerns and maybe it's true that a leading cause of environmental degradation is the poverty and lack of access between people who don't have many options to do other than what they're doing and so if we were to lift up, you know, all people some things would start to work. Jerry talked about maybe that work, the actual work of solving the immediate problems lifting people out of poverty, you know, saving lives saving rivers maybe that work that we can do together are some of the things that actually create the trust based on the provable outcomes based on the valuable meaningful work on the projects we're engaged in together. And Rick talked about a venue to go to some kind of crowdsourcing around a central a central issue. Sam talked about engaging the voice of people everywhere in their own communities as part of decision making with immediately actionable insights on how they can make their lives better and move towards flourishing. Pete talked about how that is not one issue, but it's, it's everything from water to regenerative ag to monetary policy to legal policy to economic policy to tax policies and was talking about carbon credits. And those are all inextricably related in this whole vessel of society that we're trying to navigate. So then Wendy talked about well maybe we're kind of all pieces of some kind of jigsaw puzzle. And if we could create a table and put ourselves on it and find the edges in the corners maybe something really beautiful is there in the lifetimes of work that have have shaped us all into what we are. And so then the I then it's like okay well let's get something stuck to the wall and start playing and Jerry argued that we're throwing spaghetti and it's not sticking so from from a builder standpoint a few years back what I what I tried to do when I said okay. If we look down at worksite earth from outer space, and if that is a single finite vessel that we all inhabit that we're trying to navigate through the millennia towards something that looks more like people with integrity flourishing and community and less like a hellish place where we're all exploiting people without ever more powerful weapons, then we have to look at that in whole as an aggregate project for planet earth that involves all people in the entirety to have the living system, without exception, and figure out what the project or game is that we could play that might work that might last for hundreds of years or or 1000 years that would cause cause the type of flourishing abundant life and culture and and and heaven to manifest itself as we as we want it to. So my, my proposal based on we're here on a conversation on sense making. And I think it was someone mentioned the guy's name from MIT but I think he was also one of the early people to discover that in order for a mind like as we think about artificial intelligence is in order for a mind to be able to function it has to be embodied in and you can't just have this abstract thing. And one of the things that I've been realizing is we're talking about all these different parts of the whole. We're talking about sense making maybe that's something like a mind, but that mind is one system of the total body of organs that have to function together in a in a whole system. So a few years back. This is maybe from my background and joint ventures but in in large scale infrastructure almost everything is too big for any company to do on its own. And so you have to set up and jump into special purpose vehicles created for the things that are that are too big for anyone. And what that does is it creates an embodiment through which you can interact with the world and bring intention and reality. And so I, I tried to think okay well who could own that that vessel and the answer was no one it had to exist on the basis of governance, and someone asked this question how have we not figured out these issues of governance and power yet. And how do we engage all people in their own destiny as we all navigate towards towards the future that we're trying to build. And I think that's something like a like a joint venture it's something like a design build project. And so, for anybody that's interested what what the quest that I'm embarking on is I can't find an organization that is actually looking at the earth as a whole and gathering the smartest minds together to couple indigenous wisdom and spiritual wisdom and the best of science and technology into an actual plan of action with good governance to confront and overcome the totality of global issues we're facing, forge the future that we all want in a way that that hopefully can last over time. So that's kind of why I set up this this Lyonsburg legal and governance infrastructure as an empty vessel and starting point where we could, like Wendy said, bring pieces of the puzzle together into a place that nobody owned it existed as a commons for the good of all that was publicly accountable. See how those pieces laid out and then to Pete's point, actually start as if we were responsible for making it happen. So we're kind of resourcing and getting the different road maps aligned and people dedicated and focused and resource to be able to actually compete these pieces of the puzzle, in a way that was all also connected as central infrastructure through which we could make sense of and kind of solve all these things so my suggestion is we treat this like a, like a joint venture to build something bigger than any of us that we can. So I'm going to embark on that quest and I would I would love for anybody to join me but I think we've been we've been talking for a couple years and it would do my heart so much good if we could like Wendy suggested get all the pieces on the table. Go through Jerry's brain, get them all sorted out, then let's figure out and quarterly sprints how to get things, you know, resourced get people out of scarcity, dedicated time, and get rolling so that's my suggestion so much love everybody sorry if that took too long but I wanted to try to summarize pragmatically with a suggestion. And we have we have all the legal and fundraising infrastructure and everything in place to start doing that and empowering things. Jordan, thank you. Can I just quickly react to what was said. So, so I'm, I can't say I've finished the book I'm in, I'm in part three of a, I don't know 1500 page book. Some of you may have read about the legendary Robert Moses. Robert Moses was a builder who started out as a big idealist and Robert Caro wrote a book called the power broker about Robert Moses. It's not a new book. I think it came out in 1973 or something like that. The reason I'm mentioning the book the power broker now is because it's a cautionary tale of a guy who started out extremely idealistic started out with the goal of reforming government and, and so on and he, he went down a very complex and some would say problematic path in, in order to get things done. Now, he was trying to get things done in the city of New York and in the state of New York, where he had to overcome a lot of opposition. And it might be naive of us to think that, Jordan, that if we that we're not going to meet with opposition, and the skills and techniques and tactics and strategies that it takes to overcome political opposition and institutional opposition, I'm not trivial. So, I'm not, I'm not nacing at all. I'm just saying let's have our eyes open. Just how hard it is to make change when faced with institutional and transigence and and powers that be that David David I just just this was 10 seconds of background I just lost my entire, you know $10 million of net worth as a result of encountering corruption and the largest church, church project I was doing for a religious organization, and the county, and the largest county by landmass in our great empire here in the states, both complete, complete corruption, spoke truth to it, encountered what happens when people speak truth to structures of institutional power, and, you know, 150 families, you know lost their jobs and whatever so. So what you're saying is, is exactly true it's like this is, this is not, this is not naive it's not for the faint of heart we are probably engaged in something like a battle for the future of our lives and society as we know it and it might be that you know this decade is the time to do it because the existing forces that who are who depend on others poverty and oppression and ignorance and darkness are armed with the end breaking superpowers it's going to be a lot harder. So it's so I think we need to, we need to bring the fullness of that into your point on on Robert Moses it's like yeah it's it's like the Lord of the Rings and worse where it's like it's really hard, you know Jerry mentioned power and it's like yes that's such a corrupting force and it's like that gets to these issues of governance it's like how do we set up based on everything we've learned as a human species. Like, how are we going to manage this so so that we are most likely to have the highest integrity result, and how do we set up the freedoms to, to create the checks the balances the. Yeah. The leadership, the Jedi Council's whatever that takes you know. Sure. So, so I just since I was mentioned in the chat now briefly I just want to quickly react and connect to something Jerry said so I'm also a student of the late Robert a Russell a cove Russell a cove I even went to the, the place in university, the room in University of Pennsylvania which houses all this papers and libraries. I was lucky enough to be mentored by someone who worked with Russell a cove Russell a cove wrote a book called idealized design. The design might be the right starting point was finding what Peter Kaminsky. Sorry not Peter Gil friend said. So yeah I agree that it's better not to start with the woe is me. We're going to face opposition let's start with idealized design. It's a method. It's a framework, and I think it's the right, right approach. I'm David and I actually was part of an idealized redesign project for a cough, right after I graduated in Buenos Aires, Argentina, straight and tell some of the time. And I love the process is really interesting. Let's go when the Rick, and then pause for a moment will be at the 90 minute mark at least at that point. Maybe a gallon bill you want to pitch in and then we want to consider. I think I have a feeling this is the beginning of a string of conversations around this topic. It's sort of how and where to hold them etc should talk about before wrapping, and also maybe a little bit of debrief about what's working about this and what's actually not Wendy and Rick. Okay, so I've had about 10 thoughts and say, I'm going to try and make sense of them. Thank you Jordan for the, for the excellent summary and laying out kind of next steps and the dialogue that followed that I for me yeah that's that's kind of the motivation for me to create this tapestry in this framework really it becomes a catalyst that there the urgency is so there right and I'm hearing that as we the more we talk and when we move from the idealized version into application. I'm also sensing from most of the organizations that I'm people that I'm talking to a frustration right of, hey, we may even have a good sense we may even have people have thought through entire new systems and new structures but moving it into application moving it into where it exists in the real world is a whole another ball of wax. And that's what David you were just talking to you as soon as you try to apply it you know we run into to a lot of, we need to be aware of and really cognizant as we move into those spaces of what can happen, who might get control of the information or what kind of other organizations are coming into play. For me, I was seeing that very clearly as well that whole process of how we, we as humans go out we need to explore into new ways to do things, kind of like active research on all levels right and then there are phases where we apply in the real world and that was actually became the x axis of the of the grid that I created. There are projects and there are people that are working in the spaces of expansion and spaces of divergent thinking and other ones that are working in spaces of convergent making something creating artifacts, making a new app a new platform or whatever. And it's important it's one of the ways that we can take this ball of yarn and start to pull it apart. Right another one is like the sectors of society on a holistic framework. There's a million, there's lots out there, I picked one, it doesn't matter. The point is to start to pull this ball of yarn apart, and then see who, who exists in the sector together, not just who but what's the funding, where's the funding aligning with this, and where are the resources aligning with this so if you're a person with a question rather than something to offer if you have a need, rather than something to offer at least you'll get closer to finding some of those resources. So that goes back to what Samuel was saying. There's a lot of people in this sphere, who knew about donut economics, right like if you had had a place to go where you could see what are people talking about in economics where they're exploring new concepts not necessarily what's what's already out there but right, what are the resources around that and what it'll least get you closer. Right so anyway that's I love what I'm hearing. Yay. Thanks Wendy. Michael I want to apologize I missed you in the, in the lineup entirely let me go to you right this second my sincere apologies I lost my thread of, of who would step in and who happened. Thanks. I, I know I missed the beginning of the call and I came in on on the horizon sharing horizon scanning and and since since then I posted something that about that in the in the chat in relation to factor my project. Since then. I'm also hearing me see I'm just going to read some things from a couple of notes that I was making I. I'm just really struck by out of Wendy said Jordan said, you know, many people have brought up. There's a lot of variations of, of individual pieces of information, which have no meaning on their own, or little meaning or not as much meaning as somebody thinks they have. More of a difference when they are brought together and connected, and that, you know, interoperability between different platforms and different efforts is the key. There's there's a study that I mentioned to some of you that Ali Bream did of all the people who are having meetings like this. The OGMs, the CTA is the Moz Fests, the, you know, just all the people who are on this page, he counted over 400 of them. And, and us deciding to have another or, or, or that, you know, we're the one that's going to unite them all. Interoperability is not realistic, and interoperability is the key so that, you know, if we all, if we all have our own stashes of information, we can only do so much. We could all bank it, essentially, and, and create, you know, the ability as you have with currency to exchange between, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a substance that, you know, is readable in different contexts, and can be exchanged among different groups, interoperably. And everybody is in control of the, of what they generate, whether they know of what its significance is or not. You know, working on giving people the interoperable tools to retain and access and organize the information they have. It might just be one picture they took of something that they can't explain, but if they can put it into this system that operates that allows the futurists, the researchers that, you know, the medical researchers to see this data point and see how it connects to other things that they have access to in other silos. That's what's key so it's like sort of, it's at once this bank and, and a commons. Yeah, I mean, I was DMing to Jordan, you know that that the existence of of a place for an effort like factor to contribute to the commons contribute itself to the commons even is something that's lacking and yeah, sorry, I'm tripping over a lot of the thoughts that I was was having but, you know, the individual granular, taggable, connectable pieces of content that each of us possess. We need to have an interoperative way to share them. I'm really interested in talking to anyone who's interested in that, which I think most of you are. So, thanks. Thanks Michael, and we had a series of calls called the generative commons calls that spun out of an exciting conversation we had some months ago, and then we, we didn't sort of complete that task. We set aside that set of conversations but the notion of a generative commons was, I think the thing you're describing Michael which is where do we put the stuff we want to contribute into this, hopefully generative commons. Right and the idea was to have a generative commons agreement, which would be which would read something like hey, by my participation in this group which is under the umbrella of terms of engagement. And the idea that we're aiming, we know that some of us need to make a living in different ways but we're aiming toward putting everything we can into the commons and making it useful to everybody else on the planet. So there was that impetus. Let's go Rick then go ahead Michael. You were just saying I just want to respond that. I didn't get to say that paradoxically I think that decentralized is key to the commons. I mean, you know, everybody individually having the access to the information that they generate which is now in the hands of others, whether it's, you know, the stuff that Facebook knows about you or Google knows about you or your doctor knows about you or, you know, just the data that you generate. Having it decentralized having you able to add to it and organize it and then therefore able to usefully share it when somebody's trying to theorize around something oh like, you know, I think this is happening around climate change or this is happening around epidemiology. And, you know, I want anonymized information from X many people and you have the ability to give them that information in a snap so that's, that's the interoperability out of our decentralization that allows a kind of information comments. Thanks Michael big task. Yeah, yeah it is. Rick thank you. I just want to compliment Jordan on his synthesis I sent something in jest to you, but I thought it was a very nice summary but I'd like to elaborate on the issue of the power structures. There are a lot of oligarchies but oligarchies are also in, in, in, in formed by eclectocracies as well. So the whole economic financial system is a very shady enterprise, and we shouldn't be naive about it because those vested are going to are going to come against us with anything that's likely to disrupt their power. I coined this phrase and I'll be interested in some on maybe commenting on this, he may like this but you know we we, we have what I call a so a social leadership personality disorders who are in power. Mega maniacs the sociopaths, narcissists and authoritarians, and we haven't worked out how to develop governance structures to put them on the sidelines. And you know as long as the power is essentially corrupt, you know decentralization yes, I think sometimes that gets romanticized, you still need to have some central governance to guide it and so one of the things that I like to talk about is the distinction between values and virtues and I hear a lot of business people talk about values and virtues and they're not very clear about it. And in fact, value value structures are contrasting value structures is the thing that actually sets us up against each other. And we need to think about what is the constellation of virtues that's going to govern our governance proposals. If we're not clear about our virtues, then it's very difficult to provide guidance to our conflicting value systems that are always going to be there and so the idea of unity is a myth, the best we can do as alignment so I'm not in this unity and I'm talking themes, you know, they're, they're good and they're good and songs and music and whatever but we're not going to get the alignment, and we're not going to get the unity we have to work on alignment, and people looking the same direction. So we have some middle ground that we can see this isn't all of our best interest I'm Rick and I'm done spoken. Let's go. Let's go to Gil, then, Bill, and then back to Kevin who sort of checked in earlier but I just want to see what else you had to throw in if you want to. So, Gil. Yeah, so I'm late to the call I apologize sort of I've been on our conversation reading and discussing the late Rabbi Jonathan saxes last book called morality which is an incredible read and touches on many of the things we're talking about with great insights so that number one, number two, wow to this call I've sort of come in from a fire hose for the last 40 minutes on trying to catch up and stand and chat which is fastest moving chat I've seen on one of our calls. So, you know, trying to catch my breath here. Let me pick up on what Rick said actually by way of what Michael said. It really strikes me at this point you know Michael there are no doubt there are more than 400 groups. Maybe there's 4,000 maybe there's 20,000 the more than barrier that's great this planetary phenomenon of you know people who sense this moment and want to move in a particular direction and how that stitches together as part of a mystery. Who are we to say that we're the ones will will unite them all well we're not. We want to challenge that in two ways, as Rick said uniting them always in the job. And who are we well no we're not the ones to unite them all we're the ones to do what we're good at doing and to offer what we're good at doing to the world, and see who wants to play. And that's the nature of how things happen you know you you make an offer you make a provocation people respond or they don't. What I'm concerned about here is that the perfect is the enemy of the good. And, you know, we are right now in this country, reaping the harvest of 50 years of a concerted political strategy going back to pal memorandum. So what we've seen been playing out on the radical right for these last 50 years just not a random thing. It's not disorganized it's not not trying to find unity. It's a little alignment and saying here's a plan who wants to play. And in their case they had it well finance which is a certain kind of advantage but not the only necessary piece of that. So, I'm just really, I'm, I'm sort of shocked and not surprised that whatever, whatever you all did that led up to Jordan's summary Jordan that was an astounding thing that you just did. I guess summarized what I guess was a couple of hours of conversation. And I'd love to talk with you more. But in addition to summarize the conversation, Jordan put an offer on the table. It was very explicit. It was very grounded. I don't know if it's the right thing to do or not, but he put this offer on the table and no one responded to it we went we, it kind of the conversation continued about this and that and other things that are interesting and relevant. But I'm kind of stunned that we didn't respond to that provocation and say, yeah, that's a good place to start or no that's not a good place to start. David, David's first response was to talk about how complicated it is to get shit done in a corrupt world well that's true. I mean, I don't know you, but it's obvious. And for me didn't add anything to it didn't build on what Jordan offered it was kind of a diversion of like, so yeah, we do need to deal with that at some point but where I want to start is. What's the world we want. Can we take, you know, can we start from what Jordan put on the table I don't mean to point it at you specifically Jordan but you know, you build shit in the world you have a certain sensibility about getting stuff done so you know, it's a starting point. And what, you know, should we perhaps, you know, what if we said yes we'd like to pursue that further, and then have some other conversations which we dive in on that. You know, look at what's the magnetizing vision, look at what's what are some of the key steps to get there along the way very much bring up the concerns that David raised and that other people will raise but in the context of a momentum towards something. And that is just kind of a, you know, shit is hard to do because we know shit is hard to do. End of rent sorry. Gil, thank you for the rent and thank you for bringing the attention or your, our attention back to what Jordan did in the offer Jordan made. I feel like I'm actually standing a little close to Jordan's offer because he and I became friends a year or more ago, and we've been involved in lots of these sorts of conversations and we're just overdue now for a check in to figure out okay what where how does this go. And Jordan's meta project is pretty familiar and high in my mind so I didn't go back to it partly because I'm like, damn that Jordan, I just need to sit down and talk with you about this. Maybe that's a conversation we have you know with a broader groups that you don't have that conversation 20 times over. And it's important that we organize ourselves in some way or ways that makes sense to us. And the ways we organize won't make sense to everybody so let's figure out different ways to organize where we have some resonance and some common goals out ahead of us. Yeah, would it be helpful if I, if I took like three minutes to try to, to try to very specifically describe what I think it could look like to engage in such a enterprise together. Go for it. I, there's no, there's no, we'd like lost all our language to, to talk about these things but it seems like if a group of people is going to come together you have to decide like well what is it that we're coming together to do. And I think what we're talking we're trying to figure out is, is how do we navigate the vessel of society through the millennia towards its best and highest potential. And how do we do that in a way that that works for us individually in a way that works for our families in a way that works for our local communities that also doesn't set us at war with each other and so you have to stack up all those things. And so, in, at the, at the leading edge of the technology we've developed over thousands of years of how to bring attention into reality. There's very proven processes. Like, let's, you could call them something like lean integrated program management, but, but I think we can do better than that. But it's like, you, in the architects mind you have a design for the, for the world of total integrated well being development and right relationship that we're moving towards. You have all the constituent elements that it would take in order to manifest that you know from governance to learning to well being to the way we treat our, our waters to the way we produce and consume food to the way we do everything right so you stack up all the elements in like a work breakdown structure that would have to manifest in order for that world to do it. And so you end up with a very concrete picture of reality by engaging the specialists and that the engineers and the experts in each of those fields and so you get the picture of the total, the total cathedral we're trying to build with all the attendant systems. So that's like step one is a shared vision and goal that's big enough to gather around. And that's something like, like the highest intention and greatest good that we can conceive of for all people in all places and times. Your second step is then to analyze the existing forces and conditions. So you create the gap that you're transforming from what currently is in all its, in all its terror and hardness and challenges to this better thing. And then there's, there's a technology called poll planning that's rooted in, in like the Toyota manufacturing system and adapted to volatile real world environments and construction, where you then just backwards plan it's like well if we started here and got there. What would have happened along the way and you do that in reverse so you don't scare yourself into thinking you can actually achieve it. So what you end up with is you end up with a series of milestones at increasingly more granular level of detail across all the different set across the the total properly ordered set of goals that have to simultaneously be achieved to bring the totality into existence. So here's a group with a whole group that has engaged in that process, looking at like a 90 day world that says, Okay, here's the new world that we're moving towards. Here's the old world that we're departing from on this quest towards our destiny. Here's the approximate steps and milestones across the total range of things that would have had to happen. And based on that, here's what we're going to do in the next 90 days. And with that, here's a few commitments that we can make to each other so gills going to do some things and I'm going to do some things and Jerry's going to do some things. And here's the way those are are related. And you can get it off the ground just like you, you send a person to the moon or you, you build a roadway or you do a Manhattan project and you just start resourcing the intelligently formulated critical path. And you're measurably bringing the stated reality into the and then if you're going to the moon and you decide you haven't invented the math yet, then it's like okay well we need to invent new math. Add it to the list, right it just becomes a pragmatic reality so if we don't know how to govern ourselves if we don't have wisdom leadership if we don't know how to hear the voices of the people it's like. Add it to the list and it all just ends up in a structured plan of action that you're either are or are not measureably executing on each month. And then I think if you can, if you can be able then to send out. So, so when we're building a half billion dollar dam, then what you do is each month you send out a report to the owners. Let's say that's the people of the earth and you say okay people who are supervising the project for worksite earth. That's what we plan to do this month based on the critical path. Here's what worked and what didn't work. Here's the challenges that we're facing. And here's the resources we need in order to get, you know, Pete and Wendy assigned it to be able to advance the critical path and all these different places right, and then you use do or don't execute it and you send out another monthly report. And that's, I think, can be the basis for a massive crowdfunding campaign if we can get people following along going back to these things getting published if it's like okay we have a growing snowball of people executing on a critical path, reporting out very pragmatically measurable results. And if this is valuable to you, then then let's get involved and let's all fuel this, let's all lift each other up and I think there's a there's a specific way we can do that so that's what I think it looks like. Now I absolutely have to bounce from this call near the top of the hour. I'm happy to pass the condo someone else and let the call proceed. And I'm going to pass the mic momentarily to bill asking him to recap everything and tie an ice bowl on this whole conversation. Awesome. Just awesome. I don't have much to add. Personally, I've taken the time I've been involved with OGM and stuff to come across how much I need to unlearn about what I learned as a young white boy growing up in New York City in the United States. It's been generative and embarrassing. But one thing I've come across recently as I've started to do some reading from people who are not did not grow up in the United States that I grew up in and looking at certain just looking at a book by The Banana Leaves which is written by a young scientist or his last name was Hernandez and it's about indigenous science, which I think is going to be extremely educational for me. I really appreciate what Jordan has laid out the one thing that came to my mind while I was listening. I've read this wonderful book by Amitav Ghosh that's out now called the nutmegs curse, which is a very interesting view of basically what it's been like to be on the other side of colonialism. But in there he writes about the people of protesters at Standing Rock were not really presenting a set of demands or advocating policy positions they were living and performing an alternate way of life. So I would like to propose that perhaps we can think about how how to carry on a project as intricate as Jordan proposed, and then alter it is there an alternate way to us to, you know, divide up the responsibility for authority, labor, because I'm, you know, my background is in chemistry and engineering and software. So, you know, I can go to the fish bone as fast as anyone but I've been looking for different ways for us to be together and kind of make pushes me to where Wendy is going with start pushing me into the world that we would like to inhabit. So I think Jordan could list out basically it's there. We need that list. We absolutely need that list. But I wonder if there's just we can. I don't know how to do it. I mean I'm really don't know how to do it. I'm on the edge of like, I'm on the edge. But there is something in what I'm reading about alternatives to the Western colonial enlightened view of how the world universe, economics, political power, social arrangements are that perhaps. Well, I'm, you know, I'd like to know more about it. I'll just say one quick word of that you brought up and I thought you did a great job putting a bow in the conversation I really appreciate that. Which is, this is sort of conversation about hierarchies are terrible and we're walking into a leaderless world and I'm like not so fast not so much. There's a lot in temporary hierarchies, meaning we get together and we're like, let's make a movie awesome and then Susie says, Oh, I've made a movie before let's you know here's how we organize let's do this this this this this, and then like great and for a while, Susie leads us into that effort until it evolves into something else and until some work gets done and so forth and so on. And then somebody else picks up a piece of that and then spins off and forks off and so forth. And so this becomes a little hierarchy because we subordinate ourselves happily and willingly to somebody with a good vision and some superior into experience in the field and apply and that that works pretty well. But a lot of us are holding very different visions about how this thing should evolve. Like like Rick if you and Jordan sat down and compared notes, I think you both got pretty fully fledged visions that aren't necessarily the same sort of thing but there's probably a lot in common there and that would be a really interesting conversation to hear right. And so we don't have good mechanisms to report back to each other into the center to the generative commons if I will, about how those things might evolve. And we don't have ways of shifting and here the metaphor I pick up for some reason is the view master. Like, I'm interested in us sharing lots of data information and then periodically click of the view master and now we're looking at it through Wendy's grid. And because Wendy's grid for the thing we're trying to solve right now for the thing this subgroup is facing is a really nice model. And let's go run with that and that'll spill out into some tasks and project plans, and so forth and we'll go do that for a while. And then we'll hit a wall or bump into some other projects. And then we might have to bump around and find a different way of working for another stretch of period. And I'm really interested in what does this environment look like where each person coming into this flows, smelling that there's people trying to fix stuff can find their way to the models that work for them, the tasks that work for them, the collaborators that work for them to take a bite out of the elephant because the way you get an elephant is one bite at a time. And I think we're facing like not just an elephant of course we're facing mega problems that we wind up in every now and then on OGM conversations. So I'm going to need to book you right now happy to pass the condo wherever things they'll be on for a little while, and wrap the call whatever you wish to. I've got a GM here too but may I just make one, one comment to get in the end of the transcript transcript on the being versus doing and the the integrated program management report approach and the functional unity that we need to act as if we were a body and have the coordinated to execute. And I really appreciate what you what you said you're it's like it's, it's very nice to think that we could suddenly self organize with no leadership or structure into something resembling but but we can't. And so but if the project is to change our way of being, then, then that requires that we we design that together, you know that becomes part of the part of the project and maybe the project itself is to design our new way of being a way of relating to one another, our new way of collaborating, our new way of share cating and allocating resources and responsibility and, you know, all of those different things and so I think it's like it's simultaneously a project management approach and sitting at the feet of indigenous elders to learn about how to functionally be in community overall. And so it's like I think we can do 100% of those both together. So when you have a have a complete picture you have a way of being that actually brings into reality that the future we all desire for our children and grandchildren. Thanks Jordan. Eric, do you mind if I pass the calm to you. Can I just ask a quick question which is any thoughts before you leave on. He just dropped off any. I want to ask like what next steps. So I guess we'll figure that out through email or whatever other channels, because stay on if you want to continue talking. If you were asking Jordan. No, it wasn't although Jordan. Sure, to ask that question to I was thinking just in terms of OGM. Asking Jerry, you know if there's any if he came away with any, you know, next steps and his thoughts but but we'll figure it out. It's fine. If you if you would like Wendy I could tell you what how I would do it. On a building project I've discovered it's it's nearly impossible to act in harmony as a group without regular rhythms of communication and so my my proposal to Jerry is going to be that we position the open global mind that we're trying to build in parallel with the other organ systems that need to be brought into existence, which include the ones that that you're working on. So what I was going to do here, my goal was on February 1 basically to kick off project meetings for that meta project idea to create that that table. So to speak where we could lay out and see what the puzzle pieces are, and then start developing critical paths seeing how they relate to one another see who needs what what resources and how we start bringing into reality this body, this body that can create the future that we want and so I can, I think I that were me I would treat it like a joint venture process and start setting up regular meetings and then kind of teach people the basic process and communication rhythms that allow us to function and share resources and stuff so if you're interested in that. I'll probably try to kick that off. February 1 and then I hope that also brings into existence the fullness of what a open global mind is and the fullness of what a tapestry is and the fullness of what you know funding mechanisms are and all the different things we need so. Okay, great. Thanks, I look forward to hearing more about that Jordan I'd be definitely interested. Okay, cool. Cool. Thank you everyone, I have to drop off by. Jordan very quickly, very quickly Jordan. I like the metaphor of the tapestry but I think there's so many different threads here that I think to try and pull things together into a tapestry. There almost needs some pre planning of what that tapestry might be, because I come I come from healthcare. So I'm not the business world I come from an equity perspective. I've always worked in the space might have a generous mindset. It's so different to your mindset. I can tell that's not bad it's good, but we have to have people very contrasting mindsets to come to the table to be able to. Yeah, you know that's that's that's the pre planning about the code design so anyway. So we've been just for a little little background we've been we've had some some a pretty diverse range of minds engaged in building kind of the underground infrastructure for something like this for a few years and so there's there's quite a bit of depth and hundreds of pages of writing and from a variety of different perspectives that have, you know, from indigenous wisdom to people who have built billions of dollars at the infrastructure to doctors and attorneys and governance experts and stuff that have all kind of weighed in on the framework. And then so I think what you just said is key it's like okay well now let's let's get the right people based on who we all know into the right space to co create something. We have to all kind of learn and get up to speed on each other's bodies of work, and like what we've all learned through our lifetimes, and that the totality of all those perspectives and skills is then what would let us go okay well, based on everybody's in this room we can probably execute this next 30 days and get from here to here, and then we'll we'll look out from that mountain top hopefully with even some more bright minds in the room and do it again. But I agree completely it's like all about who's in the room and and humbly co creating based on our best collective wisdom and skill. But it's also getting people who are not even you know who's who are the voiceless involved, you know that's the one thing about that book about rules for revolutionaries which was so key was the stress of Bernie's work. Whatever you think it is politics is separate just look at what he was able to do. And he handed over his message to his is, and it was incredibly effective because people bought in whether you agree with or not. But there's a lot to be learned about self organizing soft generating systems, and you have to let go of your, you know, your own particular cherish way of doing things because they're going to change. So you're going to do a good job of it all the time. And the book goes into that. So it's a question of how it can, you know, create that type of sort of massive involvement. Yeah. And I think it really, it helps like that when when we get out of the short term isolated thinking to think about okay well this, this thing that we're creating has to be able to help billions of people flourish over the next 1000 years and so it's like you stop thinking about yourself and you go okay well what are the processes and mechanisms and way of being bought and what are the rules by which a society can can evolve through the generations cooperatively to bring about the reality and so Yeah, what you're saying is so true and it's like that's totally lost in our political discourse because we're it's like, it's like you're in one nation and one political party thinking about an election. Oh, I just wanted to make sure as Stacy did you want to say something. I just wanted to say to this point, I really think that there was something that Sam rose could inject to this that would come even before this point. And that was like my hope for this fall was to really focus on the question and the way he framed it in order to then move to what Jordan's talking about. Thank you. Yeah, I think yes, so Stacy I think what it's like these things are so hard because it's like where do you start when we all are bringing lifetimes of work to the table and what you're what you're talking about is exactly right and so I think we've all been parts of these groups that have approached these things and gone through processes. And I think what you're pointing to is so critical that it's like there's a pre process for whatever new centers of gravity is going to come together where it's like we have to maybe be patient and back up several steps and go okay if we wanted to get there to that level of trust and cooperation, then the group of people interested in that would have to kind of start over at the beginning and go through the wisest process we could all design to make sure that we are are sharing the vision and value structure and kind of go so I really respect what you're saying and I think you're exactly right. Thank you. I think there's been a lot of information that we need to digest. So like if we take a step back rewatch this and make notes and before we come together again, we can then share what directions we're thinking and come to a consensus. Sounds fantastic. Yeah. What's so good to be with you guys thank you. When we have a resource that we can read about everything you've been talking about. The transcript is saved. Jerry's going to post the chat in the transcript and the video. Yeah, I'm talking about more in depth, more in depth and what's been covered here to this is just a high level. He was talking about asking Jordan. Yeah, so I'm Rick, I'm trying. I've been mostly communicating in forums like this. But I can, I can send you some things if you're interested I mean there's. Yeah, I love to do deep dive deep dive. This has been a horizontal, this has been very much of a horizontal level. And there's times when you have to go deep dive into stuff. I think they call it a spike in agile, right? Yeah, totally. Pete, it's good to see you. I've been, I've been missing you just to say that before we jump off. I appreciate you. I appreciate your unique skill sets and I miss you so look forward to our time here in the new year. Okay, thanks everybody. Right, Mr. Eric and Rick, great to meet you guys. Stacey, Tracy, Jordan.