 Let me turn on this is the generative commons call on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021. Good. Let's just let's just dive in forever. I will confess that I meant I think we ended our last call saying let's invite a whole bunch of other people who belong in this call to this call and I did no such thing. I didn't invite anyone. I was I was obsessed with trying to figure out how to pitch OGM to raise some funds for OGM fellowships. But it's still something we should do. And then I and then I sort of mentioned this also to a friend whose question to me was, are you sure this is a problem, which I asked then on the on the matter most chat for this, he's like, you know, is this an issue? And and I think it's I think it's an important issue to sort of clarify how the ground rules for playing in these in these sorts of projects are different from the typical ground rules over intellectual property and participation. But that said, there's no there's no protest movement in the streets for people who are missing a you know, a generative commons agreement, for example, there's all this activity on the P2P foundation about people trying to define this because they realize it's a problem. David as we know is working hard on this because he sees it as a problem. I'm always amazed at how we connectors, how little we connectors are cooperating. And I'm trying to understand why part of it, of course, is there is a scarcity problem because not many people see the need for the work we're doing or see it in the abstract, but not in the concrete. So that's one aspect. There's, I do think that creating commons, we have to worry about enclosure. And that way, the legal status of any IP we might create. Hi. If we wanted to remain in the commons and to remain something that is useful for all, I think that matters a lot. And people are protective of their secret sauce. I don't think, as you said, you're you're thinking about designing from trust. So I don't think this is the most important concern. We should have waited five minutes. That's okay. Well, we can catch everybody up. Yeah. And the whole another thing I've been talking about, which is not about ownership, but about the issue of face. I don't know if you remember. People are protective of something they see as half-baked because they're worried about, oh, it's not final. It's not good enough to show the world yet. It's work in progress and my reputation is a bit at stake. And connection is never finished. Connection is always in progress. So anything we do in that space is always, we need to be reassured that it's something that won't be enclosed. Nobody will run away with it, but nobody will judge us on this emerging thing. We're dealing with emergence a lot, and it changes how the notion of sharing. So basically incentivizing sharing, there's so many dimensions. There's ownership, there's emotional, there's and perceived value. And trying to help people understand the value of this in progress network building and network of people, network of ideas, network of whatever, and making it a thing of value, even when it's necessarily unfinished, partly. But I think we need to worry about it. Well, welcome all. Most of you joined in the middle of Marc-Antoine's sentence, so I figured I'd catch you up to what we were kicking around. This is the generative commons call, and last week after our call, I mentioned this to a friend, and he said, well, is there really a problem? I then asked on the Mattermost chat, is this an issue? And we think it is. And part of the problem is it's an obscure issue. It's an issue that that a few of us care about a lot, but more of us ought to care about more, and I'm not paraphrasing Marc-Antoine here. I'm sort of adding in some to the conversation. But also, I think this is part, this feels to me like it's part of the conversation about how to switch from scarcity mindset to abundance mindset philosophically as a whole, which is really important because, well, I'm going to over generalize here, but capitalism kind of ate our brains back around the Industrial Revolution. And suddenly, everything had a price. Suddenly, everything was a market and competitive. Suddenly, we sort of moved into this place of a business's job is to sequester natural resources. There were enclosure movements around everything. People got pushed off the land. The ways people made a living went from self-subsistence to must get a job or you can't buy things to have your family survive. All of that happened. And we're in some kind of punctuated equilibrium right now. We're in some kind of deep transitional phase that may or may not include most jobs dissolving. Because I actually think we're heading toward the great unemployment. I think automation, this machine learning thing, is incredibly powerful. Machines just get cheaper, faster, smarter, better. And humans get older, more expensive, crankier. They need to be managed, all that kind of thing. And the battle between if a machine can do this task and a human can do this task, which one would you pick, that battle is lost easily by the human. And worse, in some contexts, if it's a legal context like screening for cancer, if the algorithm does a better job than the human, you will be sued for not turning the job over to an algorithm. Then the question becomes, can humans become cyborgs in the middle? Can they become centaurs? And those two words are being used for human augmentation or amplification, which then preserves jobs. Anyway, I went down a long tangent. But if we're going into a world where lots and lots and lots of work is going to be automated away and places where people can make a living are going to start kind of disappearing on us, we need to have some kind of a different mindset where there's an assumption of abundance where there's, maybe it's a basic income. That's a whole sort of political economic discussion that we don't have to have here. But I think a piece of what we're aiming for, or a piece of what showed up in my head when I started thinking about the generative commons agreement was, how do we turn the earth and prepare a way to work together to create that abundance together and still make a good living while doing so? And it's different philosophically from the old method of making a living, which wasn't so much together. It was like next to each other. And so one of the questions Marc-Antoine just asked is, those of us who already sort of had this frame of mind, why aren't we collaborating more or interchanging more information? Is that kind of, I don't know how you phrase it exactly, I don't remember, but you want to go back there? We seem to be quite willing to exchange information, but working together in teams seems to be like, we're connecting people, but we're not working connector to connector so much. I find that fascinating. Because we've all developed our own secret sauce of how to do the connection, how to do the facilitation, how to do this, and there's no unified field theory behind it so that we can unify those practices. And I will add another small tangent in here, which may be relevant, which is I'm discovering a simple way of explaining OGM, and it's maybe my current favorite, is that we want to be the glial cells in the new global brain, in the emerging global brain. Now, most people think that neurons do all the work in the brain and glial cells, and there's several kinds of glial cells. Glial cells are like the glu, glial cells hold the neurons in place, glial cells kind of branch between neurons, they help, they attach to the myelin, but they actually play some role as neurotransmitters as well. And I'm making the analogy because I think I'm moving towards some kind of global mind, global brain. The internet was clearly the superconducting lubricant that started our hyperconnecting, but as Marc-Antonio said, we're not actually collaborating that much. The tools don't fit together, the data doesn't fit together, each of us is on a different path. So a piece of OGM's mission, I think, is to find and connect the tools, the bodies of data, the bodies of work, the communities, so that we can go sort out this global brain thing. And so I'm using this analogy of glial cells because I don't know that we're going to invent the group process that dissolves conflict, but boy, I know dozens of people who are doing brilliant work on that front and they're each separately sort of doing brilliant work. And how do we make them easy to find? How do we interconnect their work so that it's more useful because it's superpowered, all those kinds of things. And it's the glue work, it's the connective work, it's the holding in place work, it's the making things visible and functional work that I think is a lot of what we're doing. And then back to the topic at hand, and to do that well, we need to figure out a way to blend ideas and blend data and blend organizations that makes each organization feel comfortable about what they're doing and where we're all heading together. And that was just a riff of current thinking. Go ahead, John. Great, great intro. Mark and Jerry, wonderful start for this conversation. Quick thought. I think we need a word in addition to abundance and scarcity and maybe adequacy, maybe sufficiency. In other words, there are definitely things that there's not an abundance of, but hey, you had enough. There are definitely carbs of all kinds, not just ones we eat. So that's one thing is to have a category for that. And kind of related to that and kind of related to what Mark said. Yeah, there's this other interesting kind of psychic scarcity of it isn't even just status. It's like because you could have adequate or sufficient status, but then there's some kind of a threat to it. And then all of a sudden you're thrust into status scarcity and you start doing non-common nurturing things in order to try to either reestablish or better establish your status. And so we need both soft glove metrics around that so that we can, because people do not like even to have their status described. We need to be able to handle that with care and with care that is sufficient to induce a sense of adequacy when we're, in fact, I'm in the old joke. I'm okay, you're okay, or I'm okay, you're not okay. For the first time it was uttered, it was profound and it immediately turned into a sarcastic cliche. That process by which things get devalued between how status supports get turned into sarcastic cliches is, you know, it's psychic cannibalism. It's weird how it works. Psychic cannibalism, I like. So anyhow, just to get you going. John, you're pulling a really important and interesting thing that like raises its head every now and then, which is the difference between abundance and something like enough. And my wife is publishing a book right now that has the eight superpowers for thriving in a world of flux. And one of her superpowers is called know your enough. And it's not a contraction of know you are enough, which is an interesting phenomenon itself. It's know your enough, where when do you have enough. And abundance implies over abundance implies surf it implies like who who, which isn't necessarily what everybody means by the word. So I like that you're driving us toward more accuracy on it. And there's some words that feel like barely enough. So satisfying fears like barely enough to me, it doesn't feel like sort of comfortably enough. And also, there's a whole separate little riff I do sometimes on the difference between resilience and sustainability versus thriving and flourishing. And the analogy I used to explain that is that a rubber band is elastic. It bounces back to its original shape and sustainability and resilience seem to imply elasticity like we took a blow like a tsunami hit the shoreline and we were able to kind of come back to where we were. Where thriving and flourishing are more like plastic, which can reshape itself to some new environment and can change a lot. And thriving and flourishing kind of open the lid open the top for change for productive change for constructive change for creating a system that's better than it was before. And I don't know if everybody would agree that when reading into those words, those particular attributes or dynamics. But I think that if we're trying to switch people to an abundance mindset, which is a happy meme, like it's out there and a lot of people are working on that, do we need to change the phrasing around abundance mindset? Is that like do we need to get people to understand when they have enough doesn't feel really compelling? Like it feels like you're going to cut them off at the third drink or something like that. Any thoughts? Just real quick while I'm at a red light here. Abundant electricity, you know, maybe there's some complexities. There's definitely the issues of storage and transmission and sunk cost and infrastructure, which will keep the price up. But I think that's the one area where the abundance people are. It's an example of an area where the abundance thinking and the contrariness of the abundance thinking is an appropriate way to jar us because we it's hard for us to think about a world of free electricity or near next to free electricity. And we should try to get it. It's within reach. And we should think about it because it has significant properties. That's very, very different than enough for anything like food and then also enough for status. There's just very different operations going on there. And so our understanding needs to reflect those differences. I love that, John. And we may well be entering an era of energy too cheap to meter ironically, not from nuclear, but from solar and wind from renewable. And in particular, because once you've installed a solar installation, the maintenance costs are relatively low, but you're not feeding it fossil fuels all the time. So there's no there's no deep cost ongoing. And if you can do enough of that without destroying the earth, making the photovoltaics, which is its own issue. But if you can make enough of it, then suddenly you have, for example, enough enough power to do desalination at the shorelines everywhere, and to turn the ocean into potable water and to replenish the aquifers and a bunch of other stuff because it was waste energy anyway. So weird things that nobody would expect come to mind. And the experiment that comes to my mind when I think about this is, and I just put this in my brain a couple of days ago because this came up in conversation, Xerox Park, the place that invented that sort of didn't quite invent but perfected the mouse and the windowed interface and a bunch of stuff like that, they traded money for time. And by that I mean at one point when a computer memory was exotically expensive and displays were like character displays, everybody had a character, you know, my first computer was an Apple two plus with a 40 column uppercase only amber screen display. That was my first home computer. And I was really excited when I got a Bidak 80 column card and I got 80 columns across and fake descenders, not real descenders, but fake descenders that could do upper and lower case. But at Xerox Park they bought every worker, every knowledge worker, every inventor at park, they gave them a megabyte of memory, a megapixel display and a megabit network connection. They connected all the computers, which wasn't being done, period. And then they said, now let's see what happens. They gave them something that was incredibly scarce, made it a bunch, made it a crazy abundant. And now we're busy wasting. There's a whole bunch of people who prefer the command line and hate the windows interface because we are wasting insane cycle doing this thing we're doing right now, except it makes it accessible to everybody. Right. But by wasting a lot of that resource, we made it really simple here. And Vincent is saying we should probably do a check in and it's probably a good idea because now we've got enough people here. So thanks, Vincent. Let me see if anybody has any thoughts on that and then we'll pause. Thanks, John. And thanks for dragging these cool issues into the conversation. They're really important. Any other thoughts on this? Then let's do a brief check in. How about Michael, Judy, John? You're going to pass? Okay, good. Let's go, Judy, John, Hank. Well, hi, everybody. Let's see. It's an unusual day for me today. I'm doing a peer gadget podcast later today at 1245 Eastern time. It's posted a bunch of different places. I think, Charlotte, let's put it just about everywhere. But it's talking about challenging conversations. When do you need to do them? Under what circumstances? How might you approach it? How do you deal with entrenchment? That kind of thing. With a co-person, Robert from Pittsburgh, who's actually the coach for the rowing team that Charlotte's part of, but he's taught some courses like this at college level. Teaching undergraduates that argument is the beginning of learning in a sense, but constructive argument as opposed to different types. So that's kind of what I'm preoccupied with today. Life is good. Thank you. Brief ironic side note. There's a famous book about difficult conversations. It might even be titled that with four authors, I think, one of whom was on the board of a company that April used to be part of, which had a meltdown because they avoided difficult conversations. Like he did not live up to any part of what he'd been famous for writing about. That was pretty interesting. There's a whole string of books right now. The first one I read was Crucial Conversations. And then after that came difficult conversations within the last five years. And now the newest one is Compassionate Conversations. And it's an interesting kind of trilogy just from the standpoint of various perspectives. But pretty much it's conversations, difficult conversations are important. And it's especially interesting to try to do it in a group. I mean, it's hard enough to do it with one other person. I'll say. But the context of Piragaji is, how do you have a difficult conversation in a group? Such as, let's say this group, and there were some polarizing issues or whatever. So I'll be interested to see how it goes. Thanks, Judy. I'm compelled to add a second side note, which is there's a hostage negotiator named Chris Boss. And he's written a really good book. I've heard him. I've met him shaking his hand, heard him speak. And one of the really interesting things he says is that he considers no the beginning of the conversation. Now remember, he's negotiating with hostage takers. But when the other person has said no to something, they feel like they have more power. Like they've said no and nothing, you know, that the world is still spinning. So they can then enter a conversation with a different frame of mind. So he's happy when somebody says, nope, no way I'm doing that or whatever. Like that gives them power. That's insightful because it does mean they're engaged. Yeah. They're at least thinking about it. They're not just blowing you off completely. Exactly. I think it'll be interesting. And I think it's very relevant for this, in the active sense, or it could be in the in the connective internet sense, too, because I'm sure that as we move into common's conversations, there will be disagreements about various dimensions of things. And the openness of those disagreements is a measure of the goodness of the organization. I remember one more anecdote, and I'll quit. But my husband, who was a psychiatrist, used to tell stories about, you know, the couple that comes in for marital counseling. And when he asked them how things are going and what their areas of difficulty are, half the time they respond, oh, we really don't have any arguments. Then he knows they're really in trouble because they should be having arguments. So anyway. Thank you. So let's, and I apologize for making the check-in slower than an autobie and wandering off into other things. So let's do a brief check-ins and also for Vincent's comments in the chat here, any thoughts sort of connecting you back to this topic or grounding you in this topic? So let's go, John, Hank, Vincent. Yeah, I think I came in early and kind of made my connection. So I'm good. In the interest of time, I'll just let that stand. Sounds great. Thanks. Hank, Vincent, Stacey. Yeah, yesterday afternoon, European time, I conducted a workshop at the Urban Living Let Summit online about leveraging distributed collective intelligence to me that has to do with creating a global generative commons in which conversations in a non-hierarchic space can take place, enrich each other, and move towards generating appropriate actions. So there will eventually be a recording of that workshop for anyone that's interested in listening. That sounds great. Love to see that. Thank you, Hank. Vincent, Stacey, Kylie. What? This time has been quite difficult for me to get to the last few weeks. So yeah, excited to hear kind of like synthesis of what has happened or where the conversation has went from like the first few calls. I've been still thinking about it like on the daily. I had a call this morning. Michael, you'll be pleased. Someone named Ollie from the CTA, the private tech alliance. And yeah, it's like after you have a conversation where it's like, oh my gosh, there's so much overlap. And then the questions come up like, okay, well, we paid someone to do this. Where do we go from here? What pieces are you willing to put in the open and collaborate with? We understand that you probably have intellectual property that you want some of these things to be in your name, but which pieces of them can we share? And so I feel like this is just like, yeah, the constant question, at least because I'm working on a tool that sits in that intersection of like connecting people and the trying to train of thought and I actually probably need some help. I would like to write up a very short and succinct article explaining why we all got here. And I think it's like, we want to build things to change the worlds, right? We think of them as like objects. And then the next step is like, but then we find all these other things that other people are building. And we go, oh, wait a minute, what do we do now? And then we realize, okay, either we can merge projects, compete or interoperate. And if you get to the interoperate piece, then you go down to the next ladder, which is, well, in order to interoperate, we need to have some sort of common language. And that common language for a software platform is typically a categorization system, a ontology, a way to connect the different like schemas and also the social stuff. There's lots of different layers. But I feel like, yeah, that's just, and then the generative comments, conversation of like, why do we actually want to do this? How is it going to be beneficial for both parties to do it? And so, and I'd love to hear if anyone wants to rip off of what I just said. But yeah, that's my check-in. This has been in my heart and mine for a while, the conversation and excited to see where things go. Thanks, Vincent. It feels, and I just put this in the other chat. It feels like we're sort of negotiating the synaptic dynamics. Like we're all little, and Judy may smile at this, we're all sort of little dendrites reaching out to each other to make contact to create the global brain. And it's like, all right, who are you and what do you have to offer? And who am I and how, like, how do we collaborate? And we don't know what the neurochemicals are. The neurotransmitters are a mystery to us. Like, and each of us has sort of developed a bunch of stuff on our own. And we're trying to figure out how to make this all connect. Go ahead, Mark. It's, I did have a bit of a ho-hum reaction to ontologies are the way to connect and categories are the way to connect. No, it's, we all have our categories and our ontologies necessarily. And because we're also individuals, we're not neurons, we're also holons. And that means we have to find a way to connect across different ontologies. So it's a meta connection rather than harmonizing necessarily. And the importance of, of course, we need a way to agree on how to do the meta connection, which is not necessarily simple. And it's the same problem at any level we're looking at. We all have our idea of this is important, this is right, this is our part of the puzzle. And we want to protect it because it's part of our identity. And that's not wrong. The question is, how can we create this thing above all our individual parts that brings them together without losing the individuality and the specificity of each of our visions? And it is really, really important to do it that way. Yeah, I'll say. Yeah, I mean, if this were a top-down kind of organization, you'd just assign people to different parts of the puzzle, wait for the results to come back, plug them in and hope they work, right? And then the whole thing would be owned by the corporation and so done. So we're busy trying to figure out, sort out some other way of working together that allows us to be individuals and to bring our individual contributions in and still make this work. Thanks, Mark Antoine. Let's go Stacey, Kylie and then Mark Antoine for checking if you want to. Stacey, go ahead. I thought we couldn't hear you, but you're fine. Okay. I'm looking forward to a call with Phillip later to hopefully discuss all these things that we've been talking about, at least for the past few days. And maybe he can help me translate what I want to be able to say. And that's it. Awesome. Kylie, thanks for being here. Hi. Nice to meet most of you. I've kind of dropped in this time. It's actually 12.30 a.m. here at the moment. Well, thank you. Don't expect too much sense out of me. However, I did want to start to get a bit of a sense of what's happening in this group. Vincent's been talking to me about it a lot. And I'm going to be moving to a more conducive time zone at some point in the next month. So actually, it's interesting that one of the things that I have to do in order to do that move is to apply for an exemption from a travel ban. I'm in Australia and we're still a prison island. And anyway, one of the things that's kind of come up in amongst that is the needing to spell out why. And one of the reasons that we're using is that we're looking at business. So we're developing a bunch of software products that we want both to be able to sell, I suppose, in sort of a private sense, but also make available in commons as well. So it's a very interesting topic. Thank you. Mark on one than me. I feel I've spoken a lot. But yeah, I think that I've been worrying a lot about data interability and concept mapping, because that's my gist. But I'm really interested now in the question that was asked of me recently about interoperability between these social technologies we all use. Like if somebody's a champion of nonviolent conversation, somebody's a champion of theory you're presenting, how do you define those in a conversation and having a kind of first principles of understanding this is now one of my now in questions. So thank you for saying that because one of the things that feels to me like low hanging fruit for OGM to work on some small subset is to take piragogy, liberating structures, nonviolent communications, whatever, whatever. But in particular, why a wise democracy pattern language in particular bodies of work that have already been synthesized into something like a pattern language, which is thank you so much, fabulous love you so much for having done this different groups around the world. And then making them easily available like bringing them in so that so that a muggle an ordinary citizen who's like, we're stuck like what do we do with our team so that they could find their way to group process maybe have some guidance for implementing it if not find somebody to hire to bring in to run it for them virtually whatever. Like how do we make that. And one of the things I want to propose as a possible framing for this is actually a frame. I think the thing that lights up in my head is a frame for an iPad app or a tablet app that where the frame can hold a variety of different things inside of it and is a guide for meetings. And so so this frame basically has an advice module or a chat bot you can connect to. And if you find your way to world cafe, then there's a frame that world cafe has that steps in and says okay great so do this do this do this. Here's a template if you if the exercise has a template it brings in a template but the frame allows you to switch back and forth between group process while you manage the group process of your team or something like that and makes the bodies of work available through either question answer chat bot decision tree query search discovery or human human router to the things go ahead mark on phone. I feel this is the last thing I want to automate we're speaking about the drivability of an automation of work and disappearance of work. But can we make the community of practice available and find a find a way to provide wormholes for people who want to experiment doing combinations of practices but this is such you know, such a field where the theory doesn't give you that much you need to have lived experience of those practices to practice them well and what I'd really like is having access to global communities of practice for all of this. So that's entirely the goal is to have experts on hand whom you can hire and pay money to to come in and do those things but my alter your ultimate goal is to have these practices just to have humans absorb these practices so that we're all better facilitators co-thinkers etc etc which eventually means that hey I'm I'm now fluent in this and I'm going to pick this and drop it in and boom look we can now implement open space really easily because look there's a really simple way to do that and here's some tools but for me this is like the full employment act for people who are currently expert holders of this these bodies of knowledge and and I want to stand up on top of open global mind a little consulting business or a marketplace to find those people and hire them. Tools for augmenting the capacity of those practitioners for me is absolutely an important goal and again tools for helping people experiment with new combinations you know I just had a wild idea totally flashed through my mind of a kind of world wrestling championship where we have many people using different techniques and see who can solve this problem. I pose this as a cage match I want to have a cage match with other people other users of other tools around a common topic and just see like how we come up with ideas and mix and match right totally agree and cage match is a terrible metaphor because it's combative because only one person comes out the winner so so what's what's the equivalent of a cage match where there's where everybody wins like a sandbox it's called an ecosystem yeah basically go ahead if you kept if you kept the cage match and you just considered that the structure that was producing the cage match was the collective commons then it works. That makes sense and there's we can play with the metaphors and the other other ways of going about it but but I'll just connect that idea back to our current conversation which is if there is a frame that's going to include lots of different kinds of methods and processes and whatever else then we have to have a framework where all the people who created those bodies of work are like yes love to have my work inside that frame right and I will point out that currently there is something sort of like that we call it the web browser and everybody agrees to have their content show up in my web browser and originally when the web was young there were people like no no no you're copying content into your memory so that's a copyright violation and luckily that was stamped out quickly or the web would have died and so now we at least can browse content and do stuff with it but it's not really connected it's not really alive and useful in the ways that I think that that that are just like lying at hand in front of us so how might how might we do that what where do we need to push to make those things come to life and and the nature of this conversation is and under what rules of play should we be doing that and I'm trying to figure out how generative commons can be more like more like Calvin ball with guidelines and less like the marquee of Queensbury boxing rules and a lot less like several layers of contractual agreements right even though somewhere in the back need to be some contracts needs to be some agreements and one of the things we want to wrap ourselves around because we really like it is the creative commons which is a very nice way of managing copyright issues in the world so that's great and and like we don't have to do that work somebody else did it really elegantly what do we wrap around it how do we bring these things together into a bigger idea of how to play together and how does something that's more formal preserve a notion of play that seems important to me because a piece of what we're talking about here is sort of I think playing our way to some solutions to important problems because even if it's hard work it should be hard fun and we can actually do this together and I think in our last call Hank you had recommended we contact some comics artists and other illustrators and creative people to challenge them to explain these sorts of things visually and with some humor and so forth is that right yeah I thought that's a good idea because we're all talking at a fairly high intellectual level here sometimes it was even too high for me when it gets into to real back office it stuff but if we had artists or visualizers or cartoonists they could translate it to the level of anyone we thought would be interested in this and that anyone might include the politicians or or people at NGOs or or young school children or whoever we thought would want to be contributing to to to what the generative commons is so that that was my suggestion yeah I like it um any other thoughts where we are here well there are a lot of complicated uh loose ends I like where this is going it's your we're facing up for the true complexity um one one or a simpler thought is the difference between a a kind of uh expert or practitioner maybe journeyman level um fluency provided by the tool and then the oh but you you really don't you haven't you haven't begun on this path and you need more steps at the beginning and then there's also the oh you're you're an expert and in fact you're at the expert level of creating new um new modifications of these tools um and it strikes me that maybe you were heading towards something like yeah there's this group of people john you just broke up a little bit it strikes me like we're heading toward what uh the the middle level so in other words uh if you're listed you're listed as an ogm uh provider and you have fluencies like I have fluency and and liberating structures I have fluency and uh and the group the group certifies that the group says I'm okay am I dropping out a tiny bit I think I think we mostly heard you I'll come back later it's okay well you're heading you're heading right toward one of the constructs I was thinking we were doing but in two to build ogm calls ago I was dissuaded from using the language of guilds and quests but but my entire motivation for guilds was to borrow sort of the the guild uh properties or dynamics of hey we bring apprentices into this craft oriented guild that has expert knowledge about some set of things that define this guild as opposed to that guild and then we turn these people into yeoman uh sort of the the mid layer I'm forgetting what the second journeyman uh yeoman journeyman is kind of the middle layer where where they're good enough that they can do the work wherever they want and then we have masters of guilds who are the deep experts and you know anybody can can contribute to improving the guild craft but that's exactly where I was heading with that language and we haven't found a substitute for guilds circles seems too new neutered it doesn't seem interesting enough but but this idea of nurturing people in community I think is really important um and so and so the places where you would find the experts to hire in would be metaphorically the guild halls right so right now we need a cooper so we go to the cooper's guild hall and we like shout hey we need a this level expert cooper who's available and that's what happens you know that's how it works or uh the master cooper says ah I think you'd get along with bobby the cooper who like doesn't drink as much as as jim why don't we get bobby over here to work with you uh you know just um human network human connections making the bridging the apps as well um so I would love to stand up things like that I'm not quite sure what we call them and uh how they work so uh part of my effort with the early bill though jam calls just a couple weeks ago was like what's a guild how does it work how do we structure it where do we put it on the wiki who wants to be part of a guild what are the first couple guilds we name I'm totally interested in having that conversation but it got a little stuck just okay great and yes and Jackson on this two of course and um let's let's continue that but let me just make a quick observation about the narrative that you relayed that there were two big different levels of recognition consent or agreement there was the level of oh I'm in the guild hall anybody in the guild hall belongs to the guild okay and then you did a really interesting thing you said uh well so-and-so you know drinks a lot or whatever in other words you switched it into the the both the intimate level but also the um heartening back to that conversation about sufficiency and abundance and scarcity it's like there's a there's an important switch that happens when we when we go to the level of okay yes I accepted you're a guild member but are you really the right guild member for me you personally for me personally right now and therefore we get to have or we have to have or we should have and perhaps with some guidelines a more a moderately more confrontive test of the fit and the the interesting thing to me is that the the applying of the different standard how at the point of individual contracting use you switch to a higher a different standard and that's completely legitimate everybody sees that as legitimate however calling out in the middle of the guild's meeting so-and-so as a you know is a bad carpenter you would never you would never shout that out across the hall but I'll never shout that yeah so there was no way that would be shouted out across the hall right right so well there is a way but it wouldn't be fun yeah right so I mean I think that the switching here the switching and the intimacy of the evaluation I had an earlier crazy vision while you were talking about the the cage battle cage match where or cage match yes somebody would stand up and say well I think I could do that and the group would immediately vote you know the group would say well yeah I'll give him you know on a scale of five I'll give him a two for that you know or whatever whatever I'll rank vote him right now and that you would instantly be legitimated or delegitimated by your peers and I thought wow that would be brutal you know you would that that talk about I'm not enough that would be that would be a world you would not want to live in but I mean I think we have to keep playing with those dynamics to understand how all that works and I'm I'm flashing back to the the the days of monitor when it was on its way down and I was never in one of these meetings but I was told about these meetings where you have a facilitator's meeting and everybody knows all the facilitation tool and there's a form that the corporation is trying to use and trying to get you to use with each other but because everybody is so hip to the tool all the uses of the tool are meta and have these layered barbed you know angles and and so the whole thing broke down and I don't know if that's that's cause for the the death of monitor but it was a contributing factor to the death of the monitor group which is you know interestingly harvard business school faculty were the core principles and they couldn't do they couldn't do their own process because you're here shocked to hear the things that came out of harvard didn't work that's just like really shocking to me yeah I just want to go back briefly to the drunken person example I gave which was a clumsy clumsy way of saying at some point this is not a database lookup and who has the attributes but it's a personal introduction it's like you're a tea total or this person likes to drink you're probably not a good chemistry matches where I was kind of aiming but then also the notion that in a guild in a healthy guild which you just described an unhealthy guild like thing at monitor in a healthy guild you take care of everybody and you know it's like if somebody's drinking too much up figure out how to deal with that because it's part of having them work well if somebody doesn't understand the craft well you make sure they do somehow you kind of bring everybody up into being a full capacity human aiming for the highest best you know thing in the world go ahead marquantan the question of guild nurturance is absolutely fundamental and it's one of the big difficulties like if you look at a strong's work on commons you know there's a community that builds around stewarding the commons commons stewardship and that community because they have this external goal commons stewardship that creates a shared interest which promotes nurturance and that's also possible in a guild which has you know it's protecting itself against quote unquote bad practitioners so but there's this notion of inside outside and there's always this question of like we speak a lot about sharing goals and lying in goals but again there's there's usually this idea of shared goals which is possible when you have people congregating around a goal so the goal becomes the the definer of inside outside and when you're speaking of nation states for example then you cannot assume shared goals and when you're speaking of on the one hand the community of practice but on the other hand wanting to open it up and make it into the global mind which i think is very much a goal then that means we don't have an inside outside so we want nurturance but we want openness and there's a conflict there that i'm not sure how to resolve because we want to nurture in so far as people are sharing the basic goals of nurturance it's it's it's a paradox i don't have an answer i'm just pointing out the paradox i think you're putting a really nice other language around this thing that's in the back of my head as well which is there's something about the generative commons agreement or general commons which is intentional it's like as long as someone's intentions are to put things in the shared space so that we can all use them as long as someone's intentions are to get better at what they're doing as long as someone's intentions are not to cause harm and ruckus you know in the space like that is all cool like we want more of that and we want the community to help everybody sort of become what they can become and honor what they brought to the party um how you do that is is tangly um vincent and then i want to go to michael because you were posting about uh vincent's points and i'd love to hear what you think about what you just posted in both chats go ahead vincent so i feel like the best way to actually like signal intentions is just having conversations um and the other best way for signaling intentions is actually just doing something that aligns with what you say and those two things are intention because uh the more time that you spend talking to people and like building that trust the less time you spend building things and actually doing the things that you say that you believe so i just wanted to throw that out there i agree it's kind it's complicated messy human dynamics and and and one of the things i love about our thursday check-in calls is that we're seeing who's in the room and how we think and what we think and how these conversations unfold and that's fruitful because it gives us some of the things you just mentioned um i feel set in michael sure um i mean i was just uh mentioning mentioning in the chat that um you know i can write better than i can talk but uh that i i feel like um we're all of us in all of the groups like this that exist that you know what vincent was speaking to of coming into a group like the cta uh and and having having assets and needs and strengths and weaknesses um and trying to figure out how to cooperate um i also mentioned in the modern most chat i arkansas and i don't know if that was a type or not but you you typed cooperative and and which sounded like i typed competitive actually you type competitive sorry sorry and it is a portmanteau it is it is i love it um you know i love it um it's great um it's you know like how do you be competitive um in in a way that isn't um zero sum you know that isn't beyond zero sum but except for beyond zero sum you know yeah yeah i mean marketplace marketplaces are what we've all grown up on and you know trying to figure out how we you know survival of the fittest um it's very american in particular but you know western in general and capitalist for sure and and we're stuck in those structures we're stuck with the the money we have the privilege we have the assets we've developed and we're looking for and like we have competitive nominally cooperative but but actually competitive entities and organizations who are all working toward the same thing and and not only do we you know they're they're all they're people all over including in this space right now or this greater ogm space who you know really want to be the smartest person in the room and um and that's an asset of sorts and i mean it's an asset for sure and there are other people who are doing more you know as vincent was saying you know just like making stuff happen as see he certainly is and um and they're just all these different strengths and weaknesses that all these people have and the structures for a commons i mean i just i keep observing all these people with their with their well intentions toe in the water and i count myself among them trying to figure out how do i like dive in and and not drown you know because like i'm scraping buy and life in whatever ways and i've got incredible assets in another way and what is the structure for this i mean it's a really basic question and in a capitalist system you know we have to deal with it with some pretty complicated contract making and you know as as as vincent was you know observing in this in this group that we're involved in we're all at different stages of the development of the tools we're building we have overlap we have um you know we have we have thoughts that we're smarter on this front or smarter on that front and it's stymying when you're it's it's a little easier i mean i think it's good to get to the brass tacks of this because it's it's a lot easier having participated in ogm conversations for you know several months now they can you know go on and on and people don't part with anything of value in fact they enhance their value by in conversation sharing their intellectual assets um but in the you know real world of of change making um we're we're stuck you know trying to to make a living and and we want to make change it's just like how how how do we do this and i feel like i've sort of asked this question in a less pointed way before um and maybe almost a broken record on it um and and of course you know it's like be the change you want to see and take your assets and dump them in the comments and see what happens but i don't even know how to do that um you know if i truly wanted to um and and is this the comments you know what is ogm and is ogm like you know is ogm paying its participants so that they can so that they can participate in the commons is ogm the foundation the safety net that allows people to do this and that's not clear you know to to any of us i mean we all intend well but you know i'm just it is both obvious and and not um judy i want to turn the mic to judy but i also want to say i just want to replay what you said for the last five minutes like every morning michael because it seems really central to what to our quest like you you you're totally scraping at the important issues in the middle the slightly tender issues because it has to do with personalities and and we've attracted a bunch of people who have a life mission have done a whole bunch of work on different things and are trying to figure out how to put it in the middle and when nobody responds it's like ah so i think i think you just articulated a bunch of stuff really really well sorry judy off over to you i i totally agree with what michael just said because i think we're in this conceptual transition from two and in the going to we all need to not to to react differently to situations and presents to ourselves differently in some ways so part of what what is involved i think is what we touched on in a call last week in terms of how do we enable those process changes and behavior changes as people come together because historically with a hierarchical system um it's sort of like who puts the most knowledge on the table has the better voice in the room and that doesn't contribute to collective understanding it continues it continues a verbal hierarchy of you know i'm going to say something smart you're going to say something smart three other people will say something smart they become the inner circle and smarts an arbitrary definition but i think you've observed it very accurately in terms of how people are participating and that requires a shift in human process and because all of these entities are collections of humans um what we actually talked about last week was we need to identify maybe the sages of their mavens that could be part of a resource group two groups who want to learn how to do this that would mentor individuals who would then be a cornerstone in their group of perpetuating i mean that's the way process changes occur somebody embraces it and they just bring it in and live it and the group goes hey that's pretty cool you know we could do that and so it's it's kind of a seeding process i think there can be and it and it can be a facilitated process that might be income producing for the individuals who are mavens if that's their desire um it's kind of a shift to organizational dynamics instead of knowledge content per se because if you want to get things done collectively the knowledge is sort of a given it's how you work together that is the new learning for everybody um michael it feels to me like you've opened up a big channel of inquiry for us for all of ogm and for maybe us specifically in this set of conversations um but also that we ain't the first people to oppose these questions there's a bunch of people trying to figure out what is post capitalism look like and how do people collaborate and and and there's a bunch of really like there's a lot of water has flowed under this bridge a lot of people are chewing on this right this moment around the world um how do we collect up what some of them think how do we invite a few of them to this conversation how do we try out some of their platforms uh you know there's this comacery it's a platform i haven't actually tried but it's a way of moving value around a community uh everybody on blockchain and all the derivatives are trying to figure out how do you reward effort or do other kinds of things using cryptocurrencies which i'm not a big fan of but but there's a whole bunch of different efforts to figure this out um that we should learn from borrow from test drive uh and figure out but but i wasn't i wasn't including that in my mental frame for this inquiry and now i think it's like oh this is actually really important because rather than glue together pieces that seem to be around and then put a nice like vanilla icing on top like a butter cream icing on top of it i think we actually sort of need to go look at bodies of work that are trying to get us into the the abundance uh frame of view and and other sorts of things with the caveats that john put in the room about the word abundance any other thoughts on on that i'd love to hear what everybody thinks about about that and one of my questions to us all is how to frame that question because i'm like i wouldn't mind setting up a pop-up ogm call around specifically around that question and i like what do i call it what is the post capitalist platform not sure that's going to attract more than two people um how do we collab how do we how do we make a living collaborating while sharing what we know maybe a little looser more interesting like what's the framing for the question so that we can have some productive conversations around this and pull in what's what's already understood around the world so yeah it it's it's a real tough one but i want my instinct at the moment is to do some separation and i'm not sure i've got all the you know i can label the pieces but it seems to me like there's an adequacy conversation around you know things like basic income there's like how do we how do we not have such incredible discrepancies in in wealth or how do we not have homeless or starving people i mean that's a whole conversation and that's and that's more closely associated with the words post capitalism there's a subtler conversation that this group is is drawn to which is let's we we're not saying that that one is fixed but we're saying there's another one there's another one that has to do with um meritocracy perhaps hierarchy it has to do with with uh getting getting the best of what's humanly possible to become available to to more people and to deal with all the contributors and consumers of that in some way that is satisfying if not completely fair and there's possibilities there in that second conversation that would totally break down if you try to apply them in the first instance so if i can just i've said this before but and i i jerry i share your concerns about crypto but if i was going to support a crypto the the crypto that's interesting to me is one that is a stabilized asset backed and has a conversion to fiat which is which is a penalty in effect you know like yes if you really you you how do you earn this crypto you earn this crypto by contributing that's how it works you contribute to the commons and then what do you do with the crypto well you can buy green things you can buy things but the only things that are available at at a reasonable price are green things or you can convert it back into fiat if you really need to but but that's a discount yeah so you're not really gonna you're kind of encouraged first of all you're encouraged to earn it you're encouraged to earn it because now these things are used to just give away occasionally get recognized maybe maybe intermittently maybe not all the time just to make use of the intermittent reinforcement principle like hey your your peers have given you a thousand greenies but but then oh see i got greenies and who what's the market for greenies well the market for greenies is things like tutoring and and you know cleaning up stuff and you know saving animals and blah blah blah you know so you get you you're encouraging this whole economy and you're deliberately separating it enough from the standard in fiat economy that it can survive because right now you can't you can't pay volunteers you know you can't pay people enough to do really important things that need to be done you know it's like it's yeah so and a piece of my checking is i'm actually trying to raise funds to have ogm fellowships where we actually can pay people who are showing up here and and contributing to what ogm is looking to build so sorry back to you yeah so no i mean i i realize i'm not really i'm not providing terms and and and clarity around this but i think the distinction the distinction whether you attack the what most people mean by post capitalism which is hard currency one way to think of it is maybe that post capitalism there's a hard currency part of that problem there's a soft currency part of that problem and it's easier to innovate on the soft currency side because people aren't uh as dug in and yet you could you know you can imagine a future community in which you know people are are thrifty they're they're they're using solar they're they're growing some of their own food and nobody is doing any mac mansions and it's kind of working but it's not that much fun you know because it's kind of pinched it's not abundant and yet you and you layer onto that the soft currency model and you have people doing these nice exchanges uh in a different in a in a way in a different market in a different economy and the and you figured out how to have the relationship between the two markets and there and also to experiment because you can't answer all these questions when you implement something like this you need it you need a a sandbox that in which the new and the old and the enlightened and the mean can all can all kind of evolve together and and move move towards something better so anyhow thanks john um vinson yeah i uh to build off of what john said i think the best the best um theory of change that i have is um if we can artificiate uh abundance in order to shift culture because once you've lived your entire life thinking that it's normal to share and do things in a way that it cares about in the comments then no matter how much you're in actual poverty i find it hard to believe like that you would just switch that on a dime like you would still treat people with dignity even if you didn't have what you needed um and so um or or yeah or at least it would be there to want to do that and um so yeah i think we have to kind of like artificiate the comments like like what if you know if somebody comes into ogm they're working on this really cool project but they have to spend a hundred hours a week doing right doing everything and then because they're spending all their time working on doing every part of their thing then they're not actually spending time to try to take care of themselves in terms of like making money so then they have to hold on to it and so if you can give people the basic that they need to survive and they don't have to worry then they'll be more open to to then giving back to a system that gives them and so i think you have to artificiate that system and so i think you need a i think we need a group of people in ogm that are just like we're going to do the like you know ogm and kick lab and a bunch of groups need to come together and say we're going to do like granting we're going to get lots of funding and we're just going to pay people to to do their thing and do what they love and what is getting them the most it's getting the comments the most for the least amount of work for a person because they're putting their passion into it over it intersects with their skills and so i think i think yeah just being able to some people just need to i think we need to like look a little bit more carefully on like where the gaps are in our skill sets uh for example like i don't know any grant writers period like i don't know a first name of somebody who i can call that does grant writing and that's a problem in the generative commons because that's a piece that we need to be able to like work together as a system and be able to contribute in this way so why are we not putting more energy into just finding the people that we need we need accountants we need like all these we need lawyers we need like all these people that uh have diverse skill sets that are able to help our projects and our initiatives that our passions succeed in the context of also contributing to the collective um thank you um anybody else and judy is your hand up from before oh yeah sorry it's okay i can put it down oh you there you go thanks um Hank what's all this making you think of uh yeah actually uh doing some of the things that have been talked about today like for example i very much triggered by what vinson just said uh i have the same thing for example i don't know how to uh well i mean i can name 20 things i'd like to skill sets i'd like to be able to access including grant writing and i don't know anyone on the first name basis but then i wonder what skill sets do i have that nobody on this call or nobody you know gm knows about can we set up a kind of uh well i don't know if the right word is library or only we had a directory that could do some of the stuff man yeah yeah yeah exactly uh i mean i think a lot of the things that were said during this call are worthwhile taking forward uh i know jerry when we talked last week about this uh you said well it wasn't something that you really wanted to take forward but uh maybe there would be people in ojima who want to take this forward and uh i'm certainly interested enough in generative commons uh as a whole in in and certainly how how it could work or should work or or or how we would like to have it work or that i could have a play role in that if there were other people who'd like to to help with me and this whole idea of the the directory or or whatever you want to call it is something that's not difficult to set up i mean we could set up something on matter most and send out a message and people just log in and and say what kind of skill sets they had to offer and i mean you wouldn't have to talk about things that you didn't want to offer to anyone but uh yeah who know i mean i'm a great believer in that famous six degrees of separation and i once worked out that i was three degrees of separation from barack obama at that time and who knows who somebody in this call is is three degrees away from so yeah that that's my thought at the moment let's let's take each think about what we heard that's worth worth doing and uh and in a sort of selfish way because you want it and in a uh in a uh commons way because it's good for the commons and let's see what we want soon um thanks hank a brief side note i'm two degrees from kevin bacon because i went to penn and his dad was ed bacon who was a professor of architecture and urban planning actually mostly urban planning and so i took history and theory of urban design from ed bacon at penn because one of the one of the features of working was that you could just take courses in any of the grad schools at penn you wanted to and i was an econ undergrad which meant i didn't have to take micro macro blah blah blah so i got i got some a little bit of room in my schedule and so i basically took a course from ed bacon a really brief story who was awesome he was like 74 at the time tall viril he would use sexual metaphor in class and mean it and he he gave us three tours of philadelphia one tour we all met at the corner of independence mall ninth and race uh he had us all blindfolded and then put us in in line so we held the the shoulder of the person ahead of us and then he led that line down through the square and all of a sudden we heard a shout and he walked us through a couple fountains that were only like calf deep but he had told us to wear like old sneakers but but he the experience of being blindfolded in the square and hearing the water echo was really interesting and then so he watched us through the fountains then he had us take off the blindfolds and he set us off in 90 second intervals and he had marked a path across philadelphia over to new market with like flour on the sidewalk and you would you were to follow that not say a word you were not allowed to take notes but you had to register what what your impressions were and he had spent he was he'd been the city planner philadelphia for 50 years and had done a bunch of things called greenways where there were alleys there you could get from independence mall to new market pretty much never walking along a street on a normal sidewalk because there were all these interesting little alleys and parks and and things chained together and that's what the tour was anyway um i have some really great stories about ed bacon so i'm two degrees from kevin i never got to meet kevin but i got to meet his mom too she came along on on those tours um long digression sorry about that anybody else um have a great day everyone yeah thanks judy thanks for for being here and we're gonna wrap pretty soon we're getting the thing that you're the the pure agi pure pure gaji pure gaji thing you're doing is that um only accessible by youtube or no it's um if you just go into pure gaji oh i should figure out where the link is pasted if you can drop it in that'd be awesome back in the menomose yeah um and i think if i remember the calls have audience it's a zoom call with audience and then they post it online later right so youtube link from often i'm told by charlotte fairly small but they recorded and then it's available on pure gaji right yeah i did i did one with them which was really fun um so you guys are all now three degrees of kevin bacon by the way because you know me so i was just posting we are everyone we know everyone they know and everyone they know are within six degrees of kevin bacon now so yeah yeah you know you really wow just trying to make the world a smaller place yeah um so i like this path of inquiry it feels to me like it complexifies our quest to do a generative commons thing but in a really fruitful way um so a couple questions to the group how do we phrase this quest so that it's sort of like so that we're describing the path we're exploring well so that it attracts other people in the conversation uh let's try to invite other people into the conversation i know that uh matt saia and jordan sukut were really really interested in the generative commons and did some work on it a couple weeks ago and then matt got super busy last week he produced an event for one of his clients that was a pretty major thing so he his whole world was eaten up by that so i think he can i think he's emerged from that we can maybe breathe in and rejoin the conversation we'll see uh but i'll i'll ping and see if he's up for for rejoining in jordan too but but we had made a list of other people that might be interested here i think we can do that but with this new path of inquiry i think what that does is it opens up a bunch of maybe new people to to bring in um any any other sort of concluding thoughts well i would say that that um it's it's an you know i think i think it puts some pressure for i don't know if pressure is a great word but but uh puts a point on the need to um delineate delineate ogm's um purpose and structure in terms of the commons in terms of those who want to participate in the commons and you know i mean all all of what vincent's saying i just think is is spot on it's just you know there there are there are experiences and connections you know certainly that the people in this room have um but you know it's it's easier to deal with when they're not typically monetized and when they are and they've been literally spent on either in terms of time or money in a clear way or will be um we need to figure out how how we how we transact you know and and um how we how we are are safe in transacting it's it's tough it's fun it's fun this is like a monster quest so hey i'm i'm up for it i still trying to figure out how to make this work but uh kind of somewhere we all right any other wrapping thoughts for today's call stacy does this put you any place different interesting no it puts me exactly i'm just sitting here saying how do i explain what i want to be able to explain now this i will ask a question a philosophical question oh god oh god we hate those go ahead something to think about i don't expect an answer but one of the things that i've always thought about is and again i'm from the states and that's where i'm focused what would our country look like if we offered a choice one you pay taxes and everything is included absolutely everything the other you don't pay taxes but if you want to purchase services from the all inclusive section then you pay for it and you know this way it like provides two tracks and my feeling is the same way sometimes you'll go to a restaurant and you get the choice between all you can eat or a la carte my feeling is if we've done the right way people would choose to do the all inclusive but again it still leaves room for different ways of doing things so i'll just leave that question there it's the best i can do um i like that i mean somebody who knows public policy would probably say gosh that's impossible because you can't you have to have everybody in to do something the scale of building all the systems out but maybe not and i don't know and and and i think part of what i part of what i love about being alive at this moment is that a lot of the underlying dynamics and assumptions are changing a lot of the a lot of the stuff we take for granted whether it's the economics of energy whether it's people's ability to live in one place and stay there except climate change and fires and drought whether it's like there's a you know the future of work and jobs these things are all in flux as april would say and and i i'm hoping that the things that we're working on and trying to figure out will actually build the platform and some processes and some norms and some memes and some intentions for how to do really well in that world um one more thing please i see ogm as the commons that allows people to either be part of that inclusivity or to come in and purchase services so providing two ways to participate so maybe we need like an ogm vending machine i like it i mean that's interesting i i feel like the the the notion of um you know pay your taxes and and get what you need back essentially which is is like is is the is the universal healthcare model and it's also the subscription platform model and versus you know micro payments for services or take what's given to you because your you're submitting to capitalists you know surveillance capitalism and advertising is going to pay for it um that that is is sort of an essential question stacey i mean i just think you're really right with that and the the challenge is in the sort of cooperative that you're imagining people being able to opt into um everybody is whether literally paying taxes or or contributing to the the common good with their skills and services or both um they have to pay in and put in to get back um or be left alone in the sort of freelance pay-as-you-go world i mean it's a huge question it's like it has just replications everywhere stacey yeah i want to hear what i envisioned as a bigger framework was almost like a social experiment which tied into the video creation we were talking about and it all tied in together um so and the other thing is who was a pathetic yesterday scott was talking about breaking tasks into smaller pieces and i thought that was critical because that allows somebody to stop in work for an hour still be part of something and there's just so many things that could you know i just think it could bring in academics that want to study the product i to me the biggest part of what i was talking about with the show was not the goal of creating the videos but it's how we set it up and what actually happens with us creating it and having a team that says well wait let's bring in people to measure how many jobs are created let's look at all these different tools because people can pick and choose their tools that gives the people creating tools the platform as well that could tie into where we could get money for people that are willing you know the bigger you know more successful tech people and i know nothing about this but that gives them incentive to want to fund us so it's it's a really big kind of picture but all these things can be fit in if we you know do it right and leave two at least two tracks because we have two different mindsets and trust is a big factor and so i'm in the middle of trying to explain oh gee i'm the potential funder so this is a really valuable conversation um and then and then not to dull the the two track part of it but i have a belief in my head that that i got from reading pilani's book the great transformation which is one of my favorite books and one of the things he says is that market economy requires market society so once we got industrialism and once people were sort of torn off the land turned into free labor which was a big change people were mostly tied to where they were they were born almost nobody traveled more than three miles from where they were born except for the military the clergy and you know traveling salesman kind of thing the tax collectors but once once we sort of changed all that suddenly everything had a price and cap market economy capitalism can't have a whole bunch of people living over there happily with a different regime over their land with everything else it kind of needs everybody to be in the pool and all the land to be available to purchase so it resists it creates laws that say you can't do that you can't do that you know it illegalizes other ways of being and then the natural metaphor analogy i use is uh i i people do you know how cuckoo is raised their young cuckoo birds and it turns out that cuckoo birds don't raise their young cuckoo birds are brood parasites they lay their eggs in other birds nests like a robin and then the other birds like like jeez what's like one of these kids is bigger than the other ones and the first instinct of a cuckoo chick is to shove everything outside the nest it's horrible so a cuckoo chick is born hatched in the robin's nest and the first thing it does is it backs up against everything else in the nest and shoves it out of the nest so the other robin eggs go to the ground other robin chicks go to the ground whatever and then the robins come back and raise the cuckoo and you know on we go capitalism is like a cuckoo it's it's parasitic on other other forms of existence and tries to sort of suck them dry and i think what we're talking about here is antidotes to that it's like how do how do we break that and i like the quarry doctor's book walk away is an interesting thought experiment in one way to do that just to sort of walk away from the traditional economy and just to instantiate a new way of doing things and he he has a world in which you know 3d fabrication and a few other things are easily available so you can actually go out into the desert create abundance and build yourself a village and the village can be better than your last village was because you save the plans in the cloud and you can make things out of most anything and you've made improvements in all of your plans and your governance mechanisms are sort of perpetual and always improving as well sort of interesting that way anyway burning one more thing yeah burning man go ahead stacey um so once somebody's basic needs are met what what rivals more money to me what you're doing with your time if you're feeling fulfilled and creative and happy so i try to look sometimes at attention and replace attention with uh with money um i forgot where i was going with this but there was someplace well and also connection and a sense of meaning like you said we said what what happens when somebody's basic needs are met yes so again the the idea i always feel like if you if you create the best party people will choose to come to yours and so that's anyway totally agree totally agreeing um we are over time here um this has been really useful thank you all uh michael i want to figure out how to like put wheels under your question um and make it more powerful let's let's at least sort of focus there next week in this call and then let's figure out because this this touches like why we're here and what ogm does you know in really important ways and i need to find a way to articulate it well uh so it's an important quest all right i think we should timestamp the yeah the piece when michael started talking about probably a good timestamp for a rap potentially i will when i when i upload the the video i will find the moment when he's when he started rapping cool great thanks everybody will we have another call same time next week yes this is a standing call at this point perfect see you all then thanks thanks everyone bye bye bye