 Let me turn on the recording. This is the build OGM call on Tuesday, August 17, 2021. Yes, if you're paying attention to world events, it's hard not to get depressed. I made the mistake of picking up ministry for the future again and making a little more progress. And it's like, oh, man, this is depressing. Yeah. And all he's doing is playing out what happens if we don't meet our pledges, like one set of scenarios, physical, climate, catastrophe-wise, for if the countries who were supposed to pledge to reduce emissions and all that actually don't. And then who has what kind of rights to do what? And on the letter that Jack sent out, was it yesterday or the day before yesterday with all the promises we have been crashed through not followed up on and how even the promises are not anywhere near what needs to be done? And then you go, yeah, I think this may not work. I mean, it's really hard to see where you can master the will for people to, because this is, I mean, we are at a stage right now where you have literally the need to mobilize. And there is nowhere near the understanding and the will to do that. Or the resource or the space. I mean, 2 thirds of Bangladesh lies that pretty much at or just above sea level. How are you going to move those people and where are you going to put them? Yeah, right. There's currently more area under fire in Siberia than there is in the entire rest of the world. You combine all the fires around the world and the one fire in Siberia is larger than the other. And it's in such an unpopulated area, you can't even fight it. I had not heard about that. I'd heard about fires that didn't realize they were that scale. So anybody with a cheerful thing for us? Cheerful? Anyone? Euler? Euler? I'm cheerful. Excellent. Stacey, that's very nice. And Santa Sangre. Oh, I didn't know this movie. Sorry, it's just a fun remembering. That's great. That's great. Thank you. All right. I'll leave these things in. Does anyone want to check in with a build-o-gme sort of thing? Whether, Pete, I don't know where you are with your various projects and how they sort of fit, that might be really interesting. And Klaus, it'd be good to just think about the food project right now and what to do with the call that's coming up today and so forth. So, Pete, do you want to jump in? Yeah, sure. And I also have a question for after-check-ins, which is, what do we want to accomplish this call? EES is still being interesting. It's funny, I've got an email from Jordan saying, so how's that experiment going? And I need to answer him. I've been doing other stuff. But EES is going pretty well, I think. It was interesting. I think it was Kreitzer that started talking about Afghanistan. Mom, actually, maybe it was me posting a link. But we ended up using the general EES channel for a little bit of Afghanistan stuff. And I was reflecting this morning how it was interesting that I or anybody else didn't start a quick EES thing about Afghanistan and not that we have the bench to do that. There's only so much folks can do it. But it is another interesting EES event. When it started going down, I was thinking a lot EES-wise about it. Yeah. The big accomplishment I've got with the EES right now, I think, is an architectural draft for the EES intake system, which is more complicated than I thought. But otherwise, Massive Wiki is still interesting. Bill and I are working a little bit on skins. He's interested in the two-column skin that another column could be for. It'd be for now, basically, probably. So we worked through some of that yesterday. He and I have both got partial mock-ups. Wendy and Bill and I are also, we made it kind of a breakthrough, I think, where one of the things in adopting Massive Wiki is just getting through the clunky parts of the tooling that we've got hacked together, which is fairly easy to do. But kind of impossible for normal folks. Stacey, a skin is also known as a theme. And the way websites work nowadays is you can just change the way they look by the equivalent of turning a knob. But it's a whole set of configuration files that describes how it's going to look. Thank you. And Massive Wiki already has tooling, which turns Massive Wiki into a website. And it's got one starter skin that's not very fancy. And we need more. So another part of adopting Massive Wiki is learning how to Wiki, which the Wiki folks knew in 2003, 2004, 2005. And then it more or less died. So that was C2 Wiki and Meatball Wiki and things like that. And in social text, we did a fair amount of Wiki. So the way I think of a Wiki, there's lots of different ways to think of a Wiki. One of them is that it's a community. Another way is that it's an encyclopedia. Another way is that it's a database or a file cabinet. And to make it simple for people to adopt Massive Wiki, I've kind of had this idea that the first thing that we should teach people is you've got a file cabinet that you're using already. It's Google Drive, or it's Windows Drive, or you've got some files and folders and things like that. We should just kind of lift and shift that modality to Massive Wiki, which is fine. It works well that way. And it reduces one of the unknowns, right? Like, how do you Wiki instead of how do you file in file cabinets? And that's kind of been my operating principle for a while. Let's just teach people the tools and then with a familiar set of actions. And then we can teach them how to do something better than a file cabinet. Wendy tried again to get into Obsidian, and she got stuck on how do I organize my filing cabinet because Obsidian doesn't come with built-in organization. You kind of build it yourself or borrow it from somebody else. And she's like, she got really, really, really stuck on just, Pete, if I do this taxonomy wrong, it's not going to work. It's going to be clunky. And I'm going to end up with yet another file cabinet, of which I already have too many. So she was so stuck that it made me think, Wendy, you're distracting yourself with the construction of the file cabinet. The reason that we have hierarchical organization and concept of folders and things like that, it's because we are used to physicality. We learned how to do information architecture from a library. You walk into a library and you look at the Dewey decimal, the Library of Congress things, and you consult the card catalog, and you actually physically walk down stacks and walk to the right place, and you find a book, and then you pull the book off the shelf. You can only arrange something in physical space like that hierarchically, while you could do it a lot of other ways, but it would be worse. But like a Wiki, a hypertext space, a graph with search and with linking and duplication of information, it's super easy to have Wendy and I in conversation are talking about a path through the knowledge space. And today, we take a little diary and we take a tour. This is Pete or Jerry or any of us talking about climate change and carbon sequestration and carbon element and carbon and iron and iron smelting. And that's something that you can't, that bouncing around and linking is something that you don't do in physical space. But in a hypertext space, it's as normal as reading, basically, or as normal as talking, talking through stuff. That's just the way that people work. They work in networks really well. So it energized me to recast or begin to recast, at least, the way that I want to help people learn mass Wiki. And one of them is starting with Wiki as a conversation. Wiki is a story. Wiki is a narration through a space with more than one person. So instead of helping Wendy figure out the best taxonomy that we can that's going to be, like, limited because it's files and folders, I want to have conversations with Wendy and conversations with Bill, and I want Bill to have conversations with Wendy and continue to grow that so that we have real Wiki in motion rather than we're just building a better file folder. So that's the long story short. That's really, really interesting to me. And one of the things I noticed in using Massive and Obsidian was that we rapidly started getting into just a simple folder hierarchy. And it's like, OK, what do we name the folders? And the moment you're in a folder hierarchy, I know from using the brain that you're kind of in a trap. And the brain is now in version 12, I think. When the brain version 7 was coming out, Harlan and I had a WebEx call, and he did a demo of the brain 7. And what he was doing was he was going to make it so that any time you added a new thought to the brain, it would create a new folder in your finder or Explorer, depending on whether you want macOS or Windows. And five minutes in, I said permission to speak freely, sir. He chuckled, and I was like, what are you doing? You're about to take this non-directed graph that I can attach anything to anything. You're going to hook it up to the most sort of hierarchical, slowest, and stupidest piece of software on my machine, and you're going to cripple what the brain actually does. And the next day, I got a nice email from him that said, hey, thank you for saying what you said. It turns out half the company was trying to tell me what you said, and I wasn't listening. I'm not doing that, don't worry. And then he went back to, effectively, the same brain I've been using for 23 years. It has not really changed since then. But I feel like we headed off a disaster there, partly because, and I think one of the forces there was, he was being tugged by businesses to make the brain look more like the Explorer, more like the finder, which I can totally understand. It's one of the reasons why Prezi, which used to look interesting, got lobotomized into being more like PowerPoint, and recently got real lobotomized to a point where I can no longer use Prezi. So basically, to make it look more like the Office Suite, more like PowerPoint, right? And that's kind of the death knell for interesting things. Then it takes me back to when I first experienced Wikis and the Wiki namespace, which I was screen sharing while you were talking, Pete. I hope that worked for everybody, but for me, the namespace of Wikis is actually really liberating. In that, you just make a new page name, okay, great. If there's not already a page by that name, you are good to go. And like you can cruise and start doing that. You might need to train your community in sort of a layered namespace so that everybody namespages correctly. And that gets complicated really quickly because you start having to remember sort of almost like a file structure nomenclature. That gets a little funky. You can also layer in things like categories, category pages, hashtags, other ways of finding stuff. But the namespace is a really liberating thing. And the brain's namespace within my brain file only is the same kind of liberating. I can just give something a name and I realize that naming matters. So I'm careful about typing properly. I try to eliminate typos and all that kind of stuff. But the brain is, one of the things that makes the brain usable at all is that it's good at search and finding duplicates and all those kind of things. So now because I realized that I've forgotten half the stuff I've put in my brain, when I see a new thing on the web, first I search for it in my brain. And a third of the time I put it in 15 years ago, I just don't know it. And I'm like, awesome, then I improve it. But otherwise I then figure out where to put it, how to add it. And the where to put it is different from using wikis, but not the next step, which is what to link it to, right? So I need to, only because the brain is perfectly happy to have an orphan thought, which means a thought that has no parents. Perfectly happy, the brain won't be upset. I'm upset. So I have as much as I can, I get rid of all orphan thoughts. Everything is hanging from something. Everything has an up and including circular references. Like there's no top to my brain at this point. I playfully did a long time ago when I sort of went from me, which was kind of the top for a while up to, my parents up to whatever and kept going. And then final thought, which is about emergent. And I love that it's emergent events, sense-making and ontologies and topologies and other kinds of large semantic structures. And the feeling I've gotten over and over is that ontologies are really important and the semantic web of what we know is important. And yet every effort I've seen that started to try to build a complete ontology of anything, that winds up being a huge thing and really ungainly. It winds up cutting away a lot of possibility and promise as much as it makes things better, it makes things worse in some ways because you have to make some assumptions about ontologies like that. And in particular, if your ontology doesn't permit a lot of multi-linking the way the brain is happy to do, I can link things up to a lot of different things. So I can create extra rich connectedness like a young baby's brain, this was like very richly connected. And then whatever we don't reinforce and use starts to wither away, right? Similar sort of thing, the brain software doesn't care if I overlink things, but in a strict ontology, I can't do a lot of sort of linking back up. And there's this interesting neighboring sort of conversation about the Linnaean taxonomy of critters and how it's been replaced by cladies. And cladies are kind of an attempt to do a much overlapier way of saying, hey, these are the things that these critters share in common, likely because of their evolutionary path. And I'm an amateur in biology, so I see Mark Antoine furrowing his brow and I would happily learn more about this. But I see that the taxonomy, the Linnaean taxonomy was failing us in ways that are probably sort of reminiscent of what I've said so far. And sorry I said so many things, but it's a really rich topic for me, Pete, because if in starting to use Massif, we need to start thinking again about the folder hierarchy, that's a difficult architectural design. And I'm in favor of not worrying about the large, the ontology in the large and just doing an emergent ontology as you go and letting the space emerge in all these different places as it happens and then entering into community on the different topics so that as these different sort of local ontologies emerge and connect, they're not stupid. They get smarter because you bring in people who actually understand each of those spaces, right? And they help you go, no, no, no, no. The current situation is more like this, do this instead of that. And that's a conversation I don't have enough of because I'm basically a lone ant at the fungus face feeding my own little version of reality by myself. And it's an obscure enough tool that I don't have that conversation going in enough places. I go a little bit farther than local ontologies. I think ontology is a tool but it shouldn't be an overarching organizational construct. And so I'm not even sure you want local ontologies that much except for sense-making, being able to coordinate with each other. And I think what you really want is chunking, naming and linking. You want the wiki functionality and that's kind of the core organizational thing. And I think one of the reasons I love the brain a lot is that it really resonated strongly with the wiki namespace and the linkability and all of that stuff without the burden of wikis and lots of lots and lots of text. And then last little thing as you talked about meatball and some of the early wikis wikipedia kind of ate the whole space. It just took the oxygen out of the room so that other little wikis nascent wiki projects had no audience and they were rare enough for corporate clients and Pete, you experienced this firsthand with social text that it was not enough space to make a go of writing wickily and working wickily at the time and now who knows what's happening? So Mark Antoine, then Stacy, then Klaus. Basic agreement with a lot of what's being said there, not on the clay, because clay they're actually monophyllitic groups, they're very strict trees, more strict than linear to a point. Really? So you had it backwards. It's just that linear was an attempt to understand lineage without the genetic tools. So you do it through traits and so you approximate lineage through traits and it turns out that you can only go so far without the genetic tooling and clades is strict lineage. Now, of course it's a bit more complex because of sometimes mixing and stuff, but nonetheless. Anyway, that's absolutely not the point. The really important point you're talking about, A, I agree totally that forcing your brain into an anthology or a hierarchy is extremely limiting because things exist among many axes of classification and forcing yourself into one is highly limited. Caveat, on the other hand, why people go back to trees all the time is that they give a very easy way, as you said also to do sense making and to say, you know, here's the trees, here's the, and that gives you a clear idea of what's the details, what's the depth first search will give you a first level which is a common basis of understanding. And it allows you to know what are the big categories that we need to share before we get into details and as a communication tool, I think it's fundamental. And it's always the paradox of the more network-y tools is that very soon you get an illegible bulb of wires and nobody knows what's important, what's prominent and how to get to choose paths. And sometimes you don't want to choose paths and you want to explore and you're counting and sharing the video and that's fine. Sometimes you're using Stigmergy and, you know, what's popular, but that's also a trap, I think. But sometimes you want a kind of, here's the overview according to a structure and anthologies basically give you a often pre-negotiated structure. And what is important, I think, is multiple anthologies and multiple ways of classifying things. The multi-trees are interesting and, of course, lattices. As we say, well, you're working on the so-called feature analysis. It's there's, you can cut, you can cut and dice things this way or that way. And then it's the intersection of these multiple ways to classify things that are yield interesting categories. So, yeah, no, I just wanted to go between the trap of wanting to put everything in one hierarchy to roll them off and the value of hierarchies as an initial sense-making device. And it's just, not just actually, there was a post recently by Liam Neal about everybody uses folders because we're so used to containers, to physical containers, like totally agree it's a trap. But on the other hand, God, our brain is made to, we were made to live in trees and understand trees. It's part of our genetic heritage. And it's, I don't want to make them central, but I don't want to dismiss them to this balance. And over. Stacy, over here. Okay. So part of the reason that I'm so cheerful is because this week I spent time actually starting to write because I knew that I wouldn't be able to explain what I want unless I create a sample. So I started writing My Story, which is actually a platform for all the ideas I wanna use. And as I'm hearing Pete talk about Wiki, well, so let me just, so I start writing and it starts with an invitation and I put my imaginary link to the person that offered it. So her name is Cindy. And in my imagination, somebody would be able to click on the link and go to Cindy's website. So it's also a networking thing and a way to lift people up. In essence, it's like Jerry's brain with the story. It's my story. And instead of, so it's all the, it's the Jerry's brain, but it starts with me. It starts with my, so it's a human center. Hypothetically, Stacey's brain. Well, but it's a template for Klaus's brain and Jerry's brain and Hank's brain and Pete's brain. And that's the way I see the networking happen happens in a meaningful way. Now, for me, because what I'm trying to do, my story is more a healing journey. So it's an inner journey. And what I have to say my opinions are about the universe and the world as I see it working. So in my second paragraph, I mentioned Barry Court. So there's a link to him. There's a link to his work. But I use music in mine. So because I'm also interested in education and the way I would do it, there are breaks for physical things like I have a song. So I pulled, Google made, I had never used Google Docs before, made it very easy for me to pull over a link and put it in, which was very exciting. So I have my song there, which for my program, because it's about healing and something else, you would take a break, get up, you'd be dancing, moving, whatever. Oh, so now I have a bunch of documents. So one document is how my dashboard would look. So like on my dashboard, I have my daily log. I have recipes that come out of it because part of my morning check-in has to do with feeding the body and soul. But everybody would put their own recipe. I have the contacts, which are all the people that I get linked to. And hopefully they will do the same thing and it will link to them. And so it's like an interactive, it's like pages of brains. And with that, I'll shut up. But I do want to say one more thing. The muggles that I've talked to are really excited about what I've been doing. They want to play with me. And that goes to mustering the will that Klaus said. I think the way we muster the will is through some sense of play. And that goes to the game show I've been talking about, which I also wrote a page and a half on. So it might be more clear. So I just need to know where to put that and how. And I'm complete. Excellent. And Stacey, like in my wish world, lots of humans would be weaving their stories using whatever tools are amenable to them and sort of interconnecting them to one another the way I think that you're describing, which is lovely. And then it occurs to me that the cult of Rome, the Rome research folks, if Rome were a good collective mind, which I don't think it is quite yet, but if it were, then using Rome for the kind of storytelling you're talking about might in fact weave the larger tapestry where when you link to your song and somebody else said, oh, I like that and linked to it also. And that song became sort of a canonical page inside the community, for example, or a recipe or whatever, that could be really interesting. And again, I don't know if I'm sort of picking on Rome. And then obsidian is kind of Rome-like, although I don't know where that breaks. And so in principle, if using obsidian were easier, then maybe creating your essays in obsidian and making them linky might be an interesting choice as well because Google Docs, while beautiful and easy and super at the multi-user thing, just does not understand namespaces and wiki-like behavior. And that's kind of where it breaks for me is where it falls down. It's like, man, if only they had added some more wickiness to Google Docs, it could be like the system to eat the world, but it's not. Although it is eating the world. Go ahead, Stacy. So just to, so the whole idea or the game that I've been saying is that, like for example, we would need a music library. So it's a way to get individuals like me to add, I guess in the way people add to wiki, I don't know, I'm not really that familiar with how the process goes, but that was the main reason. And the difference would be whatever we create, that belongs to the commons. It's not, it's free. It belongs to us or whoever wants to use it. And I think people would want to come to us. So it's sort of like, if we build it, they will come. Well, and that energy is being eaten right now by Spotify, I think mostly is like, if somebody wants to do playlists, they do playlists on Spotify and many people pay Spotify, they're 10 bucks a month or whatever, I do not. And I just never went to Spotify. I don't really like it, haven't used it. And I think it's mostly proprietary and your information, your collections of songs that you love are then locked away inside Spotify. And good luck to you. And I think what we would like is for, and as far as I'm concerned, those are just playlists. And part of the exciting conversation Hank and I had yesterday is that so many things are just playlists and more things should be just playlists. I like to me PowerPoint presentations should be playlists of pages in a wiki, for example, something I've experimented with before. And I'm happy to go back into that because I love that, how it works and what it does makes a whole ton of sense to me. Let me pause for a second. Anybody with any other comments about what Stacy just said? Okay, Klaus, the floor is yours. Yeah, coming back to the idea of wiki as a pathway or showing pathways, this is, I think, what we actually accomplished with the Gene Ballinger Kumu project here. So when you look at this, can I take the screen for more to explain that? So when I look at how this model has evolved here, you can move this thing around. You can click on individual steps here. Let me just widen this a little bit. And when you see these fad lines and red lines, there is meaning in each of them. And then there are related stories. You can click on substories here that explains the specific subsets of meaning-making. And the entire thing is guided by things like societal needs. And then actually what we have been talking about in this group also is systems value system. How the system value system really governs the entire structure because anything that happens within this structure is dominated by the values that try fit. So there is a collage of session videos that we have here. If you're interested, the conversation here on 190919 is sort of structural because we have had several sessions where we acknowledge the complexity of the conversation. We acknowledge that you have to develop some sort of prioritization within this information. And so it was a somewhat painful conversation with the key programmer. There are a couple of guys and they were just masters at Kumo, right? I mean, they were incredibly gifted because here they also developed several sub-stories where the entire main construct is being used to create a subjugated story. If you go to the start presentation, then it goes into text, which then is amplified by the link here. And so it's really a model worth exploring. I mean, she obviously is a master at storytelling. So he uses not the related story to then go with these loops that are explained as such. So that was pushing, acknowledged by Chin and the programmers and there was one guy who was a software expert on logic and continuity. I mean, that was really a pretty impressive group. And I basically provided context. So this one conversation that I was pointing out, you can tell the angst and agony in the programming team, and then Chin basically saying we can't publish this because it's just too crazy. But I think you find in here the logic that Pete was referring to where Vicky has to show some sense of some pathway to meaning making, where you understand how the system is designed. So I would, I mean, it was a gift, right? I mean, he has Chin is the master, the systems thing, putting it into putting his time. I mean, he spent about six months on this thing. The other thing is if you go back to the model, if I am I sharing the screen? No, no. You released it, you can go back and share again. Okay, the one good grief, what did I, let me... Yeah, I found it hard to navigate Kumu like you just got into trouble. Yeah, it really is, but... There we go. When you go down here to issues, you can see the text and the links and conversations that took place to get us to this screen. So you can see a lot of files that I contributed and others, so you can... I mean, it's a really involved conversation, but you see some files here if you're interested in food systems and how they work that provide you a wealth of background information. Klaus, thank you for that. And so I followed, I had had a food systems conversation with Christina Bowen and with Jean and I've seen the rural food systems map back a year and a half, maybe two years ago. And then I visited the link when you put it in the chat recently and I'm looking around and by myself clicking on the Kumu map itself, I was disoriented. I just didn't know what I was doing. Nothing made sense at all. When I see the stories unfold is the only time I understand Kumus is when the like the narrative you just presented, those make sense to me and I'm like good with that. And or of course, when Jean or Christina basically explain and do storytelling using the power tool, that's great. I discovered Jean tried for an hour and a half, two hours to train me how to use Kumu. I discovered I don't speak Kumu. Like my brain doesn't logically create diagrams, anything like he was creating. And I wasn't gonna be able to invest the time to groove new patterns to do that. At least that was my perception at the time. So we kind of gave up there. But also then I see the list of, hey, here's a whole bunch of videos you could go to which is great to have a list right there. I didn't, I don't know that the 19th is like a really good conversation. And so what I kind of want layered on is like an easy way to access your own perspective on this beautiful body of work. Cause I know there's lots of ponies in there. I know there's lots of ponies in there. They're just hard to get to. And I can't link easily directly into, I think one of those stories. So from my perspective, what I said yesterday about nuggets narratives and points of view at a conversation you were in class. But is that I could, I would then happily include my favorite point of view. So my favorite narrative from one of those Kumu stories in as part of my point of view. And I'd be like, hey, and this story over here told using Kumu perfectly represents my point of view about what we need to do to heal the food system and the soil and so forth. So I'm trying to, so I'm looking at all this going, okay, okay, okay, how does it weave together so that in our variety of tools for which we each have personal preferences, we still have a way to express this in a way that makes sense to muggles coming in, right? It needs to look simpler. The dashboard or the point of view, the means for expressing a particular point of view needs to be pretty simple and crisp so that it takes us into Stacy's game design and her set of tools and how that weaves into what other people are doing, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. By no means did I mean to make a pitch for Kumu here. No, it's like it's a magic power tool that really there's lots of ponies in there. I just find it hard to make sense of them myself in a way that other people have trouble landing in the middle of a brain making sense of it. Same thing, same problem, sorry. But the point I was trying to get across is that they figured out how to prioritize the information and link it together to show patterns, right? So they take one topic and then that topic holds true in the story format by linking particular pieces of information that create a story. And so that's what I think we're missing because we have to somehow make sense out of these stories so they become actionable for practitioners like me. I can look at this and say, yeah, that makes sense. I can act on this. Exactly. And you reminded me of one more thing I wanna add before passing it back to Mark Antoine which is that I believe this particular Kumu map includes sort of the old story and the new story of farming which the old story being the recent story of industrial agriculture where you pour chemicals and strange seeds onto the land and then it produces a whole bunch of stuff in monocrops versus soil fertility, crop diversity, cover cropping and a bunch of other principles that create a different system diagram entirely. And one of my worries about Kumu is that the assumptions you make while drawing the first system diagram dramatically affect the story you tell and the points you can make with the system diagram so that if my underlying assumptions were the traditional diagram of how industrial agriculture works then the objective function of that, you know lots of yield of calories off of an anchor of land would pay out if I just poured more fertilizer on it and it would be hard to argue otherwise if that were what I was presenting. So what I like about this particular Kumu story is that I believe it juxtaposes the two stories making an argument for the new story the regenerative agriculture story, which is great but fancy tools use the wrong way can easily lead us down the wrong path. A small side piece, I've only been a juror on one jury in my life. It was a motorcycle accident in San Francisco and a car had cut off a motorcycle on a route that I was accustomed to driving and the driver of the car had an expert witness who showed a diagram of the intersection and then showed pictures of the dense of the apparently it was a BMW motorcycle because you could see the fins of the sideways cylinder on the door, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And he proved that the driver was actually like in lane two instead of further for the right. And in the middle of deliberation I don't know if this is legal or not but I came up with, oh, wait a minute this is that intersection right across from I think Costco where this street, the division, the visit arrow I don't know which one or 11th street or something turns from one way to two way. And the expert witness had not mentioned or drawn that the scenario that the defense was claiming was impossible but the motorcycle rider didn't have the box to get an expert witness and his lawyer was too stupid to figure out that this was actually a lie. So in the middle of deliberations I'm like, hey, the car dude is clearly lying and everybody else is like, yeah, I know that intersection and so we found for the motorcycle guy we didn't have to be impaneled or anything, et cetera. It was a fun story but it was a story for me about how expert data can be incredibly intentionally misleading and so how do we make our way through and sorry for the really long regression there but I was excited to retell that story but how do we make this so that the stories actually can be found to be lies or the old narrative or whatever again in an easy way so that you Klaus and you Stacey can actually use these things. But we will never come to a point where we can fix this thing down, right? This is a adaptive system. So whatever model we build has to have the capacity and the understanding that it's best available information at this point in time subject to revision at any moment, right? But if we don't subscribe to what is best available information and which is circling, right? And we can't move. And so in order to create movement we have to lock down saying, okay this is what we know right now that's best available information. We'll adjust as we go along. We'll just keep iterating our way through this. I agree and hopefully we do that in an open way so that our assumptions can be found and questioned and improved so that our arguments can be improved so that our stories can be borrowed and retold hopefully in a consistent way because they could be borrowed and retold in a completely spun way that reverses the meaning for example, right? Hey, love your story. And I've been telling it over and over again. It's like, I didn't say that. I used to get people who said, hey, saw your issue of the newsletter when I used to write Esther's newsletter and love the latest issue of the newsletter. So I learned to say, oh, what did you like? And half the time it was something I hadn't actually written or meant to say. Like half the time they'd totally misinterpreted or found something in it that I didn't even mean to say or might even actively have disagreed with. Sorry, Mark, I'm trying to go ahead. Fascinating. This is a generic problem in my view. I just like us to go back in the sense that we have specialized tools and we need specialized tools for storytelling of complex issues. And I was very impressed by the CUMU storytelling evolution. And I think that it's obvious that not everybody can master a tool like CUMU because not everybody understands complex systems. On the other hand, we want everybody, I think it should be almost taught in school how to read a CUMU diagram and understand the underlying system dynamics. I don't expect it to all happen. So that means we have to make these things as crystal clear as we can. And certainly CUMU is doing the best job I've seen in that direction. And yeah, but CUMU, because it's a storytelling device, it's a single author. It's a curated view, it's a single author view and it's fine, it's necessary and it's important and we need to be able to mix that with multi-authors so that somebody who doesn't speak CUMU can say, you know what, I think there's an influence loop missing and they won't be necessarily able to say how this influence impacts the whole interaction dynamics because they're not a systems expert or the complex systems dynamic expert. They're able to say, you know, I don't, I expect to see an arrow here. And that is where this dialogue between the storytelling tools and the merging collective intelligence tool I think is absolutely primordial and they both need to exist. And that's why the emphasis is on ecosystem. CUMU needs to speak to the brain, what is it, the bateman, the rate graph and so on and so on. That is why this is so important because we need the storytelling but we need to have the conversation with people who are not expert storytellers for any given tool because yeah, that's an important skill, over. Thank you. And there's lots of really interesting and beautiful storytelling and analytic tools, most of which I would say in my own experience, really need an expert at the helm. And those experts have done a thing and they did it long ago and they're not available for hire to have the conversation again now. I mean, like any Leonard's story of stuff animation with just the simple line drawings is really powerful. It cost them $100,000 plus to actually make and there was an illustration studio graphics house that did it for them. And but it made it had a great effect because it was beautifully done. And line drawings hard to repurpose but it's a storytelling tool, right? Same thing with the RSA animate. I don't know if the Royal Society for the Arts RSA has done a lot of reanimations of graphic illustration of good speeches. So Sir Ken Robinson's speech about his education killing us is a really notable one. And they do a very, very nice job of illustrating them. And then I look at that and I'm like, okay, great. Why is that illustration not available as a vector drawing online that I can actually use and then link to and add links to it? And why is it when there's a drawing of a bank with a bank facade with columns and a pediment and all that kind of stuff why is that not linked to the banking system somehow? So we can sort of dive in and see what Sir Ken might have thought about that particular question and link it then to a conversation elsewhere. And, and, and, and, and. So I'm looking for the tools to be more open and more linky and working with more shared data. And why can't that connect back to a Roan research database and connect back to a Kumu diagram and connect back to me using the brain? And, and at this point I can, I can hold if anything has a permalink, anything with a URL I can actually weave into my context. So that's been pretty good for me for 23 years. But it's not what we're talking about. So Pete, we ate most of our call on the thing you raised which was a beautiful question. I think it's a great conversation. Stacey Hank, do you wanna has this triggered anything for you or? You wanna go first, Hank? I already spoke. Yeah, Stacey, please. No, she was asking if you wanted to go first. Yeah, I, please go first. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Two quick things. Well, something just got validated for me because months ago when I was trying to set up my game I had requested one of the people to do what I want the mapping with the brain. The other one wanted to use Kumo and I wanted him to do it. And he was angry because he thought I was asking that it was double work, but it wasn't. What I was trying to do was set up a situation that they would be inspired to maybe mix it together and that it would work for two different brains because my brain works more like yours, Jerry where this person's brain like I think Pete's brain probably works both ways. But, you know, he could go. Depends which boot module you loaded. I don't even know what that means. But the other thing I wanted to say is I'm glad Klaus mentioned Jane Ballinger because I had forgotten his name but I had listened to his talk on why simulation doesn't work. And I got really excited because it plugged in in my brain where I think I have a piece of the answer because to me, simulation doesn't work because it doesn't account for the emergent adaptation of the participants, whoever's in the ecosystem. So again, the idea of this game that I keep talking about is sort of you, it's sort of plugging in to that emergence and then redesigning as it goes. So I'm complete. Next, Stacy. Thank you for thinking about that. Yeah. As much as I can follow the conversation being a non-tech oriented person but I do know how to use wikis and federated wiki. So got a general idea of what you mean. I think in the world of the models as I belong to on this front, the whole idea of being able to curate conversations and get different authors in some way curated so that people can access the work and know if it's the idea of one person, 10 people, 1,000 people, if the author is an expert or just someone with an opinion. I think that's extremely important. One of the projects I'm working on in my, let's say non-tech world is how can you set up a kind of distributed global innovation lab, a mission lab to deal with the SDGs. How could an organization like open, I guess open global mind isn't an organization but how could organizations that I do belong to which are distributed in the way that open global minds is function as a global distributed mission lab and how could a group of people who enjoy exchanging ideas with each other and maybe co-creating like open global minds could actually focus their attention on co-creating something good approaching a good breakthrough ideas for approaching realization of SDGs as Klaus, for example, is working on with CFS and possibly other people in the call are working on and I think other people in ODM are working on. So this is sort of long around about way of saying I love this conversation because I have lots of questions and I don't have enough answers and I have the feeling that somewhere in this conversation there are answers which could be tried out in societal prototypes. So that's why I like to join this conversation and other ODM calls. And I'm hoping for the time that in my mind in any of your mind something clicks and we say as Klaus is already engaged in something. Yeah, this can be low, it can be low key under the radar but it needs something practiced in practice with a real problem that someone is waiting for an answer and we use open global mind as a way of generating a curated set of answers. And when Jerry said earlier about the conversation we had yesterday together, let me just post one of the summaries I made of that in the chat because I thought yesterday we had come upon something which is in the category of what Jerry has been calling weaving the world which relates to this. So anyway, that's my take on this conversation which I've enjoyed very much. Thank you, Hank. Yeah, and at the start, this is the build ODM call and had I been more organized or gotten a little further ahead in my thinking I would have loved to sort of go back to weaving the world and talk about what you just put in the chat, Hank, because that's my current notion on how to build ODM well is to go do like leading the world as a show to invite communities, people interested parties in to do the weaving around a series of interesting conversations and then to sort of work different layers at the same time the surface layer above the surface layer looking and smelling like a vlog or a podcast under the surface then would be people weaving together the rhizomal networks or the mycelial networks or the fungal networks of nutrient exchange and value creation and all of that as we move forward through these different kinds of issues. And then what would show up as byproducts would be hopefully a bunch of people with different kinds of points of view on the whole work as we move forward and those points of view would be usable and reusable if we do this right. So yeah, so trying to do something like that and trying to simplify the whole thing. Stacey, is that the right video? I used to be a systems thinker that was being resonating for me. You're muted, but you're nodding yes. I was just typing that in. I think just, I was looking, I'm trying to turn it off. Yeah, exactly. You need to pause the video. There we go. Things are hard to juggle. And Pete, that's the same one that I found. Ah, yes. Yeah, same link. And I think it is the right one. So we're good. Well, Pete, you've got your hand raised. I have a quick separate topic. In the past week, I've been thinking about federating and working together and stuff like that. And one of the principles for me has become make offers and ask for things. So I might say to Bill, hey Bill, I can offer conversational, conversational interface to your knowledge. Could you help me, you know, X, Y, Z? And thinking about that and thinking about offers and asks that OGM has. I, OGM, in the touchstone of what is OGM, OGM can't really make offers because it's not an organization. So it's a philosophy or, you know, a way of living or something like that until you can make an offer. And then when you can make offers and asks, then you've got an organization. So a lot more thinking behind that, but hopefully it'll develop in the next few weeks. Thanks, Pete. Mark and Tony, you've got to go. We've reached the top of our hour. It's probably a good moment to wrap this call. Klaus, I'll see you in a couple hours. Or in an hour, I think. Yep, one hour. And we'll go forward from there. But thank you again for the collective inquiry. This is lovely.