 So this is the NIO books call on Monday, January 29th, 2024, a special day for my better half. Hey, Chris. Hey, Jose. Thanks for joining. I will turn on the captions as well. There we go. Cool. I feel like we're sort of at a point where we can kind of restart this conversation in a sense. I don't know. Maybe there's a level setting to do. And then we can dive in to check in, like, where are we on this journey? Yay, there's Pete. Jesse, I love your hand-drawn avatar. Your stick figure avatar is really sweet. Thanks. I'm walking right now, so I think I'll be a distraction if I... Oh, no worries. I'll give you one. So Wendy Elford is often walking in the outback in Australia when she calls into the free jury's brain calls, which are 1 p.m. today. She's often taking a morning stroll, and then sometimes Julian Gomez is walking in his backyard. We have a couple regular walkers, so... I should be walking outside. I'm going to actually go do that right now. Excellent. That sounds great. Thank you. Good, good, good. Got a good crew. Chris, is this your first Neo Books call? I'm forgetting. We have talked about it many times, but this I think is the first time I have shown up in person on a Monday. Excellent. And Jose, I'm not sure... Have you been on a... Okay, cool. Good. So let me just do a little level setting, and then we can do a little check-in and then dive in. The level set is that we are busy trying to write and publish some Neo Books, where the book is a shiny cultural artifact that people know, but the book is really bait to get people to connect to the nuggets that make up the book, which are live documents interwoven on the web with metadata with a whole bunch of other things, including with communities of people who are either editing and improving the document or talking about the subjects of the document, or the metadata might include pointers to the best places we know of to have a good conversation about the topic of that particular nugget. And this idea of nuggets is that a Neo Book is composed of a bunch of nuggets that might be an image, but mostly would be text, that then roll up into chapters. The chapters roll up into the bulk of the book, then you add some front matter, end matter, a nice cover to it, and then you use some kind of... If there are documentation generator or some other sort of software to squeeze that out into EPUB and Kindle file format so that you can publish it as a book book. There's a funny video from back when where Ikea sent out their catalog when you're... I'll post it here. I think I shared the link on the last Neo Books call because I remembered it, but they talk about... We'd like to introduce the book book, and they show their catalog, and they talk about how fast the interface is, and how rich the resolution of their screen is, and all that kind of stuff. And it's just the Ikea catalog that they're showing off for the year. Experience the power of a book book. It's right here, and I will add it to our chat. And we have four, maybe five, or more Neo Books in progress. Klaus is writing a Neo Book or several Neo Books about regenerative agriculture and trying to figure out how to explain the concepts to people who might be at different levels of development. So he's using spiral dynamics as a framework for sort of the latter half of his work. Rick has a manuscript that he's interested in Neo Booking and going in that way. I'm writing a Neo Book about design from trust, which is an idea I had back, I don't know, 2010-ish. And part of the idea of Neo Books is that the nuggets are repurposable, composable, reusable. So that we might violate one of the unwritten rules of bookwriting, which is that all the content of a book should really be original and unique. In that, Jose might decide to write a book that's parallel to or crisscrosses through design from trust, and he might reuse a chapter of mine, but then have a very different thesis and direction. And if I can write in a composable way, if I can write in a way that is repurposeable, and there's all sorts of other questions about tone and narrative, and I don't think this would work for fiction, although there has been a whole bunch of experimental fiction where you hop scotch around a plot and so forth. So maybe it would, I don't know, but that could be really actually an interesting experiment as well. But that over time, individual Neo Books might improve so that the third edition of a Neo Book might benefit from the fact that the community has nibbled on all the different nuggets and improved them over time. And then you post a new version that's substantially improved over the very first version that came out, but also that different individuals or the same individual could reuse nuggets in different manuscripts. And then the nuggets might also manifest in presentations as slides in a deck, except they would need to look a little different. So the same exact content might be manifest as three bullet points, let's say, or a short quote that is a call out that really is the same set of ideas. How does the nugget get connected to or contain all of its different meta incarnations? Given that we have chat GPT and other LLMs now, we could ask the LLM to rewrite the book at a second grade level, or as a picture book perhaps. And that would be another version of the same thing, because the nuggets, the ideas in them would still be the same. So that's generally the process. Pete and I are kind of, I'm nominally the publisher here, although that involves a series of responsibilities I don't have the bandwidth for and we haven't quite figured out all the moving parts. Pete is nominally the engine room of coding and platform and all that through his generosity of being here in our calls and helping out. There's a big piece of the NIO books vision that I think overlaps nicely and extends nicely. Pete's massive wiki vision. And Pete, if you wanted to riff on that for a moment, that would be possibly useful because people could then see. And I'm using Pete's infrastructure to write my particular NIO book. I think most other NIO book writers are using Google Docs for the most part. But I'm writing in obsidian writing markdown files that are pushed to GitHub. So they are publicly available and GitHub offers the platform where these documents are already available to whoever might bump into them through GitHub's fork and pull and other collaboration protocols. So that's entirely a possibility. Why don't I pause and Pete, if you want to add anything to that. And I will add that April and I were in San Diego for a workshop this weekend and got to go for a hike with Pete and his lovely wife. And it was just wonderful to be out in the sunshine and to be able to see one another face to face. It was super fun. Thanks, Jerry. I think everybody here pretty much knows the idea of massive wiki. So I'll skip that part and answer questions later if need be. Cool. Then let me stop and answer questions for whatever anybody wants to know about state of the project. Jose, you're muted. We can't actually hear you. I was just wondering, there isn't one published yet? No, we do not have one out. Pete and I do not yet have the capacity to squeeze one out into a Kindle, into a pub format, for example. That would be a milestone. We'd like to get there. Yeah. I was going to say, are you close to having content to do that? And you just need the manufacturing piece? So class's first book in that sense is pretty close to that. And we could take what he's got and get that far. No problem. I mean, we could take what he's written and go that direction. Yes. And then I presume you want to automate a bunch of that process rather than because I can easily take the text and make an ebook version or pump it into something and print out a physical copy. In fact, I think I'm even sitting on a massive treasured by SBN numbers. He really wanted to do that. Everybody should have a couple thousand of those laying around. I thought I had a bad parked URL habit, but that's sort of the old school parked URLs, isn't it? More or less, yeah. Yeah. So that sounds great. We'd love to get that far. Pete and I went and exported some of class's manuscript out of Google Docs to see if we could nuggetize. And we bumped into a bunch of things that Google does on export, like wrapping URLs funny. And it's got a bunch of codes that we were a little stumped by. So we kind of got that far, but not as far as we probably need to to get this thing done. We got the code for unwrapping the URL. Excellent. It's not that big of a deal. Yeah. The other mysterious bits of meta data that like floated out, we can probably identify in all as well. But then there's a bunch of other things that show up once you start thinking this way, one of which is, well, how do I write wickily? What does it mean to nuggetize? Where do we put the metadata? How does the metadata accompany the material in some way that's comfortable and intuitive, et cetera, et cetera? And we've explored these things only lightly. A lot of them. We haven't gotten that deep into them. And I'm pretty sure, and Chris, your broad exposure across like hypertext duality and all of that might actually be super helpful here, too. I'm pretty sure other people have explored these things and solved some of the problems. And we just aren't necessarily aware of them yet. So piecing all that together is a piece of our mission here. Let me go back one second. Pete, I'm going to take some liberties with Massive for a second to talk a little bit about the connection between Massive and Neobooks. I've been using the metaphor of Mycelium a bunch to talk about OGM-y things and kind of how to build a shared memory, in part because if I talk about building a shared encyclopedia, all I've got to do is point to Wikipedia and say it runs on a wiki. Servers live here. Here's the software. You can even use it. You can use all the content. Every part of Wikipedia is kind of obvious and apparent and visible and reusable. A shared memory where we're doing something at some other level with other kinds of documents is sort of more abstract than that. And Neobooks aren't quite at that level of abstraction, like the brain that I use or Kumu or other tools, but there's somewhere in between where we're kind of above it. And so I've been using Mycelium because it's connective tissue that metabolizes materials that has nutrients in it, a bunch of other stuff. And then mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of mycelial growth. And a Neobook metaphorically is a mushroom out of the Mycelium of the nuggets that are woven, interacting, linked, have metadata, all these other sort of richnesses that only somebody who's down in there working on a particular nugget would necessarily see or care about. And another fruiting body, another mushroom might be a presentation on the same exact topic. So if someone wrote a book and then gave a presentation on the same book, that would be another mushroom popped up out of kind of the same body of nutrients and mycelial webs to do that. And Pete is in some sense building the platform that allows the Mycelium to work and to be shared and to let people participate in all that. And he's not, I'm going to use the phrase less interested, but it's not within scope of Massive Wiki necessarily to do the things that produce mushrooms that turn into applications that live on top of it. But it's a very complementary vision and it's absolutely something that extends and improves and lives on Massive Wiki. And so there's kind of this symbiotic partnering or interaction of ideas and visions and wishes that's going on here that that I really like. And Pete, stop me if I or correct me if I misrepresented some of that. It's fair to make something a little bit more explicit. Massive Wiki is not the only project I work on. In discussion with Drey and Drey Nsukut, we were talking about what Massive Wiki is supposed to be doing. And it's it is actually fairly tight. But then I have a lot of other projects that interlock with Massive Wiki. So someone Drey said Massive Wiki isn't interested in blah. That doesn't mean that Pete isn't interested in blah. He probably is. Yep. And then the other projects could be at least from my perspective metaphorically be seen as like other mushrooms that are fruiting from Massive Wiki in some sense because there are other applications or other ways of doing this kind of stuff. We should also point out that Jordan has used Massive Wiki probably more than any human and has like, I don't know how many words of prose on a series of kind of books that aren't yet Neo books, but could be et cetera. And he and Pete and I have had a couple discussions in the last couple weeks that are exciting because all these things are sort of flowing together very nicely. He calls them while he calls what he's working on Wiki books. And so the the vision is similar, but not as as well, well developed as Neo books, is the the whole Wiki whole lines were wiki is up to about 1.3 million words, I think. And so probably at least over a million of that is wiki books. It's wiki.linesburg.org, I think. Can you put a link in linesburg.wiki? Oh, linesburg.wiki. That's right. It's even better. Cool. So questions, thoughts, comments. I do have one question about the metaphor of nuggets. Because for me, the nugget implies just it doesn't apply what I'm trying to do. Is it's it's sort of like, I mean, how I'm understanding a nugget of wisdom or something that is transmitted. Whereas I actually I'm more interested in how to ask questions and able people to create nuggets on an ongoing basis, so to speak, that it's an iterative process. So for me, it's just, I don't know what a better metaphor is, but I just wanted to give a reaction to that. Thanks, Rick. And nuggets, the nuggets language showed up for me because these are valuable shiny objects like a gold nugget. That's kind of where I was going. But I think the intention of and the Neo books thing starts with the word book, partly because books are well known cultural objects, but they're just bait. They're not the real story under the hood. The real story under the hood is a lot more what you just said, which is how do we provoke discussion at fractal discussion at all different levels? How do we get people to share more of what they think, even if we disagree with it? How do we negotiate those disagreements and do more interesting things? So I think there's a whole bunch of other stuff that I didn't describe. And I think you're rightly pointing to it that is amenable to your vision in that way. Does that make sense? Yeah, it does. It's just that it's more, I mean, to me, sometimes nuggets imply content. Whereas actually, I'm talking about process rather than content. And I don't know, I'll just have to think about it. If I can come up with a different metaphor to capture what I'm trying to describe. Because to me, it's not a shining object. It's more a method of inquiry. I totally agree. And I think you're pointing out that I'm in some sense trapping myself by metaphors that I think will appeal to muggles, to people who are not deep into this, and to track them to the process and the conversation that you and I both care about a lot. You muted yourself accidentally again. Can you hear me now? Yeah. Okay. Well, I would call that the very, the manipulative use of marketing to use metaphors to attract people, even if I don't know. There's ethical psychological manipulation. And of course, it's unethical. So I do credit you for being on the ethical side of this. Boy, there's a line between the two fuzzy. Klaus, please. Sure, there's a line. Yeah, what occurred to me just fairly recently is that writing these new books is actually also a training program for your GPT. Because inadvertently, when you're pursuing your hypothesis on a number of topics, you have to feed data into the GPT. So it can respond to it. And I just got a message from OpenAI, I don't know, about a month ago, six weeks ago or so, that my account is now maintaining every conversation I've ever had and builds on it. So that's pretty significant, because I mean, I'm on my second new book here. And so you're not just building a new book, you're really building an understanding in the AI you're working with to dive much, much deeper into a specific topic. So I think that is a significant insight to consider what you're doing with this AI. And then I have, so in that sense, my new book, Volume Two, is an exploration. It's based on theory, stepping into the future as it emerges. That means I'm I'm constantly feeling, it's really sensing, feeling where the comments conversation is moving and going, me thinking where it should be going. And then, accordingly, insert my next chapter. So I've been twirling book quite some time now on the need to inform and educate the public on the linkages between the decisions we make about food and menus and their impact to not just their own personal health, but also on the environment and the world around them. And I've been and I can't move on. There's so much disturbance and turmoil in that conversation frame, in the comments where these things are debated. And you can see the intentional injection of misleading pieces of information that you have to then counter. So, but all the while, you're looking at the AI as a supporting tool. So right now, I'm starting to develop, for example, one of the hottest topics in the industry right now is a a method to measure low carbon intensities course. So what that means is that by applying regenerative practices, you can move from an intensities course, let's say 30 for corn, whatever that number means, but 30 you can actually turn this negative meaning that your soil is now sequestering carbon instead of pushing it out. And I inserted the idea of if you can measure carbon intensity, you should also be able to measure the nutrient quality of the crop coming out of that soil simply by using a spectrometer. And so that's now going spinning. So I'm developing a GPT that measures or that provides a statistical frame on how to define nutrient quality of crops. And that GPT, of course, is based on what I've been working on for the last year, the entire knowledge base about regenerative agriculture. I'm also I just started working on another one, a nutrition for health and disease prevention focused on cancer patients so that you can assist a cancer patient with a nutritional program that deprives the cancer cell of nutrients while feeding the recovery from chemo for your healthy cells, which is I developed as my daughter, my daughter at stage four lymphoma cancer, when she was 26 years old. And I moved in with her and did all this research part of what does chemo do now this is all work. We had her clean in 10 weeks. She's now 37 years old and on her fourth baby. And she literally was in her bone marrow. And the healthcare industry is just now becoming aware of the power of nutritional interventions in supporting healthcare. So I'm just putting out a bunch of stuff here. But my primary objective now really is to train the AI to understand this stuff and to just know when these kinds of queries come and people are asking these kinds of questions to just know what a good response and a personalized response would be. Thank you, Kost. Pete and Rick. And actually, at somewhere on the road, Jesse, if you wanted to riff on what you said in the chat earlier, that would be great too. I have a kind of a separate topic thing. I'm going to hit return in the chat. Our KTB print-on-demand book is just out. So there's some interesting publishing stuff that was about the process of working collectively and then seeing it in print. I wanted to come back to Rick's small reaction to nuggets as a word. And I appreciate Rick the observation and I like the looking for a new word. So it's also kind of a thing versus a process or an output versus a process, also noun versus a verb. And then I wanted one thing I didn't quite hear in Jerry's descriptions. I think he talked around it, but I wanted to say it very loud and clear that a thing about Neobooks is the components of them are meant to be composable and recomposable with other Neobooks. So a big part of what Jerry means when he says nugget, along with all the other things we just talked about, is the Neobook decomposes into component parts and then can be recomposed in different formations, different processes, and can also hopefully recompose with other Neobooks too. So I think that's the core of it. Thank you so much. That's a great added explanation. Really appreciate it. Rick. You know, I mentioned this before actually, and I'm very curious about, you know, I don't know whether Klaus, you've informed the interview about the process you went through in doing your Neobooks, because I think we can learn from your experience and, you know, it could be an interview that we do here that you sort of unpacked, you know, so that it becomes a sort of roadmap for other people who might want to sort of go on a similar journey. Actually, the word that came to mind, the metaphor that came to mind as a compliment to the nugget are seeds. So the seeds of ideas or seeds of inquiry or seeds of this, to me that implies something that's, you know, more organic or as a nugget, to me is something that's static. So anyway, I just put that metaphor into the hopper for consideration. Thank you. Super useful. And you've caused me to start reflecting on, like, one of the reasons I like mycelium as a metaphor is that it's a growing, it's an organism that's busy growing and metabolizing and helping things that are around it and all that kind of stuff. I mean, well, maybe we should use spores, except seeds are something that I think people are more familiar with than spores, but you could call them spores, seeds and nuggets, you know. That's true. And pretty soon, we're talking about the last, the last of us, right, the series. I didn't, I didn't, I didn't sense an overwhelming response from Klaus as to whether he'd be willing to share his, his labor of love as a, as a way of, you know, shining an example on, on how, you know, we could learn from your experience. But maybe the reason why I have been able to tease out some pretty good information from this AI is because I'm probably the least trained in the group on programming and, you know, formal interaction with computer systems. So I just basically took the position of talking with the AI like it's my body, right? So we are conversation partners, right? I actually instructed it to be, to interact with me as a conservation partner. And so, and then there are some other things that I, that I loaded in to, to frame the conversation. I mean, you basically put a ring around, you know, the conversation structure that you want to build. It's not complicated at all. It's just surprisingly simple, maybe. Let's see, please. Thanks. What's that? Rick was speaking. No, no, sorry. So I would just say I wouldn't underestimate what you've done even as a, as a novice. You know, I just, I certainly would appreciate learning from your experience. Maybe I'm the only one, but, you know, each time somebody does it, then it creates a learning community about how to do this. I mean, you're ahead of the curve. So even if you think you're a novice, it's still one step ahead of me. I will, I will sort of say that Paul's experience is extremely centered on chat GPT and how to use that to generate a text. And we have not really neo-booked the text. Klaus's experience is not typical of a neo-book quite yet. So he could, he could teach a lot about how to collaborate with GPT and create a GPT and all that, but less so on the neo-books front. Well, I see it as both and rather than either or, but anyway, that's fine. Cool. Jesse, then Pete. Well, I appreciate Klaus, you, you helping me support the beginning stages. So really, in the bottom of my heart, it helped me get to the next stage, but we're still working on the same goal. And working in isolation seems like a disservice to the world. So looking forward to connecting again. Part of it is that when there are two people or two groups of people working on the same goal in two different ways, what ends up showing up is, well, what is for the commons and what is for my own goods, so that I'm going to keep it to myself so that I can make money. And I want to, like you said, Pete, work collectively. I want to open up my AI chat GPT whenever I come up with one day as I teach it. Or I want to like look at how we can apply the phenomenal works that you are working on for trust and agriculture or the things that I'm interested in seeing how the Venn diagrams start building itself somehow. I don't know what that space looks like, but that's the playground I want to be in. So, so basically it would meet next Rick's needs at the same time as really support our initiatives together. Agreed. Totally. Thank you. Pete. I wanted to address Rick's observation that he didn't get enthusiastic, oh, wow, I'll share everything I know from Klaus. And Klaus, I apologize if I'm misspeaking. But I think, let me share something I've observed with Klaus over the past three, four months working with him kind of side by side. Klaus is hyper focused on essentially the content of soil health and regenerative agriculture and bioregions because he's extremely aware and extremely motivated to try to save the world for everybody and for his kids and his grandkids and his great grandkids. So anything that's off that mission, like, why don't you tell people how you do that? It kind of goes like, you know, in one hearing out the other. He's like on mission, right? He's very focused on his mission and I appreciate that very much. So thanks, Klaus. And if I'm wrong, please let me know. So Rick, you're totally right. The experience that Klaus has had in composing his pieces, I think, is a valuable thing. And speaking as a bit of a journalist, the reason I set up my leaky plexus batch is to have a venue or a mechanism, a mechanism of journalism where you kind of try to extract some of the wisdom out of people who are working too hard to think, to even talk about what they're doing, right? So I think to answer your question, Rick, it's a good one. The right thing to ask Klaus is something more like, hey, can we set up an interview where I'll have two or three interviews with you for half an hour each over the course of a couple weeks, and I'll write down your process, what you're doing. Is that okay? And I think Klaus would be happy to do that. But it's not going to be something that he, like, you know, splits his brain and works on by himself. Is that agreeable, Klaus? I mean, are you... Yeah, I also don't underestimate the technical skills that are required to ask the right questions. I mean, I grew up in a family of chefs. I'm the fourth generation chef in Germany. My dad had a restaurant. Everybody had restaurants. I spent a lifetime in the food business. I've worked internationally in senior level corporate positions. I've worked internationally in 30 countries where I have teams in 30 countries of analysts. So there is a knowledge base that you know, it's not that you can't just share, you know, it's not that easy to replicate. And I've always been, you know, keenly, I've always been in systems design because I worked for Disney and designed food systems for theme parks in, I mean, Hong Kong, Disneyland, California Adventure and stuff like this. And so you're... So I have a knack, obviously, for thinking in systems without being trained to do that. It's just instinctive. And so it's not that easy to share. But what I may be able to help is to help you get your technical skills on the ground and frame them. And how do you go about, you know, deepening this, you know, because I may ask a question where I expect a certain range of answer. Then I find that I only was at like 20%. And then the GPET fits in another 80% that sort of where they are linked. But you have to start the right question. And so you know, the Socratic method of questioning. So it's maybe the easiest way to explain that. But you have to have some technical skills to get into technical conversations. Love that. Other thoughts, questions about what we've just been talking about? Yeah, in some respects, it's sort of meta-learning in a sense that it's sort of like the story of how you did your... And I understand you focus. That's not where you want to spend your time. And I completely respect that. The question is, you know, it could almost be a mid-year book of that story. But the question is, Pete, I don't know whether you have the time or not, but I'm just throwing out ideas here. That's all. I mean, I'm interested in meta-learning and also into community kinds of things. So I actually would allocate some time to spend on a meta-learning new book. And then I think one of the most significant insights I've been in conversations about your stereo and your spiral dynamics in combination for, you know, five, six years. Once I came across that instinctively, I'm thinking, yeah, I mean, that just makes the most sense because you may have stereo, the progression of insights and so on, but you're talking with different people and stereo is actually doing a form of spiral dynamics in the way that they do their meditative exercises, you know, to bring people to the same platform and so on and so on. So going right into spiral dynamics is just a more direct way and also a more shareable way of doing this. But I mean, you learn that different groups of cognition actually speak different languages. Now they're using different metaphors. They're using different idioms. And so you have to really think your way in to this frame of mind. And AI by now, since I laid in the entire background of spiral dynamics is my AI now is just right going right there. Who are you talking with? You know, and so we need to reframe this, you know, into this kind of don't talk about climate change with a farmer. But farmers believe into God and God's, it's God's domain to impact the global climate. So talk to a farmer about soil and water. But this, I mean, and then I have done my research and conversations have confirmed this. Right. I mean, there was an article in the Washington Post the other day saying, yeah, this farmer, I mean, these farmers just don't talk about climate change. They just don't go there. You know, this is the domain of higher power. So it's this kind of insight. And I shared this with, I'm working with a professor from Michigan State University who is developing communications, you know, with for the Climate Reality Project and the Sierra Club and so on. And she totally embraced this kind of form of communication. So it's, yeah, it's a bunch of stuff. So Klaus, a question for you to ponder. I'm comfortable with the idea that different people have different metaphors in language and that spiral dynamics is a way of modeling those kinds of things. I'm really uncomfortable. And when it's come up, it's always made me go, ah, that all farmers are blue and all churchgoers are green or whatever the right levels are. That makes me really uncomfortable. So I think there's a there's something missing in the formula, which is how do I let a person find their way to the form of expression that works for them? Assuming that there's a multitude of varieties of need, there's a need for a variety of forms of expression. But the moment you blanket everybody and say it like, you can't talk to a farmer this way because they all believe this. I'm like, they're really complicated. And some of them are over here. Some of them are over there. There's big farmers, little farmers, like, like there's all kinds of people and there's all kinds of churches too, right? So, so I think there's an impedance mismatch or something like that in the way you're coming about this, that if solved, if that, if that piece is solved, then people can find their way to the form of expression of your argument that absolutely works for them. And then they can work through the logic of it and join the movement and be happy ever after. Does that make sense? So our research shows that roughly 60% or so of farmers are very much in this climate change is nonsense kind of bucket. But does that make them red or blue or whatever? It's blue. I mean, it's primarily I don't think that's a blue argument. It is. Absolutely. When you go back into my new book, number one, yeah, that is, I asked the I asked the chat GPT to give me a definition of what different colors are thinking about climate change and within the context and so on and so on. When you read through this and you look at blue, it's right there. So, so people who believe in higher power, no, believe in God is in charge. That's what you get. That's, that's, I mean, I've confirmed this. I'm a tiny bit more concerned now because you're taking chat TBT's response to you as if it were like a study that's true. And the fact that you've asked to be for a couple paragraphs on each of these things and that that doesn't show up as a prominent signal in the other colors, you're assuming that means that this, this isn't relevant to them. I'm a little confused now because I don't think this is as black and white as chat GPT is giving it to you. Okay, so you're also using chat GPT as a, as a like determinative authority on this, which all of us are like, wait, what? I mean, I won't speak for all of us, but I'm like, wait, what? Yeah, so that's a good conversation because that's really important stuff. Hold on, let me just pull that up. The let me just take the screen for a second. Cool. As you're doing this class, I'll just say I've been reading Ed Catmull's book Creativity about Pixar and the story of Pixar and all that. There's a bunch of really lovely things in there about how, you know, about how he used to deal with creative, creative conflict and all that kind of stuff, which are great. I recommend the book. Yeah. So I asked chat GPT and this is after, you know, after introduced introductory conversations, you know, food, the spiral visit basically is what, what the audio original authors here framed this ad. So I asked, write an 800 word essay about what the world looks like to an individual living in their respective VMEM zone, considering the information the school has access to and knows to process what are they're thinking? Who are their thought leaders operating at a higher level of consciousness and what are the motivations of these thought leaders for engaging with a specific VMEM? What is the most recent state of cognitive dissonance caused by the divergence of talking about climate change versus observing it in real life? So that was my question, right? So beige is quite obvious. I mean, you have people who are far more worried about where they sleep tonight and what they get to eat. And so you move up into, into, into red, you know, which is sort of the marker range of the world. And that, and farmers are, you know, somewhere in that zone, but here conversations in blue, in blue. So the world is a structured place governed by universal laws, moral codes and societal norms, you know, the sources of information of trusted institutions that align with the world, few thought leaders engaging with this group. So anyway, so, so here, when it comes to the issue of climate change, cognitive dissonance for those in the blue VMEM can be significant. On the one hand, they're receiving information from trusted sources, be it the Pope, that prompts them to consider the issue. On the other hand, the effects of climate change might directly contradict their longstanding beliefs in a just world governed by a higher power or reliable institutions. So, so I'm just, and I've shared this with, with Michigan State University and with the New York University professor, and they're super excited about this because they were actually reframing the way they're communicating with specific groups. And so, so I, I mean, I'm assisting the launch of a questionnaire by, by the climate reality project, and they have a couple of million people, volunteers, and we are developing, we have developed a questionnaire that goes to farmers, and we want them to talk about their experience with, with the regenerative agriculture and soil. And we had a discussion where I talked with the leadership, asking them specifically to not mention climate change in this conversation, because even if it's 40% of farmers, you know, who absolutely can't get towards this, you're destroying, you know, I mean, the impact of, because you're turning off so many of them by mentioning this. So it's actually over 60% of farmers are in the blue. Some of our blue orange, some of blue red, but they're centered blue. Now, the very religious people, you know, I mean, the evangelical movement is very strong in there. So it is what it is now. And, and so that's, that's where, and we find our impact and our outreach is getting so much stronger because the key message here is the way the American political system is designed is that you have personally have a representation in your community, right? There is House of Representatives, you know, you're electing them to represent you in Washington. And then each state has two senators. So what's this person talking about in Washington? How are they voting? You know, is this in your interest? And so you have to pay attention. So to have volunteers like the Sierra Club and the Climate Reality Party go and talk to the to the conquest person. And I've done that up in Washington several times. And it's, it's ridiculous. They don't pay any attention unless you show up with a check, you know, and it has to be a six figure check before it's even getting noticed. So, so we are, we are switching course now, and we are talking to the farmers and have them talk to the member of Congress because these guys are the ones voting for them. And so that's the idea behind it in the middle of executing on this and very fast. So because the farm bill is on the docket and it's super contentious. It got pushed into 2024 from last year when it was supposed to get decided, but it's hot now, right? It's hot in March. It's coming up March, April. And so, and so, yeah, so we need to engage the base and you can't engage the base if you're offending them with your opinions and the way you talk about it. So you have to be really context specific and in this sense also color specific, you know, the way we call it. So anyway, so there is nothing unusual about this. And then if it's regard to like moral considerations, Cambridge under Lutika did exactly this, right? But during the last election, that's exactly what they did. Right. So then we want to have hurdles where we just can't do this. It's not the right thing to do. Well, I mean, everybody else does it. So I'm not trying to say it's not the right thing to do. I'm trying to express that you're trying to not turn people off. And what by not saying climate change, I can totally get that a bunch of people might stay in the room and have their conversation makes complete sense to me. But if they figure out and people are pretty astute about this, that you're generalizing about them in a way that they disagree with, that would probably turn them off. And I'm trying to figure out how to dissolve that problem, that possible issue. And it might over complicate things for you. I don't know. I'm interested in what other people in the call also think about this. And Stacy, if you want to step in also, I'm curious about how you how you think about this too. But Rick, if you'll go ahead. No, Stacy can go if she feels like it or Jesse, either I can wait. If they don't, that's fine. I can go for it. Stacy is nodding. You go. You know, class, what I'm hearing now is your storytelling. And to me, this is the interesting part. And that's exactly what Pete was talking about. And what I what I was hearing from Jerry was his discernment about something that may be an overgeneralization. Having said that, I actually went to that. I've been watching some of the Knight Foundation videos from the recent conference. And the first one actually, and I'm blanking on a name, it's in my blog post, I put it in there, a woman who who talked about who wrote the book, the first book on biases in algorithms. And it was a fast fascinating talk. But, you know, on the one hand, I think you need the discernment to deep to deconstruct those types of biases that are unhelpful, so to speak. On the other hand, what if we were to actually design the algorithms that were pro, you know, health, pro farming, whatever, if it was designed in that way. I think the point that I'm hearing from Jerry is that, you know, there's there's a risk of getting too swept in by a particular biases that may be an overgeneralization. That's all. Thank you, Charles. But it's a discernment. I mean, it's like, you know, it's, you know, I would encourage GPD as something you discern, you have to discern what it's saying, and you have to sort of, you know, you have to be careful what you're getting out. And I'm sure you've done your due diligence on that as well. Thanks, Rick. Stacey, I don't want to force you in, but you have so many interesting perspectives of talking to normal humans and how they accept. Normal humans. Yeah, how they accept conversations, right? And yeah, well, I really agree with your point, you know, where you got kind of poked, I was getting poked. And I also agree with everything that Klaus said as a way to approach the conversation. But I think all conversations should probably start in the beige. And I hope I'm using that, you know, I don't know spiral dynamics. So I'm just assuming that beige is that, okay, good. Thank you, Jesse. So yeah, I mean, everything's been said that I would say. So I had put in the chat, I think it's enough to say when we're dealing with farmers, this is the way we do it, without saying why or because they're not all the same. And there's no reason to even explain why this is just the best way to do it for this situation. Thank you for asking. Thanks, Stacey. Anyone else with thoughts on this? Cool. Rick, you had put some work in front of us that you'd love us to pay attention to. We might maybe. Yeah, I'm in no hurry to do it. Actually, I'd be curious just to get a sense from Chris and Jose are willing to sort of get a sense of what the reactions are to what we've just been talking about. It's always difficult when a group have been talking for a while, for people coming in, but sometimes outside perspectives can be helpful. So I don't know whether you feel like sharing any thoughts about what you've been listening to. Perfect, Rick. Thank you. Anyone else? Jose, Jesse, Chris, if you want to jump in, please. Yeah, this is no pressure. This is just in the spirit of equity, you know? Thanks for that, Rick. So the first thing that comes to mind is I was kind of expecting more of a conversation about a technical process of how do we, what are we building, how do we build it, and how do we make it do that, and or a conversation around why, some fundamentals around why we're doing this. And I think there's been a little bit of kind of touching on it, but not really sort of a holistic view of it, at least that I received. And so that was also a question for me. As to the specifics of any one NIO book or you know, the subject matter, if you will, of any one NIO book, I think there's, my question is, is there some kind of ontology by which we're going to be looking at these things, or are we just sort of saying, here's one idea, here's another idea, and I'm working on this kind of thing, you're working on that kind of thing, how do we then understand them in the scope of what a NIO book is, if such a thing exists? Do we back to the seeds, nuggets, whatever? Have we talked about what those are that leads us to whatever projects are here, and that they kind of, there's some fundamental ones. Is there some first principle or something that we're starting with, that we can then say, okay, well, how do we take this to the next thing, to the next thing? And does this apply to those threads that arise from that seed? So yeah, for our first conversation, it seems like I'm struggling to grasp at some of this, to be frank. Thanks, Jose. I'll take a swing at answering you by using what might be a strange metaphor. So far, the NIO books project is more like a farmhouse ale than Carlsberg Lager. You just lost me even further, thank you so much. And no, no, no, I need to explain it, and I know I need to explain it. So Carlsberg is famous way back when for purifying yeasts and basically then open sourcing the new yeast they discovered, which reduced the incidence of beer disease, because when people brewed beer all across Europe, which was like what you drank all the time, some batches of beer would kill you because you had the wrong bacteria in there. So they purified it and basically helps went up after they did that. Farmhouse ales, you basically put the brew near a window and whatever stuff comes in forms the basis of that batch of beer, whatever bacteria are in the air. And in some sense, we're more like that here in that we're seeing who shows up, who's interested in writing something. If the NIO books happen to touch or intertwine great, if a writer of a NIO book wants to do different spurs and versions of the NIO book, that's great too, but we don't have any ontology or thought about where should we write a NIO book and what topic or anything, that hasn't even really been part of the conversation. So I mean that just to explain that the NIO books we have going are just people's passions and interests, and they're like, this NIO book thing sounds curious, let's try that. Does that make sense? And does anybody disagree with that strange analogy? Okay, good. I don't disagree, but I have a different way of telling the story. Perfect, because I wouldn't expect anybody to come up with a farmhouse ale versus curl third vlogger story. I'll say you see us in the midst of inventing the NIO book protocols and the NIO book technology and things like that. So I think this experiment has been going on for about a year and during parts of the experiment, it's all about tech and parts of the experiment, it's all about content. After thrashing back and forth like that for a couple months in the early beginning, it was like, well, I'll tell you what, let's just write a freaking NIO book and then see what to do with it after we write it. So the general idea is about composability and what we've been calling nuggets and having a fruitful discussion about what nugget or seeds or spores even means, micellia even means even during this call, that's the process that we're in right now. So we are not yet in a phase of extreme extreme technical production. We're still kind of mucking about looking for exactly what we think we're doing and how to make that useful. I might sense a bit of disappointment or frustration on your face. I share that to be frank, folks, I am interested more in metal learning and intercommunity stuff and the technologies of publishing and distributing information. That's my bailiwick and I wish we had more of that somehow. I'm not sure that I would stomp on this call to do it, but I'm eager or itchy or something like that to get more production done. And it's a chicken and egg thing. We are stuck right in the middle of chicken and egg. So we can't burn the NIO book until we have the content of it and the technical processes. We don't know what the content of a NIO book or the technical process it should be until we have until we're ready to publish. And so that's where we are. Pete, are there lessons we should take from the Cindy Koon super fast-paced project right now? I can relate some, yeah. And I apologize. I'm going to do this in a bit of a personal manner instead of a thoughtful and considered manner. Cindy is a fascinating person. She ended up being kind of the Jerry to this team. We invited where she and Lee picked a few people and said, okay, this is a team. And we kind of knew each other. We kind of didn't have any idea what we were writing about, except it was supposed to be an AI. Part of the magic of the thing coming together was Cindy continually encouraging us to keep going and to be happy about it. This happened like a month and a half or so before Christmas. And so as we got to the Christmas holiday, everybody's behind. They don't know what they're doing. They don't know what they're writing about. They've written five different drafts and thrown all of them away. Cindy kept saying, be positive, help each other. Just write anything that's going to be good and we'll publish it. And she set a deadline. And I think the deadline was after Christmas, which was kind of a curse because then it was like we felt like we needed to take some of the holiday break to do work, which I hate death marches. So it ended up with a bit of a death march thing. So there was a deadline on Friday, final, final, final deadline. Bam. And this was after software deadlines and firming up deadlines. And this is the final deadline. That was on Friday. On Wednesday, here's Pete. This past Friday? No, it was about two weeks ago, three weeks ago. Okay, okay. Friday deadline. Here's Pete typing up a heartfelt email. Cindy, thank you. Cindy and team. Thank you so much for doing everything. I love you all. There's no way I can finish in two days. I give up. I'm not going to be there. And in something that just amazed me, a couple people, Wendy, Wendy Elford, or one of our friends, is one person, two other people kind of showed up and said, Pete, it would be heart-rending if you dropped out now. You have to finish something. And Cindy came up with a cheat, actually. She said, you know, like it's more important that you turn something in that it's the perfect 5,000 word. That was the target 5,000 word piece, right? I'll tell you what, just turn in 16 blank pages. Like take that email, we'll put it at the front, and then this is Pete's part of the book, right? 16 blank pages. So I had one-on-one calls with three other people, literally, like begging and pulling and keeping me going and like pushing me up. And then Friday Cindy said, okay, I can kind of afford one more week. You know, she's actually going on a trip and stuff, so she does have hard deadlines. I can kind of afford one more week. Let's just do this thing. Take the weekend and see how far we get. And some of us will make it over the line, some of us might not, and that's okay. Pete can turn in his thing and we'll put it in the middle of the book because this is a great example of the process, right? So it was that over the weekend, that was somehow enough impetus for me to, me and chat to PT to come up with 15,000 words, which is, then I've got an editing problem, right? How do you get 15,000 words back down to five or six thousand? One of the big, so a couple of the big takeaways for me, one of them was just setting a deadline and sticking to it more or less. Cindy stuck to it a little bit less than she could have, and that was probably a good thing. Another thing was somehow working it so that there was everybody's working on their own chapter pretty much blind without anybody else. I mean we all had our books in a Google folder, our chapters in a Google folder, and we were supposed to be reading each other's. I don't think most of us had enough time to cross read even. But there was a real camaraderie that came out of a little bit unlike here. This is a little bit more of an open structure where people come in and come out. We were all on a team and we were forced to make sacrifices and push each other and hold each other up and that kind of stuff. We did actually lose one person. One person, even after the week where I gave up and got back in, the final final, somebody said, I'm sorry, I just can't make it, and his piece was actually pretty good and he kind of got distracted on other things and didn't feel like finishing it, and that's sad. So I don't know if that helps or not, but a big part of it is just deciding what to do and doing it, making sure it gets done. That's a great story. Thank you for sharing that with us a lot. Really appreciate that. Paz? Yeah, hanging the conversation back to AI because I think it's really important. This thing is moving so damn fast and in so many ways. There's no upgrade that's coming out maybe in a month or so. I think they're targeting March. This is big stuff. This allows, and I'm actually working with a couple of companies now to help them develop a customized AI for their particular business. So what this thing does is it allows your data to be proprietary. ChatGPT has indicated that whatever you put in to your enterprise, GPT will not be shared with the general database. So you have a proprietary tool that you can develop there. You can commercialize it, and I'm not quite sure yet how that ends up getting shared with a customer base, but I know my son, he's head of talent branding for SEMSERA, which is an AI driven company that works for logistics firms. They are developing their own proprietary AI. Yeah, that controls the movement of stuff, logistics of airlines and buses and trucks and so on. And so that's the same idea that companies can develop a personalized AI that protects their intellectual property. This is big stuff. I mean, this is a major development here, and it happens so fast. I mean, when you think about, maybe transition to 3.5 to 4.0, how long ago was that, six months ago? Then we went from 4.0 to GPTs. You can do your own GPT, and that has exploded. And so now here comes the next big hit, where you can actually use your skills of developing AI, for example, to work with companies and help them set up a proprietary database. So to me, the whole discussion on new books is individually linked to AI and where AI is going, because it just blows up your capacity of your work in ways that's just unfathomable. Jose, please, go ahead. Yeah, I mean, one of the things that, when you guys described new books to me, one of the things that resonated for me, and you didn't use this language, I had used this language in the past, one of the things that I think the open source software world has really done is build foundations for more work and more work and more work, because we basically can build a stack of open source software, and no one really has to deal with the foundational systems, right? I can build something great on top of something else and something else and something else. And part of what I think is a struggle for me when we look at everybody's writing their own book, everybody's got their own method of seeing everything, everybody's got their own language, their own perspective, they're, you know, you name it, right? And none of us are actually building on anything. And well, you understand. I think we're describing the building, but it's very loose. But we're trying really hard to build on one another's stuff. We're, I think, for the most part, when you write a book that's your book, and you reference a bunch of stuff, it still has your lens, right? And in it, if I read your book, then it's your book, and it has your lens, and it has your voice in it. And maybe I've got three nuggets from it, but it's not a collaborative effort. And I don't feel like I can actually add to what you've done. I can learn from it and abstract it and use it in some other way. And I can reference the lesson I learned. Here's the three lessons from this book and four lessons from that book. But I don't feel like our society as, you know, this idea of books, our society has made a book an intellectual ownership copyright thing. And, and it seems to me that it actually has helped. But maybe it's reached the end of its ability to help. Where now we need to create something where we're building on each other's stack. Right. And, and the reason that I'm going down this path, because I'm sure everybody kind of shares this, this idea, I doubt that this is a novel idea. What, what I'm missing, what I hear missing for me here in this conversation today is, I haven't heard us talk about this concept of, of a stack of, of information or knowledge or, or, or a way of framing this. And that actually allows us to, to work like, yeah, I don't think there needs to be a single OS, right. And a single graphic engine and a single, you know, right, like, but we need those things and we need to understand what those things are. So what, what are some of the ways that we build our stack so that when somebody comes in and adds a piece to it, they can assemble the stack they want and then go from there. Or maybe tweak a stack, you know, fork a stack, make it, you know, a lower, you know, change some lower level stuff and then add their piece to it because they don't think that the current underlying components suit where they're going. To me, that kind of thinking maybe my background is architecture. So maybe I just, I need that foundation. I can't build on something that doesn't have a foundation. I made to understand what that foundation is capable of doing and then build from there. So anyway, that's just what's resonating for me. Thanks Jose. And thank you for this feedback during our call with us because I'm hearing it in a very funny way because I'm completely sympathical with everything you're saying. I think we're doing a lot of the stuff you're saying, but we're clearly, clearly not communicating it. I'm clearly not communicating it. And then Pete, your explanation of the story is like, I am, I am not a good sort of cheerleader of people who need to write a book and shepherd of a bunch of people to get to some place to finish a thing on a deadline and project management is mostly foreign to me. So I need to either build or find those skills or some piece of this project might turn into that, but I'm just usually terrible at that with myself and with groups. So I'm listening with care to this, but everything you said, Jose, feels like exactly, and we've had a whole bunch of conversations about what are the future stacks. Pete and I are busy trying to figure out what are the elements of the stack that built on top of massive wiki and all of that. That's like, the stack I'm talking about is not a technical stack. Yes. And exactly. Well, we need that as well. Totally agree. And I will, I will share a link from my brain with you so that we can go have this conversation separately or bring it back in here, because I think there's a Neo book in, I got it. Right now I hated saying that. There's a Neo book in explaining what these stacks are and how we might, how civilization might be shifting its stacks in some way. I think that's totally a thing and ought to be a thing. And then you said some really interesting things about books are a person's book and what about the collaboration. And I'm really interested in that because there's somehow this blending of voices and then this calling out of voices that is a funny delicate dance about how ideas are formed and how people want to defend ideas or represent them or whatever else. That is a part of the mix of what we're talking about here. And I don't, we haven't discussed that very much here. And I think that's also a really interesting thing for us to go back into because books are written by people. Pete just did an edited volume version with Cindy Coon and team, which is there are chapters written by different individuals, each of which is that individual's voice into the topic. That's one method. There's other methods. There's also a bunch of people write one thing and then all of them are listed at the top as authors or it's anonymous and none of them are listed at the top as authors. All of those are just on the spectrum of the kinds of authorship that you're talking about. But the kind of thinking together that you're describing is like completely what I hope we're about here. Anyway, you spot off a bunch of really useful things for me and I appreciate that. And I'll pass to Pete, then Rick, then Jesse. Thanks, Jerry. And thank you, Jose. Like Jerry said, it's really important to kind of get this feedback and it's great, great here. I wanted to tell you or I wanted to tell, maybe I want to tell the story. I don't know. I wanted to tell you that what you described as let's write something together instead of let's write things that we put together and then call it together. So the book, the book we just wrote, the AI book with Cindy Koon, we formed a loose team at the end of it, but it was all written separately, very, very expressly, actually. I have a completely different experience 20 years ago. And I think I even have to ask you to forget what Wiki means to tell this story or imagine, loosen up the definition of Wiki and forget that Wikipedia ever existed. But it was day to day that I used to write a collective knowledge base with other people, where the whole thing was written as a piece by the whole collective of people. It was as if we had a collective brain and the parts of the brain were talking to each other and explaining things to each other and developing a shared knowledge together that was written output. And I don't know if that sounds crazy or impossible or whatever, but we used to do it all the time. And on top of that experience, the thing that I used to love the most was seeing that collective brain having a thought and chasing a thought for literally months and years, where the team together, if you got the whole team together and said we've got this difficult problem of how to square the circle with the user interface and the technology and the human process that needs to happen for this product. If you asked anybody at the beginning of that year or two, we would have this difficult problem that would seem insoluble, like it's like, yeah, it can't be done. And a month or two later, you'd see what was kind of an internal blog post, actually. So there's a number of different practices that went into constructing that collective brain thing. One of them was kind of daily notes to self, notes to the team. Other things were people who kind of swept together and added things together. Part of it was just the way that you would write. We always wrote in the third person. So often I would say something like I, and then I would put Pete in parentheses behind it because somebody might come along and say I, Jesse, you know, in a separate sentence. Anyway, you'd see an internal blog post on this difficult topic come up. Here's all the things that we've been talking about. And then a month later, you'd go, huh, if I put this thing and that thing, I feel like there's a little bit of movement. And then somebody else would reply to that and say no, no, no, you're wrong. Here's all the different things wrong with that or whatever. And over the course of a year, you would see this, this collective brain working the problem. And, and after a while, it started to loosen up. And after a while, it was like salt. And it was like magic. And it was this, this conversation that I haven't seen happen anywhere else. I'm sure it does, but a conversation that can't really happen in an email thread or a chat system, or Twitter, or even books, writing books back and forth at each other. It was like simpler and more easy than that and more collective and more, you know, cool. I don't know. So a thing that I can relate from my experiences back then, we used to have unconferences, the Wiki people would get it, unconferences together. One time we had an conference that was subbed into, I think it was the Association for Computing Machinery. There was a big, you know, big ACM conference. And I had this, and Ward Cunningham, the inventor of the Wiki is a big part of the ACM actually. I had this really weird experience where we did our, our collective thing, but it was within the confines of a normal kind of academic scientific community. And you could look at the different people and they were just, they just were different. The Wiki people would make these collective decisions about what to do for lunch, and they would collectively decide what to talk about for topics. They would collectively, you know, it was a, a temperament and, and social kind of upbringing thing or something where the Wiki people just weren't like the, the scientists who got used to that rigid thing where I'm presenting a talk and I've had a peer reviewed by these people and, you know, it's my thing. And maybe I'll share a little bit of credit with them, but not too much credit and all that kind of stuff. All of that was like the, the, the populations were just dramatically different. So I've been trying to reconstruct that social stack for a couple of years, basically on top of Massive Wiki. So the Massive Wiki community, we've had a couple of attempts at, at Wiki writing, Wiki, thinking wiggly, that kind of stuff. I also started another community called Prose Fusion, which is basically Massive Wiki rebranded a little bit to be more about writing. And probably there's some other ones too, where trying to get that experience back and it's really hard because I don't know exactly why it's really hard. It's really hard. It's hard to get, you know, we, we had the, the way I had that best experience was in my Wiki company where we were making the tool. So, so we were eating our own dog food or drinking our own champagne. And everybody was, there's, I guess there's a little bit of activation energy that it requires to be part of a team. And then to be a collective part of the team adds another bit of activation energy. And being in a company that was making a product that we were using was enough activation energy to keep pushing us back and contained into that space and say, well, figure out how to express yourselves in this space. There were a few other wikis that were really good too. Ward's original C2 Wiki was a pretty good wiki. And then there was another one called Meatball Wiki, which was also working wiggly together. It had a really, really strong, really strong captain, basically, I think is another, another component of it. So massive wiki as a tech stack supports that really well. It does a great job of having content that you build together, but each of you can be separate, but you can be together. And if anybody wants to, either in the team or outside of the team, you can pick up the whole thing and start in another place, tear down some of it, rebuild some of it. So massive wiki is a good technical substrate for it. But you're right. It's actually a social process and social connections and dissolving some of the ways that people are used to thinking about how they work together, especially when all of us got brought up in an academic thing, where it's like, hey, now that you're writing, whether it was longhand or typewriters or now computers, hey, now that you're writing, stay away from everybody else. Don't let, don't cheat, don't like share, don't do any of that. So all of us have to unlearn that, especially when you put your fingers on the keyboard or your pen on the paper. It's like right away that zooms you into that solo mindset. So I'm super passionate about trying to get back that wiki style of collective thinking and collective writing. So love to help however I can. Thank you, Pete. That was a lot. Rick and Jesse, and then we're near the end of our call. Yeah, this will be brief, Pete, because everything you just said was music to my ears, actually. Somebody who has been an academia and know the, you know, and the idea of being on earth, you spend so many years writing a book and then, you know, you spend the next time trying to get people to read the damn thing. You know, it's just like, give me a break, you know, 80% of a book success is your marketing plan, except everyone puts 80% into writing the book and do dilly squat for marketing. I've been there, done it. So I know, so I'm much more interested in the idea of what you just described is how to capture that pre wiki experience where, you know, people are coming together and collectively learning, you know, and my stick is equity moonshot, which is, you know, how to get people together and think about equity, regeneration, sustainability at multiple levels, starting with their own personal experience, which was what Klaus was talking about. How do you get into the world of somebody who may be, you know, you know, beige level or whatever, you know, how do you relate to them in a way that they see the point of coming together, rather than getting locked into the divisiveness of, you know, climate change deniers, you know, proponents, yada, yada. So, you know, it comes back to the Rodney King expression, can we just get along? Give me a break. Can we just get along and do the work that we need to do? We're so good at sabotaging ourselves with our dysfunctional polarizations that actually that's one big, I'll just say this, I haven't mentioned this in a while, I don't think, but, you know, we're so locked into the language of values, and we need to shift to the language of virtues. And I've said this before, but, you know, values divide us, virtues can align us, and the business world is so locked in to the language of values, which are highly conflictual that actual virtues can help us mediate across our differences in value systems. So anyway, that's it. Over you, Jesse. Thanks, Rick. I actually had a conversation with my 17-year-old son on that topic yesterday, and it became very heated. I would love to talk with you about it another time, but he doesn't think it's possible. Which part? Sorry. The idea of virtues are really having a group of people actually come together and work within a virtues framework versus talking about one opinion versus another. He just, he doesn't see that as possible. So another topic, another time to talk about and dive into, because that's really what I'm very much into what Jose was talking about. If that's the intention here in this group, I haven't yet experienced that in a way that I feel like I can lean in. It's more like I'm still trying to figure it out, you know, learning where's my place? What can I do? So if we can move into that next level somehow, I don't know what that looks like, but I'm excited to explore that. And I just think that there's a, the collective authoring is one level, but I think it's the next step higher than that. And it's the collective action or something. I don't even want to use the wrong words. I would love for you to try to use the wrong words, because I was about to ask if it's not collective authoring, what is it? I mean, it's not negating collective authoring, that's necessary as an ingredient to maybe the next step of action or working towards addressing a problem not in isolation of all of our skill sets and all of our products and all of our offerings and all of our data. It's just seems like it's, it's like I go into the computer every morning and I have all these dings from all these different platforms from Discord to LinkedIn. And I was talking, we were talking about this on the call that Rick and I were on earlier with OpenXO, but it was a weird that we're kind of modeling that in our conversations too, in a way. It's a metaphor, but I think we're just kind of showing up the way that we know how and we're reacting a lot to a lot of stuff. We're just kind of this, that, this, that and our attention economy is, is near null. It's just, I'd be really that productive going from this to that to this to that. So I don't know, I like to model here at least what that might look like next and I look forward to it. I'm, Jesse, thank you. I'm going to propose that next Monday our topic starts with the words collective authoring and that we actually dive into what we mean by this and some of the nuances of what we've been talking about right now. I think we should turn this over so that we can figure out what language we do like together. I really love where you're going and I'm realizing that a lot of decisions I'm making about what to do, what to call it, what to focus on, where to go are my own pragmatic interpretations about how they held to get the word out about this stuff that's actually fuzzy and hard to explain sometimes. So I would love for us to pool our minds and figure that out. So does that sound like a reasonable topic for next week? Yes, I could just, if I could just quickly say one thing, Klaus, we need to use spiral dynamics to think about new books and what you described about collective authoring, I would say is the highest level, so there. Maybe it's a teal approach to thinking or something like that. I don't know. And I think that's actually an interesting perspective to bring into that conversation next Monday is how that would work. If I may just, there are two levels above the threshold. One is yellow, one is teal. Teal is way out there. Yellow is practical. Yellow we can attain and achieve. Because with yellow you just become aware that there are ways to communicate based on different cognitive frames. Teal means you're there. And it's the Google. So I'm clearly not the Google, you know, but I think I can think in yellow and I think you can aspire or you can work your way up to that. Thank you. Jose, you may have the last word here today. Yeah. So I'm not sure what you mean by collective authoring. In my mind what I was describing was less about, I think, I may have misunderstood what Pete was saying. I've tried many, many times. I don't think we can write a single thing together. It's almost impossible. It's really, really, really difficult for a bunch of people collectively to write something together. What I, that lesson has been for me is maybe that's not the way we actually work together. That we go back to these little seeds and that we work with different seeds and assemble seeds together as building blocks to working together and building something. Not me and you and all of us writing together, but that each of us creates our own seeds and that others are encouraged and helped to use those seeds or fork those seeds and turn them into something that works for them, that they can grow something out of those seeds. You're describing the Neo book's vision. I don't know how we're not talking the same language, but Pete, correct me if I'm wrong, you're squeaking in our language exactly. Which is great, right? Yeah. It's a wonderful thing, but you're not perceiving that we're doing that. Everything I've heard so far hasn't felt that way. We're writing a book. People are writing books. The book is being, the book is an external artifact to get people to do the thing you want. And that may be a wrong framing, which is a really good insight. But what I'm getting at is our conversation here, because I don't think we're talking to anybody outside, as far as I know. At the moment in this conversation today, everything we talked about was about certain people are writing certain books and they're books are going to be Neo books. And it would kind of be like saying in the, again, my language here in an open source community saying, you write the whole stack and then we'll figure out how to build components for the stack. You go write the whole stack. And then once you've written the whole stack, we'll come back and we'll figure out how we're going to build the components that allow us to build future stacks. That might be an artifact of the language that we're using or something like that. Yeah. That's just what's resonating for me. And that may be completely wrong. But yeah, I also have to say writing together, literally together, my word, her word, my word, her word is super easy. It's called peer programming. Super, super practical. Yeah. And it doesn't have to be two people. It can be 10 people or 100 people. And we used to do it all the time. So it gets complicated. And that's why I love to sort of dip into that when we talk next week. It just doesn't get complicated. Even it's easier to write together. Okay. So we're now slipping into next week's call. You know something I don't know. Yeah, exactly. Same here. Thank you all. This was really juicy. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Have a good one. Bye. Bye.