It is indeed. Cool. It is indeed this is the deep field I I just love that one of the first photographs they released was a redo of the Hubble deep field photographs so that you could really do a comparison I think it was just total genius. And this is 12 and a half hours sitting on the same piece of real estate in the sky for what took two weeks of light gathering for Hubble. So the difference is like, crazy. What I read is that that the picture we're looking at is like the grain of sand held out at arms length. That's how tiny that little piece of space is like. Yep. Yep. And it's crowded. Life is more crowded than we think football is life. Oh, weird. Where'd that come from? Hey Pete. Greetings everyone. I missed you, Pete. Yeah. Where did you miss me? Something at you but didn't actually hit that's I think what he means. It follows life. I'll stop now before I get into more trouble. Good morning, Gil. Hardly have a few people in the column we've already got two ducks. How's that happening? Have I did anybody suggest a topic? Yes, Stacy put a topic in the matter most chat which I will read out unless Stacy would like to read it out. But Stacy is busy manufacturing coffee. Yeah, read it out and then I'll be back to add my share. Sounds good. And then I have a topic that might actually sort of fit alongside that but look Pete just copied it into the chat and I will read it from there instead of flipping around to them. Thank you. So Stacy writes, do our thoughts match our actions? Which ones create our reality? What are we creating for our future as a result of our present mindset? This directory, this directly relates to the flawed approach we are using when we're trying to tackle climate change. What are the blind spots causing our systems thinking model to malfunction? Until we repair those parts in our own minds, we will not be able to think our way into a better future. The share that I have works out perfectly with your background because it has to do with the polarity with people. So I was on Facebook because with the hearings, I figured this is a really good opportunity. But the first thing I noticed is that one of the friends that I have, he's a big climate activist.  Those beautiful movies is all over. He has this very inflammatory post about what you guys are all so excited about. And he's like, this is what they spend money on and he goes about, and it's really inflammatory. So I private message him. I will. If not, I'll try to find a way to share it when I don't, you know, I'll just read you it because I know that probably like Bentley or Jack or Mark Antoine would want to hear how I structured the dialogue. But we have this whole conversation and I said, listen, I'm just reaching out to you. And I said, is that really the way you want to do it? You know, I use whatever I spoke to him.  And I go through listening to what he says. And basically, he wants to know why does that, you know, like, what's the problem? I said, do you realize that most of the people that are so excited that you've now insulted, they are your allies. They're the ones you're splitting off from. So he's like, well, I don't see. So I said, why don't you talk to your wife? Because I know his wife would get it. Because I'm going down the spiritual aisle with him, which is where his wife would beat him. But he's, he's in, you know, libertarian kind of, he's not a libertarian, but he's of that, you know, the Bernie mindset. So finally, so finally, I just said, I was exhausted because I've been trying to work on other things. I'm really, really tired. This was important. So I said to him, listen, I just got to go to bed. I said, but this is why Trump won. So he said, yeah, you better go to bed because you're not even making any sense. Okay. So just for clarity, Stacy, the thing he was angry about was that the US government spends money on the space program and we're making that connection, right? Okay. Yes.   So, so he makes that comment. So I take a breath. I'm not going to take that bait. Part of me wanted to go into, you see, if I was as triggered as you, but I didn't do that. I didn't do it myself.  Have a nice night. Went to sleep. The next morning I went up. There's a new post. It's the same topic. But it said, you know, talks about if we can do this, why is it our government can't solve homelessness, you know, and he goes through he words of beautifully. The first thing I go I put my little heart up there so he knows, because we had some other words as well. Put my little heart up there. He jumps in, says something I start talking to her, then I you know, and then the two of us are like, we are the chain, why are we counting on them. So instead of like, we're not even beating up the government now we're totally pivoting to. Yeah, why aren't we doing this. And anyway, I just want to say, we can make a difference. And we have to help each other so like me and this woman we're playing off each other. And in the scenes. Things were happening. So I wanted to share that whole thing because I'm not tied back to Jerry, when I asked you about your friend Marshall, because Marshall sent something really good in the OGM email that I didn't have time to respond to and he was responding to thread with Klaus, and it was this preacher. I don't know, can you remember that email. There's this. Oh yeah yeah Michael doubt. Yes, the guy wrote thank God for evolution. And it's like, that's the population that I could talk to that we could talk to, because finding systems thinkers in that population. And I'm just curious about saying I'm not there's no judgment here but can you can you just raise your hand. If you've ever read what I wrote on through the eyes of Facebook what I learned about myself, and the world around me. I just want to see if you if you've ever read that. That doesn't sound like a familiar recipe to me. Now one hand. Isn't that interesting.  I've written. I've been in this group for two years. It's an important piece of what I have to say. Not one of you have read it. The same. Oh, I've posted it on Facebook I've put it in chats I've talked about it I've referenced it, not a lot because I don't. So Stacy, Stacy, hold your horses. No, no, no. I know, but but I just want to say, I clearly have read it and I put it in my brain under you. And back in October 2020 right.  And I guess this is on medium because this is a medium link so you posted it there. Yes, it was an article I wrote on medium. Which I didn't remember or realize. But I just, you know, so I will I will post this link to the chat. So we have it, but this will, I think we need to refresh people. Thank you, Pete, you're faster than I am. Thank you Pete. And again, I'm just, I'm really saying it to make a point. Yeah, I'm really just trying to make a point honestly. I'll stop there.  Yeah, I did buy. Yeah, I want to hear from other people first but I just want to ask one question in the in the spirit of this guy Ken Homer who I learned from heard of him. Yeah, Stacy, you used we a lot in your opening and I want to calibrate who is we that you're talking about. And I, which, what, what sentence was I using. Well, I was talking about, oh, I know what I was talking about the people on the screen the people know GM the people in the climate movement the people on the left the people in America and the people in the world. We use we very fluidly moving in and out of all those. Yeah, when I use the word way I was explaining when I was on that Facebook post with that woman, and the man who decided to change what he wrote. And so, when he was saying how come the government hasn't done this. I use we to create an a community to try to say, we can do this together, meaning people I was talking to. So now if I was talking to you and I was saying, let's play this game, we can do this come on, come on guys, we can do this. I'm talking about us that's not the same as saying, we believe, because that's a whole different thing. We're going to use way, and when not to use way about sermon. Thank you. Ken. I just want to say the old, if the government can put a man on the moon why can't we do X is really worthless in terms of framing because we're very good at handling technical issues we're not for good to handling social issues we're not going to handle the same thing instead of high social complexity which is extraordinarily different than, you know, putting a space telescope behind the sun. So, for whatever that's worth, when you're talking to this person, we need to distinguish between technical issues and adaptive challenges. And if we have to change our minds that's completely different than learning how to how to put a piece of technology somewhere. It doesn't quite work the same way. Can I respond. Yeah, please. Well, two things. Number one, I don't think I need to change the approach because the approach actually worked perfect for what I was trying to do. The whole mood of that group became one of the whole the energy neutralized there was no anger there was no fighting. I didn't have to worry about him insulting and separating the people who normally would agree because I had explained they were allies. So I didn't have to change the approach. The other thing I wanted to point out is in the language. If the government can is looking at what the government can do, and then saying, then why can't we. So now you're looking at we, why can't we do something but you were focused on what the government can do.  So my thing is we need to look at our language that's that's where I'm coming from. And Doug Breitbart, I think connects with me on a lot of things here when it comes to the language and that's why I am sensitive to the word we as well. I just posed a possible sort of reframing of the question you had posed in the chat which is how might we bridge the we divides, which seems to me what a lot of your life activity and life energy is about it's like how do I. How do I engage with people who think differently from me and kind of calm them down and bring them back into conversation in some sense. So I don't know if that if that resonates for you or what Gil, did you want to jump back in. Yeah, just quickly to what Ken said about the, the differences in the nature of challenges between, you know, getting to the moon and ending hunger or whichever thing you refer to can. I think it's not just that they're different orders of complexity of you know, technical versus social mental and so forth. But it's also a question of will. You know, we wanted to get to the moon. Do you want to end hunger only the hungry people. Different we. Many ways. Scott points out in the chat. He says we are we owe you buy. Nice. So we're trying to get back to choosing a topic. Thanks Doug. Do we have any other topic proposals. You pointed out that I had put a light sentence in as well about how do we explain our mission how do we explain what we're about. I'm, I'm trying to find better, better examples better ways of lighting in people's heads what we're up to. So that was a pop. And other thoughts on picking a topic. I would also love to find a better way to have a topic chosen before the next two Thursdays away call so that we end up diving into a topic we've more or less agreed to. Yeah, this comes from conversations with Pete. It strikes me that there's a big disconnect between the way that we as in people who are in communities, ordinary folks who come together, whether they're working as part of a team and organization or they're they're community wanting to do something and what Pete calls hyper scale structures. So, you know, certain governments, authoritarian figures, some billionaires, transnational corporations, their idea of working on behalf of the whole is very different than our idea of working on behalf of the whole and I'm remembering, you know when I asked Mike Nelson about Bill McDonough's framework for the next industrial revolution of why what why wouldn't people in Washington, you know, see that as a necessary and useful way to work of to close the loop on metabolism so things don't bleed off into the biosphere and he said like, can that's so far beyond what people in Washington can even think about that they wouldn't be able to wrap their minds around that. So that's an example of folks in charge of governments, you know they're really trying to do something very different. I think their view of the whole is almost always covered entirely by the lens of power and perhaps greed or other things but they're not working in ways that are working for all of humanity for the planet so. Is there a way, Pete, I'm going to ask you because you, you're the guy who made this distinguishing distinction of, you know, how do we conduct conversations in hyperscale structures that actually orient us back towards creating a world that's going to be there for all of us. Doug, please. I have a topic. Do we need to be thinking about how to respond to cascading failures. That is really do we need a life vote strategy now to prepare for what might be coming. And maybe there's a connecting question which is, is it, is it large scale crises that will catalyze the kinds of changes across the we divides that Stacy is pointing to do we need to. We need to get that to the does the fire need to get that close. We might already have a consensus about that. Among whom. We. That was a set up. Thank you for, thank you for taking the layup. About responding to cascading failures I spent four hours yesterday speaking with a very inspired Japanese visitor to the Netherlands, whose life work is looking into how communities can become more resilient to respond to cascading failures. And he does not think that anywhere in the world, there is a consensus or agreement on how to do it. He's hoping to work towards a very practical international meeting on that in Japan. Next, March, he's at the Tohoku University, which is the low Japan and send I wear Fukushima. It's a very recent disaster took place and he's access is international organizations all over the world. No, nobody is thinking about it. Sorry to be negative. No, that's okay. I think there's a general complexity that I think we might agree on, which is, even if we got everybody to agree the houses on fire and things are urgent, we would disagree a lot on what steps to take next. And maybe even Doug, I'm not sure on what a lifeboat would look like. I mean, I've read enough science fiction to know what different kinds of, you know, crisis facing life boats might look like from people's point of view and boy, they're different and then, and that our expectations and explanations for what might happen and how to survive it play out in lots of crazy ways. Doug, did you want to jump back in? No, Judy then Gil. Thanks, I wanted to go back to your question about process for determination of topics for discussion. And I wonder if it wouldn't work to use matter most to submit clusters of topics from individuals, and then take a posting of those and vote on them, like the top three kind of thing or your top five to arrive at a synthetic list of potential topics with with opportunities, just as a pragmatic approach. It's not not perfect, but we could, could then discuss what were the top three or whatever we wanted to do in in terms of the cascading failures. I'm more interested in what we might be able to take advantage of with the work you've already done with the brain to identify from perhaps our perspective, likely areas of cascading period failures which I suspect we would not have a hard time doing, and beginning to assemble the process for providing the background information on those. If we had that background information, then we could do a sort of, we're not in a crisis but here's a topic you ought to be thinking about, reaching out to agencies and groups that would have impact. And I'm thinking that that sort of strategically you'd want to do that in the sense of not reaching out directly to the governmental body that would ultimately have to deal with it but to identify the appropriate advocacy groups that could carry the ball forward, and to provide then additional resources around knowledge content to those groups. Thanks, Judy. To your first point, yes, let's use the Mattermost OGM Town Hall channel for discussing. It would be lovely if someone in our community would volunteer to, to prod us and host that dynamic every other week. Stacy, are you, is that you volunteering to do that. I love that. Thank you very much. So, so that should help us kind of narrow down what topic will have before we get to each call I think that'll be really good for us. And then, Judy, just a slice of what you, what else you said, it is my hope that by collecting up ideas, opinions, different approaches towards solutions, what a light put looks like and all that. And then, and then meeting in the middle and remixing and connecting the ideas that the options and paths become clearer and get sort of found and, and some rough consensus emerges from that remixing. The problem is, we're not remixing we're busy in a knockdown drag out, you know, fight with no winners in the public sphere, and we don't we don't have an ability to slow down calm down as Stacy I think is trying to get us to do. In general, at a very at a smaller scale but we're not slowing down enough to stare at these things and go where do we agree where do we disagree how does this work. And then we find some sorts of of consensus because we're not going to get a lot of consensus what we're going to end up with is billionaires, it's going to look like don't look up where like some billionaires going to run some huge gambit that's going to change the earth's atmosphere in some way that isn't going to work and then dinosaurs will eat us all in some alternate future. Can I just jump in before you just because it sure. So, if we could just build on what Jerry and Judy have said and to add something to the chat. Some of us are working on like a real world game I'm wondering if we can take the next step, and if anybody wants to blend some of those topics and write their ideas in using some of what's there. That's just an added thing if you want to do it that way, and that would be a way to participate in this game. We're hoping to create like living in the world that way. So I'm just adding that option. And this is also bridging into something else I would love for us to do more of, which is to use more of what it is. So we're building, because we have a lot of conversation that basically floats into the bit bucket on the Google group, and a couple of chats. We don't do a lot of curating of that information into massive wikis, or other more permanent places where it looks more like Wikipedia and less like a mailing list. I would love for us to be posting more into medium posts, other sorts of more permanent places outside, so that our good ideas don't just float off into the bit bucket as I said, back to Judy then Gil and john. I was just trying to expand on your comment Jerry about starting to do the work and taking advantage of what is done. But if we might not it knowing that it's so hard to get to powers that be on big issues, we should look for any opportunity in any community or scale to take positive action because that action can then be referenced by others, in terms of moving the venture to a larger scale. And that's something that we could have more direct impact on more quickly. Yeah, I like going beyond the bucket Jerry thank you for that. You know I'm struck listening to Doug talk about the looming catastrophes the cascade and failures and the lifeboat strategy. Two thoughts one is that the preppers and the proto fascists are much more organized than we are. So the, you know, so the crisis provoking great breakthrough action doesn't really comfort me. Because, you know, we're not ready for it. The other thing I think about is the, and I don't know the story of the monasteries in the Middle Ages, I don't know if this is a true story but the way it got handed down to me is that in those dark ages. People cloistered in monasteries preserve knowledge that could then reemerge in later times I don't know if that's true or not but that may be a metaphor for us to think about here and maybe that's part about getting out of the bit bucket. Just to, you know, more, more systematically share what we do think say it's better with each other in ways that those can be those can seed out into other people out of the community. So the larger question that keeps thinking about these days is, is how do humans learn to live as though we belong to the living world, and belong to each other, which is a version of what someone was Eric posted earlier on the Rodney King quote can't we all get along I mean that's gotten cheap and the popular discourse but it comes down to that at a certain level. I think it was in the ornament of the world by Rosa Maria Menorca, where I read, and you can find this in a lot of other places but basically, there was a big beautiful library in in Iraq, and when the abbasid over through the umayyads or vice versa. In Islam, they basically destroy the library but one of the caliphs took a copy of the library across northern Africa. And then up into more Spain, where the original works of Plato Aristotle all the Greeks and all that that have been kind of rescued into that library. Got translated out into Arabic and then later because Castilian Spanish doesn't show up for a while it's a it's a late language and all these groups. There are other languages like Catalan and Languedoc and all those things that are earlier. But so we have, we have Islam to thank for the preservation of Greek thinking and then somehow also there's a copy that the Celts maintain in monasteries out there and I don't know what I don't know much about that lineage or whatever but, but we're not for those kinds of copy and the original Xerox cultures. We would not have a lot of the works that we consider foundational to Western thinking, which takes me to another tangential thought which is, I can't stand it when people build arguments on top of just Greek, Greek logic I think it's like good Lord there's 65,000 years of Aboriginal wisdom that they're just completely ignoring. And years ago I saw Dick Foster give a valedictory kind of speech where he started with Plato and Aristotle and the logic that they built for Western mankind and I was like, Ah, Jesus. So anyway, just a picture. Briefly. Yeah, thank you for whacking Greek wisdom. Another topic to talk about what the credits is where they get forgotten. More Spain, notably the Muslims and the Christians and the Jews got along and got richly and well it was one of the great flowering is in the West for a little while. That's why the book is called the ornament of the world. It's really, really super and interesting. It's one of those if you could go back in time and be a fly on the wall in some place where would you go and I'm like, you want to go to Granada or one of those towns during that era, see what life was like. Judy, I think you still have your hand up so Judy then. Sorry, that was a mistake. Excellent job. Okay, me. The floor is yours. Yes. Okay, I came in a little late. I really appreciate the desire, the pressure, if you will, to move us closer to consensus and to move us closer to the effectiveness of the consensus. Where can we have impact with our presumably evolved understanding, having put more attention on this than the general public by quite a large measure, even though we got a lot of company out here in terms of other people also focusing on these issues. So that's important. I appreciate that. And what I'm going to say is going to back up from that and say, it's closer to the point I think you were making Jerry about how do you encapsulate our conversation in a more usable and compressed form. So I got this idea this morning, and it was too late to write anything up like this, but I will, I'll do it anyway, but I'll share it with you and you'll tell me if you think this is going to be useful at all to the group. Yeah, I've read a lot of those science fiction scenarios. And there's a lot of them I haven't read because they're just some such an incredible number of them and the imagination of the people who come up with them is, you know, impressive, even if you think it's unrealistic.  This is what I'm proposing. I'm proposing an open-ended kind of scenario. And I said open-ended it says, okay, it's some time in the future. We haven't fully collapsed, but maybe we have but we're, we're at least collapsing.   So groups of people have begun to form to try to have a survivable sustainable regenerative unit. And so what just I have to end up in a few minutes. Okay, please. I'm teasing out issues. Okay, so like one issue is, when do you think this will happen early, you know, and you have a continuum you have 2025 and 2035, let's say, and you just pull the group, you say, where do you think, here's a description of a point we are in time. When do you think this will happen and the group votes, not to get a consensus, but just to illuminate the thinking about it. Okay, the idea is not consensus. The idea is, oh, should we think about that. But then you proceed you say, well, how big a group would be sustainable. What's what's the minimum size. What's the maximum size. Is it the Dunbar number is that relevant. Okay, then does does this group have to protect itself against involuntary joining by other people and how does it do that.    So I mean, some future group, 80 to 150 people. It's even half sustainable. It's going to attract people who are just desperate and who just show up and just say, I had to join the group you got to let me in, you know, and what do we do about that.  And where we think, you know, the content might, it might fall not down to what we want. That's a this is an interesting separation separate what you want it to be from what you think it might turn out being very important trick in scenario planning, and then you see where you think it might wind up being, and then you can discuss you can say you don't have a consensus on that that's an interesting let's note that we didn't have a consensus on that one, but we did have a consensus let's say that, you know, somewhere between 100 and 150 people is probably a really, you know, good size and you might want to do something to stop it at that point. There's four issues is a whole bunch of issues about diversity diversity of skills, whether you would actually have quotas, whether you'd actually go out and recruit actual farmers from somewhere else and no no no you need to come here we'll we'll subsidize you you need to come actual fix it actual people who are used to fixing things, you know, mechanical things because I'm just worried personally, I just I look, I look at this future and I think about us and I think a whole bunch of us word loving people are going to want to be in this thing. There's a need for it early, but we don't among us have the right distribution of physical skills that would be made needed to make it. So anyway, that's just an outline of a process I'm going to proceed on this anyway, and then as a future topic you can decide if you want to go through the questions vote the question you know see see where you are in the and then you then you discuss the continuum you don't try to necessarily come to consensus, but you say, that's interesting. Here's our spread on that question. Here's our spread on this other question. Okay, thank you. Thanks john. I just you've provoked several different things I just wanted to tie a couple strange things together. One is that I think part of what you're raising is that in many places now in many conversations are busy trying to figure out how to reinvent society, or how to relate a lifeboat, or how to reboot culture or whatever else. And partly this is because we're facing a lot of global global crises. Partly it's because this is in the air and one of one of the thoughts that I care about in my brain is that we're busy. We're in the middle of an involuntary renegotiation of the social contract around the world that Arab spring occupied the Trump apocalypse, all a tea party all these different groups are saying, hey, the system is rigged and broken we need a new system, and we haven't been able to flex or break out of the old system that we have. Interestingly, the far right has been accusing the left of always wanting to implement Sharia law in the US and that's why we need to get, you know, make sure Muslims don't enter the country and these terrible liberals. And I just saw the term crystal fascism for the first time recently. And in the meantime, you know the Roberts Court Court basically is taking us into a white nationalist Christian theocracy that sort of seems to fall under the crystal fascism if that's your bent, or how you want to label it. I'm sure that term will not help open conversations with people who are of that point of view, however. So, we have this really interesting mix of things on the table. I'm unclear that we've chosen a topic for this call yet just to sort of channel Doug for a moment. I don't know whether anybody would like to take a step in to clarify that for us or Stacy if you feel like we have or haven't or we've wandered too far from the seed you planted originally. No actually we're right at the right place we're right at the crossroads so very relieved to hear that in the chat it was mentioned. Where was it. We're playing in two very different games, very different rules. And this is what I'm here to say, and this is the point of my article that I asked if anybody had read. We're playing the same game. We're playing by the same rules. We're just looking at it from different points of view, and our perspectives different and to a lot of the chat when we were talking. There was some talk about the haves and mixing. So, Jerry, Marshall. I don't remember his last name. He. Okay, so he introduced that down father down. Yeah, Matthew dad, and earlier in the call I said, that's the population I want to talk to because I know in that population, there are better systems thinkers, then we sometimes see here. It's not Matthew doubt it someone else sorry. I will find it, but I just want to make that distinction. It's not the system. It's like Michael down. Thank you. We don't see our we don't see our own disconnect between the words that we're saying, and the actions that we're doing. I want to add to that analogy that John brought up about books. Every one of us is a book. There, we already, we're carrying everything we've ever read within us, but yet we're throwing out all this other information, read about the Greeks read this read this. We're meeting a person. And that's why I used me as an example. That one piece tells you who I am where I came from, how I think, the way I interact, and nobody read it, and I've been your friend for ever. So it's just a joy.  Do you point to that piece that's central to your life on any profile in a place. It's not important to me. What's important to me is that you know me. Yes. I'm talking about something different. I'm talking about relationships. So in that piece I talk about how I traveled to the different Facebook worlds, the land of the radical vegans, the land of the crazy libertarian I mean, all these different places and some of them were really hard to be They were nasty. I was on Trump sites, but I found friends everywhere I went. And so I do, I mean, but I found the systems thinkers. I found the ones that were reasonable and rational. And I'll tell you what's become more clear than anything, especially watching the hearings, not the commentary, just the hearings and listening to the clips. You take any script and put in a different figure. They're all saying the same thing. The script is the same. It's the characters that are changing. And now you've got my whole thesis and I just, I'm all done. See, I don't, I don't have to talk anymore. You know, I can conserve all the. There should be a little mic drop animation and zoom. Thanks, Stacey. Pete. I wanted wanted to do a meta thing. If that's not going to disrupt us from our topic seeking or or from. I'm out of Pete, we can have from Stacy's discussion. Conversation connection. I hope I can share my screen J. Yes, it should. The default is to let everybody share so should work fine. So, some of you might know that I use this thing called hack and D. And I wanted to talk about the link in chat and you can click that link and see the same thing I'm saying. So, one of the things I'm going to refresh here too. We were talking about essentially persistent memory. So, if you go to the link I think you'll see something like this and the thing that you can do is click this edit button up here. And then it turns into this beautiful little thing which is kind of confusing because there's two copies of stuff and it's dark and I don't like it. The two parts of this are, this is the way we write in Markdown, which looks a lot like an email or something like that and this is the way it looks when when it turns into HTML on a web page. So some people use this thing because they can see both kind of. Over in Lansberg and metaproject land. Jordan and I talked about adding a hack and D based discipline, maybe to meetings. I don't think all of us want to be want to be typing on this or looking at this during a call. But if you can imagine kind of what has been gone on in chat. We have a very active chat so it scrolls up and scrolls up and scrolls up until you can't see what's going on. So here I can and anybody can who's on this web page. Can just type something like topics we might discuss. Just added something to the bottom of the page. Jerry's added this this wiki link here. A good wiki. So you might kind of notice that this looks a lot like since Jerry and I can, we've got three people online, Jerry and me and somebody who hasn't registered or hasn't signed in which is totally fine. The way this is set up you do not need to sign in. So you might notice this is a little bit like Google Docs except a little bit more confusing or a little bit different is actually what it is it's not really more confusing it's just a little bit different. So I like Google Docs and I like when people get together and talk on Google Docs and take notes or something like that. The reason I like hack and D better is because it fits into a markdown based information ecosystem. So hack and D works really good for real time collaborative editing and it doesn't work very good for creating a network of pages. So there's a thing called massive wiki which is good at making a network of pages. And then this is plumbing, but there's a thing called massive wiki builder which converts a network of pages into a website. So the reason hack and D is kind of front and center in this information ecosystem is because it's really easy for people to start typing on. And it's really, really easy to add it to a network of pages. So when I say network of pages imagine if we'd had a system of notes like this for every call that we've had and however many hundred or 200 calls we've had. We could have a network of those pages. Imagine imagine 200 Google Docs and trying to keep track of them and where they are and how to link them together. That would be hard I think if you do that a massive wiki it's a lot easier it's actually tractable. And then the, the reason we're using hack and D is because you can do this real time collaborative editing thing. And when you're done with it, what we typically do is just save it right here.  I've literally put it into the knowledge base forever kind of there's there's you know one or two more clicks to kind of like commit it to the web and things like that but that's about it. So, yield good question this is this is very similar to what Jerry does in his brain. We're using kind of a document based format, instead of the the network, you know brain thing that Jerry has, but it is very similar to what Jerry does. And this is, we can be a little bit more free form with the way that we, the way that we write things we can. We can have headings and other pages and things like that. The big big big big big difference is that we can have two people doing this at a time, 10 people 100 people 1000 people. And everybody on this call. I don't I'm sure everybody on the call wouldn't participate but imagine for people on this call, doing the thing that Jerry does. Instead of doing it in the network, cool network tool that Jerry does for people doing this during a call, taking notes and connecting it into the rest of the network of pages that we've got. You know when we bring up a book that we I wish people would put go to this page and type questions down here. Doc asked a good question to OPML is an outline format from the golden ages of blogging invented by a guy named Dave Wiener. A Wiener who's brilliant and and still does amazing stuff, but he gifted us a wonderful tool that kind of didn't stand the test of time. But the short answer, the short answer doc is that this doesn't talk OPML and wouldn't really. It talks Markdown, which is more standard nowadays and more flexible and used for more things kind of so OPML didn't win Markdown is one of the winners, one of the short number winners. So, I talked about saving this into a network of pages and it turns out we actually have a network of pages already on the web so you can go to this on the web and look at it as a website. We haven't done a lot of work on this. So it's it's the navigation is not great. I'm going to cheat and do think all pages here. We used to take some notes like this so here's Thursday calls from from 2021. I don't know if these are going to be good or bad. This is mostly me probably taking notes. Imagine if we had this for every call instead of, you know, six calls back in 2021 when when Pete was felt like doing it.  This is another another wiki Jordan especially Jordan and Jonathan and me and bill Anderson have spent some time on the lines for wiki Jordan has gone great guns in it and he's got just a ton of stuff that he's mostly kind of copied over from other writings he's got, but it's going really well. And you can do things like have home pages for subgroups of other thing. So this is kind of a list of groups that we're talking about having in the meta group. And I know this is a decent page. So this is kind of a profile page for for the infrastructure group. You can also do profile pages for. So, so Pete. Yeah, before you keep going down, popping down paths. What Pete is showing is like an illustration of the infrastructure we already have for the question I asked earlier which is why don't we post things in a place that's more durable etc. We've tried to take our chat that we have going here which is pretty frothy and zoom and move over to matter most so at least be durable and matter most which is different from this background and that didn't really work we couldn't, we couldn't really sort of police ourselves to stay in matter most. And then we have many a meeting where people are trying to take notes and things like hack and D, which works and doesn't work and I'm very interested in this dynamic and how it all plays out. But I want to mind that we were on a different path before this detour and see where the group would like to head back to. I'll stop sharing. Thanks Jay. I'm not suggesting. So, you know, we've got a number of places we've kind of experimented with we experiment with the forum, and we didn't get enough activity there to we got a lot of activity but we couldn't quite organize the activity to get it going so it's right now it's decommissioned. OGA and wiki is kind of more abundant to of course, we could be using tools like this. We don't. And that's cool. But we could happy to happy to show people more. And thank you for that Pete. And there's this ongoing question I have which is how does more of what you just showed happen for more conversations in more different communities in a way that allows those notes to meet and blend and bridge and reproduce and cause other kinds of action and conclusions. And I think that's a, I think that's still kind of a thorny question because of the geeky nature of the tools for working with. But it's not easy and obvious like posting to Instagram is easy and obvious. Right. Cool. Mr Nelson. Thanks for joining us. I apologize as usual I have a conflict for the first half hour but yeah exactly. If we can throw out an idea if I can throw out an idea which builds on this general discussion about how do we make more information, more available to more useful forms. While protecting that information that needs to be protected. I wonder if people have heard of Sandy Pentland at MIT, and his whole idea of data cooperatives or data unions, not like labor unions data unions like credit unions. And his, his core concept is that we can somehow share data within a network of vastly distributed data centers and organizations, and, and rather than trying to collect all the suck all the data into a giant data ocean, and then crank on it with some you send the software to all this distributed data, and you never have to actually share the data beyond the confines of the organization, and yet you can suck out really interesting insights by putting the software against the data sets. So this is a radical rethink of how we normally govern data. But I'm just curious if anybody has been following this he, he's also talking very ambitiously about a Bretton Woods for data, some way in which national governments can agree to manage their data and share their data more effectively. As long as we don't have to couple our data to each other in a snake, I think I'm okay. And I so Sandy Pentland is a genius and I know him for a bunch of other stuff I didn't realize how much he's going down the data union path and clearly I just shared my brain and I had one talk of his about data unions. This whole idea of data commons data unions data trusts is another thing that's out. And I don't have enough depth in any of them and I'm really interested in all of them so I'm wondering if anybody else in this group has more experience and would like to jump in. You forgot the European term which is data space and they're actually putting it into legislation even though they have no clear idea of what it is or what isn't a data space and what is a data space but it, but again the concept is, you have some way to manage who's accessing the data and you have the ability to work on data without changing who's got control of the data. And preserving different people's perspectives into the data, etc. Just just one more. You want an introduction to what Sandy's thinking about. They have a there's a book from MIT press called building the new economy and his introductory chapter does a nice job. There's there are other chapters on data trusts and what might be necessary to accomplish this grand vision but it's the best thing I've seen as what his talks are actually the best thing. And, you know, but the book is quite useful. In fact, I have that book above the talk that I just posted. Okay. Go ahead, Scott. I have a distinction I think might be helpful. And I haven't really written it down before but what I'm noticing is that Jerry I think you've talked and use lots of different terms about the the Facebook feed, the Instagram feed the Twitter feed, and kind of this ongoing stream that you dip into. Okay. And that it is a your opinion of that your takeaway from that your value from that is in the aggregate. It's kind of a trend. Okay, I'm seeing things about this I'm seeing things about this, and they're gone.  Oh I do. All right, well maybe there's the reason I went met was, it's not so I get a gestalt, which I agree with, but I'm also plucking nuggets from the stream and putting them in my own quirky memory so so I'm getting a lot of detail and a lot of specifics as small as a tweet as big as a book or a movie or whatever. Yes, both. Okay, so let me, I think this will make more sense when I finish my distinction. Which, so the first one is sort of this, the gestalt the aggregates perhaps you're pulling multiple things from there and kind of making an opinion or getting a value out of it that way. I see that as our notes on the calls are forums, you know they're these these are even the emails where there's lots of replies it's just this continual thing where you get this kind of sense out of the aggregate, and then there's a Wikipedia page, which is one page that is edited and edited and edited and refined and debated and that kind of thing, but it's always one place so the, the aggregate is taking place in a single location. And so, at least for me that seemed like an important distinction between, you know, when I approach a Twitter feed or something or a forum or something like that. I'm kind of sifting through it in one way but it's hard to get a sense of where did we land, because the topic kind of went. Maybe it went different directions and it's fun to read. It's great. But when I want to actually understand what it is. The Wikipedia format to me feels like a better it's like okay here's the current in a sense here's the current thing now that means that some of the old opinions might have been struck out and rewritten, and that kind of stuff like it was an important distinction between two ways of presenting things we have our chat in the zoom, and then we end up with one page that says this is. This is that thing that's evolved over time I'm not exactly sure we'll go with that but that's kind of where what I wanted to say. Thanks Scott, and I think you've opened up a very interesting Pandora's box which is a different we're in a different topic now than we started our call on and I love this topic is the problem. And I think also this is very much like the blind men describing the elephant where for each of us we'd have a different flavor and a different approach toward what we would love to have or see. And I'm happy to articulate how I feel about these kinds of things. And then in the reflection Scott. There's a peer to peer wiki which Michelle Bowens and his team of collaborators created over time, which basically took the I think they use the wiki media platform same platform as Wikipedia is built on. And they built out this gigantic wiki which is full of tremendous information, which I never go to because it's very long pages of information. And long reads after long reads after long reads. And for me, a really good concise pages still like a really long page and it's not nugget ties.  I'm, I'm in my head. I'm weaving a series of nuggets that are in Indra's net in basically a web of ideas connected and trying to improve each nugget so that when you go to the nugget about how the caliphate and more Spain saved the classics from Greece and Rome, I realized in my brain I don't have right now so I need to at the end of this call I'm going to go back and do a little reorganizing so I have more of a nugget for that thought. So I can tell that story properly and then connected to all the different pieces of. Well the opposite over through the umayyads the capital of Islam move from Baghdad to Damascus and then this happened and then this happened, which you can also sort of follow through in a timeline or historic way and all these things need to exist. In the same data trust data commons data space data whatever we want to call it, it's complicated as hell. So sorry I just put like four different kinds of things in the conversation but if you want to react any that Scott otherwise I'll go to everybody else in the cube. I think my only reaction is that what you've shown to me is that reminded me that yours is actually the granular plus the one place. And that one of the things I love about the brain is that it gives me the zoom of being able to see the headlines and then dive into the context and see the actual articles beneath that, at the same time, and any tool that will also do that I love. And I'm trying to figure out what is a common tool look like that lets us kind of do that together. So let's go Doug, Judy, Michael Gill. So one of the things I'm feeling here is the tide that's pulling us from conversation to data. And those are really two different worlds. And I feel actually threatened by the loss of the conversation as we talk more about data. So we've gone meta, we've taken a meta detour. Thanks, Doug, and let's see what Judy Michael, quick differentiation between information and data. No conversation. Well, data is really important. The my markdown ecosystem is full of not data, but information knowledge and wisdom. So I appreciate Congress and conversation actually wikis are an amazing conversation tool. But just a note, the polls aren't, or the polls aren't necessarily the most interesting part, you can go from conversation through wisdom knowledge information data. And you want that whole spectrum. Conversation, I don't mean characters on the screen. I mean, I was actually talking with each other voice feeling agreed, except that the Congress, if all we have is conversation, if all we are is oral culture. We have a really hard time thinking together and especially remembering together.  I love oral culture. That's humanity that's being human. But to to another thing that humanity and human means is that we can actually remember stuff that was, you know, thought of and written of 20 years ago 40 years goes 100 years ago 1000 years ago. And especially in this group, we're really good at conversation. We have the kind of the attention span of a nat on the and the memory of Jerry and, you know, we can sip through Jerry's, you know, straw into his brain. And we can't remember things. We have a really difficult time remembering things as a group. And so my argument is that probably I, you know, let's have conversation. Let's try to remember some of it. Let's try to remember just a little bit of it even. We don't, we just don't. And I have thought in my brain that says we are an amnesiac civilization as a result of that. So, Judy. This isn't fascinating but somewhat confounding conversation today and I love it. What I'm trying to think about is, how do we separate or identify the spectrum, the points in the spectrum where we want to reside from the granular information of the rich data that is subject to new or reanalysis to the, you know, step up levels to integrated cultures and another yet level would be how do we influence or share that with other people. And this is just, it's too big to take on in that huge massive picture and have meaningful progress. But I think that one of the things that we have the opportunity to do is really consider how to approach the levels of influence that we would want to approach with the levels of information that those points of influence are able to understand, appreciate and act upon. And that's where I think there's a unique opportunity for this group with the richness and diversity of experience to begin to think of, I would say pivot points or leverage points, and how to actually approach those leverage points to begin to have influence. In other cases it has to be done small, because it's an experiment and we don't know if the experiment will work. In other cases, there's a greater boundary of what of information, and we're in a position where we could take examples to an influencer, who could then cascade it to more implementation than we'd be able to contemplate. And I think you're describing something that I keep trying to do or search for, which is, what is the wrapper the packaging the envelope the container for what message that will communicate these kinds of things across these community boundaries. Is it a video? Is it an animation? Is it a game? Is it a what? I don't know, but I'm always sort of sniffing toward how do we tell what we know to other people in a way that will connect and absorb and will bridge that we divide in different ways. It seems to me that if you want to engage human action, there has to be a level of personal interaction and trust in order to earn the respect of the other individual to perhaps consider joining you or taking what you're saying to a different group. And that's the part that sort of defies technology a little bit, although Zoom is pretty remarkable at being able to impersonate live contact with humans witness this conversation. And this is a conversation with diverse individuals with extremely rich backgrounds that they bring to the table. It's just that I think trying to take that out to communities, which I very much want to do, I can take it in parallel. It's my dissection of it to this board that I'm on or this educational committee I'm on or whatever. And each of us can do that but it's not getting us the impact that we want from a massive dendritic effort. And it might be worthy of some focused calls on strategies for dissemination or strategies for engagement or something of that like I think we could have some really rich discussions and run some social experiments in parallel. This might make a good topic for a call two weeks from now or a pop up call in between. I like this a lot. And you're bringing up the point that Doug Carmichael put in the conversation a moment ago which is this is really about humans meeting with humans this we need to build trust this is about human interactions which I totally agree with. And then now and then I stumble across something like the YouTube celebrity who posts as contra points Natalie win who basically uses framing and lots of production values in her videos to talk to the people on the far right and try to disarm them and talk to them in a way that will work for them with all different different logics and I really admire and appreciate the way that she goes about it and she's creating media artifacts that float around in YouTube which are not at all about personal interactions. And in fact the characters she sort of plays multiple roles and some of her own videos, she'll you know do lots of quick cuts between herself and different. Like, that's not a conversation at all. It's performative, but it still plays a role in this funny little mix we're talking about I think. Thanks Judy, Michael then Doug. I have too much to say. So I'm not going to say much but but I do think that there's something related to what Scott was saying and and going back to your brain Jerry and thinking about these calls. The solutions. It's hard for any of us to curate to do much good by pulling pulling stuff into a space that other people have to visit and figuring out ways to annotate in common space so that a single interaction with a single piece of information is valued with, you know, Jerry, you know, the stamp of approval or not, or at least interest, that is, this appears in Jerry's brain shouldn't be something that can only be found out if you know about Jerry's brain and go to Jerry's brain and dig it up, you know, for for the, and this gets into trust graphs and reputation systems but also, you know, having, having true public spaces as opposed to the public spaces, the town squares of Twitter and that as Doc says, you know, our, our ad driven and attention seeking that you can go to a kernel of information by virtue of the fact that it has been tagged by people you trust is something that can't live under any platform and finding that it's a common language. You know, it's a holy grail I know but I just, I feel like organizations like the collaborative technology alliance and you know people who are interested in interoperable and you know the existence of mastodon and and solid. There are lots of stuff things hovering around this, but it can't be pulled into something these granular interactions and and approvals and trusts and comments have to be pushed out. Yeah, just wanted to say that. So thanks. Well, thank you. That was really helpful in lots of different ways. And I kind of want to hear all the rest of the things that are webbing around in your, in your head. Doug B. I think actually Gil was ahead of me, he hadn't popped up his hand, but. Gil would you like to have been just one check. Thanks, I'm going to pass for now I'm like Michael too much to say so I'm not for saying thank you. Okay. Well, so I tend to bring everything down to cases. And so the primary question is what's the mission or goal of OGM. Like, why is everybody here. What are what are what is everybody collectively in service to if that's been articulated or defined. And and part of the reason I'm raising that question is because there are a lot of different altitudes for looking at the world and co creating together. And there's no judgment about which one is the one, but I'm preoccupied with the cycle of manifestation that starts with space and all things possible, and bringing things to ground and something concrete. And where it just went for a moment, which was this idea of how, how, how is it possible to galvanize on a grassroots viral bottom up level. Leveling up of awareness and consciousness and connection between people. Because without that we don't make it. We're starting disaggregated and polarized. So how on an on an accelerated viral exponential internet speed level. Is it possible to really catalyze that awakening and as many people in a shorter period of time as humanly possible in service to catalyzing a collective response that has some rationality and coherence to it. And that is living for me as the low hanging fruit, like as the as the thing that has to be figured out quick. And I'm looking at the folks that did figure out how to do that with their own agendas, you know, with, with, I think that the extreme right in 2016. A young lady with a vision for data analysis and and targeting and, you know, using technology staggeringly effectively to, you know, convert 80 million people into fear and terror and conspiracy theories. I'm really good at that. Now, the thing is, they did that like we can look at what they did and go, Well, that's an interesting tool in the box. Like that's an interesting mechanism that we know works. And how many others are there that are like that. From a like rubber meets the road doing something standpoint. I think, you know, one one group of people is about that is about practices. The other is about the performative dimensions of media and communications today. It's a different world. And another group is about catalyzing awakening without contaminating the pool or stirring in an agenda. Because I also believe if you want to empower and awaken people you can't also manipulate them and attempt to assert any kind of control and authority over where they go with the power you've awakened like those inconsistent factors. So the data thing for me. Intrinsically, and I hugely value Jerry, what you've done with your brain and and I hugely value and appreciate your orientation around it. The thing about data and curation and archives and Sam Han and I have battled this for five years is that intrinsically in and of itself it has zero life and value and energy. It doesn't mean anything. The only time it means something is in the moment of people in real time in present moment co creating together. And there being something in that archive that is is relevant. And so Jerry becomes the human link to this unbelievable wellspring and connects those dots and goes I got this, and I'm not quite sure why we haven't figured out how to be able to automate that so that, you know, real time transcription to pattern matching and, you know, relatively low level text recognition and analysis correlation to database and a light goes off in the corner that says you know you guys were talking about this three months ago, want to see what you were saying then. But it's in application in real time in present moment that it becomes valuable. Like that it enriches and colors and adds to the creation in the moment. And so that's a piece of the puzzle. And I'll stop there I didn't mean to run on that. Thanks. We appreciate that. Got a whole bunch of things turning in my head. Mark Ben Stacy. I love the book dreaming in the dark by starhawk. A witch in the Bay Area. And I think in the forward or one of the first chapters he talks about how it's so much easier to kick over a trash can. And I believe that what the social media on the right has been doing is can be compared to that.  It's so much easier for the trash collector to pick it up, but if the trash is spread off over an acre. It just multiplies the difficulty of putting that trash away. And if we're talking about cleaning the planet. I like that metaphor. I think that there's a lot of people going around kicking over trash cans. And I find that social media is great for that. And it may not be as good. The other integrative co creative notion of putting all that trash in one place so it can be effectively and efficiently picked up. On a side note, the Internet Archive has been charged by October for creating something called the Library of Democracy. I asked, who's the audience and I didn't get a reply so that's my metric of yeah we don't know what we're doing. But if anybody has ideas I'd be happy to listen to them and forward to them and the basically, you know, one of my questions would be, huh, given that, you know, there are many people who want to contribute how to make contribution, simple, easy. Certainly, you know, I say the words the Library of Democracy and many people here would have all kinds of different ideas. But how do I get them in? How do I get them to pass? How do I make them Brewster compatible? It's the term that's like play only different. Yeah, the underground term that some of the employees have. Excuse me. A very interesting conversation, but there's, you know, I have my own brain that I've been working on since 1984. And I haven't found a partner yet to develop it. I haven't found one other person to basically say, Mark, I think you're going in the right direction. And it's not that I want to basically share my own information. But the presenting a tool where people can stop and think creating a situation where people basically take time to reflect on their own mind, rather than look outside. Certainly, yes, we all look outside. We all have media, we all have friends, but the important integration of that information, say dreaming. One can do consciously, one can say, aha, what do I understand about democracy? What do I understand about co-creation? And how do I understand it myself before trying to convince other people that that I know what I'm doing? I certainly don't. Anyway, thanks for listening. And my email is this mark dot Caronza at gmail.com. If you want to drop that in the chat, I'll drop that in the chat. Thanks, Mark. And the library of democracy sounds really interesting. And I can think of 12 things I'd love to contribute to it. So cool stuff. Thanks. Stacy, we're getting close to the end of the call time. You may end up having the last word here. You're muted, however, so we won't hear anything you say until you hit that little button. I'm not going to finish my typing. A couple of things real quick. To go to Doug's point, I just want to share that. So I was in that group, and I still go to talk because there's a relationship there. Didn't work out the way I wanted because there was no structure in place where I could go back to the recordings, pull out the things I needed to bring to my people. So all of those different spots along Facebook world, different ones that needed a different message. Had there been something to help me do that. I would have been able to do that, but there's nothing to help me. It's funny because I was in a fall with Doug once it was a private fall with a Gertrude. I don't remember her last name, but it was like a, you know, a healing thing and they saw me as Sisyphus pushing up a rock, which is really what it feels like. But that's another topic. The whole thing about books as people and the way we think, and even the way we're, there are so many things about the system we're operating in, for example, Mark. If you have any ideas, Eric put in the chat that he would like to have a fall I was about to say I'd love to do that and I was going to say this could work in with some of the ideas that are coming up like Judy mentioned moving to matter most, which I really like the idea, because I'm already seeing how that could be an experiment for some of the things that I've been proposing in the meta project because I know we need those spaces. We need the economy. I mean we need a place to sell what we have to take what we have. Anyway, there's a lot of things to talk about. But people only want to listen to certain people. And the very same people that I, right, the very same people that I hear saying, we need to, you know, do this and diversity, but when diversity steps in nobody cares. Yes, we are all books. So, as I had a wonderful conversation with Jack Park and he, we agreed on so many things and he was a he was like, you know this sounds like this. And he, and I was able to explain to him, I already knew that when I meet you, anybody in this group when I meet you. I'm seeing you, and what you stand on your foundation, every book you've read. You see that in you that's who you become now. I don't care where you started from that's not as important who you are now. So when Scott talked about the Wikipedia how he likes it it may be different that maybe some things that aren't there. That's actually a good thing. Those things have been needed out. If you believe that the Constitution is a living document, then Wikipedia should be a living document. We grow books grow people grow, blah, blah, blah. I wish somebody would help me to put these ideas together and blend. But as a woman, I'm going to tell you, I feel like nobody I feel like I'm in this alone and I want to point out. And I know you're trying and I do and different people are trying really hard. Thanks Mark. These things mean a lot. The emojis mean a lot. I wish Wendy McClain was here. She really supports me and Judy and I'm really glad you're here. And because it's hard for women to support other women because we're trying to tread water on our own. Michael, you're a great support. Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Eric. I mean, there's a lot. Jerry you're trying. I mean, look, everybody does the best they can do and everybody's trying me too. Sometimes I get worked up because if you look at it is how much force it takes to do something. Of course I'm going to get heated up. I'm using a lot of energy to try and do something. But when I see the camaraderie camaraderie with men. Gil says something. Ken cheers him on. Ken says something. Doug cheers him on. Everybody's there. Yes, yes, yes. And that's wonderful. But it's that same tribalism that you see in all the other groups with different things. I have something to say. I have a message. It's been out there. Nobody read my book. And it wasn't even a book. It was a short little thing. And that and again, some of you will walk away and you'll say, boy, she got so upset. What's wrong with her. When things build up. That's what happens.  You ain't seen nothing yet. So we better get on this. And I'm complete for now. Let's just go into silence for a moment. We're at the end of our call. I will wrap with just showing a resource I have, but it's not. It's going to distract from the moment we have right now. So let's just go quiet for a bit. I'll bring this back out. Let me do just a quick screen share just so people know some things around here are my notes from today's call. Here's the scroll bar. So there's more up here. Here are all the calls we've done. And so here's the December 23 2021 check in call. Here are my notes from then this is a link to that video online. The chat is pasted in the notes field. I've been pasting these. I've been pasting in the matter most channel that used to be called OGM calls, which is now called OGM town hall. Every blessed one of these is in there and available. And we've done lots of different experiments from Pete's buzz saw or chainsaw to filter URLs out of zoom chats to a bunch of other things to try to create the more singing more dancing scenario that Doug B mentioned a moment ago. Like, why can't we point right directly to the place in the call three months ago where we said X about X. I think we're like leaning in that direction, but the resources are here to build on and I at least me personally I'm really eager to do the planning and do some of the thinking about what needs to be built and to talk to communities that are already building part of these solutions and to try to bring them into the pot and stir and see which of these things click into place how we actually build sort of scaffold up this thing that we have trouble describing like when I don't remember it was Eric or who was was describing like, oh, so this thing in the middle that isn't a blog post but it's something else like, oh, yeah, that inevitable thing I call it the big fungus, just to have a funny thing a funny thing to call it, because because I feel like a lone ant at the fungus phase trying to feed the fungus, so that it'll nourish us. And if we all picked up our trash metabolized it, I mean, and put it on the fungus to metabolize. We would then have I think some more interesting artifacts to share together. Thank you very much we this was a really interesting sort of bifurcated, then then kind of self healing conversation toward the end.  It's very funny. Thank you all very much for for being here I really appreciate all the time and heart we spend here. Well, I wanted to mention one other thing, which is that open global minds mission is kind of about collaborative sense making and is kind of geeky. Open global heart.com which we put nothing on, and is more toward what Stacey and Doug see and others were bringing into this conversation about Hey, folks, it's really about showing up with heart and and vulnerability and making connections with other humans. Thank you all. See you on the matter most where we'll discuss the topic for the call two weeks from now and more.