How's it going everybody? It starts here and in this video I want to share with you all how you can build a beast stock market portfolio heading into the year of 2020 and all throughout 2020.  I also want to focus on a couple of things that could cause a lot of uncertainty in the stock market in the year of 2020 and we all know as investors, as people in the stock market, uncertainty is one thing the market does not like. When there's uncertainty, there's volatility, a lot of the times stock prices are falling aggressively, but for people that are contrarians, people that go against the grain, this is the perfect time to buy. So if you guys enjoy the video, hit that like button, consider subscribing and let's talk about three things that could hurt the stock market in 2020. So the first thing is definitely the trade war guys and this is something that's been affecting the stock market for about two years at this point and this trade war is between the US and China. If you guys don't know about this, you've probably been living under a rock, the constant back and forth between US and China, tariffs being slapped on each other, deadlines being pushed back, negotiations not working. This is putting a lot of uncertainty into these markets and heading into 2020 guys and in 2020 it seems like we're not even going to get a trade deal because yesterday, the day before I recorded this video, Donald Trump came out saying he's okay with waiting until after the presidential election to come to a trade deal with China and that's over a year away here guys, well actually a little bit under a year. So there's not really a rush here to get into a trade deal from Trump's perspective and this could definitely damper these markets even further because the markets, let's be honest guys, they want a trade deal because that means more certainty which in turn leads to stock prices most likely going up and that kind of leads us into another thing I'm looking at which is going to be the presidential election guys and everything involved with the debates and everything leading up to the election itself. I definitely think this can impact the markets as well either to the upside or to the downside and it's something that you should be watching especially if you're investing in 2020 and the last thing that I'm focusing on and it's always in the back of my mind honestly guys is we're at the end of this bull market or we're nearing the end of this bull market so investing towards the end of a bull market is a lot different than investing obviously in the beginning of a bull market right so that's kind of what I'm thinking here heading into 2020 and all throughout 2020 I'll be thinking these same things and a lot of other big you know hedge fund managers like Ray Dalio they've been coming out kind of spooking the public saying there's going to be a recession right around the corner putting a huge bet against the stock market so all throughout 2020 there's going to be a lot of uncertainty there's going to be a lot of volatility in my personal opinion so taking into account all of these different risk factors the presidential election the trade war the end of the cycle recession fears let's talk about how you can build a beast portfolio in 2020 what I'm personally doing and then we'll talk about the hypothetical scenario of me investing 10 000 bucks in 2020 how would I personally do that so other than those three points that we talked about another thing that I'm focusing on is the stock market being at all time highs guys the s&p the dow the nasdaq they've been absolutely crushing it over these past couple of months and what is that doing that's bringing up the value of the stocks guys in the stock market meaning you're not getting as much of a bang for your buck when it comes to investing in these individual stocks so for that reason I'm not being as aggressive in these markets right now as I was let's say for example towards the beginning of 2019 after we experienced that massive drop so back then I was aggressive because the valuations of the companies were a lot lower but since then we've ran up we're heading into 2020 at all time highs at this point in time so that's leading me to be a bit more cautious in 2020 so now that I prefaced it with that let's get into how I'm going to be building a beast portfolio in 2020 so the first thing I'm going to be doing is focusing on companies that have a safe yield and by yield I mean a dividend yield so I'm focusing on companies that are dividend aristocrats and even dividend kings that's even better right a dividend king is a company that's increased their dividends for 50 plus years that is incredible because that shows a company is paying out and increasing dividends even through recession so in 2020 with all this craziness going on if I can put my money in a company that's paying a dividend that gives me a bit of peace of mind at the end of the day because I know I'm collecting that dividend and a lot of the times guys these companies that pay dividends they're more stable and they know how to get through recessions they have the cash to get through recessions and that makes me feel a lot better and a dividend aristocrat I forgot to mention is a company that pays dividends for 25 plus years and they increase their dividends for 25 plus years and those companies also fall into this category of what I'm looking for some that are you know dividend kings aristocrats are Johnson and Johnson for example 3m right I'm looking at companies such as McDonald's although I don't think they are dividend king companies such as Procter and Gamble Coca-Cola Pepsi there's a lot of smaller ones like Leggett and Platt that a lot of people love boring companies that have a lot of nice juicy cash flow that could be paid out to people no matter what kind of economic situation we're in another thing I'm focusing on is ETFs guys in particular dividend paying ETFs there's one ETF in particular that I love it's ticker symbol NOBL and if you want to be invested in an ETF that tracks dividend aristocrats this is the ETF for you ticker symbol NOBL literally guys if you're putting your money into NOBL that is tracking dividend aristocrats whenever they aren't aristocrats anymore it gets taken off the list last time I checked they pay around a two to a three percent yield so not as high as some of these individual stocks but remember with ETFs you do get a lot of diversification there and that provides a lot of safety for some people so NOBL is one there's a lot of other ones guys SPHD is one that I really like it's an S&P 500 low volatility high dividend yield ETF that I'm personally invested in looking to add more money into that it makes sense because in volatile times which I expect 2020 to be a low volatility ETF will serve me right and will pay me a nice dividend yield and I believe the yield on that one is around four to five percent the last time I checked another thing I'm focusing on to build a beast portfolio is to really trust my gut and at the end of the day this is more of a mindset thing I'm not looking to invest in whatever companies that wall street is pushing whatever companies the media is pushing I'm looking to invest in undervalued companies that I personally believe in and that I see potential in no matter what type of economic situation we're in because at the end of the day when I buy a stock guys and I'm sure a lot of you can relate to this I'm looking to hold it for the next couple of years so I'm looking to buy this stock I don't care if in the short term it's going to be rocky if that stock is undervalued if they pay a dividend which is ideal for my long-term investing philosophy and strategy that I personally follow that is going to be an opportunity for me to buy no matter what situation the economy is in and no matter what the CNBCs of the world the the the medias of the world whatever they're saying right I really don't care so that's kind of more of a mindset thing of me heading into this year of 2020 and I'm just looking to deploy capital in undervalued areas so building a beast portfolio in 2020 it's going to take work it's going to take work you're going to have to sift through all of the BS in the media you're going to have to value companies you're going to have to analyze ETFs whatever it may be right it's going to take work but if you focus on stockpiling cash if you focus on buying only when the company is undervalued and not at inflated prices you should be good right and let's say we don't even get a buying opportunity a big buying opportunity in 2020 that's okay because as you're building your cash position which is also extremely important and I touched on in a couple of minutes ago you're building more and more cash you have a crap ton of cash one week you have 10 grand the next month you have 20 grand whatever it may be whatever your savings rate is so the more cash you have as the stocks continue to go up that's actually a huge advantage because you can then scoop up shares when the markets go down like they did a year ago last December they crashed 20% if that happens again guys and you have a lot of cash guess what you get to scoop up some juicy deals in the stock market and companies that you love so let's talk about hypothetically here if I had 10,000 bucks sitting on my table right here if I had 10,000 bucks right here how would I invest it right now in 2020 first and foremost guys I'm taking this 10,000 bucks and right off the bat I'm cutting 40% out of it and putting it in cash I want 40% at least in cash in this particular account I'm taking 20% and I'm putting it in SPHD which is that ETF that low volatility high dividend yield ETF that we talked about I'm taking another 20% I'm putting it in NOBL noble that dividend aristocrat ETF that we talked about so that's 40% right there 40% in cash that's 80% with that remaining 20% I'm probably going to do some stock picking stocks that I like right now and I actually think offer a pretty solid value are Johnson and Johnson Facebook it's not as good of a value in my opinion but I still think they're at a pretty decent value for how quick they're growing in terms of the company right so I'd buy a little Johnson and Johnson I'd probably buy a tiny bit of Facebook just to get some skin in the game and I'd also buy maybe like a Altria ticker symbol MO that offers a very high dividend yield and that I personally think is at a pretty solid value right now and how I would split that 20% I'd probably put 10% and Johnson and Johnson let's say for example maybe like 6% in Facebook and maybe 4% in Altria that's kind of how I would split that 20% so let me know down below in the comments what would you guys do if you had 10,000 bucks right now and you had to invest it I'd love to know your guys's thoughts on that so that's pretty much it for this video guys on how to build a beast stock market portfolio in 2020 you just have to remember there's a lot of moving variables trade war impeachment you know the presidential election Ray Dalio coming out saying what he said the end of the economic cycle potential recession fears there's all of these different moving variables but you have to sift through them find undervalued companies stick to cash if there's no undervalued companies and buy when the price is right that's how you're going to build a beast portfolio and in my opinion what I'm doing to build my own beast portfolio is focusing a lot on yield and low volatility ETFs right now in 2020 heading into 2020 so I'll catch you all in the next video hit that like consider subscribing and also join our StrifeSmart discord chat and our Facebook group link down below thanks again for watching peace out


I was close enough to it that I couldn't see that. Well, I could see that. And I will not be argued out of my assessment. I'm not going to try. Hello, John Kelly. Hey, John. Hey, Eric. Eric. It seems to always be fixing breakfast when these call starts. Kind of timed around that hour. So, after many of my calls in the morning, I walked out to the elevator and the person who cleans the building has just like freshly washed the floor in front of the elevator pretty regularly. I don't want to step on this and it's just, it's timing. So. Thanks, Eric. So I put the topic in about emergence and I then discovered. I didn't did a little bit of sort of rummaging around and discovered I believe it's this YouTube video, which is Lazlo Bach, who as far as I can tell is a McGenius about about HR and humans. Everything I've seen from Lazlo, I haven't read his book, but everything I've seen him sort of say was like, holy beans. This is kind of how things ought to be done. And he talks really clearly and for two minutes, really clearly and explicitly about, we've adopted emergent leadership. And when we started, we used to do credentialing and people would have to come in with degrees and whatnot. And we did sort of traditional leadership. And then we realized that wasn't working so well. So what we've developed was actually inspired by Sergei and Larry in their style. And what he meant was they have kind of full control. And they have full control over the organization, but their style is to wander around and see who wants to do stuff. And then they hired Eric in Eric Schmidt and gave him full control over decisions. So then they started kind of playing devil's advocate and then this dance emerged that emerged. And that's really, really interesting. Eric, the game of life. And we talked a while ago. Gosh, did we talk? So who is it that wrote the book recently where everything emerges from like artificial life simulations that all of life is an a life simulation? Who was that? It's not Kurtzweil. It's Wolfram, I think. Isn't it Wolfram's story, the book about everything? Yes. He basically says, we're all the one big simulation. And guess what? If you just run iterations on the game of life and correct me if I'm totally mixing up algorithms and methodologies, because it may not be Conway's game of life, but it feels like the artificial life comes out of that work. And that's kind of what he's building on. Anyone know more than me on that one? No such. And Eric, you're totally right. Weird things emerge from that game in that, there's a lot of non-desirable futures and moments that emerge as well. We have a little bit of video at the top of the call. Oh, OK. Somebody clicked on the video. I was just hearing some voices in the background. So the video is a Laszlo Bach of Google talking about emergent leadership. I'm sorry, I was asking if it would be worth us just watching that together real quick. You know, I had a feeling that that might actually be the case. So let me go find it again in my browser. Thank you. I think I didn't hear you properly. Laszlo Bach. Let me screen share. Is there a better way to, to participate, we watch a video than just the screen share? I thought there was something more direct, but I'm not sure I'm finding it. So I'm just going to screen share screen and play it. And it's two minutes long. So it's not bad. It's not long at all. Here we go. So full screen and hit replay. Pink. All right. 2015. The good leadership today. So we used to look for more conventional leadership, like, you know, your titles and presidency clubs and things like that. And we moved to this concept of emergent leadership. And it's actually, it's funny. It's something we sort of arrived at through a bunch of mechanisms. One of them was actually watching Larry and circuit.  When you're a founder, when you start a company, you kind of, it's your thing. It's alone all the voting rights because they, we have a two, two class chair structure. They can actually do whatever they want. But instead of what they did was they stepped back. They hired Erica CEO and said, why don't you make the decisions? Right. And they worked as a triumvirate, but it was really Eric's show to run. And even when we're making product decisions or what market decisions, it's like, you know, it's like, you know, they're saying, but they would often take opposing views just for the purpose of getting to a good answer. And so what we observed or realized in other contexts is giving up power is as important to leadership as seizing power. And so we now talk about emergent leadership, which is this notion that when you see a problem, you step in to fix it. Part of that. But just as importantly, once the problem is resolved, you're going to have to take it back to yourself. And so the way probably it's kind of constant dynamic of somebody taking lead, then fading back, somebody else taking lead, fading back. And it's a little weird to navigate and a little uncomfortable sometimes. But if you have everyone, you actually draw on the best of everyone. And that emergent leadership model really, really works. And that's what we're going to. That's it. I think it's a little bit of ambient noise, maybe from your. Your mic. But if you want to jump in and talk, please do. Sorry. Okay. Anyone with. SD. Hey. Really happy to see you. Or at least see your name. Anyone with reactions or whatever, because watching that just before this call triggered a bunch of other associations that I started making as well, but let me step back for a second. All is based on trust, isn't it? So much. So much. I mean, he said, he had a little brief aside in the middle that this depends also on, did he say diligence? It wasn't diligence. It was another word. Basically of people's individual responsibility. Working well in the middle of the dynamic. So you're kind of trusting that everybody understands the dance and how to step in and how to step out and what it means to. To play these roles somehow, but it's lovely. And in Sierra U. The key transition point is from ego to ego. It's a completely underestimated step in the Sierra U journey. Anybody else? John, please. Yeah, I have a lot of thoughts about this. So I won't try to do them all in this shot, but there's, there's kind of a, an aesthetic principle. You know, that when we see someone, like, if you're, if you've watched some of the Olympics, I'm not, I'm not following it very much, but you know, these people who have done this incredible training, or if you watch a ballerina, you watch anybody who's like done enormous amounts of training and you say, wow, there's an inherent beauty to their motion. Wow, it's really graceful. What, what is that? Well, what that is, I mean, that this is now stretching the idea of emergence, but, you know, it's like they understand that sudden voluntary intent would be like ego. It would be like the leader stepping in and they, they've trained themselves so well that they have an emergence going in their body. You know, there's the, the intention is going, but then the, the train practices there too. And they just, so they're going to add just the right amount of intention. It's not, ah, you know, it's not, no, no, that's a different game. That's a different game. Might work in football, but this is like, it's going to add just the right amount of intention. All these other forces are going to be present and the interaction of all these forces is going to produce this thing of beauty and skill. I admit this is a very subjective interpretation, but I find it helpful. It's, it's lovely, John. Thank you. And you reminded me of the Christopher Alexandrian concept of Quan or the quality without a name. And that in some sense, beautiful leadership has, and beautiful art, beautiful performances has this quality without a name. It's like, you kind of know it's special.  And you can't actually put your finger on it. And maybe if you did, you'd squish the magic somehow a little bit. I don't know, but, but Quan is this lovely sort of felt capacity or it's in the air. Stuart, please jump in. Yeah, I mean, to me it's a little bit of a duh. In the, in the, in the sense that. Is that a technical term? Yes. The Dow of duh, a friend line is working on a book. Oh, I really like that. Because there's a lot of duh around. But anyway, loud Sue had a great quote. And I can't paraphrase, I can't, I can't recite it exactly. But the essence of it was they think they did it themselves. A number of years ago I was, I was leading a pretty high powered team. And I came up with this term leadership by nudging. All right.  But, but the antithesis of that is just when you're dealing with competent people, allowing them to, to, to flower by creating the space in which each person can emerge and demonstrate their capacity for leadership, taking over, having good ideas, making sure the orchestra is, is working effectively. A friend of mine, a colleague from a number of years ago, actually was an orchestra leader and now teaches leadership. So, yeah, that's, that's all for now. Love that. Thank you, Gil. What struck me about his talk when he said, this is a little weird. I thought it was weird that he says it's weird because I think what's weird is the dominant hierarchical command and control bullshit that's much more common. And what he's describing, I think is much more intrinsically human. I don't, I don't, I don't, that's not evidence based, but that's my sense. Well, to Stuart, I was talking yesterday with a friend who's a, who's a young director, a theater director, and we were rehearsing the scene together and I asked her to, you know, if there was any direction she wanted to give me, she said, no, you know, directing is highly overrated. Most of 80% of it is in the casting.  And that's in a way parallel to what we're talking about here. So Mike Lynch has that as a directorial strategy. Mike Lynch is a, an extraordinary director. I really love his work.  I think he also did topsy-turvy, which is one of my favorite movies, partly because my dad weaned me on the Mikado. And topsy-turvy is the story of topsy-turvy done in the, in Gilbert and Sullivan's terrible relationship and the emergence of the Mikado, which is a great story. But, but like, I'm going to pause while Stuart jumps in because I can see that words are springing from your mouth. Yeah, I know. I just wanted to say, you know, though, though maybe politically incorrect, people used to say that about Woody Allen all the time. That's why they love to be in his movies because his, he directed with a very, very light hand. By the way, there's, oops. There is a, there's a documentary by Kamau Bell. I think that says we have to talk about Crosby. We've got to talk about Crosby, I think. And it's super, super, super interesting. It's really like, what do we do when somebody has been found as, as morally broken. And yet so many of us were inspired by their work and so on and so forth. So, super interesting. And then to go back to Mike Lee, just in case nobody else knows about his directing style, Mike Lee gets everybody into character, doesn't really give them scripts, sets up five or six cameras that are out of sight.  And it works just beautifully. So it's just astonishing how it works. So I've never, I don't know much more about it, never been on the set. Haven't read anything about it or watched any behind the curtain, you know, videos about it, but would love to. Hi, jump in. Wendy, sorry, you had your hand up a moment ago too. Let me go, Estie, then Wendy. Even though this is my first time here, I have little context on the people and I feel insufficiently caffeinated as of yet. I have to, I must insert here the thing I've been thinking about as, as Jerry knows, and maybe others for the last couple of years, which is the idea of grammar, underlying the way we work and live, et cetera. And this is the socio linguistic idea of grammar, which is not the rules for sentence structure, et cetera, but how we, how we actually interweave our activities. And in, in old fashioned times, it was verbal utterances. Now it pertains, of course, to all kinds of chat streams, et cetera. But we are in the way we've just been describing built to and know to largely implicitly create and weave an effect. And I think as an ex dancer, what you're what what you're seeing in ice skating is, is grammar rather than intention and deep grammar so deep that if you're not an ice skater, you literally cannot see what is being done and what is being judged, but the ability to, to, to have that grammar in you and speak that way is what determines outcome. I think you've just, I was going to ask you to explain grammar more and then like the, the bulb went off in my head because I think you've explained nicely why I can't understand fencing matches. It's like, I look at fencing fencing and it's like, well, damn, that was a blur. And then I look at the slow motion and I'm like, it still looks like a blur. I'm just not getting that there was a parry or a touch and I don't understand the rules enough. And I don't really even know the difference between a sabre and an epa enough to say, oh, they're doing the sabre fight now. Okay. If you watch, if you watch, if you watch a keto practice, you don't have that issue because you have the, because you have the grammar. I, so I can watch a demo by a master. There's a video I'll post in the chat of a, of a, a, which is like a, the superior teachers in a keto doing a whole series of movement. I'm like, oh, that's this move. Oh, that's this move. And oh my God, look at how smooth and how clear and oh, that's this move. And I've done 80% of the, of the throws Easter. And somebody else would look like a blur. I'm like, oh, that's this move. Important. Important. So, no, great. Important clarification here is that it's less about the moves. Then it is about the transitions between and the adjustments amongst. Now, could you say a little bit more, please? So as we are speaking here, and I was hearing myself earlier, right? My sentence structure sucked. As I'm. Had to turn my video on so that I could be speaking to actual humans, right? And, and when we're in this kind of speech. In built in wired, most natural form, right? Of transacting the business of life. Then we, we interweave partly by observing that the other folks have gotten are also doing the grammar. So I don't have to finish my thought if it's clear to me, everybody's nodding or there's that thing in their eyes. Or that there isn't, and I should inject a little clause, which isn't, of course, a grammatical, a formal, formally correct clause. So this interweaving. Of just the right amount. Of a complex move. In, in a flow, it's not even, it's better to think of it that way than as a sequence, which is not predetermined. And the reason I jumped in under caffeinated is that it had not occurred to me. That this idea of applying grammar and the sociolinguistics and linguists understanding of grammar. To, to life work, et cetera, is emergence. What it is actually how we emerge. To borrow somebody else's word a beautiful. Performance that meets an intention. So I think that's a great question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Wendy. Yes. I love this conversation and I've done a lot of thinking before about the creative process in general. And I think what SD was bringing to the table here about how really it's every discipline in my opinion, every discipline has a creative process. And the creative process is a combination of, you know, the idea of the grammar or the structure or the habits of mind or the habits of being or the habits of movement related to a particular discipline. And then allowing there to be a sense of flow inside of that. So no matter who we talk to you in any discipline, people who are leaders in that field, people who have come up with emergent qualities or emergent topics or emergent ideas that have furthered all of humanity. They all kind of say these ideas came from somewhere else, right? It's this other thing that I was working with in order to come up with this idea or it came to me in a dream or came, like there are common threads there. And I think what the conclusions I started to draw and this conversation I think follows along these lines is that there is always a potential once we have learned the grammar for us to then open just a little bit more to the flow of whatever energy is coming from slightly somewhere else that we're not quite sure what that thing is. And it could be conversations like this where we've all come to a basic understanding of how we respect each other's time talking, how we're all actively listening and trying to build on what someone else was saying, how we're not each and no one's trying to divert the conversation on to solely a personal trajectory. And so we're all contributing to something else in between all of us that is trying to emerge forth from this conversation. And we're all hoping to gain this understanding that we can then bring back into our own lives or contribute again back into the community we're building. To me, there's a, the reason why relationships become important in a collaborative environment like this is because we all need to trust as Estie was just kind of pointing out with I'm kind of new to this group, right? Like there's a vulnerability to expressing those things that are a little bit different that I know I can't be fully articulate about that I'm hoping somebody else will hear a tone or a ring or something and we'll appreciate what I'm saying and add to it, right? There's a vulnerability there and it's hard to jump in with something so kind of raw and new without trusting that other people will receive it well and won't judge, you know, for the lack of full comprehension or full articulation. So that's where I've been. I would just like to hit pause for a moment so that we can absorb what you just said because it was great. And we're whipping as often like, unfortunately, my facilitation styles like woohoo. And we're all on the toboggan together and we're hopefully hanging on. So let's just go silent for a little bit.  Thank you. Has that prompted any thoughts, John? Thank you. So we're borrowing and we will continue to borrow from other fields and this is so rich. It's almost, well, it's intoxicating almost to talk about it. But if we go back to physics and particularly I guess it's more math and physics chaos theory. There's the notion of the strange attractor. And there's the notion of the other part of physics. There's a notion of entanglement and how vulnerable it is to a certain kind of outside influence. And I think you can put the two of these together and you can add leadership in. And my sense is that leadership is not being the strange attractor. Leadership is creating a context in which the flow of things, the strange attractors tend to be there already in an environment.  And you do that with an awareness that it's not going to be precise. If you look at some of these models you can see there's millions of times something goes around and it's always acknowledging the strange attractor. But it's not hitting it and it's not repeating itself. It's making a new path, a new path, a new path. So that implies maybe the non-emergent leadership, you know, a bit like there's a fire in the building and you got to get people out. That's not time for emergent. That's the time when you do the other kind. You say, okay, we got to get out of the building right now. But we want to be aware of these situations in which oh, there's a potential here for emergence and there's probably stuff that's hiding from any individual's awareness. And so as a leader or even a responsible follower, how can I contribute to setting this thing up so that there will be this flow and so that something can emerge and that we can recognize it when it does? I love that, John. Thank you. And I posted in the chat a little bit earlier that sort of mastery then flow kind of over simplifying but also that when you're in the flow, you notice disturbances in the force just tongue-in-cheek about like Star Wars. But I mean that. I mean that like a chess master looking at a chess board sees snapshots and this goes back to, you know, how memory works and chunking, sorry, the chunking ideas of how memory works and all of that. But also when you've mastered some discipline, some art, some anything, everything that's working as it should is just background noise. And if something pops up that's a little odd, your attention goes straight to it because the noise that would overwhelm an amateur, a person who's a novice into the space, because it all looks like noise is just like everything's humming, everything's working as it should. And your system has internalized how to kind of ignore it and keep it going well. Like you can ignore it and you can in fact keep feeding it or keep nurturing it along the way. And then now and then something pops up that you need to do, sometimes if you're really good, something pops up that is an opportunity. And I had this long ago in my consulting life, I was part of an event where the senior leadership of a company came in and did an exercise. And the exercise basically told us what the problem was in the company. Pretty much like it was like they were blowing red lights around it for me. And I walked over to the fellow who was hosting the program. And I said, hey, they just told us what the problem is. I don't know that our program actually suits this. Should we stop? And we didn't. We had two days of choreographed activity to go through and paid people on set, so to speak, to go do this. And I was like, wow, there was a foregone opportunity because the opening exercise was so powerful that they just told us what the problem was. Right? And part of what planning and choreography do is they tend to eliminate those moments of spontaneity where you go off-roading where you say, oh, okay, now we throw away the script for a while and we try something else. But then in other cases, choreography and planning make some people comfortable, let the client know what they paid for. There's a whole bunch of other reasons we do those kinds of things. And we try to focus on the different situations, other thoughts. And feel free to take emergency in a different direction entirely. I love this thread. And Wendy. Yeah, so I like John what you were adding to what I was saying about and bring it back to leadership. And it's reminding me, I forgot to mention, there are organizations that practice this that gives people space to practice emerging leadership. And what I'm thinking of is Winfinity, which some of you might be familiar with. Trey Ashley Garan, who was in a lot of Kiko lab calls, and I think maybe a few OGM calls along the line. I'm not sure. But the Winfinity framework is one of those examples, right? Of spaces being created for leaders to come together. And in particular fields. And just practice being, you know, being in a space where they're listening to each other and talking about what needs to emerge next for the better verse, as we might say, or, you know, for, for whatever needs to come next in the world. And I think it's so important because a lot of these. A lot of the framework around which, and you were just make, you know, giving a good example, I thought Jerry of, you know, the framework that we have given ourselves is what, of what a business meeting should look like, or what leadership should look like, or what our tasks should be. And we often play such a strong role that we forget to listen to what's emerging and, and it gets kind of, you know, bulldozed over. So, so yeah, I think these places where we can practice are important. And OGM for me is one of those. Or how our budget must be spent. Right. What's a justifiable expense for budget and ooh, this feels really, really weird and strange. One thing I just, yeah. And let me just add into that one of the important things I think is what I'm hearing through infinity and a couple other spaces is that, and here too, right? A couple of people here as well is that funding is starting to change. The people are saying we want to fund going back to the analogy of the mosaic. We want to fund the mortar of the mosaic. We want to fund the platform of the mosaic, not necessarily the pieces, recognizing that there are thousands of hours that go into that moment of emergence. And how do we get the funding to fund those thousands of hours that lead up to that moment, not just the shiny thing that gets, that's the result at the end. And that's almost, especially with all the solutions we need going forward and all the problems that we're facing. The effort that goes into solving those, we're focusing only on the, the shiny solution of the moment often. And that's where the money's going, not the holistic view, not taking the extra time, not the quality of bringing everybody in, not listening to, is this really serving? And that stuff gets missed often. So I'm excited by when I'm hearing that there are funders going, wait a second, I want to fund something different. Thank God. I'd love to find them. I'm reminded of a couple of things. One is about the Beatles in Hamburg and how they sort of developed mastery by just going and playing a lot of gigs in a foreign country, just over and over and over. And Pete just posted a couple of links to the new documentary that takes the old documentary and reworks it entirely into a much better thing, which is on my to watch list. It sounds like a fabulous thing to watch, but it's how the Beatles found mastery and got to that place where they could compose kind of on the fly and work together on the fly. It took a long, long time to do. And then something Gil said a little while ago, triggered a memory for me and I, I want to come back to it for a sec, which was sometimes these things Gil was saying, why the status quo methods for doing things are the things that should feel unusual and, and wrong. And these new things about letting go of control feel, feel wrong and funny and counterintuitive. Why is that? And in this post that called the two oh shits, which is part of design from trust. I say, Hey, there's two predictable reactions when you hit a system that's designed from trust. I'll give you, I'll spoil the plot here.  There's no way this could work. Like, what do you mean anybody can edit any page on Wikipedia?  Who, who thought of that?  How does it work? How do I get more? What's going on? And, and those are really predictable. And, and the note I try to make in that piece is, isn't this a sad situation and civilization that when we hit systems that trust us and we walk into them, like traffic calming, where the traffic lights go? I have to, I have to make eye contact with the other people here or I will kill them. It feels really, it feels more dangerous. In fact, one of the, one of the aspects of traffic calming that that's useful is fear. You're actually sort of trying for a stranger to the intersection. You want them to slow down because they might hit somebody and not because you can't make sense of the intersection, like the, the readability of the careful thoughtful design of the intersection and the readability of the intersection is super important in traffic calming.  So all kinds of stuff like that. Gil, did you have your hand up? I don't know, but you've muted Stuart. Stuart and John. Yeah, what's popping up in my mind from what most everyone is saying is, is this concept of third body. And when I think of that, I often think of love relationships. And Jerry, when you were just talking about traffic calming, part of it is the exquisite attention that people are paying to each other. And that I think is what happens in love relationships. We're paying exquisite attention. And the product is something that's not one or the other, but something completely different. And it emerges out of the two. So imagine if, if everyone had that kind of sensitivity and allowed the emergence between people to actually happen, as opposed to thinking that we needed to be driving all the time. It's an interesting phenomenon during the nineties that a dear friend of mine used to open up his woodworking studio the last Saturday night of every month and people would come and make music. And there were, there were only one or two quote real musicians that showed up, but the music was amazing. And in the context of that, my, my dear friend, Peter taught me not to hog the microphone. It was a wonderful, it was a wonderful learning. Thanks, Stuart. That's lovely. John, then Michael. Okay. So continuing the. Borrowings from, from chaos theory and other places. One of the things that's, it's sort of emergent in this conversation. It's not, it's not explicit. In fact, what we're explicitly pointing it out is how good we feel about the times when the emergence is the thing that we want. And there's a certain humility that comes in with understanding that. Most of the things complex or chaotic system does most of the time are not going to be things that we want. And the, the, the leadership is, is really complex. It's really, it's like cooking, you know, it's you've got to, you've got to really, really, really, really, really, really, Okay. Have we have we box this thing enough so that in fact, all the forces in motion will, will coalesce. You in some way at some, at some reasonable time. And have we done it in such a way that we don't get a premature, premature closure. That's. That gets really, really, really tricky. conversations and the attempts to get, you know, red and blue talking to each other and so on and so forth that there's a lot of, a lot of sort of fast slamming together. And people may be appropriately motivated they may have a some intuitive sense that a, you know, there's probably an emergence here let's, let's get these elements together and let's get it, you know, but it's just just like entanglement in physics, it's very easy to disrupt the, the tendency to get a useful emergence out of complex and chaotic system. So there's a lot of tuning involved. And it's also very tricky because when you say tuning, you know, it gets very close to ego. And so you know, if you're, if you're a person responsible for the setting, you're kind of like saying, is this, is this going to, is this going to be soup? Is this going to come together? And do I need to intervene or not? And, and I know, Jerry, we've been in these situations where it's like, yikes, you know, and everybody has a different threshold of when you feel like, wow, in order to save the possibility of emergence, I now have to intervene more. And somebody else will be saying in order to save the possibility of emergence, we have to turn down that the controlling factors more we have to allow more chaos in. So that's a, that's a vast area of art, vast area of learning. It's something I continue to be surprised by. And hopefully I'm still learning about it. I love that, John. And I wrote in the chat, the close sometimes you want, you kind of want to steer closer to the yikes, because the closer to yikes you are the more vulnerable people are the more interesting things show up the more unexpected things show up and that can be really powerful. And I'm going to just offer us to go into silence for another 30 seconds, Michael, if you'll remember what you're thinking.  I'm having a fun silence because in my head the indigo girls are singing closer to yikes. Yeah, I'm circling back to something that Wendy was saying when she was talking about bright and shiny things and the funding that gravitates toward them and I just wanted to share a thought that a metaphorical thought that I feel like is relevant here and this idea of emergence that, you know, we're forced into competition to be the brightest and shiniest. And if you think about it, you know, going back also to our discussion of the relationship between the natural world and the way we function in the man-made world, that sort of as if in a dying plot of farmland everybody was plastered around the one plant that was strong enough to make it and did everything they could to, you know, enhance that one plant as opposed to enhancing the soil and, you know, making raising the level, raising more so that more different diverse things could emerge and, you know, we're competing for sustenance instead of trying to provide sustenance for lots of growing things that can function in an ecosystem, you know, that are helping each other in terms of competing with each other. So that was my thought. Thanks. Thanks, Michael. If I may shift start for a moment and look at emergence as a managed process or a process that can be managed. I mean, Disney is probably one of the most creative companies out there. And, you know, I've worked with the imaginary team for a long time. And the concept that Disney has developed is starting out with what they call blue sky concept or blue sky idea. So anybody can go out and store out some stuff and, and, you know, multiple crazy things that no one has ever done before. And then that concept goes through a feasibility test. That means anybody in the team gets to beat up on it and, and playing in the water bouts and what ifs, and if it survives that feasibility test and then it goes into a concept design phase. And so Disney has done some really cool stuff that that path breaking. We must the most advanced company in robotics for many years, build some stuff that no one thought was possible. And so, so we have today the need to, to bring out new ideas that no one has really done before. And that process, you know, for to go from blue sky and accept it face value that somebody has an idea that that should go through, through a rigid feasibility but honest feasibility test right not from an eco feasibility test that that really tries, hopefully to make this work. If there's any chance at all. I think that's that that would be that that that is a that is a process really worth emulating and we missed that in the context of, of freelance working you know companies are doing it but they often come up with blue sky ideas that are really harmful. They are, they missed the socio demographic impacts they're causing the environmental impacts and so on. So anyway, I'm. Class thank you that's great and you reminded me that I've been going through a lot of boxes of old stuff and I discovered my badge from the park in Anaheim, which is now a refrigerator magnet. So I just walked over to the fridge and picked it up. And wait someone else had their hand up a moment ago and it's gone and Michael if you could, it's skill Michael if you can lower your hand from earlier. I'll go ahead. Just real quick to Claus's point about Disney. It seems seems that the permission to beat up the idea is a little rare, or maybe it's handled differently in different places I mean here. Here we are very much in the flow of building ideas on ideas and ideas we don't and we're not beating up ideas here. But we have a team, having the capacity to beat up ideas and have that separate from ego and power, and really invite that as part of the creative process. I suspect is rare. I wonder what enables. I mean with Disney it may be that that goes, it may go all the way back to Walter it may be a more recent innovation I don't know. But having that capability to, you know, to play hard and play fair. That's an important part of the creative process and in our world of being nice we may be missed that opportunity sometimes. You're reminding me that Google did a whole bunch of research on what make team what made teams more productive etc etc after lots of work. They came back and said, Oh, it's a lot to do with the perception of safety. And a piece of when is it okay to dissent and how do you work through arguments and how do you get somewhere is all about, I think, safety in those in those senses. And that reminds me of things like IBM's famous contention management, Microsoft's famous internal like major struggle kind of culture really crappy cultures inside that also led to lots of innovation, but lots of dysfunction in different ways so you know, management beliefs and methods are what form these different kinds of approaches and inform us in forward. It's really interesting. Kevin and john. Talking about emergence, I've been going more deeply into the places where communities have really created an efficient broad based climate response that's local but broken down into stuff people do. It's often based on them having a climate hub where, and then they get all the silos nonprofits to rub shoulders and realize I can share this and I can share this that creates a real comments. And all the places where this is happening. You know I can go into the five or six that I know well in my previous work are using the donut model as a way to get average people on board and engaged who are beyond the folks who are already doing the work. But you know you can't use the phrase climate justice there but don't it has a way to slip it in based on the, you know the environmental value of unfairness is not good in some way or other, you can slip it in but you can't use the phrase environmental justice because that means the economy is unjust and lots of folks working on climate think the economy is just fine if they're winning. So you got to get the folks who are mad at the people who are cut out of the game able to work with the folks who are winning who don't really care and or, or they just don't see stuff. And so the donut is working in Birmingham and you're kind of a rough food but it's also working an affluent area so it's a. It's a framing that that, but it takes tons of grounding before you get to that level of emergence right there all these groups that had to be there silo doing hard work working out of their houses you know and people getting more and more into that university that had written about it and had students trained and you know there's none of these places. Donut only works after a decade you know if you hadn't been working for 10 years and then it could be that, or in a congregation engaging with the community that they could really work but I think you need a decade of community building somewhere in the siloed way to make the donut work anyway that's it's a it's a phase and I'm trying to I'm going deep into each place where it's really working so Amsterdam and North Devon and place in Brazil. And anyway, it's a new level of of emergence that I'm trying to figure out how how you how you got to that little little species. I love that one tiny slice of that is kind of like money versus time to try to fix problems.  And what you're saying is actually, if you invested time and safety and built a community, then problems would start to dissolve themselves and they might need some resources but probably not as many. We're talking here on to what you're saying but I think that's part of it. Yeah, well you know, another thing is that the power of the time value of money is created by interest user which you know was a sin in the Abrahamic cultures and that Muslim still remember. And so if you take away interest in any of these new deals make a revenue share and other things, then the time value of money is greatly reduced that can't come in and just claim the assets that the investors don't have any greater status. They don't get liquidation rights, which means the entrepreneur does the work, and the investor gets it first I mean that that's another way that that Muslims don't won't. They'll be involved in venture deals but not with neither of those conditions, and you can do it you know I mean you can do high risk really good deals. If you don't have interest and if you don't have liquidation you know if you don't give the money more power. So anyway that's that's what we're working on. Thanks Kevin. So, John go ahead. Yeah, I really like that Kevin approach and it responded beyond your initial conversation or the conversation just before that about safety and the critical thing about safety and the idea that if you said, economic justice you know some people would get been out of shape but if you say you know it slips in. Another famous one is generating whole bunches of ideas in a process, and then giving everybody, you know, some kind of token anything.  These get it and the others don't it's like these deserve deeper investigation in our process next. So you haven't, you haven't shoved the others, you know you haven't dissed the others. You, but you've kind of said well notice notice the pattern it's emerging here you know these kind of things are emerging and this people want to investigate these three Let me respond to that because one of the things we're doing is there's a particular economic vehicle that preserves black wall streets from predatory hedge fund displacement. So it has a lot going for it. And they've been only been about six of them but but they were investing with the third one by this one guy, but the and it works because you have political power through crowd funding and you get the mayor and the city council on board to send off the money, and then everybody's investing in their neighbor so that's one whole part of it. And it's, it's a thing where, you know, we're wanting to. Urban Institute just did a definitive report on this new thing and this is these are five new solutions but this one is the best one. And so the guy who did that also said, and this is what should be built that doesn't exist now and it's a community equity endowment and it's just sort of taking you know, never investment trust land trust. Because this would work for everybody's kind of UBI meets appreciating real estate assets. So we're going to invite him to do his imaginal session with all these practitioners together. And so it's like, you know, you got to stimulate the economic imagination. So that's, that's all I have to say. That's, that's great Kevin, I appreciate that. If I can, this is a totally different idea so when I was in high school, you know, read Shakespeare for the first time, and it came across the term, the Ides of March, you know, which is course and Julius Caesar, and I remember, you know, what it was at one point thinking, wait a minute, who wrote it, did they actually write this stuff down when Caesar was like, I didn't get right away. Oh, this is Shakespeare. He's, he's taking poetic license. But it's that concept of poetic license. And also poetic fallacy. I learned about that like a random night when I was about 14. And I thought, Wow. I didn't have terms to talk about it but it's, Wow, this is ventilated emergence. You get something going. And if it's significant enough, nature comes in. Nature comes in to say, Yeah, you're doing something there, you know, we're going to come along. You know, and of course, poetic fallacy has this double, double meaning. It is has the meaning of your kid and yourself, you know, don't just because there was thunder. When you tried to make a left turn without signaling.  That's the fallacy part. But the other part, the part of watch out for emergent invitations, what you know, or go about what you're trying to do in such a way that, yeah, not only can the forces that you've managed to get going in your little kettle are moving around and they're moving around and something's emerging. But if you do it really well, you do it really gracefully, it recruits, it recruits other forces from outside the context that you've created. And then you really know, well, for one thing you gain, you gain more influence, but it's not your influence. It's, it's the influence that you were allowed to help orchestrate. John, and pardon my experience ignorance. Do you mind tying Ides of March into the fallacy or other other logic because I don't actually, I don't actually carry in my head any means for Ides of March other than it's related somehow to March, which is like pretty bad. The Ides of March is the 15th of March. It's the day when Julius Caesar was killed. And in the Shakespeare play.  And that's the Shakespeare's genius to say, you're going to kill somebody like Caesar. The universe is going to notice this, you know, and there's going to be other things going on, you know, at the same time. It's the early disturbance in the force, you could say. Disturbance in the force, exactly. You know, and it's, it's a fallacy in the sense of you, if you start thinking that that's how the world works and you run your life that way.  It's really it's become seductive. It seduces in other forces and the relevant forces for us are not, you know, thunder and lightning, although, you know, that we wouldn't mind necessarily it's really political forces. It's really other people say, Oh, hey, you know, that eco village idea. That's not crazy. Let's let's get on board with that. Okay, love that. Thank you. Super helpful. Thanks, Stuart. Yeah, so, going back, I think, Jerry, you said the safety and important quality discovered for teams to be creative. I keep having the thought of imagining. If we created that on a global scale for massive levels of population where people felt safe. And, and part of schooling was in culturing people to recognize that safety, but also the follow their own inner art. We could coordinate that in some ways on a planetary or global basis, moving away from a capitalist mindset measuring things in terms of profit and loss. How the world might be very different. This takes us back into the political discussion we've had really, really often an OGM, which takes us over into basic income and other ways of creating some sense of safety, and the sort of the predatory instincts of the system and it's kind of some naked instantiations and the versions that we seem to still be inhabiting and a bunch of other things like that. I mean, like, yeah, yes, and yes, again, in some sense, Wendy. I loved how you touched on education Stuart, because when I think about educational experience might my kids have had versus my own experience and then all these ideas about emergence and creativity. What comes out for me in this conversation is, what if, is a question what if education, the point of education was to help each individual figure out what's emerging uniquely through them, and how they can, how they best assist other people, and what's emerging and other people, or together in community instead of scores. Which is sort of the message Jordan Sukut has been bringing to this community for sometimes since he kind of popped in, I could hear resonance with with sort of how he's been coming in here. And also Mila has been saying, hey, there's like an emergent wealth. That's going to somehow emerge across these communities and I don't know how it happens it's a little bit like one of my other favorite movies is Shakespeare and Love. The owner of the globe with his feet over the fire like they like, he doesn't know how the show is going to happen, you know, it's a miracle somehow but it's just going to, it's just going to happen things are going to show up when they need to show up, even though the leads voice just broke because he just said puberty and Juliet is going to be really awful with his lower voice, but something's going to show up maybe master Kent, I don't know. And just to pick up on that on Wendy and Jerry, somewhere in the, in the 80s, I was involved in a little bit of a movement concept study as I was trying to find my own way in the world is concept called best work. And best work is is not something you study for but best work is what you do. Coming out of your own humanity. It's something that your friends might identify as Oh, the reason I love to hang out with john is because he does x, y, and z. And knowing that and understanding that and then building work around that building your contributions to an organization a team of culture around best work. And it worked for me in the sense that I'm able to, you know, build an identity in a career around what I discovered was my best work in some ways by reflecting on things that emerged in the past. Love that I think you might have struck the let's go into silence for a moment gone there. Thank you Stuart. Mr Carmichael, you are still muted. There I go. The question on my mind is, is there any possibility of an immersion approach to climate change. I think the answer that is yes, like the question then becomes okay so what. And I think a lot of people are sort of are trying this in different ways and we've talked about some of the dynamics here about john has been in several different ways saying that when the intentions and the mix is right when you have soup, then larger scale changes can show up. And I think I see a bunch of different groups trying to do those sorts of things but let's pass it to other people to see what they think about your question your great question to kill them class. Yeah, Doug, I love the question. I love the question more than I know. But it's, it's a tricky one because it, given what we've been saying isn't you can't, you can't create emergence you can design the conditions that enable emergence but it's not like we can sit here and say what would be an emergent plan for climate change. But maybe we can say what would be the emerging conditions will be the conditions that would enable or favor such emerging plans emerging. What do you think. Well, the issue with emergence. The formal quality of emergence is that it's not reducible to what came before. So it's very hard to set the conditions for an immersion solution. I think that, you know, life is between high structure and no structure and emergence that works is in that magical place. It's very hard to specify. But I think one can look around and see, for example, you know, you can't build an Eiffel Tower on a small sandy island. Conditions are either allow for or prevent certain kinds of solutions. I think with climate change the issue is we are so fragmented. It's hard to see is not impossible but it's hard to see how something that looks like an adequate approach and by adequate I mean that cuts the curve of temperature rising down to something manageable. How that could happen. So I just saying, you know, what if we do not have the conditions for the emergence of such an approach. Now this brings me back to process structure that that I was mentioning earlier. The I inserted into GRC, a blue sky idea about funding and asked specifically about to beat it up just to to make sure if you get this is not like my brilliant idea this is this is an outline. That that if it gets advanced and if it passes into a concept design stage. In my mind could really make a difference right because of the one of the critical issues is that we need to shift into incentive structures, but we can't regulate our way out of this mess we have to incentivize people to get to who may not even understand what we're doing they don't get climate change they don't get the science they don't want to get the science, but we have to move them into a into a very specific direction so they have to be incentivized. So to develop in finance incentive structures that provide reliable outcomes. You know that that incentivize very specific behavior and processes would be an enormous when. So, there are there are them in Kevin is doing things that there are the things in that nature, you know that where a specific idea, you know, could be expanded on instead of beaten down, and what I observe over and over is someone comes up with an idea that has a pretty pretty pretty good foundation but it has some new polls or it has some, it has some weaknesses and instead of advancing the idea, you know this the intention of making it work somehow, we beat it down. And so it's a, I think it's a collective awareness of this of this process of wanting to make stuff work. And collaborating on it that that that would that would get us ahead to the next question. It is possible. It is manageable, but it's, it's a, it's a conscious consciousness issue in my mind. Thank you. And we're way down the rabbit hole of a very opposite different form of consciousness that has eaten our brains sort of worldwide in some sense. And all efforts to fight it have been mostly fruitless until now except except we're at this moment of deep change where I think that consciousness might tip and and the tipping is what I think we're all after we're all trying to figure out where do I push, how many grains of sand do I put on the pile where which pile, damn it. And in order to do that we need lots of effort together. Kevin and Wendy.  So I don't think I don't you were not beaten down somebody. I didn't see it as beaten down no no I mean I'm inviting you just said you were beaten down the whole story was you were beaten down. That's a misunderstanding. But I'm asking to be beaten to beat it up I'm asking for for you seem to be critical of the response and I thought the response was appropriate. That's all. Okay, well, I'm, yeah, that wasn't intentional. Okay, we will return to a really regularly scheduled program which is already in progress. And Wendy floors yours. I'm going to change, change direction just a little bit so I want to go first. Who had their hand up. Somebody else had their somebody said that they vanished and I don't know and Kevin still got his hand up but I think the floor is yours. Okay. So, so this is having me think about the tapestry in new ways and putting a new framework on it if you guys will just let me let me riff for a second. What I'm realizing to and class you're helping me with the description of the, of the process that starts with blue sky right and and going to like a feasibility and then to concept design and then building it out. I realized that I was already looking at the tapestry project is having an access by which those the projects would get spread out across that across that spectrum, basically I was calling it something else but it's like the everything's in different phases of development you might say or different phases of emergence. So helping me realize that a lot of what I'm trying to do with the tapestry is provide a framework within which people can see as a community, what's emerging, not just connecting with each other, not just what's there. That's the first step maybe, but then once we can see ourselves as a community, you can see which projects which people are in the area of say the blue sky, you know, what, what are the emerging things just starting to come out and help those things move into feasibility, or things that are in feasibility and then help those things move into concept, and then things that are in concept help those moves those things into build, right and then also seeing across different spectrums of society so some people on this call for instance have been talking about things from linguistics they've been talking about things from economics we've been talking about things from physics we've been talking about the same concept but we've been about them from different disciplines, who all the disciplines have something to contribute to the conversation. So sometimes it's not about moving it across the spectrum of emergence yet. First, the emergence needs to be expanded into other disciplines that have something to share. So I think by doing, by spreading, by pulling it apart and spreading it out, maybe. It'll help, this is my hope in my crossing my fingers. Maybe it'll help people see first what's starting to emerge and then what needs our attention and then where we should put our attention and then where we go from there. It's kind of what I'm hearing from today's conversation with what I'm looking at. I love that Wendy you sparked 15 different ideas in my head, unfortunately. And like the buffers are quite full and I think everybody's buffers are quite full from this call, this is super rich. Shimon then Stuart. Yeah, it is very rich. And I agree with you about the Cosby movie or series. It's very, very powerful. I actually live right down the street. I lived right down the street from this place and it was quite shocking everything that was going on. But I just wanna touch on a very specific topic that came up that somehow I got acquainted with actually over the last couple of days, which is about work. And for some reason I had a conversation with a friend of mine who is one of the leading people about employee ownership of businesses. And it was interesting. I found out that the US has more employee owned businesses than any other place in the world. And then later on I had a conversation with a couple of my friends in a group that we have were all kind of retired and kind of trying to figure out what next. And some of them had been CEOs of companies. Some of them have been in operations, sales and things of that kind. And the question that came up was what was the experience like as a leader? What was like bonuses like and things of that kind? And one of the things that I started talking with and there is apparently a willingness of one of my friends to put up some funding is to measure. I mean, how do we measure outcomes? And what would you think as individuals groups that would signify that a particular arrangement whether it's employee ownership, bonuses, sense of purpose in the company, the management and things of that kind, how would you measure individuals either well-being, the sense of connectedness, the sense of how they feel about their community they're in because that's an extremely difficult topic to measure. And I've also been listening in on with the British, the London School of Economic has a whole series now on inequality. And some of the conversations are, how do you measure from this policy point of view? How would you try to create equity and equality and the philosophical issues and things of that kind? So it's very complicated. But I think in this group, there's certainly a wide varied experience of people in starting to think about, I mean, how would we measure it? Drive box, drive box is beginning. Gil, we've got some background noise from you. I just, there we go. Shimon, thank you. There's this whole, you just opened up like a Pandora's box of what in my shorthand is, what is the next organizational stack? So we're in this period of really interesting transition where the historic stack, which is like you're either a C-corp or you're a charity or you're a government agency. And then there's a sliver of little nascent mammal entities called four benefits and B-corp and whatever else. And then co-ops had their moment a century ago and now they're kind of coming back in. It's like, wait, that's interesting and employee ownership and all that. So I think maybe there's a topic for future OGM call or a popup call, just kind of focusing on that.  Let's go to Stuart. And then we're getting, we're 15 minutes away from the end of our call. Yeah, just a comment on the concept of measurement, measuring what for what purpose and do we really need measurement at all?  But the thing that I raised my hand, what's popping up in my mind listening to the conversation is the work of Angelus Arian in terms of how important it may be for measuring, I'm not measuring for emergence. Show up, pay attention, tell your truth, don't be attached to outcome, meaning allowing yourself to be open to influence. As things emerge, how are you influenced by what others say by the quality of others' proposals, what are the causes thinking? And as opposed to thinking that it's gotta be my way or needed to be my way, the plan that I developed just allow yourself to be impacted by a group, whether it's in an organization or a community, and to actually take in with an open mind and an open heart what it is that's being put forth by others. Stuart, there's also another Pandora's box here about measurement, which is lovely and important and you've just framed it really beautifully. And this idea that you get what you measure, that once you start having measures as an entire community is oriented toward, everybody starts to try to gain the measures. This happens all the time everywhere. When the British finally start taking over India in a remarkable and crazy ass way, there's a lot of cobras in India, so they put a bounty on cobras and then people start raising cobras to sell to the British. Like, hmm, not that farred. So how we measure, what we measure, but then we have impact investing in a bunch of other attempts to actually really corral activity, measure it and reward it. And then we have incentive schemes and so forth that need measures in order to say, this person deserves an incentive payment or reward and this person doesn't. And all of that is part of this complex, what are the next stacks kind of metaphor? And if somebody can offer me a better thing than the software stack to borrow from, I would happily apply them. So let's go to Alison, Kevin, Doug, and then I'll do a little bit of wrap up because we'll be at the end of our time. So Alison, the floor is yours and welcome back. Yeah, I've been a bit quiet today. Exciting to hear thoughts about emergent education. I think we're at a moment, an inflection moment where there's an opportunity to put attention there. And if you aren't familiar with me already, I'm working on bringing that kind of emergent education towards measuring what matters in the economics classroom and the high school level and beyond. And I do think that it's interesting, of course measurement is fuzzy and takes away what can't be measured. And at the same time, we are so singularly focused on even the Cobra example, right? That that was influenced by what really was measurable. How much those Cobras were worth in dollar amounts. So there's a piece of economic trauma that's built into that just because of the dependency on the continuous that dollar plugging into the system. If we had a goal and we began in a design frame with the end in mind and we had some universal goals, what would that look like? And in different regions, what would benchmarks towards those goals look like? So sometimes I think that our philosophy risks throwing up a baby with the bathwater. How do we allow communities to determine what success looks like and work our way towards that continuously evolving and changing that sense. So if I'm telling students, what we're wanting is a flourishing economy or what we're wanting is to build trust. We say we want peace, trust is a measurement of peace and we can measure that and we can continue to move the markers, but that allows us to know whether we're achieving. So yeah, and it's definitely possible. We can measure all. In fact, the whole thing I'd like to be proposing at some point in time is from awe to academics as a way to bring that quality of awe into our spaces in order to move into a truly emergent brilliance. The study of awe shows that those who are experiencing awe have more retention, more creativity in ideas, more connectivity, more generosity in our thinking. You feel small and impactful at the same time. It's an incredible quality to be able to bring in and it's actually a skill that can be strengthened and a quality that can be measured. Alison, I love your emphasis on awe and it brings back in my memory sort of those notions of many organizations and individuals are trying to tip us back into realizing how sacred everybody is or our interdependence or, hey, it's not everybody and their immediate nuclear family in a zero sum battle against everyone else to not die poor. But that's a very impoverished view of what life is kind of like. And awe is a really nice door to go through there. It also reminds me of course of Jason Silva and his awe-struck videos and all of that which got lots and lots of attention. But thank you, Alison. Mr. Jones. Yeah, I mean, there, I figured out how to lower my head, sorry. Yeah, in measuring, we're working with several things that are, you know, power from below who are changing the metrics to reverse redlining in particular neighborhoods and sometimes by quantifying social capital and getting a bank to lower its mortgage refinance costs because they realized their perception of risk was wrong. And because they could see how people are sharing in these neighborhoods are giving without expecting money back. And they can, you know, quantify and make visual the resilience. And so the insurance companies are wanting to do the same thing too because they don't want their perception of risk to be wrong. And obviously the next move is to get the city and the county to reverse their valuations because, and they're glad to do that because they're eager to follow banks and insurance companies, right? I mean, so, but it's, and the other part of it is that, you know, misperception of risk is why unarmed black men get shot in places that I don't get shot. So it's a pretty interesting thing. But in all these things you can measure and change the rules and claim some turf and claim new levels of power. Because, you know, change doesn't happen from people on top wanting to help, you know, happen from people on the bottom claiming power. And I think there's a lot of creative structural finance happening at the grassroots level. That's kind of cool.  I love that. Kevin, thank you. And you're reminding me of conversation that happened a week ago. I'm forgetting totally which one it was. Yeah, shots of awe. Thanks, Pete. A conversation in which I think I was proposing, what if we taxed soil organic matter? If soil fertility really matters, and Liz Klaus listening hard to you over our conversations here that, hey, take care of the soil, everything else happens. And the difficulties for farmers to make their way into regenerative ag, they can't afford the transition, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. What if we offered a heavy tax for anybody who depletes the soil? So industrial farmers would pay a gigantic tax for the method of farming. And you could just go measure their soil. There'd be lots of different interesting ways to do that. And then anybody who was improving the soil would get, in fact, subsidies. We would subsidize. Anybody who's in fact improving the soil. And they would get credit, for example, for absorbing more water into the aquifer and a whole bunch of other lovely things. But if soil organic matter, which is a measurable thing, could become part of an incentive mechanism, is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? Could we create tax policies that do that? I'm really, really interested in things like that. If we shift our attention to different measures, and again, I love that we raise, do we need to measure? How much should we measure? When we measure, do we eliminate these other softer things? Not sure, but how that all works. And then, because we're kind of near the end of the time, and this has been super rich, I just wanted to share screen for a second and go into my brain, where these are my notes for this call so far today. So this is what I, and I've got, I don't know, 10 tabs open from things that Pete and others found and contributed in the chat. But here's Angelus Arianne, here's the Thought Books, Paintings, Movies, Ideas that Shape Many People's Lives. For me, it was the Connection series. Here are the numbers of the Connection series, but I don't remember what was in the episode, so I really want to go back to them. Here are some of the statements that came out of this conversation. Disney's blue sky ideation process, which I haven't connected yet to Disney, that is there an emergent, sorry, Doug's question, is there an emergent solution to climate change, not giving them any more power from Kevin, learning how not to hog the microphone, which I love. Leadership is not being the strange attractor from John. Those are all here. When I'm done, I'm gonna take the YouTube video and attach it here, and then this will be part of the compendium of all of the calls we've had, and I was scratching my head in the middle of the call, going, why is this not a podcast? Why don't we just sort of like post these audio files off into the Netherland and see what happens, because this has been a really marvelous call, and I just want to thank you all. I just, I'm really grateful and happy and amazed, and a couple of those kinds of things. So thank you for this, and anybody else who has a couple of thoughts, please do. Wendy. I just want to point out, in case this is true for some of you, I feel like the conversation was starting to tilt towards, yes, there are measurements, yes, there are solutions, yes, there are people working on it, and yet other people are going, well, no, not really. This is still like in the mystery space, and this is still in the awe space, and this is still in like something not measurable space. And while I acknowledge, I think there will always be and should always be a space of mystery that we don't understand, or otherwise this process doesn't work. The process of emergence doesn't work. We have, though, learned a tremendous amount, particularly just in the last couple of decades, about how humans think creatively, work together, allow for emergence, what that means, like creativity no longer sits in the space of the crazy genius over on a hill no one really wants to interact with until this something shiny emerges. It is really much more of a rich process that exists on a daily basis, and now is much better understood. So I think there's, do we fully understand what we need to do to create emergence? The environment we need to create emergence? No, I don't think we're quite there yet. In fact, I think that is what is emerging right now, because it is so essential that we figure it out because we need to speed up this process from my perspective. This process needs to go faster of coming up with the thing that we need that is the most holistic, the most supportive, that isn't just one answer that seems right in this moment right now, but will continue to iterate over time to help us solve the problems that are plaguing us. So just wanna point out that we, I don't wanna limit our thinking to think that we don't really have a lot, we actually have a lot, we just really haven't put it all together. Stuart then class, and Wendy, thank you, that was eloquent. Yeah, that was great, Wendy.  In some sense, it's, you know, and I think Jerry used the term tipping point earlier, tipping point where the media starts to share some of the really good things that are happening as opposed to all the negative press that is always, always present. Thank you, class? Yeah, and I just wanna come back to economics. I mean, the only form of governance that is really powerfully motivating people to act has been capitalism. Unfortunately, it moves us most often into the wrong direction. So the European version of a social democracy type where you have, where you mix it and so on is fine, but at the bottom line, people act upon incentives and disincentives. You know, our tax system is laid out and Jerry just made that comment, you know, why don't we tax this and promote that? I mean, that's really the only way that as much as I understand economics really works. And so for example, we are promoting at business climate leaders, we're promoting a carbon tax which would increase the cost of synthetic fertilizers made from natural gas and pesticides made from oil, right? Push that cost up and then we're promoting the Corwin Climate Solutions Act which is meant to regulate on a voluntary basis the carbon markets, but in ways that define metrics that secure outcomes were really interested in. So we're just starting to work on another webinar because that discussion is really heating up in the Congress right now on the regulation of carbon markets. So that, I mean, I don't know, I would love to have all inserted into the process and motivate people otherwise emotionally. I just don't know any system where that has worked. So Klaus, as almost the last word in this conversation you have just opened single-handedly to get another gigantic Pandora's box. Because I'm unclear that I believe that these systems or the tax incentives and the capitalist framing and all that is the only way to solve these problems which I think is part of what you were saying. And I think that part of what we're proposing is that there might be a larger shift out of that framing of the issues and the problems into some new way of seeing ourselves as interdependent and of allowing emergence to emerge and all to direct our energies and attentions into the things that need doing, et cetera, et cetera. Which right now, a lot of people are trusting markets and taxes and rules as the guidelines or the handrails that basically direct behavior toward things. So I will question your is the only way, just those couple of words. And I think that we have here a juicy, juicy conversation about that question, that issue. And I'm interested in anybody's framing of the alternatives to that worldview. Like please let's talk on the Mattermost channel. Let's have another call on this topic. Maybe that's a, I don't know exactly how to phrase that. Maybe it's alternatives to capitalism is just a simple framing for it. But that gets us into degrowth. Like that's a weird conversation because it goes into models that don't sound as exciting as this conversation sounded in some sense. Gil, you may have the last word. Thank you, Jerry. I'm inclined, as I said in the chat, to think that the soil carbon tax slash incentive and a greenhouse gas emissions tax slash incentive and elimination of fossil fuel subsidies would be a pretty good trifecta with a lot of leverage. But you're right, this is all fit. We are all thinking within the global capitalist system and it's not just mechanics of it, it's that our minds and ways of thinking are captured by having been raised in that. And so I'm of the inclination that capitalism or hyphenated capitalism, as I call it, is a significant part of the problem that we're facing. But it's not the whole thing. There's a bigger problem, which is the mindset that we live in and that we orient to the living world as the separate beings from each other, separate beings from the living world. We could have the same mess under socialist economies if we don't crack that nut too. So I think what you're teeing up, Jerry, is an enormous leverage territory. I very much look forward to having that conversation with y'all. I believe that is a lovely sentence to end this call on and I just wanna double down on my gratitude to all of you. Thank you, this has been fabulous. Hey, Pete, can you send me a transcript of what I just said? Thank you, Jerry. Jerry's gonna post it. Thank you, everybody. This has been great. I will be posting the complete transcript, automated transcript to the Mademois channel. So it'll be there with a video with everything else later today. It's called Emergence, Gil, what you said. Emergence to avoid the emergency. It's what we said, Stuart. There you go. Thanks all.


Okay, back to leftists. Andrew Jackson was as just as bad as Hitler. What is your rebuttal? Now, I'm not an expert on Andrew Jackson. But from all everything I know, he doesn't, he's nowhere near as bad as Hitler. He didn't attempt world domination. He didn't start a world war that killed millions and millions of people in an effort to you know, take over vast countries and engage in massive warfare. What is it that Andrew Jackson is accused of? I assume that what he's accused of is the slaughter of the American Indians and the taking of their, so suppose the taking of their land. So there's a whole argument about land. And I'm not going to go into all of it here, but I don't consider that anywhere near the equivalent to going to war. I don't think the Indians had land. They didn't have an idea that the land was theirs. The land was just there and they used it sometimes. To the extent that some Indians did have land, let's say there were some Indian communities or farmers and they did have lands, to the extent that Andrew Jackson and others took that land from them, that was bad and wrong and evil and should be condemned. But not everything that somebody does bad at evil puts them in the same category as Hitler.  Well, the same thing is true of Andrew Jackson.  The mass slaughter of Indians to the extent that they infected some blankets with bacteria and I don't know if that story is true, but if it's true, that's evil, that's wrong, that's horrible. So there's no question that what the American government did and still does in my view to the American Indians is a travesty of justice is wrong. But the idea that we invaded their land and took their land, that's just a complete and utter exaggeration. When you have relatively, not relatively, when you have primitive cultures that are nomadic, they don't have a claim on all the land that they happen to travel through. And if they're civilized people who come in, claim that land, use that land, build civilization around that land, then they property rights are defined by use. But you know, somebody says the American Indians are the oldest welfare recipients in the country. Yes, but they're not recipients because they want the welfare, they're recipients because the American government has forced them to accept welfare. The great, and I did a whole show of this a few years ago, the great tragedy of the American Indians in modern times, certainly, is we treat them like children. We give them no individual rights, we give them no property rights, no property rights. The tribe owns all the land in the Indian reservations, and even the tribal council can't decide what to do with that land without approval from the central government, from the federal government, the land and Indian, whatever, bureau. I would divide, I would take all those reservations, divide them up into parcels, give the parcels to the individual Indian families who live there, and let them do whatever they want with it, get rid of this, the reservation system, get rid of all of that. So we have treated the American Indian horrifically throughout American history. There's no question about that. And so there is some argument to be made that Andrew Jackson and other presidents of the United States acted immorally and were really, really bad in the way they treated Indians. But that is not the same as concentration camps. That is not the same with engaging in a world war for world domination. There's a huge difference between those presidents and Hitler. And again, you have to be able to argue that, yes, in this one specific domain, just like slavery, in this one domain, the founders and the early American presidents were all very, very bad. But you know what? In other domains, they were world leaders in how good they were.  Everything he touched was evil, everything. So it's not in the same ballpark. It's not in the same category. Again, slavery is horrific. And the fact that America had slavery in its early years is horrific. But that doesn't put it in the same categories, Communist China or Communist Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Evil is not relative, but evil is a matter of degrees. Evil is clearly a matter of degrees, not everybody's equally evil. Man, people take what I say and they twist my words. A Harvard that would be preaching American ideas more specifically, reason, individualism, capitalism. If an institution of the intellectual prestige, which they don't deserve today, but they deserved it at one time, of Harvard, if an institution of that magnitude were preaching the proper ideas, that is the ideas on which America originally was based, or to say it briefly, the philosophy of Aristotle, which was the father of this country, who was. If they were doing that, you could have the biggest renaissance in the world, still not to late even now. You could have a better renaissance than the first one. This country would come back to life. But today, when all those institutions from Harvard on down are preaching collectivism, mysticism, and above all altruism, self-sacrifice of yourself, the giving up, the resignation, all the disgusting kind of ideas that the whole world has been nurturing for centuries. When they do that, this country can survive.