Matt, do you have hosts? Oh, there's Hank is here. Hank is here. Hank is here. Hank is here. Never mind. We're rockin' and rollin'. I've got an election. It's rockin' and bossing. I decided not to shave until there's like a declared winner, actually until Trump decides to leave the stage. So you're going to get a three-month beard. You can look like me.  Did anybody else see that AP called Arizona for Trump? But I haven't seen New York Times or WAPO update their election map yet. I saw the number here bounced up, but I didn't go dig on which state it was that it happened. But I think it was Arizona. So I think that's true. The AP's claiming they're at Trump's, excuse me, that Biden's at 290 and Trump's at 217. But neither WAPO or New York Times has updated that yet. So just curious if anybody knows what's going on. Yeah. That's okay. The Pentagon's been taken care of. So, you know, the, the soldiers are in place.  Um, and our people were saying, you know, kind of the more sensible people were saying, guys, we don't want to, we just don't want to spill this out. It's going to give away a lot of things, put our soldiers at risk, put our system at risk and all that stuff. And, and so he didn't like that, um, apparently.  I, you all have seen the, the riff on Untergang on the downfall movie that involves, uh, Trump and the election. No, I haven't seen that one. Do you all, are you all familiar, familiar with the trope? This is from the movie Untergang, which is about the last, the last day of Hitler and the bunker, basically. And there's a very famous scene that has now been riffed on for everything like Google has announced Google plus what. And, and, um, so they've done one that's extremely good for this situation, which I will find and paste the link into our chat, but it's like whoever wrote the script for it was genius. Like it's very well done. I'll go find it. Have you all seen the four seasons guy? There's a, I'll find that one. Talk about memes, Lauren. And this one I haven't found in YouTube either. I just, just sent you a link to a tweet that, that has it embedded. So I don't actually have the YouTube video for it. But it's, it's outstanding. You know, China's goodness. China's uncle is the, uh, oh, it's not belong. I guess is, is like fabulous. Like the whole, the whole way they go through it. And if you watch the movie and you know what's happening in, you know, in the scene, it's, it's lovely. Interesting. So when he says everybody get out of the room, except for these four people, the subtitle is everybody I've given COVID to leave the room. Like that's how good it is. Anyway, we're, we're gathered here. Let's do a quick round of checking and then sort of see where we are. And, and Scott, I'm so curious about your insights that I'd love to just start with you.  All right. Well, um, I've been enjoying having some more conversations separately with people in this group. And one of the things I've been doing is teaching. Uh, introducing simple systems thinking. Um, it's been with. Um, eight and eight and 10 year olds. It's been with AI and MediCog. Uh, hobbyists. It's been with my daughter who's a high school. Perhaps our middle school science teacher. And it's been really exciting for me because it's bringing together a lot of the things that I've been working on for the past 20 years and just didn't know how they all fit. So that's kind of leads me to my, my comment, which is we talk a lot in this group about connections. We are the connectors connecting the connectors connecting. And when I was talking with Judy a couple of days ago. What I realized was that Jerry's brain. Is a prime example of connections. It's just connection connected to connections. But it's not as useful or fun. When Jerry isn't driving it. And what's it, what's interesting about that is I thought, well, what is it? What's it missing? Cause all the connections are there. It's the context. And so the context is what you provide as you're walking us through that. And what I realized is there's a word I haven't heard. But it's a word I haven't heard. And I think it's much. In this group in terms of what. What this is and what we do. And here's, here's how it all came together. Is that we have a lot of content. Out in the world. We have a lot of information. Well. The problems with that is where there's so much volume. The information is skewed. It's manipulated. And what's the solution to that has to be put into context. So if you have a context, suddenly you're not overwhelmed, because you know where to put this. Or if you have context, you're not subject as, as easily to the manipulation or the skew. And perhaps what we're doing. And the value that we're providing is. A way to have context around. The discussions of the world and the problems that we have. So that's my. Big revelation that I had. And. I was looking up. The etymology of. Context. And connection and context actually. Have this. Knit weave. Join. Root. Which I thought also was appropriate for what we're doing. So that's my check-in. Thank you. That's awesome. Matt, you wanted to jump in. I did because there's just sort of two things that I would layer on Scott as you were talking. And this came out of a conversation we were just having about. With somebody at Phillips who is kind of junior in their knowledge management. New knowledge management division. And it's. I think two things. One is. Context is both. Broad. Right. The macro frames in which those connections happen, which is a lot of times how we use it, but it's also the context of the individual who is generating the knowledge. Right. That knowledge is actually very personal. It's and when we, when we abstract it into just a set of links and we put it into sort of these broad contextual containers, it has to be translated into the personal. And so I think we have to think of context on those two levels. And then the second thing is, is knowledge is actually not. A thing. It's, it's a pursuit. It's a, it, it lives. And knowledge actually happens through. The conversation. Through the process of, of things, but I think that's a, I think that's a really good insight, Scott, to, you know, to get to, and there's a lot of people who don't. Who don't. Aren't there yet. So that's great. And that's a really OGME topic to chew into. So I think, thank you for putting on that. On the table the way you did, Scott. Let's go to Charles Mark on Tom then Vincent. Thanks. Hi, everyone. I love that. I just snipped that quote, Matt. Connection in context through conversation. It's got a nice ring to it. And I'm, I'm, I'm sort of spilling over from this other call that some of us, few of us just had. Around connecting projects and people and profiles and stuff. And I found myself mentioning this thing, which some people. Kind of. Not everyone loves the idea of the minimum viable ontology, but I just wanted to speak it again. Relating to context. Because it's. According to the context or the bucket or whatever. The thing in question, then at any given moment, I see things as having a kind of ontology that will, will vary and fluctuate and evolve and so forth. Anyway. As I mentioned to some of you earlier, I'm bleary from producing a radio show most of the night and delivering it just a short while ago. Excited about a lot of things. So OGM, Kiko Laby and sister circles, a lot of interoperability actually manifesting. Kind of reaching. And another. Broad thought. I'll get off the mic is. I want to embrace more and help to. To articulate more. The culture of OGM. The arts. Artists. Artists. Artists. Artists. The culture of OGM, the arts, arts and culture of OGM. And I don't have a clear thought yet what that means or could mean, should mean what are the. The paths, but I, I feel that this is key to. Our muddling through this diversity. And race question in particular, but probably a lot of other reasons as well. Over. Thank you, Charles. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have a lot of reactions to this context idea. One is, you know, the holistic thinker in me loves the notion of richer context and warm data and all these fleshing out. Of connections. And I totally believe in that. I'm especially reminded, I don't know if people here are familiar with Bruno Latour's work on modes of existence. And I think that was extremely important to me. Basically Latour is making a catalog. Of epistemological frames. And he argues that they're actually ontological frames. So, and let me be more concrete, like when you think in terms of. Legal entities or religious entities, or entities continuing self perpetrating in time, or there's so many ways of saying what makes something. An entity, a legitimate entity in that frame of explanation. And he said the worst thing that can happen and one of the, he says one mode of existence, a recent mode of existence, unfortunately, is the unqualified connection. And then the key is unqualified. The idea is that entities often pass through these modes of existence. And this passage is, you know, because it's considered among many of those prisms, but this passage, there's always a transformation in that passage. And you can analyze what the modes of existence are by, by really digging into the meaning shift of that passage. And the worst thing you can do is making it a transparent passage and denying that there's a meaning shift in that passage. And he calls that the double click way of thinking, the thing that just puts things in connection without. The texture of each. Ontological weight. Absolutely. What is the sense making flesh around the connection is absolutely key in understanding the, how, how things change texture and meaning as they go through paradigms. And the analytical thinker in me. So that was the on the one hand. And that is, oh my goodness. Context is can be such a hand-weight eater. It can mean provenance, which is more precise. It can mean this. Epistemological or, or, or weight. It can mean so many things. And I do invite us to be a bit more precise. And I think that's what we mean by context, because it's, it's, it's a, it's a very general term. I've seen it used by so many people in so different ways. I'm part of another group that where somebody defined context as the more precise definition of the terms we use in, in an assertion. And it's like, oh my God, I so would not call this context. The, so yeah, I'm just trying us inviting precision. And there was a third thing. And it's escaped me and maybe it'll come back over. It is often the idea of pen running around with everybody else. Vincent Pete Lauren. So I'm going to talk a little bit more about how we all basically post in the discourse to talk about. How do we better connect people? And for some context there, what we talked about was basically, it's important to be able to connect each other, but also to projects. We talked about how projects are not just kind of like static or static. So I think that Lauren was saying that, you know, products that go through different phases and also have different like needs at, and different things that they need help with at each phase. And so within the context that I'm passionate about, which is sort of climate change and the, all the work that needs to happen in order to solve those problems. I think, I mean, what I've been thinking about lately is that there are a number of ways that we can do that. And I think that's one of the major frameworks for collaborating on projects because there's so much duplicitous efforts happening everywhere. And so we're going to be having a column next week. If anyone wants to jump in, I'll post in the discourse again about that to continue it in a different space. That's not as big as the general call. But also the other thing that I've been thinking about in a way that is financially sustainable, because right now it's not incentivized for a broke recent college graduate like me to like take something I've been working on that's like close to being able to make some money to sustain myself to like going and working on someone else's project and not getting paid. And so there's this sense of like, I think we need to think about almost like business model innovation and business model innovation meeting the sort of cooperative space and those new modes of thinking. And I think I find a problem as a non coder. I've been building projects for last year all like no code. And there's like all this hype about open source, but I feel like open sourcing is a little bit like. It doesn't solve the problems of the sort of like game a predatory market practices and there needs to be some way to like work within like a commons and a cooperative, but have like some protection over what that commons has built to be able to have the financial sustainability to like enable the collaboration. Thank you Vincent. You reminded me of a story from long ago from a friend Tom monarchy who helped develop Vista, which is the VA hospital systems is system. He was talking about data collection. He said that like when a nurse walks into a room and sees a patient and notices that their skin tone is ashen and they're breathing a little shallowly. There's no fields in the database for that. Like there's a whole lot of subtlety of the data that, you know, anybody who's like all about capturing all the data and sharing it out isn't going to be able to represent in those fields. And so how does how does that get become part of it as well as part of that's a different sort of angle on context. So let's go to Pete Lauren Jay. Good morning. Just a short check in for me. I'm thinking of the title of an old folk song. All you need is love. That's it. Thank you. So Lauren Jay then she mom. Yeah, Vincent. I, I, I was definitely vibing on what you were saying. And I kick a lot where we're just getting a ton more specific about our process flow. We've done about two years of research and we're just ready to, you know, get the show on the road and just try, you know, we were talking, I think last week about the kind of minimum of viable network configuration that you need to get started. And I think we have that. And I'd like to try it. And try it in such a way, getting really specific on a, on a process flow, which was of course need to be redone with feedback, but just trying something to actually get feedback on the ground. And to kind of work out a map for, and basically what we're getting really, really specific about is instead of like focusing on saving the world, we're really about saving the world savers. And getting each one of us, these kind of big. Idea thinkers. Into a route to success so that we can kind of systematically get help on getting our ideas out of our head in a way that's actually understandable to other people. And getting help on formulating our projects. In a way where we're getting feedback from other people. We're getting feedback from other projects. In a way where we're getting feedback and making little things that can be tested right away instead of working for years in isolation. And so basically kind of getting together to formulate a process that we can like each go through. That will almost kind of guarantee success in what we want. And then we can clearly define to the network what we want to do. And also clearly articulate or express what we're good at doing. To get information about what we do that's appreciated and then get help on kind of refining our own materials. And we do that by helping other people by taking on roles and sharing our skills. So we're just trying to get really specific on what the roles are that we need to create that kind of network and what. Small tasks. They do, which is kind of that. It's like the real nuts and bolts of how it's going to work. So that's kind of exciting. Yeah. Thank you, Lauren. I'm Jason on Neil. Good morning. Had a really interesting conversation with Mark Antoine and Joe and Jerry about the relationship between pattern language and story. And I think part of what was exciting about it was that Mark Antoine and I were like in our distant corners, kind of like battling it out philosophically. And it was like a, it was like a, it was like a mirror game. So like, I really felt like we were talking about the exact same thing with a couple of tweaks, but we had a language kind of philosophical. Challenge that challenge distinction. I loved it. So anyway, that was progress. And I mean, to me, it's all, that's all context. It's the relationship between. What's the relationship between data and human experience. A lot of it has to do with lived contact. So then there's the question of how do they line up? How do they align? How do they create bigger stories or bigger, bigger patterns? But I thought that was really exciting. Quick question. Was that recorded? It sounds fascinating conversation. Yes. I think I have a recording of it and put it on YouTube unlisted if memory serves. I will check. Yeah. I want to try to remix it maybe anyway. Thanks. Cool. Thank you. It's nice to be back on the call. And it's also nice to be down the street from the four season landscaping, which is your background here. I'm actually. Oh, you are. Yeah. OMG. Wow. Yeah. Anyways, I've actually followed many of the conversations on through emails. And although I didn't participate, I found them very intriguing for me. OMG has been great just in terms of the personal connections, like reaching out to Lauren, to Neil, Charles to you has been very reinforcing. So what I'm working on talking about context, where most of you are coming from, but what I've been working on and have been mostly kind of focused on is developing a civic ritual that will be hopefully launched on Thanksgiving. So like intrigued by the idea as expressed by rabbi sacks. For any of you have heard about him. He was a chief rabbi of England and wrote a book about morality in times of uncertainty. Unfortunately, he died a couple of weeks ago after, you know, being on book tours. Now what he was contributing to some of the conversation that excited me is the importance of rituals and holding on to people's identities. And as certainly in terms of Judaism, it's been the Passover Seder, whoever knows more about that. And I'll be happy to sort of expand on it at some other time, but it's been something that's been continuous over the years. And what he suggested is that nations certainly need rituals that link people. So I've been working with that concept of developing a civic Seder ritual that I hope to launch on Thanksgiving. And I think that's been a big important piece of it, which is very kind of missing at this time of great polarization is addressing a vision that we are all kind of connected with rather than thinking about what separates us. And currently the things that mostly separate Americans are the notion of what is liberty versus what is equality. And those are essentially outgrowth and continuation of the conflict or at least the dichotomy, if you will, that was articulated in the Declaration of Independence. So what I'm doing is essentially looking at, you know, building on actually before the Declaration of Independence, I know the group has been concerned with diversity, looking at who that we, the people are in context of the US starting with Native Americans, with the Iraq, you know, constitution, pre-revolutionary state with slavery and New England and Southern settlers to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and various other ways that we've expanded the we from just being settlers to we at this point, which is the franchise has been expanded and there's a lot more work to be done. So I am sort of like looking to put out into the universe this first draft of, you know, Civic Center or Civic Seder Ritual that is a modular kind of content that can be built on to reflect people's identities and things of that kind. An important part of it also is reclaiming roles of citizens so when talked about agency, that's one of the big parts that's missing today in my mind in American conversation as people's agency has been so like transcended by people wishing to speak for us. So I have actually an launching together with this project of the Civic Center, what I call the COVID-19 Citizens Commission, which again explores what exactly happened leading to a much more meaningful conversation looking at the timelines, the various stakeholders, what they did and did not do in order to really give people an appreciation of what government, what local society, civic society local government can do to address challenges. So that's where I'm into. I'll put a link to a couple of those, you know, projects that are now in terms of the web. And if anyone wants further information, I'll be happy to address that. Thank you, Shimon. You're reminding me of the importance of timelines also, among many other things you triggered in my head in which you just shared, but the notion that different people perceive different events is happening over time. And some events they didn't notice some events they think are more important than others. And as if we can compare those timelines and then refresh them and improve them with what we know to have happened, that can be a real help in some of these discussions. Hank, did you want to jump in? Yeah, I was just going to say, first Shimon, thanks for all that. I hear a comment about agreeing on the definitions of like, you know, or what liberty and equality mean. I think, you know, really resonate with me. And that's something that I've been thinking about too. I just kind of wanted to just throw a yes and out there. You know, I think that I have seen in the, the reading that I've been doing is that even in situations in which people kind of agree on, you know, what they would define liberty and equality to be, and not even just that, but other, other sense as well or concept as well, is that there's this even like on a deeper level, or there are also disagreements on like the boundaries in which liberty and equality can operate, as well as differences in the way that we value the trade-offs that you make in each situation, you know, given, given that framework. And so I don't know if that, if that really adds anything, I'm just kind of sharing, sharing, you know, a parallel thought, I think kind of, kind of that I had on it, right? So thanks. Cool, thanks, Hank. Neil, Kevin, Julian. Hi, everybody. Nice to see all my mainly American friends, a few European friends. Thanks for giving me some of your rich threads here for context. Today I was listening to, I have people here know, Krista Tippett on being the most recent interview, and she was interviewing a lady called, she's coming up on my screen, Karen Murphy on The Long View. And it talks a lot about the structural challenges in America at the moment and this longer view of history and the assumptions that we all know what the history is and what caused these issues. So this has been resonating in my mind because a lot of the dynamics that have just been mentioned here by many of the players here already come back to context. And if your context is incapable of absorbing the reality around you, then you cannot make sense. And if you cannot make sense, then you cannot operate and navigate with any sense. And so part of what we're talking about here is collective meaning making with peers, where we feel comfortable enough to challenge each other and to bring different things to the table, which is a mutually assistive community of people. And it was mentioned that part of Jerry's role here is both strategic intervention, but also a little bit of weaving, dipping into the brain. So the information on its own, even artificial intelligence on its own, will be meaningless unless it is in context. And context comes from reading the field, like the nurse going into the room seeing that the patient is not well, even though all the indicators say still alive. And so there are multiple roles here. Part of it is the recharge role of a mutually assistive community that I think Lauren was talking about. The mechanism for mutually assisting each other to be seen and to be recognized for the gifts we bring, even if the world cannot see them yet. The challenge then, I think it was Vincent was mentioning, what do I do if I'm bringing IP to the table, that somebody's going to run off with as a bigger fish or a shark? If I'm not fully ready, and yet I want to bring myself to the world, if I don't bring myself to the world, the world's screwed. If I do bring myself to the world, I lose out. So personal gain versus collective gain. I see you, brother. I'm about 25 years ahead of you by the looks of you. So this challenge of how do we hold space, safe space like a healing space for those that need the mutually assistive community, like many retreats do, but then people have to go back into the field. And when they go back into the field, how do we support them there? So part of the role, I think, of the One Global Mind or other groups I've been with, and this is the context from my big project I've been playing in in Europe here, is that some of these roles are pre-knowledge. They're actually convening roles. They're intuitive roles where we're dancing with the system to see what pattern emerges before we bring them the context they need. And that is unseen by most people because most people think you're just interfering, intervening. However, every time I do this as a keynote listener, as a positive maverick, probing to see how the system responds in the same way a nurse would test the temperature of the patient or feel the pulse. Every time I do that, I get some response. If there's enough response in a room, it changes the whole social field and the collaboration then occurs at a different level than would have occurred if I hadn't been there. It's a higher level of collaboration, the same amount of energy going into a higher level outcome. And I'll leave with the analogy of it's a challenging space because you're disrupting coherence compassionately. It's like arriving in one salmon pool and saying, guys, you've got to keep going up. They're going, no, mate, it's really cool here. It's really nice. Hey, where's Jack? Where's Jack? And so those that can can leap further faster. They're exhausted when they get to the next pool. They need support in that pool and they need to be shown there are more pools ahead. The objective is not the next pool. The objective is the top of the river where I'm going to be laying my eggs and creating DNA and doing all sorts of amazing stuff. But each pool is a critical step. And if we can get a vertical thread between the pools and assist people at each pool, then I think we'll have something useful. And this is the challenge that I've had in my own project this week. How do you challenge the coherence of a group that thinks they're doing it when you can see they're going to fail in a way that brings them deep systems context? There is no point in becoming more efficient and more effective at extracting value from IP if we're in the middle of a climate change collapse, if we're in the middle of social ecological collapse and it's not assisting that process. And so how do we hold space for that bigger context? And this is why I agree with you, Scott, that context is only visible to those who can see that context.  Thanks. Thank you. To briefly extend your metaphor, that little river is drying up and it's being dammed up and all kinds of things are happening to the river where we're busy trying to have mutually assistive community in the pools to make our way up river and the river itself is threatened. I know I have a poem about that, but it's quite a long one. It depends on how we go today. Awesome. Thank you. Kevin, Julian, Judy. I have two things. One is this kind of amazing new Facebook group that Rosalie started called Left Leaning in Awambians. And so in Awambia County, Mississippi, where families from and I was a country weekly newspaper editor for seven years.  And it's like everybody can really be who they are in a whole interesting way. Half the people are probably still there. The other people are worried about Thanksgiving.  It's really kind of amazingly vibrant because people, they all feel really alone without this group.  And it's just, it's not safe socially, culturally, business-wise physically to show who you are in your hometown. So it's an odd thing and a live space. And then really quickly, I've had this kind of amazing burst of creativity. Thanks to the pandemic in some way or other. We're starting this credit union and this other friends and family fund. I'm working now with a college in Chicago and we're going to be looking at those things I'm doing and other folks are doing in the context of resilient home ownership and intergenerational wealth through business ownership in Chicago. And Anna Bloom, she's kind of a well-known techie, is making a map for us. We'll have a class of first-year students doing research and fourth-year students doing hands-on stuff. I think it could be really pretty cool. So that's kind of fun because, you know, they're just letting me be as wild as I am. And they can deal with it. The link to the blog about that. I just put it in there. Thanks, Kevin. That's a little frightening. That sounds like a very OGME kind of project. And if we were a little further along on our interim journey, we would then figure out how to offer them that, you know, those groups support because if they're busy mapping and so forth, we've got a bunch of expertise on deck here. So, yeah. So I like that. If you want to invite any of them to join our conversation and if any of them have the bandwidth to sort of be part, that might actually be a nice, a nice simple link over. Yeah, most of them are just theoretical. We have nobody here who is very theoretical. Nobody. Julian Judy Hank. In theory. Yeah. What about a little bit theoretical? Recently, I've been working on exporting from the brain into my 3D visualizer. So that settled pretty well. The next step is to import the ACMC graph digital library into the visualizer. So the short term goal is to put a number of knowledge sources from the computer graphics community into a space where you can actually use computer graphics to visualize and then manage them with a target of being able to do this by next month. So, yeah, there's a good theoretical basis to this, but I actually want to be able to do it so that you can immerse yourself literally in your knowledge using digital technology. Awesome. Thank you, Julian. Judy Hank. I wanted to return to this notion of content context knowledge because some additional reading that I've done years ago on how people acquire knowledge and information is the oral pathway and the storytelling piece. And it's actually been measured by science and MRIs that people file new information they hear next to adjacent information of the same type. So it's sort of a negative aggregation process in the brain. And what that leads me to is that perhaps we need to be doing more storytelling in the oral mode and sharing the discourse with humans in a verbal way because a large portion of our society doesn't read that well and doesn't absorb even the pictures if the pictures are complex. And so I'm wondering if part of what is so OGM-y about us is this continual oral exchange that patterns the context of the information that we're sharing together. And I'm just in the synthesis mode of that. But it just seems as though bringing that up to a conscious level and contemplating it might really enrich how we choose to go out to include people because it's then accessible to literally everyone as long as there's a translator available. So two things on what you just said, Judy, which is really rich. One is that KikoLab has been trying really hard to do this by chopping up remixing, making available, hash tagging, hash binning snippets of information and really creating a vortex, a whirlpool of that so that it might be useful to people in different ways. And I think that Charles, it would be a whole separate call for Charles and Lauren to debrief what's worked and what hasn't worked about doing that. And then secondly, we're having a conversation on the list about oops, how much are we recording, who's willing to be recorded, how does that make people feel welcome, et cetera, et cetera. And so I've just been happily bouncing along, going let's record and publish as much as we can because it'll be good because we can remix in different ways, like you just said, because often the warm stories, the contextual stories carry much more and the emotion in our voices carry much more than the text rendition of the same thing carry. And yet we have to actually be hospitable and respectful and figure out how different people play in that pond, given those working assumptions. Charles, did you want to jump in? Just quickly on the emotion of the voices, the tone of the voices and the personality, the character, the life essence, the spirit of the voices. This is critical to actually literally tuning in to be able to resonate or not. Agree entirely. Judy, go ahead. One comment. I was in a Metacog conversation earlier this week and Roland Legrand, who's a journalist in Belgium was explaining some experiments his newspapers doing with communication of news in a group collective conversation mode and reaching people more effectively as well as having it dial down the polarization because it's sort of like when you're talking to a person, you don't talk to the person the same way that you would rebut them on Facebook or some other written media. I thought it was pretty creative and another concept in terms of the importance of the sort of presence of the people and the true discourse, verbal discourse, oral discourse and the possibility to develop shared perceptions. Julian, did you want to jump in? Julian, then Jay. Yeah, because in looking, listening to the comments and also seeing what's going by in the chat, what I wanted to make was a general statement that you're talking about sharing and really it's a visceral experience. It's not just talking and it's not just also talking plus hearing. There's a whole bunch of other things that go into the actual communication between one place and another. And one of the things I'm after is building these tech systems based on cognitive science so that there's actually a way to codify this stuff, this whole cognitive experience and put into a system so it can be part of when we talk about a knowledge base, it's not just a whole bunch of pieces of data, but that it's something that you experience viscerally. I love that, Julian. Thank you, Jay. Yeah. I mean, after years and years of thinking about this, I keep coming back to audio as the best method of delivering story. And there's a bunch of reasons for that. But one reason is that part of the challenge that we're having is the lack of human connection. And the, you know, when you can speak a story, you can, it might go into different forms, but then you live it, it's in you. Even if you're reading it, you live it and it's in you. And then you can share it with another person when you walk away. So that's like a big aspect of it that I'd like to include. There's a perhaps apocryphal story of a researcher in the early days of television who was interviewing a little girl and he says, which do you prefer, TV or radio? And she answers radio because the pictures are better. So we have Hank, Ken and Klaus. Oh, Kevin, do you want to jump in? I think that this flow is what OGM is. And I think it's really helped by zoom. This wouldn't work nearly as well on a conference call. And so it's the connections and the conversation that are here and they exist in real time.  So this is what is, and it's a real time experience. And the role of video in these calls is super interesting. And I'm an audio first kind of guy from way back when. And yet I love seeing you all and I love being able to see the gestures and I love how jazz hands works in here and so forth. So I'm, I'm, I resonate with that a lot. Sorry, Hank, go ahead, Hank, then Ken, Klaus and Felix. No, you're good. I was just jazz hands in your jazz hands. So, so I've been thinking just a lot about the distinction or really the line between like listening and understanding. And what that really means. Or like, what are the steps internally that you have to take to really try and understand something, even if it's difficult. And I think it was, it was really, you know, brought about it, you know, to the more of the forefront of my mind, even though it was already at the forefront of a lot of people's minds, obviously with all this election stuff. And I don't say that to demean it or dismiss stuff as superfluous, right? It's obviously, it's heavy and complicated. But, you know, I've just found, yeah, you know, I have a lot of friends who are, are buried on the Trump side. I have a lot of friends who are buried, not on that side. And, you know, one of my, a long time ago, I took one of those like strengths finder tests and I don't put a whole ton of stock in, in like, you know, in them a lot. But one of my top strengths was like, was harmony. And I've been thinking a lot about that and like how I bring myself into those conversations. And how can I really drive harmony if it can be driven and, and even if it can't, what's a place for me to, to be, that's like true, true to myself. And it was really just, you know, how do I sit in this space that makes me deeply uncomfortable, but also seek to like really feel and understand where these other people are at. So, you know, versus just sitting and listening to the things that they're saying. And so I've just been really, been sitting with that a lot. And I wouldn't even say that I'm at the synthesis stage of that. I'm really just in a constant loop of reflection almost there. So that's where I'm at. Awesome. Thank you Hank. Ken Klaus Felix. Hello everybody. I'm having a very OGM E week. I started off on Monday with Lauren and Charleston Kiko lab on Tuesday. I had the team one meeting on Wednesday. Pete and I talked for almost two hours. Today I'm on here and tomorrow I'm talking to Hank. So I think OGM is basically taken over my life, which is not such a bad thing. And that's all I really needed to say today. Thank you. Yeah. Very pleasing in some strange twisted way. Thank you. Klaus Felix and Doug. Yeah. I mean, really interesting conversation. And I really enjoyed the exchanges. Maybe I enjoyed is the wrong word, but the thoughts that they're going back and forth about race and racism, because having been born and raised in Germany, I obviously have a different relationship to that information. But the United States obviously has a very complicated history, which is not being taught in the schools. I mean, the average American has no idea what, what we were talking about here. So it is fascinating where I was going up in an environment where all we talked about was that to, to come to terms with what in the world happened here, you know, and how could this possibly have happened. But anyway, Judy made a comment that really intrigued me referring to TikTok videos. And so I did dig into this a little bit. My son sent me a link to a webinar that was comparing TikTok with Instagram reel that just launched Instagram reels in August. And it's interesting to see how the, how the demographics between those two are different. And the TikTok is age group 16 to 24. I call that the greater Stunberg generation. And then in fact, the Europeans are fully exploiting that, that aspect of, of TikTok. And then reels is more towards the millennials. And I was, I mean, you look at the demographics, they showed statistics as to what the future looks like and so on. So that was, that was interesting to see those tools. Then I came across because once you start looking for stuff, it pops up everywhere. But I got this from the media team at the Sierra Club, the climate app project here. Super interesting repository for videos related specifically to climate change and climate change related issues. So that, that is starting to build. And you can really see the power of these videos. You know, and I mean, Ken was mentioning that it takes 10 hours to do one minute of this type of video. You totally get it when you look at the complexity of data that they're squeezing into, you know, very, very short moments, but it's rich data. I mean, it's, and you have to typically watch them several times to fully process it. And then, I mean, I'm working with a team that's, that's linked to the European group, four per thousand organization that was founded by the French during the Paris Accord. And they're completely focused on soil restoration. So everything, so when you start as the highest objective soil, then from there you go into all kinds of ways of restoring soil back to health. And so their thing is for, but if we can put in four per thousand parts of organic matter into soil, we can basically neutralize the output. I mean, the pollution output of humanity per year. And that then, so that has morphed now into, we need to engage the public, right? So I'm working with the Sarah Club to launch something in a big campaign in January, also with business climate leaders. And then you go to Europeans here, I just posted to the EAT Forum, Cope here and the Europeans are going out totally to all in the public and start talking specifically to people of here's what this is and why you need to engage. So you can see that, you can see how this is sort of merging in the United States. There is no government involvement. Obviously anything government is working against you. The Europeans don't have that issue. Even Britain, the United Kingdom is big time into restoring the agricultural system, diversifying it, you know, smallest beautiful kind of message. So it's encouraging to see all that. And I think right now there's enormous back and forth. I mean, I'm constantly engaged because Biden is in the process of selecting his cabinets and we want to know who are you going to put into the Department of Agriculture, obviously. That's the big one. So there is a lot of really positive energy in there. So you observe all of this turmoil going on there, but then you say, okay, we'll cut to it now. We'll just be hopeful about this and see how that works out. So anyhow, it's good, but there is just a whole lot of work ahead of us. Thank you for putting such fertile soil into our conversation class. That was really, we have comments here from Judy and Kevin. Go ahead, Judy. I was just thinking that, that part of what we're talking about here is multiple dimensions because we have the knowledge dimension, which is not the same as the understanding or shared understanding dimension. And as we work our way through the OGM, meanness of what we're trying to be and do, it seems to me that it means we have to have a layered understanding of how we reach shared views on things in order to be able to collaborate effectively. And that, that that's part of the conversation. And I'll use that word specifically instead of dialogue. Because I think it's the conversation that helps personalize and bring together the thoughts of individuals. Thanks, Judy. Kevin, did you put your hand down? Did you want to jump in?  Yeah, and I already said that. And I wanted to add something to a class that which is, I've been doing a lot of thinking recently because it appears that Trump has been deposed. I've been thinking about how societies deal with collective trauma. And there was a lot of really interesting chat right now about that after I posted that. But I watched, New York Times has these op docs and I watched one about Argentina, about a scratch. And I'll just briefly explain it. Scratches are basically protests where people collect in front of the house of somebody who was deeply involved and guilty of genocide during the dirty war in Argentina, and they're still living comfortably at home. So they don't do violence. They just scream and shout and paint the sidewalk and throw red paint on their apartment or home to mark this place as a guilty place and to tell the neighbors that they're living right next to somebody who committed atrocities who is not paying for their crime in any way. And this has woken Argentina up to prosecute these people and so forth. But Argentina did go through a truth and reconciliation process way back in the 90s. So I'm wondering what, I don't know the connection between the Scratches now and the etymology of Scratches is really cool. You know, the Scratch Lotto cards. So an Scratch is Lundfardo, which is this really interesting sort of Buenos Aires slang, and Scratches is a Lundfardo for a con game. So they're calling these movements Scratches because this sort of links back to these people are conning us into staying alive. And I think it's a role model in how to process history and stay with it. Japan is the opposite. Japanese children apparently don't learn about Japan's role in World War II in school at all, not taught. And then in the U.S., we have this incredible mismatch between how different people see what happened in history. And I see Lincoln and Grants dealing with the end of the Civil War as a big failure. They were trying to avoid the reign of terror that happened in France just before. They were like, we don't want everybody beheading everybody. But instead what we got was the lost cause and Jim Crow and the failure of reconstruction and a whole series of terrible things that are boiling beneath the surface even today. You know, the boil we haven't lanced in this country, that we need to deal with, that I'm hoping Biden figures out how to deal with. And so these are, for me, all these issues are just bubbling under the surface. And a lot of the work we do can be really informative to this. If we do this right, we can be incredibly helpful in these conversations. And Judy, what you were just saying, Klaus, like all of this is like feed for what these things might actually look like and how we might be able to help. So with all of that, I'll go to Felix, Doug and Matt. Okay, yeah, hi everyone. I'm Felix from Germany. I'm a computer scientist. I'm new to this group. I'm active in a few other groups. Like I'm well connected with Mark Antoine. I talked to Lauren again. I'm connected to Jack Park. And the other groups I'm in are the canonical debate lab and the society library. Jamie Joyce. And yeah, my personal interest is in collective intelligence. I'm in this field for about five years, I guess. And my original ideas were to scale communication to millions of people like actually scaling conversations like letting people talk about the same topic without losing overview. So I had lots of experiments with trying to build chats that scale to millions of people and stuff like this. And yeah, today I'm mostly, I don't have any active project right now. I'm mostly connecting people and discussing in the canonical debate lab and society library. Yeah, that's for me. Thank you. That is super cool. I love the things you're working on. And Jamie's in this group and I think a lot of the things you're working on are very central to what we're trying to get done here. So welcome. Very, very happy to see you. See you here. Doug and then Matt. Okay. Two thoughts about context. The first is going back to Bruno Latour. Who wanted to shift the context of discussion out of the left, right dimension, which he feels does not map very well onto our issues. And to shift it instead to a spectrum between globalization, which tends to be abstract and localization in the sense of taking seriously the problems of what's called the critical zone, the skin of the earth, which is so thin. And that contains not only all the life on earth, but all the life known life in the universe. So critical zone really is a good thing. And that all discussions can be looked at as to how they map into that dimension. The second thing on context is, I've been doing a lot of reading to support my thinking about what I've been calling garden world politics. And looking back at a stone age economy. What's going on with the most what we call primitive people who are actually so incredibly sophisticated in their knowledge. I've been reading a book called kindred. And seeing that actually early people split in their cognition between two basic structures. One with kinship systems, which are amazingly elaborate. And the other is what we know much more as the world of objective things of stuff. But the kinship system cognition takes up a lot of room in the brains of stone age people, just fascinating. And of course, the focus there is on relationships. The other thing I've been doing a lot of reading on his background for garden world is the romantic movement. And how powerful it was in the 19th century, much more than we're ever taught. And it got squished pretty much by industrialization, which was so attractive that people went into being consumers and being producers and forgetting the idea of the romantic world of much more organic and natural. But since industrialization has run its course, maybe we can go back to the romantic movement as a frame for thinking about what kind of future we want. So those are my thoughts. Thank you, Doug. I just wanted to riff on the romanticism thing for a second, which is, and this is a tiny trope that I picked up somewhere I don't remember where, but that romanticism was actually backlash against the enlightenment that the, that the enlightenment basically like we're just going to use meters on everything.  We're going to figure out the world. And then really bad things happen that disillusion everybody and romanticism is a way of saying, let's just go back to nature and realize the beauty of everything and so forth. And so partly that brings up the question for me. How do we balance data facts, research, you know, like actually scienceing our way out of some of our problems with a deeper spiritual appreciation of who we are together in the critical zone of earth, et cetera, et cetera. I think that that balance or that polarity, managing that polarity is super important.  And Doug, if you have a comment on that, if not to Kevin. Okay, yeah, you know, okay, romanticism, you know, it also led to genocide. You know, like when Ansel Adams wanted a pristine wilderness in Yosemite, they evicted the Miwak, because they couldn't have any people there. And that's, you know, romanticism is, is, is directly linked to the national parks genocide. So that's one point about it. And for me, the bigger context for that is that Europeans, when they hit the Americas in Australia, did not recognize that all of those land masses were under active human management, thought that the locals were heathens and stupid and basically wiped everything out.  And, and the Miwak is one of the, you know, one of those victim groups, but what we ended up with, I hate wildlife preserves that have no humans in them because my own belief is that humans who know what they're doing, a very important qualification are really good for the landscape. Right. So I don't like areas where humans have been roped off the landscape. I would love for humans who know what they're doing to be able to go live back in these places and take care of them. And we'd probably have fewer forest fires, et cetera, et cetera. And on romanticism, it's, it's, I said it quickly in the chat, but I want to elaborate. Both romanticism and not enlightenment, but the rational, rationalism or positivism were co-opted by power dynamics. And I don't think either of them is good or bad. They're kind of psychic extremes, like if you follow Nietzsche, and both are, and both as extremes are problematic. And yes, there is this notion of balancing them. But what I think is even more important is recognizing how these, they're both following a discourse that allows to exclude point of views. They're both saying, like romanticism is saying, you know, trust your inner animus. And the rationalism or positivism is saying only trust, rationality, and it's a way of pushing aside another point of view and pushing aside a discourse. And that is always the problem. And then it becomes co-opted by people who use that as a path to power. So let's see what is good in both of them, because I think they're both important intuitions, but we have to go beyond both, absolutely, or any one viewpoint. I love that Mark, I'm fine, thank you. Neil, Jay, then back to Matt. Just to pick up on the Aboriginal issue, James Cook, who sailed up the east coast of Australia in 1770, was under instructions to make agreements with the natives that he might encounter. And his logbooks and those of his botanist and others on board show that they knew they were dealing with intelligent people. Matthew Flinders, the person who explored Morden Island, described the Nui, N-G-U-G-I people as the healthiest and happiest people he'd seen anywhere on the planet. So this was a deliberate governance step to prevent the resources that they so urgently wanted. This was a step that was based on colonialism, not on recognition of intelligence or humanity. They knew there were people there. And so this is one of the cultural underpinnings of the colonisation ethic on which America is founded. And I saw recently somebody posted the digitisation of the native treaties, something like 360 native treaties in America, which have been completely ignored by white settlers. And this is part of the stuff that's coming up in the conversations around the grief, the trauma, the genocide. When we can get past our whiteness, when we can get past this assumption that we are better than those we are imposing our destructive criminal capitalist system on, then we might get closer to recognising we are also all humans. When we get to that stage, we also recognise we are nature and we live in linked social-ecological systems. And that those people that we have often and too often looked down on as primitive were much closer to deep indigenous connection, deep indigenous wisdom, systems thinking, keep the whole system alive thinking. That isn't going to happen for a position of white superiority or assumption that we're doing it right or blindness to the reality. And so I just wanted to bring those elements in because it's the history of what I've experienced in Australia and the slow coming out now of indigenous people struggling back against the genocides, attempted genocides that happened there. I'm now in Europe and there's the similar issue here in Europe that even with big projects, they're talking about how do we have cultural cohesion, haven't even healed the rifts of the past yet. Let alone how are we going to not crack on those same lines given what we know is in the pipeline. And this is what I was ranting about last week. So forgive me. No need for forgiveness whatsoever. This is fascinating. Thank you. Jay and Ken. Thank you, Neil so much. Feels a little left field, but I've been doing my best to cultivate and continue to cultivate the respect for an interconnectivity with nature as a healing mechanism on on our trails, which are really nearby. So we live in a rural part of Southern Oregon, a small town in Southern Oregon, but at the edge and I'm on trails every day. And so what I've decided is that if I stay away from people, if I have 10, 15 feet distance, then I don't have to wear a mask. So this is a controversial topic. But what happens is most, most people on the trail are not wearing a mask. But what happens is no matter how far away I am from them, as they approach the kind of 30 foot zone, they'll put on their mask. And I'm like really kind of contrarian about this. And I might have to give it up, but like I feel like if I step to the side, I am being a part of this earth. And there's no science that says if I'm 20 feet away and being in the trees, that then I am at risk at any way. And I've looked all around and welcome anybody to say that, to share that. But my, I bring this up because it's not science. It's not science that says put on a mask. It's social indication when you're in that zone. And I think this is part of the conflict that we're, we're hitting in a political way that, that is saying no, where it all the time. And what I'm saying is I'm trying to be a part of the earth. And I'm bumping up against this considerably. And I think a lot of people don't have that same approach, but they're, if we're, if we're not using it as science, then how are we using it? So it's a, I know it's a whole ball of gong, but I wanted to throw it in. Thanks, Jay. Let's, let's go just so I would be happy to jump in on that as well, but let's go to Kim and the map. So there's been some mention of spiral dynamics in the chat. And I'm thinking of a book called tribal leadership, which actually is a wonderful introduction to spiral dynamics, without it being so academic. And one of the things they point out is that no matter where you are, people, if you, if you survey them, if you, if you, if you have them take an assessment to figure out where they are in the, in the levels, they always think they're two stages above where they are. And you can't move somebody more than one stage at a time. So what I love about tribal leadership is they sum it up as there's a really quick way of noting all the levels. So the first level is life sucks and that's, you know, life is hard and if you get in the way and you get killed, that's just too bad. And those are people who exist as individuals. And so they're kind of off on their own.  I recognize a little people who have good lives, but I can't seem to get it together. So from a networking diagram, those are people who are now inside of a network, but they're not connected to anybody. And the third level is I'm great and you're not. And they give the illustration of three doctors who get on an elevator. And the first one says, did you read my article at JAMA? And the next one goes, no, while you were writing your article in JAMA, I was teaching the next generation of doctors, you know. And the third one says something else and they all walk off the elevator feeling like they're really great, but all they've done is put each other down. And then at some point they recognize they're all cogs in the same system. And so they move up to the next level, which is we're great. You know, we can actually do things. And those people start to connect each other. The third level is all triangles. So they don't, they never share their information. It's not like OGM. It like, I would own, I would never do Sammy to Jerry because I'd be afraid to be, would take Jerry away from me. The fourth level was when I start to say, hey Jerry, you need to talk to Judith. And Judith, you should be talking to Hank. And Hank, you need to talk to Jay and Jay talked to Pete. And so that's the level of, of we're great. And then the last level is life is great. And those are networkers of networkers, which appears to be what OGM is all about. We want to connect the connectors. And so it's really easy in this scheme to recognize that we've got people operating from very different levels. We want to reach out to the people who are down in, you know, the third level or the second level and raise them up to OGM level, but we can't move them more than one level at a time. And there's specific instructions in tribal leadership on how to move people. But I know it's, I don't necessarily, I think it's a useful working hypothesis. I don't think it's the case in every case. I don't think it's the rule for every case. I think it is possible to move people. But as a working hypothesis for working with groups, I think it's very useful for us to bear that in mind that it's really hard for us to move people to where we want them to be until we've met them where they are and shown them that we care and that we really get them. And then give them a teachable moment where they can actually have a vertical shift that's sustainable.  So those, that sustaining community and practices that help us to actually make those changes. Charles, very briefly, because I do want to get to Matt. Just super briefly. To put a layer or a dimension in here. Of collapse. And I actually. I'm one of those that feel that life is great. And I'm an eternal optimist and. Kind of blissfully, naively. So, but. There are those that are convinced of, of collapse. That's already happening. That's impending the on rushing and so forth. Just very quickly. There's slight update on the town. Related project around why, why is adaptation or transition design? Now, just a little bit. And I've just been told that they're kind of getting back into gear with Michael doubt. The evolutionary. Evangelist, I guess. And Martin Roush here in Switzerland. Anyway, it's a pattern language around this stuff. And they're going hard, hard core in regard to the. Embrace of collapse. Over. Thank you, Charles. Matt, we got, we got so little conversation going on here. It's up to you to fill the room with something interesting. Yeah. No, I am. First of all, I just, again, I, I think, like everybody, I really appreciate. This. This open forum. And the, the kind of the discovery and how I leave all these conversations with a thousand things to follow up with. And I think it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's an important, an important, an important, an important, an important, an important, an important, an important, an important, the discovery and how I leave all these conversations with a thousand things to follow up on and to think about. And I think this is an important building block and kind of the ritual. That makes up. OGM. Right. And I thought that the conversation about. You know, inventing new rituals. Early Iran was, was quite interesting. And I think that's one of the things that we're starting to create here. So that's sort of my reflection on the conversation. I think more broadly. You know, I wanted to talk about. Some of the thoughts that have come up since the workshop. And where, where things, you know, where things stand. You know, there. And lots of people are having lots of conversations and, in different forms. So I'm, I'm not, I don't profess to know everything that's been going on, but. Really appreciate like the continued energy out of. That workshop to put shape to our effort. Right. And to, to move things. And so. I think Doug, this came from some of your language. This idea of quests and questing. And. And maybe one of the things that we can talk about. Or what are the quests that we want to take as. As, as a group. Or what are the quests that we want to take as. As, as a group or what are the quests that we're, we are taking just to catalog that. Cause I think we're all on these different. Exciting time kind of time bound projects that. You know, have, have something that we want to discover out of them. And through the process, we're going to run into trials and tribulations and actually discover something different than we thought we were going to discover. So, you know, one, one way to think about OGM is a set of quests that happen in the real world. Right.   Right. And so, you know, I think we're talking about the narrative of, of the, of the salmon in the stream and giving, giving them that structure. And so those things could be kind of quests of OGM. Um, I think other organizations are, um, are on their own journeys, their own quests. Um, and we need to continue to expand and catalog. Who are our members. And how we create membership, this network. And so, um, I think, um, I think that's one of the things that I see collective necks as a partner organization. I'm sure, um, Kiko lab sees, um, themselves as a kind of a partner organization. Right. So who are the partners and then where are our neighboring communities? Right. These other. You know, these other populations. And so. If we have a structure around class. We also have a structure around continuing to, to build out and grow the network. Um, and, and so on. And then I think behind the scenes. We need to, we need to launch our lab. And a more in a more serious way.  And we're going to need to go and find. Um, not the queue from QAnon, but the Q from James Bond.  And when I say software, it's not just computer software, but it's also the software of how to have conversations, how to have dialogue, it's the practice stuff. Lauren, that I think you were referencing, right, in, in your, you know, your piece, right? It's the, it's the methods and the house and the stuff that we can use in our quest and our quest should define the problem sets that we then need our lab to help us, you know, build out. And then I think we need a nerve center that is working on kind of nervous system is probably the better word versus like the nerve a nerve center like a like a spider brain more of like what is the nervous system that allows for this network to be healthy to be governed the business models and things of that nature. And then I and then I'm imagining that all of that has to sit within kind of a a system of intention, right? I think Neil, you were talking about, you know, a system of ethics, right? We talked about it as a, maybe a kind of a manifesto of intention or in our own version of some sort of Constitution or Magna Carta or whatever that is. But we need to we need to author that together. And I think that becomes then our, you know, our basis for having kind of this nervous system with the labs with the quest and a network and that becomes kind of our, you know, our super organism. And then that way, Kevin, when you're working on your projects, they don't just come into here as, Oh, that's nice that Kevin's working on that they come into this place as I've run into this problem and I need help or I need knowledge or I need conversation. I need this to move some things forward. And we start to amplify each other's individual efforts and and become kind of organized around where where the need is because it's going to be scale that we have to get to versus just all these little micro experiments like ever, you know, people are doing these things now. And the reality is, is we need to be able to move a lot faster with the with the kind of collapse that I think we're all predicting. So that's my piece. I don't know if it resonates with people if it starts to bring things together, but I'm excited for the next steps here. That makes sense. I gotta go. Well, good. Close that deal. Thanks. Anybody comments class? Yeah, sign me up, Matt. I posted an earlier in the chat. It would be cool. I don't know if this has been done before to have like a the same way we have this reoccurring meeting to talk about. OGM just openly like have a weekly meeting that's like a roundtable mastermind group where like each person prevent like says like this is the thing I need. This is where I am in a minute and then either during that hour like splits out into different groups to help each other or or kind of sets up a time like each person has like one hour of their week that they dedicate to someone else's project and then they get help for one hour. Yeah, and I think Vincent along those lines and I know I see a Lauren along those lines is I think this is where the questing infrastructure has to be put in place, right? So if people are out on those things they may we need may need a way of people sort of saying here's what I'm working with. Here's what I need. Here's how we organize. You know here's how people sign up for those things. And I so I think we have to build that and and that's one of those operating rhythms. And maybe what we do is there's three meetings. There's this meeting which is where we we converse and commune, right? Which I think is beautiful and we need it. We we have a standing Tuesday meeting. You know that Jerry and I and Hamilton and Hank have been you know kind of doing since the very beginning and that was actually our original meeting around how are we going to get this ball rolling? I think we should open that up and that meeting should be about actually the kind of the nervous system, the governance, the business model like like those building blocks and the organization of us. And then I think Vincent to your point we need the majority of our effort in these questing teams because that's where we're going to be drawing on this resource in the real world, in the actual world, and we need some infrastructure and maybe it's a it's kind of a questing check-in where people bring their quest together and say hey this is what I'm working on and this is what I need and and then we do some subdividing. But I think if we can kind of create our own rituals, right, along our needs that that will get us there and I think that that's you know that's absolutely right. And then we can bring all the tools that we experiment with tools and all these things and not decide on one thing but play with everything until we we actually create a movement. Klaus. Yeah, talking about tools. I didn't want to lose the conversation about spiral dynamics because there was a lot of comment on there. And when you look at the political scenario in the United States right now and you put that into colors, right, Trump and this whole coop around him they operate in red. Mike Pence operates in blue, right, the religious and the structured thinking whereas the corporate world and the press and so on operate in orange. So what you have right now is a conflict that is being instigated out of red and red is looking forward for a fight on red terms. But the fight is being brought by orange. Okay, I sort of, yeah, I mean the thing is the this whole color level is funky, right, I mean it looks it sounds sort of funky but it really makes it easy to to generalize sufficiently without too much to create to create sort of mind pictures. So Trump is completely unprepared to be challenged on a legal basis, which is where orange operates. They would rather go into the street and fight and have their confrontations. And so that level of confrontation is something they're not really prepared for. And it only works because we have a society where we don't allow people to go out into the street and create havoc. In other places that's what would happen now. The discussion would be suppressed and the press would be stifled and communication would be stifled and you would operate in red. So it's an interesting way to understand also to plan how to respond. Because if you put yourself into these colors then this python coming forward then you operate in green, right? You move into the green zone to bring these things together. It's just a simplified way of hopping up and down through the spiral and thinking through how would you operate in red this threat against red and so on. Before I pass the floor to Lauren I just want to interject. I have two problems with spiral dynamics. One of them is that the notion of the colors and levels maps way too easily for me to the standard wisdom, conventional wisdom of human history, which is we used to be nasty, tribal, hungry, brutal and then we got religion, then we got city states, then we got corporations and now we're moving toward the singularity and everything is going to be awesome. So it's a really long time ago we used to understand how to live together in community on the Commons and then we've been fighting that and destroying it ever since. And so to me tribal from way back when I respect deeply and I don't think that tribal is red or anything like that. And so the second problem I have with spiral dynamics is that it creates the situation where you have the condescending framing. Let's see how we can get those red people up to purple and then we're going to go back to the spiral dynamics that thinks they're teal. And if you're in the red group, and some people that are Trumpians have a very sophisticated idea about what's broken in society and they think that the current systems and institutions are failing us entirely, which I totally agree with. And they're trying to fix it by breaking it first then fixing it. And that's why they voted for this and they don't want to continue through. I'd love to have that whole conversation somewhere else because I'd love to find more because I see a lot of other value in spiral dynamics, a lot of it, but those two things keep me from loving spiral dynamics a lot. And Jerry, sorry, just to jump in. I think one of our labs in one of the labs inside of the lab should be around mental models and we should have mental model labs and we should debate these things and we should talk about them and we should say what parts we like and what parts we don't and do that. So that's the software of OGM of our cognitive things. And so I think that we should start to define these things and then make the containers so that we can deal with them and kind of come out of the this, which I think is great, but it doesn't have enough, it doesn't have enough kind of focus to get just a little bit more traction, right? So Lauren, Neil, back to Matt and then we're out of the call. And Lauren, are we done? Are you out? Okay. So Neil. Firstly, in defensive spiral dynamics, it is one way of seeing it in the same way that OGM has multiple references. The listening society by Hansi Franek talking about metamodernism takes it apart and puts it back together again. Evolving self by Keegan talks about multiple levels of consciousness. In over our head talks about multiple levels of consciousness. This is about capability and maturity of humans and the application of any model, spiral dynamics or other by somebody who hasn't actually understood the implications of holding that loosely and recognizing that each of us is more complex than any of us even believes or thinks and that I'm still discovering myself. So you're still discovering yourself. And if I think I can put a label on you, how bold would that be? So holding this stuff loosely is what we do with intuition, with art, with sensing, not with labelling, with pointing, with naming, right? And so holding these mental frames as mechanisms in the background because they make sense. They do make sense. Nobody can question the sense they make. It's when they are applied out of context or in ways that aren't actually aligned with trying to create regenerative living systems that we screw them up. And so we've got to be very careful not to alienate any of the potential models because each of them is an attempt, just like OGM is, of bringing together a bunch of resources in a way that makes sense of humans. We are complex living beings in complex living systems, in complex linked social-athletical systems in collapse, and we're about to crack on the lines defined in there, in there, in there, and in spiral dynamics. Good luck. Your question, should you choose to accept it? Exactly, exactly. But I think that's what we're here for. This table is self-destruct in five seconds.  Open-mindedness at a global scale, right? You know, models, frameworks, concepts, ideas, everything that we've learned up until this point as a species needs to be appreciated with an open mind. And then I love this idea, it's time for us to grow up, right? It's time for us to mature to the next level. And that's what we're doing is we're trying, I think we're trying to create a movement of a maturation process for our species using everything that we've learned. And at the same time, we're trying to tackle some things that are urgent, like soil health, right?  So I think, I think we've kind of defined our mission and I'm just excited to take the next step in getting organized and allowing everyone to participate where they feel great and comfortable, right? Yeah. Before passing it to Neil for the last word, I just want to say that this conversation is thrilling to me and is one of the reasons why describing OGM is like nailing jelly to a tree. It's like we're actually going after some of these big, audacious kind of things about world views and understanding people and leveling up society and dealing with critical issues and, you know, thriving instead of merely surviving and that's pretty complicated stuff. Neil, over to you on the booth. Yeah, I just want to say thank you. It's good to hear this conversation because this is what I've been trying to say for quite a long time. OGM is not one size fits all, right? And the conversations we have to have are not one size fits all and a kitchen table conversation will go as deep as the interlocutors are able to go, provided there are people prepared to take the risk to go further than they did last time, provided you can create a safe enough space to get unsafe together, right? And to me, the need to have multiple levels of narrative, not just one story, multiple levels of narrative with some sort of vertical connecting thread to higher system ethics context, which is what was mentioned at the start. If it's not in the higher systems context, why are we doing it, right? But now what level can we operate at what level can we operate? That's sensing. You walk into the room as the patient dead or alive, the patient's alive, right? Well, still some hope, right? Next, are they breathing or are they not breathing? So what is it we have to address? Now, for that, we need to have skills and some of us have different skills, skills to assess, skills to sense, skills to identify what we think is needed. OGM to me is dropping the stepping stones in front of people in the right order for where they're at. Now, whether they come to that through their own process of, I need to find something and now let me find my own way, or whether they need somebody to walk with them at the same pace and speak in the same language and point them to sidetracks and, you know, and this is what you do, Jerry, with this, bringing in those little snippets. It's what each of us does, bringing in those little side channels. You know, here's the main canyon, but let's just go and explore up there and see if there's anything useful. Wow, because it's much nicer and much feels much better, much more belonging when you're in close to the walls, right? And so we've been down multiple neural pathways, but ultimately we have to align some sort of vertical coherence with multiple levels of horizontal cohesion that isn't one size fits all. It's multiple and we have to encounter people where they're at and we can only help them if we have actually gone further than they have, right? Otherwise we might be collaborating with them to dig a ditch, which everybody can do, right? Provide you can move. So this is the way I see OGM. It's a resource-based, it's a commons-based, it's a tool-based, but it's also a people-based, depending on some sort of differentiated capability maturity process. And it's not to put people in boxes, it's to say, don't turn me loose with the car keys. I haven't learned how to drive yet. And it's as simple as that. We have to develop ourselves and develop each other on behalf of humanity or we're all screwed. Thank you. And I believe that is a beautiful bow for our conversation and plenty to think about. I am grateful to you all for being here and see you soon on those intertudes. Thank you. Bye, everybody. Thank you. Much love. Thanks, everybody. Take care.


Mystery House, that strange publishing firm owned by Dan and Barbara Glenn, where each new novel is acted out by the Mystery House staff before it is accepted for publication. Mystery House. This story we're trying out for a Mystery House novel tonight, Barbie. Murder me gently. Gently. That sounds a little tame. There's nothing tame about this story, Dan. Oh, anything gentle? Well, uh, wait and decide for yourself. Well, that's the great American privilege, Mr. Glenn, deciding for yourself. Now let's not get stuffy, Thomas. No, I'm serious, Mr. Glenn.  And everybody has a right to tell their story. Oh, incidentally speaking of stories, listen to this one. Okay, places, everybody. Set the scene, will you, Tom? Murder me gently. Tonight's story opens in a record shop. Albums of symphonic recordings fill the shelves along one wall, and across the room are several soundproof booths in which prospective customers may listen to records. Shirley Boyington, a clerk, is talking over the telephone. Pro-whattie-f? Listen, this is a crime I haven't heard of them. I bet there's plenty you don't know about the stuff that's mellow, the swing of Barrel House music. What? Sure, Mr. Ballzer's here. Look, lady, I'll be happy to let you talk to him. And we've probably got what you want. All we do have is long underwear waxings. Huh? Oh, no offense, lady. But I'll unbeat right down to my socks with all these long hair questions. Hold the line, please. Mr. Ballzer, one of your classic kids. Hey, why don't you turn off that record? Hey, Mr. Ballzer, what's the matter? Are you sick? Wake up. Wake up, Mr. Ballzer. Hey, wait a minute. He's dead. Don't try to get next to me with talk about music, Miss Boyington. I couldn't care less about music. A music shop is my idea of something to stay out of. I'm here now for just one reason. You mean because Mr. Ballzer got sick and died? I mean because he was murdered, sister. But couldn't he have just died? Sure, he could have bright eyes, but he didn't. He was poisoned. But Mr. Perry, I don't know anything about it.   I'm glad you told me, sister. Now I don't have to worry about you anymore. Just like that. You're in free. You don't need to be sarcastic. Anybody would think you suspected me. It's my business to suspect you. And you know something? I rather enjoy suspecting you.  I'm not a music lover. I'm an alligator, a wolfhound. A what? Didn't you ever hear of a hep chick, Mr. Perry? Hep chick? Hep to the jive. I'm no square. And I know enough to be sure you can't pin that murder onto me. Whoa, whoa, I'm not going to pin anything on you. Not even a musician's medal. I just want information. I've already told you. I know, I know, but you haven't told me anything I can understand. Nor anything connected with a murder. They tell me your late boss was a Wagner fan. You got that off a record label. You're not fooling me. And he wasn't. Wagner was never his dish. Mendelton. He was always mumbling about Mendelton, almost like he knew the guy. No, we're getting somewhere. He liked Mendelton, huh? And you liked jazz. I bet you had some pretty good arguments with him, huh? I'll say I did. But he was all wound up in cat gut. Why, if I was running this place, I'd have all the hot recordings on the market. Slam Stewart and Tatum and some old Biderbecks and, uh, Fatchmole. Fatchmole? Listen, are you double talking me? Ah, Fatchmole's Louis Armstrong.  I'd have his records. The hard to get stuff. I'd have the alligators lined up screaming and swooning and throwing the money into the cash drawer. That's what you planned, isn't it? Your uncle agreed to back you if you could talk Bolzer into selling the shop. How'd you find out about that? I told you it was my business to find out things, remember? Now, wait a minute, Hawkshaw. If you think you're gonna make me confess... Thank you. A police force don't use force, sister. It isn't nice and it isn't legal. I bet you've been reading detective stories. Oh, you...  In my business, sister, you get used to that. I've been hated by a lot of killers. Don't you call me a killer? Me? I wouldn't think of it. But you wanted old man Bolzer's record shop business. You saw your chance to make a lot of money.  It'd be a motive. You'd be surprised how many murders these days are committed over trifles. A guy who don't like the way his wife wears her hair and curlers while she's pouring his breakfast coffee. Little things. Most of the trouble in the whole cock-eyed world starts from little things. If you'd quit picking on me and go talk to his wife, you'd say he was poisoned. She'd know more about that than anybody. Yeah? Why? He ate his meals at home. I'll talk to her, don't worry. But before I leave you to your alligators, tell me, what was that record Bolzer was listening to before he died? I don't know. Some long-haired thing. He got in the mail this morning. You want to hear it? No more than I want appendicitis. When it reaches the point where I gotta listen to music, I'll quit. Come in, Mr. Perry. I know you wish to speak of my husband. Joseph... I'm sorry to have to bother you, Mrs. Bolzer, but I gotta live in a mate. Let it be so, Mr. Perry. I have seen enough in this life so I can accept my husband's death. What's that noise, Mrs. Bolzer? Oh, you surprised me when you came to the door. I've forgotten the phonograph. I shut it off now. I'm sorry. Music, huh? Phonograph music. Don't you people ever get away from it? Music made Joseph very happy. I suppose that could be. But didn't he worry about his shop? A little, perhaps. He did not understand the modern music. What you call swing. And sometimes he told me of little spats with Miss Boyington. Spats, huh? It was as if Miss Boyington would like to change the music store to make it all loud and noisy. But always my husband said no. He was faithful to the court, the fine music only. He worried about this... this alligator Miss Boyington, huh? No. My husband did not worry. He was a happy man always. Except... except when he thought about France. That's a new one on me. France. France Cronin, our dearest friend. Perhaps you have heard of him, the violinist. A musician? I don't know any musicians, thanks. But France is no ordinary musician. He was insane once, and music cured him. Now he is once again a great artist. Music. The divine music cured him. A great artist. He will come soon to play here. He's a crowd too.  Yeah, the three of us. We lived in a small village in Bavaria. Years ago, before we came to this country, France was a special friend of mine. Till I married Chaucer. Sweetheart, huh? Was he sore at your husband before he went nuts? Oh, never. He was only sad. Sad that my love is for Chaucer and not for France Cronin. Seen him since he got out of the bird cage? Bird cage? And yeah, yeah, I mean the asylum. No. You see, they experimented with France using his own music to cure him. And when it was successful, there was so much in the newspapers about it that he was put immediately on concert tour. I see. There's another angle. Angle? I do not understand. There's poisons that delay their action. Like, uh, he could have been poisoned at breakfast and then died at his store. You think maybe I poisoned Chaucer? But why? He carried insurance, didn't he?  What? Joseph was a kind man. He wished no harm to anybody. What he's done, he's done. He was not, uh, vindictive. What are you driving at? Because he is dead. Joseph would not wish trouble to another. Why don't we just forget about everything? That is what he would wish.  Like, yes. Because one person is dead, should there be trouble in sorrow for others? Uh-huh, that's what I've been taught. Lots of trouble. But Joseph would not approve of such a way. Joseph? I got a boss at headquarters who was more in a position to be. Now, you just kind of calm down and take it easy. Lie down and sleep. I'll be back later. Uh, Mr. Perry. Yeah? Would you mind looking inside my bedroom before I retire to see there is nobody there? I, uh, somehow I am a little, uh, a tiny bit afraid. Why, okay, Mrs. Balzer, sure. Well, where's your bedroom? I, I'll show you. This way, please. Right down this hall. Follow me. I hope you don't get a case of nerves. What, uh, what you mind looking? Sure not. Uh, where's the switch? It's kind of dark in here. Dull thud. Sounded like something hitting against Detective Perry's head. Didn't it? Well, when you take a job like that, what can you expect? But who hit him? The same person who murdered Joseph Balzer? That seems logical, doesn't it? And that would be, well, we'll find out in the second act. And now, act two of murder may, gently. The scene is the comfortable little Balzer cottage. Mrs. Balzer is trying to convince Lieutenant Perry that she doesn't know anything about Blackjack. Lieutenant Perry usually cannot suspect me of hitting you on the head with that Blackjack. I could suspect anybody, Mrs. Balzer. I'm that kind of a guy by nature, suspicious. It was you led me into that room. But I had not pulled down the curtains. It was not my fault that the room was dark. No, it was handy, though.  That ain't any reason to get hit over the head, is it? Somebody must have been afraid I would say something. Somebody hiding, maybe to hurt me. It was me that got hurt, lady. Perhaps whoever hit you was afraid of being discovered. Look, if there was anybody else in that room, how come you didn't see him after I was hit? How come you didn't hear a door open or anything? But I told you, I was so frightened I fainted. I did not come to for some minutes. Yeah, yeah, you told me, but you didn't convince me. Oh, oh, the door. That will be Franz. Huh? Franz, come in. Oh, it leaves you. So, this man is bothering you, perhaps? No, he is a detective trying to solve Joseph's murder. But he cannot suspect you, Elsa. See here, you.  Who are you, anyway? Franz Krünen. Perhaps you have heard some of my concerts or accords. Perhaps I haven't, too. Not if I could help it. I ain't a music fan, Krünen.  I arranged my tour to be here for a reunion today with Elsa and Joseph. It was most fortunate. Fortunate? You mean that Balzer was murdered? I mean that I should be here in Elsa's hour of trouble. How long you been here, Krünen? Oh, I see you suspect me, or do not worry, my friend. I didn't arrive until some hours after the murder. That is true, Lieutenant. I met him at the train. That phonograph record you sent Joseph Balzer. Yes? What about it? It was on the phonograph when the girl found Balzer's body. Yes? Kind of funny that record would be playing when Balzer died. Oh, you think maybe my music is so bad it kills him? Any kind of music kills me. The writing on the label of that record, Krünen. Mitweimut for Joseph von Franz Kronen. What does that mean? You think to make something sinister of that, Lieutenant? It means with longing for Joseph von Franz. With longing, eh? Yeah. You think you can figure perhaps a double meaning to that? Maybe. If I do, I'll let you know. Ilsa, I'm going to take you away somewhere where you will not be reminded of Joseph. Guess again, Krünen. Guess again. Greetings, Gates. Looking for a platter? Oh, the devil are you. Billy McKenna, why? You want a record? I want to talk to Shirley Foyington. She's supposed to be in this shop. I'm a boyfriend, mister. She's heading for the airport right now, but I know this joint like a... Airport? You mean she's leaving town? She didn't go out there just to watch the planes come in. Why's that? Easy, buddy. Easy. You're talking about my favorite hip chick. How easy is you, hip chick?   She's going to bring this shop to life. Boy, that joint will be jumping when she loads it with some decent stuff.  Huh? Listen, I'm supposed to be watching things here for Shirley. I'm not going any place. Again, Bob, you're going to the airport with me right now. You can't order me around. Wait a minute. Look, Junior, I'm a policeman, a detective, and I not only can order you around, but I may have to get rough if you don't hurry. We got to stop that girl. Now, come on. Flight 6 for St. Louis, Memphis, Jackson in New Orleans, now loading at gate number four. Keep an eye peeled, McKenna. We'll have to find her before she leaves. The guy said the New York plane won't load for five minutes yet. You've got Shirley all wrong, Mr. Perry. She's strictly on the beam. I'll put her on the beam if I find her. Dig as Shirley, huh? Why, you. Hey, that's her heading for the gate. Why, you. Run, Shirley. Hurry. Hey, stop. Stop in the name of the law. You. Hey, stop. Ow! I got you. Let go of my arm. You've got to go right... Come along, sister. Try to skip the country, huh? You're crazy. I was flying to New York to get some decent records to put that shop on the map. I was coming right back. Yeah, I bet. You can't accuse her of lying, Mr. Perry. She's not that kind of a kid. You keep out of this. What's more, I'm going to put you under arrest for trying to help a fugitive escape. Me? Now you see here. Don't you talk to Billy that way. He had nothing to do with it. The whole thing was my idea. He hollered jiggers at you, didn't he? Technically, he was helping you get away. If either one of you causes me any more trouble, I'll make you both listen to classical music the rest of the day. Come on. Put my plane reservation. You shouldn't be worrying about a plane reservation, sister. Who knows? There may be a reservation for you down at the station. Miss Boyington, this morning you brought coffee in the Mr. Balzer, didn't you? Sure. About an hour before he died. Are you trying to say I put poison in his coffee? Or would I get poison? Excuse me, baby. Look, alligator, you got any visible means of support? Here we go again. Oh, Billy, I'm sorry. I'm the manager of the soda found at the drugstore just around the corner. Oh, drugstore, huh? You don't need to draw a picture, Mr. Perry. I know what you're thinking, but can't you see that Shirley's too nice a kid to... I mean, to ever put poison in anybody's coffee? Even if I could get it and give it to her. She ain't got the poison from you. Then she talked Balzer into staying here in the shop for his coffee. I never talked Balzer into anything. He was so stubborn you couldn't convince him of anything. Oh, pardon me, Miss Balzer, but it's true. He was so excited about that record he got in the mail, he didn't want to go out. Record? Oh, we're back to that, huh? Where is it anyway? I took it home. It was France record and the sentiment and everything. Go get it. And while you're about it, get France, too. We might as well get this thing really mixed up. Well, back so soon, Liebchen? Oh, my darling, you look tired. I'll get you a pot of tea, then you will feel better. There is no time for tea, France. I've got to get that record and take it to the detective, and he wants to see you, too, France. The record? Oh, yes. But first, there's something that we must settle in, sir. Oh, France, you promised not to talk of such things. Yeah, I know.  You know that. How can you speak so? Joseph was your dearest friend. Hold those ears, you... No, let us not speak of those ears. The asylum is behind me. I'm cured, Elsa. Yet I need you as much as you need me, Liebchen. Please, you cannot speak so. But I will always be your very dear friend, France. Friend? Friend, is it? No, I do not need friendship. I need you, Elsa. I must have you, and I will... Oh, France, control yourself. They will take you away again. No, never, Elsa. Not if you marry them. No. No, you must go away and never come here again. Oh, France, what are you doing? Just pouring the tea. That record, Elsa, it was for you. Addressed to Joseph, but for you. Yeah, it said, Mithremut for Joseph von Franz Grün. With longing for Joseph from Franz Grün. Yeah, the laborer said that. Yeah, with longing for Joseph. Yeah, with longing for Joseph, death. Vance, the tea. A little spice for my Liebchen. I shall go away, as you ask. And you shall go away, and we shall never return. You have poisoned the tea. Perhaps it does not matter. Only that we shall never return. You and I and Joseph. You killed Joseph? No, I merely gave him the remedy. He used it. Just as you will. You're insane, France.    But would you care to know, before you drink your tea? Oh, no. I don't want to hear it. I won't listen. The record I sent Joseph. The label was loose on it, hanging to the centre of the record, by only one corner. The label was such a tender sentiment. What? No. No, I saw the record. The label... Naturally, with the label about to come off, he has such a thoughtful tender label. What would Joseph do? He'll mean you. Yeah, Liebchen. That label had a special kind of glue on it. A glue I mixed myself. And when Joseph touched the label through this tongue, he tasted the poison, which killed him. And then, with the label smoothed onto the record, all evidence was gone. Was that not clever of me, Elsa? No, don't. No, on the contrary, most gentle. Much more gentle than I can be if you do not drink your tea, Elsa. Now, come. We drink together. No. I'll telephone the police. No, no, no. I am so sorry, Elsa. You'll not telephone the police. You've spilled the tea, Elsa. The spice tea. Now I shall be forced to use my hands. My hands, Elsa. The hands that bring such marvelous music from the violin. Yeah, look at them, Elsa. Hands that want to crush you, but must do otherwise. No, no, no, no. I don't want it so much to make it gentle. No, no, you get a voice cut down. Take your hands off that woman's phone or I'll show her. So you think a bullet scares me? No, put your gun away. I must kill Elsa, and then myself. I will do it. I told you to let go of her, Cronin. Yeah, I know, but I have never obeyed orders, Lieutenant. I... You were most kind, Lieutenant. Kind? I shoot a guy and that's kind? Yes, he talked about killing me gently. He was mad. Shooting him was the gentlest way.