Cool. So this is an open global mind call, separate from our usual Thursday check-ins, where we are going to do a ho-down or riff-off or something like that. And one of my guilty pleasures is the movie Pitch Perfect. So I sent a little link around a half hour ago with a link to the riff-off in Pitch Perfect, if you missed that. But it's an amusing, an amusing thing. And I think that, I think we'll be a little chaotic here. I haven't added a ton of structure to this. I think we can do a little structuring as we come into the topic. My goal really is for all of us to start seeing the variety of tools that are out there, what some of the tools are good for, what some of the tools are not so good for, how these tool, and then to do a sort of second order, to do a little bit of brainstorming about how these tools might interact, might help each other, how they all might be used for expression, for analysis, for better thinking, better decision-making, which is kind of one of the big overall goals of open global mind. And this is just a riff. This is just thinking out loud. Some of these tools lend themselves pretty well to live work, live annotation, live note-taking. Some of them take a bit longer to work with. And so somebody might create something great that takes another couple hours to do. And we'd love to see that posted afterward. But the idea of this call is to get some variety in the air to get us talking about that tools layer and see what they're good for, what they're not good for, generally. So before we dive in, and I think we're sort of rolling now, any questions on this or suggestions? I've got a couple of things I want to sort of offer in a structure, but any questions right now? Wow. Either you all are really good with ambiguity or we're rocking on how this works. It's terrific. And if the former, then you all get gold stars because ambiguity is something most people don't like. Ambiguity, change, vulnerability, those are all really hard words for people to deal with. Well, so I just put a link to the spreadsheet. I'll paste it again in case you've just come in and you didn't see it. But this is a spreadsheet where I set up who had stepped forward and what tool they had said they were going to use to do some kind of annotation visualization during our call. Awesome, Scott. And I don't know if you are in... I don't think I have you there. Fabulous. And we've also seen, shared a couple of nice long lists of tools. In fact, the Notion page that had a really long list of tools included a bunch I hadn't heard of or seen. I did not have the time to go harvest them all and put them in my brain. But I think one of the things we would love to do is maybe find a collection like that one on Notion and just link to it and help improve it or figure out where there's a good place to curate a collection of tools. But I liked about the Notion table was that it also had some fields in it, which were interesting and useful fields for people who might be coming in to try to use these tools. Partly what we're trying to provoke is somebody who can... somebody who's interested in doing visualization, how might they find their way to A, the right tool for doing the kind of visualization they're imagining and B, maybe a practitioner who's really good at using that tool, who could help them do it, do it with them, be hired to do it, you know, anything like that. So there we are. In terms of results, I'm thinking that we can report out. Certainly, I will post the chat. We can use the chat as we always do. But I'm thinking also afterward we could post our results any place you want. We do have the LinkedIn group for OGM, which is I consider the Google group that we're on to be our inside conversation. It's just like it's OGM participants who are just discussing what is this thing? Where are we going? What do we do next? When's the next call? The LinkedIn group is meant for anybody in the planet who's kind of heard about this and is interested to come in and see what's up. So please feel free to join the group or I think you have... I've set it up so you have to apply to join, but I think anybody can see our content. I'm not positive about that. But the idea there is to think in public. That would be a really good place this year. Any and all links to artifacts that you create in this workshop. In that way, we can kind of show a lot more people than just us. What's going on? Other people can jump in if they're interested. Any ideas for a good hashtag for this? I thought of two. That would be cute, maybe interesting hashtags. OGM viz, OGM riff off, systems jam, says Hari. Any other ideas? Let's let's narrow down to one hashtag and so that we can all kind of agree that that's how we label the things that we create here. Post them to Instagram, put them on YouTube. If you want to record a screencast over whatever you did and tell a story, fabulous. I will post this video on YouTube later so if you wanted to take segments of this conversation and do your own version of it, that's awesome as well. Kind of what we want is to create a requisite variety of points of view and opinions and insights around what's going on. Mike, awesome. Yuri, this is great. I love seeing all your faces here. I'm afraid that OGM by itself, Pete, is maybe a redundant hashtag. Does it mean other things? I don't know. It puts it in, I don't know. I think it mixes better. OGM folder and you want stuff in the visualization folder and you want stuff in that. You want to actually make links to multiple hashtags. You don't need it to be unique. Yeah, but don't use visualization because I Tripoli has a 20-year history of using that and it'll get a lot of mix-ins. No, but if we do OGM viz, then that's unambiguously this call. Yeah. But if we add OGM, then it creates the separate thread of all OGM kinds of things. I think that's where you're heading, Pete. There's this interesting question which is a separate OGM call worth. Should hashtags converge or diverge? Are we trying to create a variety of paths into this or are we trying to create a unique cluster of this? And I'm probably oversimplifying even that. So maybe we do OGM viz plus whatever other kinds of things you want. OGM viz, isn't that like a breed of dog? Or there's a vizla, right? Which is a Hungarian hunting dog, I think. Anyway. Can I just ask, I don't know if Pete Kaminski got to finish his point because I think he was pulling in the other direction and I'd be interested in hearing advocacy for that, for having several different hashtags. I don't know if I have my thoughts collected well enough to, but if I were linking it, so that I guess the question back to Jerry would be, why would we need a unique hashtag? And there's a whole another, we could have an interesting discussion about hashtags in general, but you ought to be able to get a unique pair of hashtags. It doesn't have to be a unique hashtag itself. So I wonder about that last thing you said. I totally agree with everything else. The good news is there's absolutely no speed limit on how many hashtags we can add to our posts, except for maybe the character limit on Twitter, but otherwise we can add multiples. I think that if you add multiple, I don't know how to, I guess I could in the search terms add multiples like that, but it seems to me harder to sort of come down to the message where if we all use a unique hashtag, that's the attempt of OGM viz, then if you go on Snapchat, not Snapchat, but if you go on Pinterest or Tumblr, wherever somebody's put things and you search just for that, you're going to wind up here. You're going to wind up with the results from here. Anybody else feel strongly about either or? I'm reminded of a Slack that you and I know, Jerry, our place. One of the principles I set up that Slack with was lots of channels, and I really like lots of channels, very specific things. And then the end result, of course, is that you don't get any participation in any of them. So until you have too much participation in one place, it seems like a good thing to have bigger buckets with more people in it, wondering why the heck they're there and figuring it out instead of very narrow buckets that a few people are in. I love that. And that's also part of the reason for the OGM Google Group list. And I expect fully that as we get more people who are geeking out on the tools, we will want to split that conversation off to some other place because it'll be overwhelming for the OGM conversation, and we'll need to do a little mitosis event as we go, as different conversations pick up energy. And as I was saying in a previous call, those conversations may actually want to migrate to a platform where that conversation is completely natural, whether it be Stack Overflow or Reddit, or who knows what, those might be really good ways to go. Anyone else with thoughts on hashtags tagging? There's a counterbalance, as was being just explained. I'm in the process now of all of a sudden starting to get so much activity, email feed, that I'm wanting to move it to a more selective way to do. I like the breadth, but I also want to be able to look at it contextually. And I don't know the optimal way to do that. There's a couple of things. On the Google Group, you can set it to digest mode, and you can do, I think, daily or weekly digests, which will reduce your volume. But the other thing that I just said, which is, as a particular topic gains mass and starts to overwhelm the conversation, we peel it somewhere else. And I think that'll help a bunch. In some ways, the hashtag mapping or whatever we wanted to do was useful because then I can choose to follow that and look at the frequency and the content that's there, so forth. And Hank is here from Collective Next. They have a hashtag protocol for emails, where they do a bunch of hashtags, which then help them sort things into, you know, sort conversations right up at the subject line. We could try that as well. There's lots of different ways of finding our way around here. So I'm going to suggest that we overload the hashtags and use ogm biz. And what Julian was saying a little bit earlier is if we say the word visualization as a hashtag, as Pete also recommended, then we wind up in the conversation that IEEE or whoever else is having about visualization, which is a good thing, because then we end up, you know, attracting people from the larger conversations. Go ahead, Pete. I wanted to suggest, this is kind of, well, it feels impractical to suggest it even. But one of the principles I used to look for, I wanted to get people to do in the wikis that I built was to ask somebody or pair. So a lot of times, if you've got information overload or information overwhelm or there's just too much stuff, I have a wish that people would say, hey, let's either ask somebody who knows how to navigate better or pair up with somebody and go on an exploration into a larger info space. That's, hashtags are nice, but they're not very human. And they don't tell stories and things like that. And the stories are really fun. Yeah, thank you. Any other thoughts on hashtags? We're good. So the next thing I thought of was roles during this call. And a few people who volunteered to step forward and kind of perform with different tools. So they're kind of participants in the call. But other people who are, you know, who here, I don't know if there might be different kinds of roles, but one role someone could pick up is just annotating what happens beyond what shows up in the chat and beyond what's going on. Another role could be to be kind of a connection finder. What's happening over here seems to be a lot like this one or this is the same task. These are different tasks or something like that. Another role could be application finder. Like, you know, these are really good domains for this sort of tool. These are bad domains. I don't know. Or everybody could just sit and listen and see how this goes. Any feelings about a type of role that we ought to have someone ought to make available for people to sort of step into during the call? Or shall we just let that float? Go ahead. Since you brought it up, I would love for one of the mappers to put those roles and share the screen and then have us all think about that. And also I need to make everyone who's mapping a crow host so that you can all screen share at will. I believe there'll be a little bit of dueling screen sharing going on during this call. But let me see. Pete Kaminsky. I need to make you a crow host. Bentley, I think I need to make you a crow host. So I can do this as we go on. Any other thoughts on?  So the roles I was thinking about were different like application, interaction, connectivity between the tools, maybe a critique role, which I didn't mention. Like, this was great. This was lousy. Um, something like that. Don't know. And maybe there's, and, and I'm realizing that a couple of days ago I had a little inspiration for a role that was more interesting than all the ones I just said, but I don't remember it. So there we are. And I failed to put it in my brain. Perfect. Thank you. That's brilliant. And Pete, is that your screen sharing? It is. Cool. I think it's funny that we have three Pete's. I've never seen that before. It is a rare thing in my world. And I'm making a few people co-hosts who I remember had said they might want to do this. Let me know if I'm missing you or if you'd like to. Robert, awesome. Glad you're here. And Scott. Does that mean the people with the problem? That means the people who are going to try to represent our conversation with a tool. Yes. Okay. Put yourself on the chat. Type into the chat if you'd like co-host access because you're going to be trying to render something. And I haven't already made you a co-host. Cool. And, and thank you for the live mapping. What we don't have, and I'm just realizing, Hank, we probably should have sent an invite into facilitators at Collectivenext and others, but we don't have a normal graphic facilitator who's, who's along for the ride. So we don't have somebody who is going to do the, maybe I'm going to call it more traditional role of graphic facilitation or graphic recording and different practitioners prefer different terms. And my skills are elementary at best. So I'm going to talk about that. That's right. You are not there for the, for the drawing. No, I try. Yeah. Cool. And how are you with insight maker? Fabulous. That's right. Brilliant. Cool. Anyone else I forgot? No. Then let me set up how I'm imagining we go ahead. So I had suggested a topic around regenerative economy or regeneration in general, which I can explain a little bit more as we go right now, but I was thinking we would just have a conversation around a topic like the regenerative economy or just regeneration. And everybody is busy scrolling away with their tool, doing whatever it is they want to do to map where our conversation goes or what they care about on the topic. The goal here is not to mirror precisely and capture all the details of our conversation. The goal here is to riff on the conversation in any way it inspires you. Because some of these tools are really good for kind of note-taking in which case you'd be like, okay, and then Bob said this and Jane said this and Julianne said this. Other tools are just much better at like what does the system diagram look like in this world and what affects what. And you might not actually be tracking our conversation, but you may create an artifact that's really useful as evidence of or a model of the systems that we're talking about. All of that is fair game. All of that works great. And then, yes, add the links. If your work is trackable as we speak, please put links in the chat as well as Robert just did because he's creating a mirror board and mirror as multi-user. So we can go look there. So I'm thinking we have a 15 to 20 minute conversation around a topic during which everybody's using their tools. I've already made most everyone who's got a tool co-host, but then we share and we start screen sharing relatively quickly. We do a couple minutes each person highlighting a couple of things, telling stories. If very quickly turns out to be just way too cryptic and not getting us anywhere, well, let's slow it down. But I kind of want to make sure we don't end up spending, you know, a half hour on one tool and one thing, even though it's rich, I'd like to get us a bit of a variety of tools in our heads so that we can go look around like this. And then I figured if we have time or if we remember or whatever before the 90 minutes are up, we can come back in and do an after action review in plenary, basically stop our screen sharing and say what worked about this. In particular, and I think maybe a role that we can add to the roles is process improvement, you know, process critic, process improver, where I'm just hacking this together from, you know, what feels right for this conversation where I'm intending it to go. This could become a thing we might do more often. It might be a really interesting way to compare tools. And for me, one of the big goals here is that there are just a variety, I have no idea what the canonical six tools are. In fact, I don't think there are six canonical tools. I think there's a variety of capacities, features, functionalities that are useful and interesting. Some of which are flashy and not that useful. Some of which are clumsy and ugly, but incredibly useful. And I just want us all to see more of them so that we have a working vocabulary of what's out there. And so that anybody on the outside who's hunting around for tools can go, oh, I should watch this video, because I'll get a really quick up to speed on a collection of power tools for visualization, mapping, analysis, what have you. There's another set of tools that fall much more into storytelling. And I say that with qualms because I like to tell stories over the brain. So I don't think that what we're doing is not storytelling. And I think we're going to tell stories as we present our pieces. But we might do this with storytelling tools, who knows. But I think that there's a piece of OGM, which is very much about tools and the goodies we use to try to enhance what we're explaining. So let me hit pause for a second and see if anybody has any comments about process and improvements to it. Otherwise, we can jump into our conversation about the generation. Thoughts, questions, raise your hand because I can't, now that Pete is screen sharing, which is awesome. I can't see everybody. So use the raise hand function. Let me kill the screen share because I think people are more important. Pete, I think it was awesome that you were doing that as we were sitting here going through the talking. Doug, the floor is yours. But you will need to unmute. You're still muted. There you go. Okay. I was made nervous by the topic of the regenerative economy. Oh, good. What about the most regenerative economy? I want to make sure that we're not even there yet. You want the post? Well, actually, most people seem to me to be working to try and cycle back to where we were, even though that's probably not the path to a good future. I think of that line in the leopard, things have to change in order to remain the same. I don't want them to remain the same. I think everybody on the call who doesn't want things to remain the same, please raise your hand. If you don't want things to stay the same, if you think there's a big change of put and we need to change. Good. Most everybody, Jack wants things to stay the same or he's distracted on a different task. And I think most systems have a tendency to snap back to where they were. So I think the normal course of things would have us go back to status quo. So wait, so to me, at least, the regenerative economy and regenerative agriculture and so forth are not the status quo. It's where many of us are trying to aim. Is that not how you see it? Well, the re-suggest that we're doing something we've already done. Oh, yes. We're actually regenerating the fertile parts of our culture, our society, our soil, our natural resources, our commons. So the regeneration is that, but it doesn't mean re-going back to where we were. Well, compared to regenerative economy. And I believe we've slipped into the conversation already, which is awesome. April? Tipping point might be a comment. No, I'm going to take us off track, I think. I'll put it in the chat, but I will say hello to everybody because I'm a sort of OGM lurker. Oh, hi, look at all the hello. I'm a total lurker, but I'm glad I could join today. I was just going to write that I just gave a talk that factored heavily, or factored in heavily regenerate, regeneration as a concept. So not just regenerative agriculture, regenerative architecture, regenerative business models, regenerative medicine, et cetera, et cetera. And the concept itself, all what it really means at the end of the day, and this is, you know, a hat tip to Dave Whitzel also, who's deep into the ag stuff, is better than. So how do we, and in today's context, people are saying, you'll build back better. How do we build back better? Well, better than what? And in the case of agriculture, you know, today we grow food that harms the environment. You're getting a good, you're growing food, but at the same time you're depleting the soil. So regenerative agriculture says, how do we grow food at the same time that we improve the soil? Regenerative architecture is like, how do we create structures that actually produce more energy than they use? How to build structures that are better than conventional houses where you have a good house, but you're still, you know, consuming energy, extracting energy from the environment, et cetera, et cetera. So I think regeneration from that perspective is that a lot of the practice from an economic perspective, regenerative economics or regenerative capitalism, if you will, actually doesn't see this as dollars and cents, but, and I'm going off on a riff here, but you know, and Jerry has talked about this as well, if we look at it from the perspective, not just of the economy of dollars and cents, but the ecology. And each of those share the same root word, which is household and abundance. So I look at this, a regenerative economy builds back better. It's better than an economy where you're getting a good, but at the same time, you have all of these externalities. So I'll be clear, I may not be helpful to today's conversation, but I do think it's relevant to OGM's mission. I think it's very relevant. We've dived into the conversation. Pete Forsyth. Yeah, I'm a little hesitant because I'm not sure this may very well be just me, but I've really been struggling to grasp in sort of a simple sense, what is the overall thing that we're doing today? There are lots of compelling. Oh, it's clipping a little bit. I don't know why. Say the last sentence again, please. I'm struggling to grasp kind of the, the, the overall project here. There are lots of compelling details, but I wonder if maybe you could take a crack at like a two or three sentence sort of what is it that we're doing here today? Do you mean OGM or this call? I mean this call. Okay, good. And not that OGM is like really crystal clear, but this call is meant to be an exposition of a series of tools over some topic that we might all be able to express something about such that we might at the end of it understand what this tool is better at, worse at, how it compares to this tool, how people use them during conversation around a topic, etc. Does that help a bit? Yeah, it does help a bit. I think it's, I guess it's the, the sort of what the subject is part of it that is, I'm finding elusive, but I arbitrarily picked the regenerative thingy thinking it would be interesting, useful, controversial, and give us a bit of chewy something to work on could have been, could have been Black Lives Matter, could have been Indigenous wisdom, could have been coronavirus, any of those topics would have would have done probably just as well. Does anybody feel strongly about the difference between the generative economy and the regenerative economy as Doug is pointing out for us? Does that evoke things for people? Because I hadn't really even thought about the generative economy. Peter. It's an interesting question. I think it's, it reminds me a little bit of the word organic, when it came to mean, you know, without artificial fertilizers and things like that. Organic is not a particularly, I mean, I remember being in a mailing list with an organic chemist, which in chemistry, organic just means it has carbon in it. So he was like, very upset about the word organic being used for food. He's like, Okay, so I think regenerative has come to mean a particular thing. And, you know, the way it's composed is different from the meaning that we've all kind of grasped around it. I think it's also interesting to there's, you can put, you can take the reoff and you have a generative economy or a regenerative economy, but maybe it's the other way around in an economy of regenerative things or an economy of generative things. Anyway, I think it's an interesting kind of discussion that we could have. I'm not sure it's, you know, not too interesting. And I think also this used to be called permaculture. I mean, there've been different phases of things that I think now fall into the bucket of regenerative agriculture for sure. But now we're taking the regenerative agriculture thing and metaphorically spreading it like manure over the rest of the economy and all social interactions and sort of social economy, all of that kind of thing, which I think is the larger interesting frame for a bunch of us. Harri, you want to jump in? I just had a kind of a thought bubbles going up. Does regenerative have anything to do with regeneration in between consecutive production cycles? For example, by switching over the crops next time. Absolutely. So crop rotation, intercropping, mean bus, there's a whole bunch of different kinds of agricultural methods that are regenerative for the soils.  All of that is I think the mechanism you're describing. Yeah, so from that perspective, one would have to call it regenerative, right? Because if some nutrients were depleted by one crop, then the next crop comes in. It may eat something else up, but it regenerates these, right? So that's kind of like... And so generative would be more like the book of Genesis where we'd be creating things from nothing all the time. Is that kind of the reverse implication? I'm seeing things in circles when it's regenerative, I guess. So it's an argument for the regenerative framing and wording of this. I like that. Giri? I'm now. Just very quickly, I thought that if you take the idea of regenerative, regenerative, the idea that we got to do something new, I think most people raise their hand that we really, really got in at people where we really need to do things, new things and what I would suggest that we focus on the sort of regenerative, that idea in the very way we actually produce knowledge either individually or collectively. And then it really links together the whole point of the OGM. So don't run around and take all the, as we started doing, all the spheres of the economy. I think we are here because we all know that knowledge is the only, the true source of all value. And so, and we know also that it's not only in the economy that we're doing really badly, but in the knowledge production is really broken. And I think hopefully one of, most of these tools will pick one or other slice of that problem. So see if I'm mirroring this back for you or riffing on it properly. One of my big beasts about knowledge production in the modern, in the modern civilized world is the overprotection of intellectual property, which basically means great ideas that somebody spent a lot of time and energy writing a book about are locked away behind digital rights management software. And we can't easily quote and then remix that paragraph that was fantastic. I mean, we do, we retype the paragraph, we go make a quote, but we can't actually sort of work into the documents or into the entities, because until internet, the kind of technologies recently cracked some of those barriers, we couldn't get in, you know, they were overprotected. So they, that prevent intellectual property protection was preventing us from regenerating knowledge and riffing and remixing on one another's ideas where I'm going with that. Does that fit what you're saying? That's a yes, you're still muted though. Yeah, that's a yes. Awesome. Anybody else? Riff on that or Pete, go ahead. Just an idea, we could have picked anti-fragile instead of regenerative, and it would not mean not, not mean something too different. Everybody who knows who could, everybody who could run a couple sentence explanation of anti-fragile who's on the call right now, please raise your hand.  About the same, about the same. So, yeah. April, go ahead. You look like you're- Oh, I was really here. I was raising my hand. I do worry, I mean, we're, I don't know, it's, I can see this through glass half empty or glass half full, but you know, and Jerry knows this better than most, but in some of you on the call know this, where I'm writing a book on what I call a world in flux and right, we've got fragile, anti-fragile, we've got a hookah world, we've got regeneration, we've got intention, we've got innovation model, we've got all these things that everyone's saying, okay, we're at a, you know, we're in an inflection point, we're having a reset or reawakening, there is this moment in time, and there are all of these concepts that are sort of getting talked about a lot, and candidly, I think we could pick any one of them, and is it going to be the one at the end of the day? Probably not, but is it going to be part of the mix? Absolutely so, I don't know that there's one term or phrase that's going to be the phrase, now maybe we want to riff on all of them, so it does concern me, because all of these terms and all of these concepts that are overlapping, people are working towards the same or very, very aligned and goals, but it's a lot of noise, so does OGM want to play in that noise, and if so, which piece of the puzzle does it want to, you know, have place its anchor, or, and I'm not saying that it has to be some kind of webbing or meshing or netting, but in light of the network, part of me wonders, do you not even, you don't attach to any one of these terms, but serve more as the connective tissue or the mesh around them, because you want to be able to play in all of these different spaces, and so fragile enter fragile, I love that, it's a great concept, I would actually be quite comfortable, actually, the key, the same keynote I just talked about, I talked, it was about the future of food, and I talked about how the future of food is both agile and fragile, and you know, get into agile, fragile, anti-fragile, agile, like okay, these are all really good words to throw out there, but the devil's in the details, and I think a lot of the details are going to transcend any one concept, so anyway, just throwing a little bit of mud in the water. And I have a couple, Hank, did you have your hand up, did you want to talk to? Oh yeah, I mean I was just going to kind of riff on the generative versus regenerative thing, but can I, let me throw in two things real quick first, and then I'll go to, and then I'll go to Hank, Gary, and Pete, who've got their hands up, so hindsight is 20-20, so in 1700, when the industrial revolution is just getting ripping, I'm relatively sure they didn't call it the industrial revolution, they said who are these idiots who are burning coal to do messy jobs or whatever, who are taking away my cottage industry, and so I think the moment we're in right now is a moment that 200 years from now, somebody will look back and say, oh you mean the anti-fragile era, or when the regenerative economy took hold, or some word we're not even using right now will be how we label this time, and God willing it's not the apocalypse, because that was also part of April's speech, so I think part of this debate is part of that debate, right, part of this discussion is what is the right term, what's going to catch with the broader population, what word contains the intent and is the best sort of container for all the concepts in it, what word is the word that takes us forward and brings more people into the party as opposed to a word that's divisive, I think all of those things are attributes of what word might win this conversation later on, so Hank, then you're in people. Yeah, yeah, so thanks Jerry, just you know this conversation about like generative or just regenerative really got me kind of thinking like would it be worth looking at what is being generated, right, because when I take a step back and think about the function of an economy, right, is to is not just to like make people money, right, which I think is a very myopic and tunneled view of it, right, it's simply to distribute goods of value among a group of people, and you know when we think about what happens when an economy only the value that it generates is only in dollar and cents, right, and like if you make a regenerative economy that only regenerates dollars and cents, what is the value that's actually being created there, so I think that it would be you know an interesting question to delve into, if we do indeed choose the word generative slash regenerative to catch people, it could just be just be an interesting place to float around in, so. Cool, thank you, Jerry. Yeah, just very quickly, it could be that I'm just too much in my own bubble, but what I think when you know 40s, 50s from now, when we're going to look back, I think that word is already on the cards, it's decentralization, so that's been going on for I don't know ever since the web started, there were attempts to say, well you know it's too centralized, let's do something better, but it's actually across the whole economy, it's all about control, it's all about the central control, the reason why we have this decentralization flourishing, because the center simply cannot hold, so I think if really I really would suggest that that's the that's the common across all those things that we talk about, you know regionally, circular economy, it's all about, don't, you know all the, all the, any, all these things are really all about autonomy and not being completely, completely ordered in a way where you have no say in it. I love that. Anyhow and that really is really happening and that definitely the knowledge were really in this space that's going to change everything, so I think I would suggest that as the focus here. I think it's sort of a shame we have nothing to say on this topic. Pete? I was thinking after hearing April and her concern actually that we had, you know, we were kind of shifting all over the place, what came up in me was that's what mappers do, so for better or for worse, this is the mapping SIG, and it looks like we have a lot of patience for subdividing terms and comparing contrast terms and talking, you know, around an information space. So it'll be interesting, Drew, you said maybe what we're trying, maybe what OGM is trying to do is kind of come to a good marketing term or a good, you know, umbrella term and I think that's super valuable, mimetically, socially, and it's also something that is something that you can do after you've done a lot of, you know, after the mapping SIG, who are mostly, I think, nerds, have done a lot of like churning and thrashing and gnashing over like, you know, the information space. There's a separate set of people who are at the marketing people who can kind of like, you know, look over the mapping SIG's work and go, okay, you know, I don't, none of that resonates with me. Here's the little part that makes sense or that I hear, you know, can resonate with other people. Let's use that in a marketing way. So marketing, mapping, I think, are different things. Love that, Pete. How are you? Go ahead. Yeah, thank you. So your voice is very low. I don't know why. Hang on. Is it much better? Okay. Yeah. It's really beautiful conversation. And I just want to just bring a perspective from something which I'm reading right now, which is I'm reading out from a paper which I'm using for research. It says just a few lines. It says the world is characterized by deep complexity, something, something, something. Each representation of a complex system is reflecting only a subset of the possible representations of it. A system is complex. If the relevant aspects of a particular problem cannot be captured by using a single perspective. So if we're sense making the great transition, right, into whatever comes next, then it's also obvious we have some conflicting paradigms and or maybe not so conflicting. And it's part of the process, I love that. Thank you. And remember that World War One wasn't called World War One until World War Two. It was known as the Great War because it was such a World War, right? It gets named World War Two. It's like Coke Classic wasn't called Coke Classic until New Coke. So we're going to see layers of this unfold. And I'm not, Pete, I'm not sure that OGM is about naming this next era. I think with good luck, we create some, we help nourish some of the conversations that lead to the naming of the era eventually and the documentation of what we thought and why we thought it and the explanations we used for where we're going. So, and then my own personal record with naming sucks, but my, but my record with sniffing what's, what's happening is good. I wrote it, I wrote an issue of the new release one, oh, the newsletter I used to write titled what's a zine? And I borrowed the word zine from a small circulation hand published newsletters that people used to distribute to their clubs and neighbors. Well, it turns out it's called a blog or a weblog. And I know that people who named those, you know, who coined those terms, but I did not coin those terms. But, but I've sort of been historically sniffing in the right places for the right combinations of technologies and things, which gives me a lot of hope for the bucket, a large container that is OGM moving forward into this. Other thoughts. And let's go for another five minutes or so and see if some of our visualizers then would like to check in. Gene. When you get to the end of this riff, I have a model I'd like to share. Brilliant. So, that is where we're heading in probably five minutes. Let's do a little bit more discussion. Judy. I just wanted to, to, to raise the notion of, of how to get the vector energy of change into however we would choose the words, because regeneration is sort of restoring, bringing back, creating what was before, but we're evolving. So it's more of an evolution slash revolution that I think we're trying to figure out how to visualize. And it has a lot of disconnected pieces that will take time to sort out. Also, just in terms of language, I love where Yuri went with decentralization, but decentralization is a little bit like unschooling. It's a, don't, it's a not word. It's like, let's not centralize, let's decentralize, and it doesn't necessarily light up in people's heads what to do where regeneration I think points forward and upward toward what to do. And again, I don't think we're going to be the ones who figure out how all this plays, but, but there is a bit of this that's very much about riffing on, on the, I like what you called the vector energy of change. Mike, you're muted. Swear I had unmuted. So much better now. I'm new to the group and or only come in every few months, but I've been working along with charity on internet development for decades. And right now I'm at the Carnegie Endowment for international peace, trying to explain emerging technologies and the internet politicians around the world and prevent them from getting in front of it. And I guess I'd like to turn a little bit to the infrastructure needed for the regenerative economy and how right now we're about to go off the deep end and turn the internet into something very different than it's been. It started off as a people centered internet. It was all about sharing and collaboration. And it's now a becoming a content driven internet where most of the bits are one way delivery of Netflix videos and YouTube videos. And unfortunately, that means it's also becoming a surveillance centered internet because the people who are pushing their content want to know everything that everybody's watching and they want to also control it and make sure that copyright is not violated. And we've got the chance to build a regenerative economy based on new ideas and new data and recycled data and remix data and remixed ideas. But if the internet becomes like cable television, where it's almost all one way and it's all monitored, we are so screwed. And I hate to be a Cassandra as Jerry knows I'm a pathological optimist when it comes to technology and we've got the technology. But the politics is getting stacked against us. I'm in Washington. So that's why I'm a political pessimist, particularly now. But there are there are bills to outlaw basically would outlaw encourage strong encryption. There are bills to make ISPs and social media platforms responsible for all the content that gets shared and spread there. There's some really bad things going on right now, both in Europe and the US. These assaults have been going on since the internet was a baby.  You've worked with Al Gore a whole big bunch. But his DNA is on the motherboard of the internet because he helped protect it as far as I understand from the kinds of legislation that we're trying to be put in place back back in the early days. My job for 30 years has been SSSS stopping stupid stuff silently, room early and helping the politicians understand that they've got the right problem to solve and the right and the wrong answer.  And unfortunately, the surveillance people and the copyright people are now in league together. And they are going to run over the those of us who think people centered internet, unless we can team up with the machine centered internet, which is another vision and which ties into the regenerative economy as well. We need those two forces to come together. Yeah, certain choices need to be made for encryption, authentication, privacy, confidentiality, but it's not happening. And the other side is very powerful right now. Totally agree. And we're in the middle of this titanic battle, which is hot now hotter. It has its waves and it's really quite hot. In particular, the surveillance state because pandemic and contact tracing and everything else opens this gigantic door for all of that. Judy and the presidential campaign. Oh, let's just talk about that. Well, Biden is very much in favor of the copyright centered internet. Oh, great. Judy, you're going to have the last word because after whatever you say, we're going to go to Jean and then whoever else has things they'd like to screen share, I'm going to ask you to sort of step in and start showing. Thanks, Jerry. I have to leave at four o'clock anyway for another meeting. But what I really wanted to throw out for further exploration is sort of a light of day principle. If everyone were open and how do you start that notion? It's impossible to constrain what's really already open and out there.  The bad ideas get rejected by the readers and so forth. And it kind of weaves back into your design from trust Jerry. So maybe that's something to rip on it another time. Absolutely. Thank you. That's a lovely bow tie on that. Now that we've solved the issue, I'd love to go back and Jean, do you want to grab said screen and tell us what you got? And again, everybody, these are riffs. These are like, where did this conversation take you? This is not a recording in the conversation or whatever. So let's take them for what they are and start thinking. What does this mean? What's it good for? How do we remix? Go ahead, Jean. Okay. So this is a short presentation about the future of society and are the implications of structure avoidable? I read all these books and we're not seeing your screen shared. What is that? I don't know. I think are you on two screens? You could be sharing the wrong screen or the wrong application. Now we see your screen. Okay. I forgot to push the button. Ah, that's so much better. The future of society are the implications of structure avoidable. I read all these books and there are a lot of good thoughts in them, but there was one that I thought that was missed. And that being that if you start out with an exclusive political system, that's a political system developed by the few for the few, they tend to create an extractive economy, which is intended to promote the wealth of a few, which creates a virtuous reinforcing structure for them, but removes prosperity for all because it's an extractive economy. If you're fortunate enough to start out with an inclusive political system, which is one of the people by the people for the people, you've probably heard that before. It tends to create an inclusive economy, which is intended to promote prosperity for all, which ends up being a reinforcing structure promoting prosperity for all. Though even though this is the intent, out of that reinforcing structure, there are always a few that manage to do better than everyone else. And they like doing better than everyone else. So they employ that wealth that they have maintained to promote an exclusive political system, which in fact diminishes the inclusive political system and sets up the seeds for corruption. They then go ahead and employ the exclusive political system to promote an extractive economy, which diminishes the inclusive economy, which sets up another balancing structure for demise, therefore creating another reinforcing structure, promoting their own benefit and limiting the wealth of the many. And the rich believe that they are amazingly smart because of how wealthy they are. What they don't realize is how wealthy they could actually be if they went ahead and promoted prosperity for all. So there would be so much more that they could then extract from people and they could be even more wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. So prosperity for all is good for extraction. So first of all, I want to do jazz hands, even though you're sharing the screen, you can't see how many people are jazz handsing, but this was awesome. Thank you. Like really lovely. Go ahead. So this was a kumu presentation that I had done not too long ago that I turned into a story and I always take the story that I developed and create a video overlay of it so people can just watch the video of the story being unfolded rather than actually stepping through the video. And you're a really good storyteller that way. Please, if you can, drop the link to this kumu in the chat. So we've got it collected with the call. I don't know that we're going to have time to stop and comment on each one or should we? Like my my temptation is to go to Scott and ask them to use Plectica for a bit and then do like five or six tools and then come back and start processing together. Yes. Hank says yes. Okay, let's do that. So Scott, you've got the floor and I think I made you co-host. Let me know if I didn't. Okay, so sharing screen. Let's see here. I believe we are all set. Good. Do you see that? Yes. Okay, so I'm zoomed way out on here, which is one of the nice features of Plectica that as you zoom out, it shows you a different view. So then as you zoom in, you get to start, you start to see the details. So I'll do that again. So as you pull out, it shows you the high level. And as you start to pull in, you get to see the details. So what I started with was this idea of the first comment was, okay, well, we're in the current state. Many people want to go to the past, but we can only go forward in time. So we're either going to go forward to a worse future or to a better future. Okay, so let's take a look at those. So the worst future was the generative, the classic model of creating everything from brand new resources. Or we have the regenerative, which was the, you know, listed as the better than, build back better. We had a historical perspective on that, other names that had been used in the past. There were some examples provided of what regenerative meant. Architecture, we'd have energy producing buildings, agriculture where we're not depleting. And then do we need a unified term? You know, and how would that all work? One of the problems that popped up in my head was, so we're talking about generative, I tend to think of producer slash creator as generative. And I think of a, usually I counter that with producer consumer. And I try to be more of a producer than a consumer.  But I was just wondering how that all fit in there. And then one of the other things I really liked about Plectica, apart from the fact that it's just simple to move things around and create new little cards and drop them into other pieces, is that it has something called perspectives.  And what happens when you click on the perspective, is it isolates certain things and shows them. So Bloom's everything else out and says, okay, do we need to unify? Well, from the OGM group perspective, yeah, if we, if we need how to unify a term that could help focus the energies from a future historian perspective, I don't know, they'll sort that out later. And again, this is a very simple, very fast map that I did just kind of live as we were messing around. So anyway, that's, that's what Plectica looks like. It's a series of cards. Then you have relationships. So you can, you can draw little lines between different things. You can then label those little things. And so forth. So without getting too far into the software, it's, it's a bunch of very simple tools that can build systems like this very quickly. So there we go. That is awesome. And a really nice demo, Scott. Thank you. And you helped me realize that I also want to point out that this particular session is each of us individually working with a single tool. Some of these tools are really good for collaboration like Miro, which is, you know, we could all be ganging up and taking notes together in Miro, which raises its own set of complexities. Because once you get lots of people editing a space who haven't necessarily agreed on how they're going to do it beforehand, or don't have a lot of history of collaborating on those things, that can get messy real fast. So, so as we move forward, let's think about what might these things be like if we were collaborating on these things. Gene, you had a comment. Plectica also supports multi-user simultaneous development. So you could have a half a dozen people working on this map at the same time. I've been following the development very closely for quite some time. They're doing some things that I really like. I'm waiting for them to do a storytelling feature. And I may jump ship. Well, I mean, they've got a way of doing abstraction. Yeah. It's really good. Go ahead. I don't know if this relates, but when you're talking about storytelling, so you noticed that I was able to click and go to different views and that's simply adding a waypoint. So you had a waypoint, you click on that and now I have that as an area of focus. Kind of like Prezi. So you can number the waypoints and then follow them as a story. Yeah. And then you can move them around, change the order, all that kind of stuff. And so that again, I think what I like about Plectica is that it seems it's so lightweight.  It's very, very simple. You can get it quickly, but then you can build fairly robust things with these simple tools. And you'll find yourself tripping over, how do I do this? Awesome. Okay. Nobody offered to do note-taking in Prezi, which is interesting because Prezi is a very nice power tool, like all these as well, but more towards stories and presentations than analysis and visualization kind of. Scott, if you'll unshare your screen, we'll see who else wants to jump in. And it looks like you might have another comment you wanted to add to this, but who wants to go next while you're talking? Anybody have a... Yeah. Okay. Yuri? Just a quick question. Is it easy to get this stuff out of one tool to the other and by any other way around? Is it possible? Don't know. Scott, do you know anything about export from Plectica or Gene? The kumu stuff you can export to a spreadsheet or to a, I forget, some other file format. Moving from tool to tool is hard because they have different schemas for how they're represented. I'm seeing image PDF PowerPoint and JSON or CSV. No, the JSON looks interesting. Yes, yes, yes. Okay. Thank you. Cool. You're welcome. Awesome. Someone else? Bentley? Yeah, I just wanted to say reason score is terrible for all that we did, except the argument at the beginning about the hashtags. So I will be, because reason score is about debate. So I think I'm going to practice with that and share it later on, even though it wasn't the main topic. I thought that was funny. And I'm slow with it, so I don't have anything to show right now. Cool. But that's great. And there's a really interesting subset of argumentation visualization tools that go back. I went to only one conference called CSCW, computer supported collaborative work. And I think I went to a SIGCHI also back then. And the conversations were about this, in particular, this guy, Jeff Conklin, who had a tool called Ghibis, the graphical issue-based information system, which was based on argumentation theory from Stephen Tolman at Northeastern or Northwestern, I think Northeastern, et cetera, et cetera. So there's like lineage from that, but it hasn't managed to grab the public eye quite yet. So I'm really interested in what you've built and how it looks and how it works. And then argumentation links to public debate and discourse, links to legislation, legislative process, links to collaborative decision making in civil society, which is a super interesting thread for us. Yeah. Yeah. And it's becoming very popular, which is good, because we want to see that space grow, working with like none other people in a debate lab, where we all have our own projects and we're playing around. And yeah, we have a list of like 40 previous projects. Most of them have been shut down now. And some of those people are from academia. So it's really fertile. But it's just on the edge of what we're doing here. And I kind of love your using the word fertile there, because I'm realizing, I was just thinking, one of the things I like that Nassim Taleb says is we never hear from the graveyard. Like a lot of people try and fail in a particular marketplace. And one of the things I really like about the brain and the way I've gotten to use the brain is that I have a lot of the graveyard in my brain, because I don't delete dead companies. I leave them there because the Wayback Machine lets you do a little bit of CPR and revive them to see what that was. And I know some of the stories behind some of the deaths because they pitched me or something. And we don't learn enough from the people who tried and failed. Yeah. Right. So I think that's a really important thing to sort of to add in here. Yeah, yeah, it's very important to look at the past. And a lot of times, you can grab an idea that just didn't quite make it. And now we have the tech or the speed of computers to do it. So they may have failed just because they were too early, not because they're wrong. In the policy world, we always talk about best practices, but we never talk about worst practices, which are much more informative. Absolutely. There's also best practices for like subjugating people, best practices for privacy invasion. There's a whole bunch. I've got a whole speech I did years ago on dark innovation. And it kind of came from me writing an issue of release 101 and Esther editing it and saying, you say this is innovative. That's kind of a non statement. Like, what do you mean? Is it good? Is it bad? Is it profitable? Is it whatever? And so that made me kind of check the word because we tend to think that innovations are good.  Your talk could be three times longer now. I know I could double down. Yuri, you just volunteer. Yeah, that's it. 40 billion. Yeah, going strong. Oh man. And we're in the middle of yet another election cycle where we're not paying enough attention to all this stuff. Would anybody like to share the screen and show us another visualization of this conversation? Anybody have one half ready, a little piece, Pete? Pete number four, three, Cohen. Hey, folks. Greetings from Melbourne. Thank you. I might need to make me a co-host. Oh, sorry, you're right. I didn't yet. Oh, can I do that directly here? Oh, look, I can do it just on your icon. That is so handy. Okay, you are. Now I dub thee a co-host. Thank you. So I've been playing with the tool FlyingLogicPro. Can you folks see that on the screen? Yes. And yeah, the map I'm not so sure about about obviously been creating it on the flyers as we speak. But yeah, I guess it's a combination of both technology tool, FlyingLogicPro, but also using a technique from the logical thinking process called the gold tree. And probably goes without saying, but obviously with it, well, I think, yeah, the logic, the logical thinking process, the words you use and the relationship between the concepts becomes really important in terms of those logical structures. So that's one thing I like about the process that it makes you really think about your definitions and the relationships between concepts. So here, defining the goal, what it is that we're working towards and the crack I had at it was to live in a world that supports the survival and prosperity of all living things. So thinking about, sorry, Jerry, you're muted. I just muted myself. Can you zoom in a little? Because it's hard to read. They're much better. Thank you. Yeah. So working from a goal at the top there. And then here, the structure of a gold tree from the logical thinking process is you have a goal, you have the critical success factor, critical success factors. So the idea there is things that without any one of these things, the goal wouldn't be achieved. And this map obviously is far from complete or accurate. But anyway, the critical success factors and then all of the necessary conditions that lead into each of those critical success factors. But the cool thing about Finding Logic Pro, which I really love as a tool, is that you can sort of drag in something like this. And then you can link it to something else as far as logic goes. And you can see how the map is just dynamically reorganizing itself. It's probably not the most dynamic example there. But one thing I like about that versus other tools, like say if you're using Miro or something like that, once you start adding elements and moving them around, soon it can become a spaghetti mess that's hard to manage. But Flying Logic Pro is really good at just letting you create those relationships flowing from Jean. What influence is this? What does that mean? And you can play with that and it moves around and you can see all of that unfold. Yeah. That is awesome. Thank you. And I've never seen this tool. In fact, I'd never heard of it before before you mentioned it, but I added it to my brain when you did. And it's interesting also because it's different from the other things we're looking at. I mean, it's very interesting the different tools prioritize different aspects of visualization analysis, the forces and energies we're trying to model. It's very cool. What is it? What's the name again? It's called Flying Logic. Flying Logic Pro in this case. It's something you download or is it something that's... It's an installable app, right? That's right. Yeah. Yeah, it feels a little bit old school, I guess, compared to modern things like Miro or Plectica, but I find this unique sort of power in this layout sort of algorithm. So, yeah, in terms of being able to work quickly, I haven't found anything quite like it in my experience. Brilliant. Thank you. Let's switch to someone else who wants to demo because you're running out of time. Someone had a question? Jump in? Yeah, I think it's a quick one. I just noticed as you were dragging components around that it seemed to create and delete arrows in green and I wasn't sure why that was because adding or removing them seems like a different thing than just moving them. Yeah, sorry. The removing was me just undoing because I was trying to get it to dance a bit more spectacularly for you, but the tool wasn't removing. That was me removing. And the arrows were just arrows he had dragged and it was making him a path through. It was a little bit like a circuit board diagram mapping up to try to avoid jumps, right? Robert, do you want to jump in with Miro? Awesome. Sure, yeah. Please, please, please. Okay, so it is real-time collaborative, so I did share the link. Can you see my screen? Yes, your screen is up. Just share it again, just in case. Thank you. No, I lost the chat, but in case anyone wants to come in because then I could show off some more of the sort of facilitation features where you can sort of pull people to where you're looking at and sort of heard the cats and move around and sort of people can piggyback on you as you're navigating. So it does have some of that storytelling that I heard I desire for. There's a thing called frames and you can sort of, so I created just two frames, but one is regeneration and then one was just sort of mapping. And so it has that sort of linear pathway capability. And yeah, so what's nice about Miro is it's, I'd say it's good for early stage, I guess, sense making. You can just sort of drag and drop all kinds of things. So early on in the call, somebody was screen sharing, I just took a quick screen capture and pasted it in and yeah, you can drag and drop links. So I dragged a bunch of Wikipedia pages in while we were on the topic of regeneration. I was trying to use a little bit of say some sense making. It seemed like we were saying there's things that are maybe necessary for regeneration or maybe things detrimental and sort of seemed we were saying maybe re and remixes mixed in there somewhere with free culture and these sorts of things. Yeah.  So what I've created most of these with are what's called the card and cards are neat. You can actually also do like a sticky note if that's more your thing. But with cards, you actually get to add more metadata. So you can add tags, these sorts of things. You can assign them to people if you want to do more of like an agile type coworking flow. You can change colors and add dates, these sorts of things. And yeah, so you can search. So for example, if I wanted to search for all the tools, I can sort of tab through all the tools. So now I'm just searching tags or here's some features. So algorithmic layouts, that's definitely not something that Miro does in terms of taking the graph structure and say figuring out maybe with a force based algorithm or something that hey, if these were atoms and they had gravity and repelled each other, these sorts of things. Yeah. So yeah, I don't know. I think I captured a bunch of the two that's a lot. Yeah, pulled up a bunch of the links to say their websites or also think I got the link to the presentation that was made and these sorts of things. So it's a decent documentation. Robert, I requested access so we can show a multi-user. Oh, I thought I had, hold on a second here.  And I think Yuri tried to get into it and couldn't get into it. Oh, yeah, I just need to click this. Okay. It should be the same link and you should be able to get in now. Cool. There we go. Awesome. You can see up here. So just to show this feature is you can turn on or off whether you see the collaborators sort of, so now we can see where everybody's looking. And if I wanted to pull everybody to me, say I was going to describe something of this part of the map, I just click on myself and say bring everyone to me. And then it sort of does that for sort of facilitation purposes. But then people can move away after they're not sort of locked into sort of your perspective on things. They're not locked to you piggyback style. Yeah. No, but yeah, until they jettison off. That's great. That is awesome. Thank you. I added some other mapping tools that weren't really mentioned. I used to work on one called MetaMaps, though it's kind of a dormant potential. And yeah, so I'll stop there. That's awesome. If you will unshare. That was really terrific. We've got 15 minutes left. I would love to show my brain, but if anybody else has theirs to show, please say so. Jump in. Gene? Just about one minute. I guess you could let people know that we had a conversation an hour before this one. And I remembered something that I had forgotten. Go for it. Remember this. Come on. Almost. There we go. Oh yeah. Debate graph. Woohoo. This is unbelievably awesome. So something else that people might take a look at. Cool. Will you share the link? Is this open? Well, debate graph is all the stuff is all public. Okay, cool. If you can put the link. I'll go ahead and grab the link. The nice thing is if this kind of a diagram drives your nuts, you can just tell it to show you the whole thing is an outline. So, cool. All right. I'll give it back to you. Thank you. And I think Pete Kaminsky had raised his hand to share the screen. Is that right, Pete? Yes. Fabulous. The floor is yours. So I failed in using CMaps, mostly because I'm not a CMap user and because I got started on Scapple. So this is Scapple. I wanted to talk about mapping modalities. When I started, I felt like I was doing a group map while the conversation was happening. And as a facilitator, I could have said, hey, slow down a sec. Say that again. Can you capture blah, blah, blah. Personal mapping while a conversation is happening, I don't do. It doesn't work for me. I do, I have another, let me try something I've never tried before. Oh, I like that. This is from the map I had previously. I do have a role that I play sometimes, look her up or I'm fast on the web and maven up stuff. But that's not mapping. And then I could actually go back and I'm good at doing offline mapping from something. I won't go over this call and do it. So I thought we were going to be doing, then there's another modality, which I thought we would be doing. We never said ready, set, go, map something and let's talk through some concepts. So that's when I was expecting that I would jump in the CMAP and try to make sense of something. But we kind of just slid into having a discussion. My apologies. Yeah. There was no start line and no gun went off. So the other thing that was really interesting to me was that as we had, so another thing you'll notice is that this is very plain. Everything is plain. I actually like, I like, I like plain. I use a very plain text editor, for instance. And I like doing stuff very plain and then decorating it later. So this is, this couple is really good at fast, fast capture of branching things. And then later I can imagine going into making, you know, different icons or colors or things like that. But what I was going to say was as, especially as Gene was going through his story, but also some of the other stories, watching somebody, watching somebody tell a story with a visualized map is very persuasive. And I feel like I don't and I think probably I'm better than most people. I feel like I don't have a way to say yeah, but it's hard to, you know, in a text conversation in Slack or something like that in a chat. I've got the capability and many people have the capability to say yeah, but or did we think about this? As soon as you get past, past literacy with a tool, you see somebody else using a tool in a very literal way. You kind of have to go with their story.  I think your point is really important for OGM. And in like five different ways, like one of them is like, why can't I raise my hand and at least at least put a marker in the conversation of, hey, we ought to come back here and I'd like to ask some questions and whatever. Second angle on this is what if each of us was using tools where we could sort of do a little bit of idea sex or tools combat with how we visualize the tools. Third is he who this is a little bit like taking notes in a meeting like whoever controls the minutes in many ways controls meetings. And so here whoever controls the visualization in many ways controls how things get represented. And back to our topic of the regenerative economy. One of my problems with mind mapping and visualization and all that is that if your assumptions are basically neoclassical economics and that's what you're mapping for and from. And those are in flying logic, for example, those are the critical decision factors you put in and the measures of success and whatever else. That's what you're going to get. And you just you just own the assumption space and the entire frame. And so breaking frame when somebody has a fancy visualization they've clearly poured a lot of energy into and are much more literate in than anyone else is in some sense an unfair advantage. Right. And I'd hate to stop using tools because that that happened but but that's clearly sort of in the in the mix. But this is a huge issue for our conversation speed. Thank you for introducing it so well. Gene and Pete do you want to let go of the screen? I think Julianne also want to jump in. But Gene then Julianne. The one thing that I really like about about Kumu and insight maker and a number of other tools is any public model you can see you can clone to make a copy of it that belongs to you and you can retell the story in any way you see fit because it's all recyclable. So fork and pull maybe as a debate methodology to oversimplify what you just said. Although it's not quite it's fork but we don't have pull yet. Pull is going to be awesome when we get it. Exactly. There's no pull mechanism but fork and pull is one of many different kinds of group dynamics for improving the commons and we should we should sort of compare and contrast those mechanisms and the tools. That's another kind of critical path through these issues I think. But no fork and pull means. GitHub uses a method called fork and pull in GitHub. I share my repository of open source code. Pete says oh that's interesting. He forks it. He basically copies my repo my repository over to his account. He has a full copy of all my code. He then messes around with it and maybe makes an improvement over here which he then submits as a pull request. If I like this pull request and accept it it becomes a part of the main line of code that everybody is busy forking. So the reason the reason GitHub killed source forage is fork and pull. I'm oversimplifying. Julian the floor is yours. Okay sorry I have to be really quick because I had a previous engagement in 230. An actual physical one for once. I wanted to offer to show a couple of things that provided a completely alternative view of how you take notes, how you store information. One is something I did with the space station when it was last at NASA and then the other is my current research and both of them involves the idea that years ago left behind the idea of a page. A screen is a page. It's all flat. You can only make your notes. You can only draw your diagrams in one dimension and I left that behind quite a few years ago but there's a lot you have to do to get away from that. So both of the examples I want to show at some point are based on this idea of getting away from the page. So sorry I have to scoot because I have to get moving. Will there be another one like this next week? I fear that there shall be. I think we need to do this again and I think we've just kind of this feels like a really good warm-up and I'm interested in how we make this better as we go. So I look forward to seeing what you've done. If you have any links, you can share on the OGM Google group. If there's an open link to any of the works that you're talking about, we can have that conversation in between. Otherwise we'll just see you next time. Okay. It's good. All right. Great seeing you guys. Awesome. Hi. Hi Jerry. So I actually didn't do the assignment properly because I also didn't get the start button but sorry I made it up by like kind of making up for it and doing like another assignment which I hope will stand in at least for the, I mean let's just see how it goes. Sounds great. Yeah. So I'm using, so I actually went into the problem itself because I've been thinking about regenerative agriculture in the, you know, all context quite a lot because our agriculture is totally screwed and in terms of the tool experience, you know, like inside maker is actually the first tool and the only tool which I know how to use properly and I came to it from the systems dynamics perspective. So I never used it for this kind of mapping before but it's like fairly intuitive and it's extremely simple. I miss having like really accessible scroll bars and things like this and so on and so forth but it works and it's doing it thing and I didn't really have to think about it too much. Maybe one of the things which I didn't like in my previous experience of this tool is like there are some like canonical examples of some systems and so on and so forth because of the way in which the public repose stored on inside maker, it becomes very difficult to see which is the actual like the canonical version of it. There are so many folks of it. It would be like, like for example, there's a great world tree model on this but I can't find the original original one. I don't know which one is the original. I mean, I'm just giving you an example. So I think it's great for learning and it's great for learning, you know, that kind of stuff and of course I actually haven't like really exploded like in full detail but you can all this stuff like it actually does systems dynamic so that's the cool thing to do. Yep, your voice is getting fainter. We can't hear you now. Yeah, sorry. Oh, that's much better. Yes, much better. Yeah, no, I mean it actually does. I guess everybody here knows this but it actually does the you can actually make things flow between these and these are actually stocks in this. They're not just bubbles representing concepts and these dash arrows for the benefit of anybody who doesn't know, actually denotes flows of information in the system, as far as I understand. So for example, the degree of decentralization would, you know, influence the crops to plant. I mean, if you say for example, three crops or four crops or five crops, and that would come in as a number over here and you know, if you would have some production number over here, you would actually so it you can actually create a mind map of sorts and then blow it up into a functional systems model, which is pretty cool. I think I think Mike Minalson has a quick comment. Go ahead, Mike. This is totally different, just to share a very low tech thing that I did the other day. It was an innovation for Zoom. I did a presentation for the people centered internet community. And rather than share slides on the screen and block off everybody's image, I actually use chat to do chat slides. So 10 words at a time, just cutting and pasting from a document. And it was really effective, because it got everybody to pay attention to those 10 words. And then to look at the group, and it was it was really interesting. It changed the dynamic. It was incredibly low tech. And I kind of like gallery view in Zoom, because I like seeing a lot of people's reactions at once. And I teach everybody the hand signals so that you get some temperature read from who's there. And so how and when you're screen sharing, I only see four people at a time and everybody else is gone for me, which sucks. Also, I like going to a Google doc or going to any multi user tool and doing the work in the multi user tool, rather than in screen share, because then at least a lot of us are participating. But again, then you lose lots of people. And I have only the laptop screen. I don't have a bunch of screens around me, because it would be really nice to see the people and see some sophisticated document sharing. That'd be cool too. So thank you. Back to Hadi. Anything you wanted to add about Insightmaker or your work on it? You're still muted. Okay, cool. So no, I mean, what I mean to say is like, for me, this seems to be like an extremely powerful, you know, like front end for systems dynamics.   So I'm definitely going to explore it and more. And I think we have a couple of other Insightmaker users in the room, including Jean, and I don't know who else, but I think several other people have experimented with Insightmaker. And if you'll let go of the screen, I will see if anybody else wants to share. Harry and I have had conversations. Conversations, exactly. So let me do a quick screen share of my screen. We have two minutes left in the 90 minutes segment. I'm going to spill over a little bit probably. And then if you need to leave, please do. And of course, the recording will be posted on YouTube. So that'll be there. But let me do a little screen share. And I was kind of busy moderating while we were talking. So I did a little bit of braining, but enough that I think this will be worthwhile. So I had created, a couple of days ago, when I thought of this call, I created the thought 2019, this is the year, July, OGM slash Insight Jerry's Brain Call, Visualization Hoedown. Awesome. And when I posted the call to YouTube, I will add the YouTube link to this spot right here, because this is a thought under OGM Zoom calls. And here are the other calls we've had as a group. And here is OGM, Communications and Conversations. Here's Open Global Mind as a project, et cetera, et cetera. So if I go back here, one of the first things I did when Gene and I were brainstorming the call is he had sent me a nice long list of tools, like Kiello. And of course, he was going to show Kumu. And I was going to show the brain, but Debate Graph, Decision Explorer, Gefi. Here's Flying Logic, which I didn't know about until Pete Cohen mentioned it. And so I had been linking the tools to the call just to remind me of what they were. And that had the unfortunate effect of clouding the other things I just linked now during the call, which I'll show you in a second. But for example, a week ago, I hadn't heard of Flying Logic. But when Pete mentioned it, I went and looked up their website. Here I found a video on YouTube explaining Flying Logic and watch that. Robert McNally, I think, is the guy who founded it. It's kind of based on this notion of the theory of constraints, which is what to change, what to change it into, how to cause the change. And then some people add two more why change and how to maintain the process of ongoing improvement. And then also is based on this notion of course of action analysis that comes out of the military decision making process, which I don't have connected to military stuff. So I should do that. Let me just do that while we're talking. And I'll just put it under military stuff for a second. Oops. I'm not going to link it right now because I'm going to go to the wrong place. So let me go back here and go to content.  Gary mentioned decentralization. And I had a thought already called we are entering the era of decentralization. I don't have it connected to what are we going to call this era, which I'm going to create after the call. What is this thing eventually going to be called is an interesting question to ask right now. But this thought I created because there was a nice piece written, I think, by Adam Davidson and David Haunsell in the New York Times called Welcome to the Failure Age, which apparently I found odd, but it pointed to a bunch of really interesting things. Going back to today's call, we also mentioned anti-fragility, which I had noted is improvement under stress, which is really nice. That is sort of a juicy kind of subtext for what we're thinking about in the current moment. So maybe that's as good as regenerative, I don't know. But we sort of mentioned that. And then here's the regenerative economy, which is the general topic I had linked to. And I've got a whole bunch of stuff here, everything from regenerative agriculture to our regenerative future to the research alliance and so on and so forth. And then anywhere a thought starts getting crowded, what I do is I start creating subset thoughts called articles about X. So here's a book, The Regenerative Business. Here's another book, Reconomics, The Path to Resilient Prosperity. Just came out in 2020 by Storm Cunningham. I've not read it, but it's here. Here's a book on regenerative leadership, which should be under this and also books about leadership, which is a whole bucket of stuff. This is a whole bunch of books on leadership. And then you'll see under articles about the regenerative economy, I also have articles about regenerative ag, which is here under regenerative ag, which is connected to one more nexus that is related to our conversation, but I didn't really connect it up to everything today. And this happened to me, gosh, when did I do this? I created this thought in 2015. So I created it August of 2015, because I realized that I had a whole bunch of different things, one straw revolution, natural farming, soil fertility, mycelium, bugs, fungi, the rules for doing all these kinds of things, and that they were scattered all over my brain. So I just created this and then started linking, linking, linking. And I created it as my ahas, my insights about soil and growing or raising food. And part of this goes back to the omnivores dilemma and polyphase farms, which was one of my first exposures to all of this, but this has become a nexus too. And I keep kind of moving it around and shifting and shaking and sorting because the brain allows me to curate as I go very easily. It's one of the things I love about it. So any, you know, plowing destroys soil's fertility.  That's one of the curses of doing all this stuff live. But every one of the thoughts you're seeing here is connected up to what it belongs to, which is an unusual and treasured to me trait for what's going on here. So I have that under plows, you know, plowing. I have it also connected to no-till farming, which is a variant of natural farming, et cetera, et cetera. And all along there are articles. So here's one you're seeing, we're treating soil like dirt and it doesn't deserve it. But I'll stop sharing now. But that's kind of where I went with our conversation. Do we want to take a couple minutes and do a brief after-action review? Yeah, okay. Let's do a couple minutes. Again, anybody who needs to drop off, please drop off. What worked? Bentley? I can't hear you for some reason. You're not muted. It's not a Zoom issue. Yes, now we do. Okay. Sorry about that. I want to mention that I was able to figure out how to get gallery view while someone's sharing a screen if you have two monitors. So I could show how to do that at some point, if you want. But I did find the whole thing very interesting and being able to see different visualizations of the same topic was immensely interesting. Thank you very much. Anybody else? What worked? And also feel free to use the chat for comments. What else worked? Pete Corsair? I think that this might really just be me and my difficulty. Like I was saying before, so take this for whatever it's worth. But my suggestion would be that if the purpose is going to be to explore tools, that it might be easier to follow along if we did a very simple and familiar topic to map out like, you know, breeds of dogs or something like that. The topic that was chosen is a very heady theoretical type thing. And trying to understand that at the same time as trying to look at tools was just too much for my little brain. I think this falls under the what didn't work section of the after action review, but I totally agree with your comment. So note to self, choose a simpler common subject where we're not busy like trying to break our heads, wrapping our heads around the topic where we're like, oh, okay. So shipping or what or breeds of dogs, you know, how does that work? Love that. Thank you. Mike Nelson. Yeah, I thought that actually because it was new territory, it was something that generated lots of discussion and some confusion and clarification. And I learned a lot and kept very I was very interested in it. I thought the discussion about words was very helpful. I thought the discussion about hashtags at the start less so. Meh, not so much. Thank you so much. And I liked I kind of like the confusion, the controversy part of it because I wanted to spark non simple responses to the topic, but that might have been the 201 session instead of the 101 session. Yeah. And I just like jumping into things like that. So so had we all just done breeds of dogs, it might have ended up being like taxonomies and then then what? It could have been like politics. There could have been some real tribal fights between the people and the Spaniel people and the Doberman-Penture people entirely true. And I also have dog and horse breeding under ways that humans have done really weird things to other species, which leads me back into cruelty to animals. So I could I could I have an escape valve to controversy, but but I like controversy. What else worked? Yuri? I did it. I think it was amazing and the if you think I think seriously about the OGM, which we do all do. I was really impressed by Myro and I was really impressed by Axlodry. You know, if you can't can't handle that kind of conversation in a fluent way, then that tool is not worth having. Then the tool, the tool is kind of not not valid in that way. Mike, go ahead. I have a 22 year old daughter and I wish to hell that at the age of 14 or 15 she had been introduced to these tools and I wish I had been using brain since you did. Lizzie, the brain would be an explosive combustible radioactive material. I don't know what we would all do. We would all be like left in the dust. Yeah, yeah, that'd be really cool. Pete Cohen, yeah, please do and send her my love. I could be restating something was said here, but given the nature of the topic, having people like, for example, when April was given the insights and then creating the tension in the conversation that then the fodder to then map was useful because they're not a topic that I've thought about or could talk about, but then being able to draw that out was really good. Thank you. I'm on the realm of what things really work. I just like everybody's good spirits and camaraderie and willingness to jump in and share and show up and all that kind of stuff. I was like blown away by everybody's attitude and intent. So I really want to thank you. Gene. There's a multitude of different types of things one might want to map. And my thought is that we covered one of them and barely because there's a half a dozen other tools that I use for very different kinds of things. And we haven't been there. That long list that I alluded to in notion, which I've got a link to in my brain, which was in the conversation we shared earlier, which one of you put on the gem list has more lists than we could do calls to test and show and demo. So maybe one thing to do is to try to figure out how to crowdsource this on a larger scale, joining forces with whoever it is that created that notion list and saying, hey, how do we make it so that at the end we have a really nice, rich, large collection, including a few different calls that took different paths through the tools for different purposes and different settings with different goals. I don't know. But I have a feeling like I don't know that OGM at any moment is going to be able to do an exhaustive and useful comparison table chart device, even using a tool to do the comparisons, right? Like notion that works really well. But I'd love to help stimulate crowdsourcing it so that anybody can come in and find their way to a tool. All that said, one of my beliefs about knowledge management, and this seems to be a knowledge management issue, is that for 34 years, KM experts have been trying to build databases that will answer questions when we're the knowledge managers.  The problem is that many of us practitioners in this space only know one, maybe two, maybe three tools. It's a rare person who's worked with six or seven tools, like somebody who has broad experience in this tool area is a gem. And I'm trying to figure out how do we clone them? How do we replicate what they know? How do we record what they know and share it out? If that makes sense. Hadi and then Bentley. Yeah, so I was just thinking like maybe doing like a table of a comparative table might be quite hard.  So if that's the case, then why couldn't we do something qualitative, like, you know, like this tool is great for this kind of problem. This tool is great for this kind of deployment. Or this tool is great for this kind of thing. And we could just pick the brains of the people who, you know, have been working on different kinds of problems, because I do think it's, there is something to do with process and problem solving, which means that the tool has to sit nicely in your hand, right? Or in your mind. So we could have a really simple thing to do would be to have chess recommendations. And to have some of us who want to do it, just go say, Hey, I have discovered that these kinds of things work really well for me for these kinds of settings. And that's good, you know, that's plenty. So I would describe the brain and Prezi and maybe one or two other things. And that that'd be like the limits of my adventuring. But if we did, if a bunch of us did those things, then people could at least come in and sort of shop through the recommendations. Yeah, I was going to say something might help is also to have some scenarios that we would know would test a tool. So, you know, dogs might, might have something about, you know, utilizing hierarchy and stuff like that. Of course, I'd be interested in, you know, a debate both recording a debate as it's spoken and also a system that encourages that actually changes the shape of the debate to be more useful. Like y'all were saying, when someone makes a comment, there's no way for me to come in in the middle and say, Oh, I don't, I disagree with that. Let's dig into that together. So maybe to get a list of scenarios and maybe even write out some examples and then use those. So maybe we could brainstorm a list of different types of communications that would need map different maps. And then we can see what tools work better and what it's calling them use cases to oversimplifying or not. It was great reasonable term. Okay. That sounds great. So what didn't work? What, what was broken about the session? What, and I don't mean like complete fail, but Doug. Well, I was struck by the linearity and squareness of a lot of those tools. So I think a pathology of Western thought is we treat concepts as other Lego blocks that can be hooked together. Whereas I think if we're in a creative poetic process, each thought is morphing as the thinking goes on. And it's very hard to capture that. I also think we must be doing something slightly wrong here, because Jack Park, who thinks about this stuff a lot, has been totally quiet. You know what? That is an ace point.  Jack, if you want to jump in? Today was what I, thank you, Doug, but today was listening mode. I mean, if I come in, I have this habit of just storming the place and I really am trying to unlearn that behavior. So today was the day where I really wanted to hear from everybody else. Maybe I'll have a session sometime where I do what I do, but today wasn't the day. Thank you. That's beautiful. Anybody else what didn't work? I'm going to put in just a brief comment. If I look up regenerative in the online etymological dictionary, it says to bring forth again. Well, I mean, there was, we had a piece of our discussion earlier, which was that, and I think it was Hadi who pointed out that we're sort of trying to make the earth better, we're trying to make business better, we're trying to make humans better. So in some sense, there is a re to it, because we're not trying to make out of whole cloth a new thing. This isn't about Genesis, but Regenesis. So, so, so I kind of get that. And I wanted to also bring in a conversation Jean and I had yesterday, which today was a bit about, and Jean was frustrated that in our last OGM call, that we weren't using our tools. We weren't annotating, we weren't recording, that our conversations were just bits lost in space. And the frustration that, or the irony that, or the something that we should be doing what we're actually talking about. And my reply was, I'd love to, but we have the most primitive tools right now and we're going to take get a taste of that today, this afternoon. But also that, God willing, if we do our work right in OGM, not too far down the road, that is what we'll be doing. In addition, we'll have machine learning devices that it will be authorized and will be on our side, but we'll be listening and going, oh, sounds like you guys just mentioned a book. Here's the book. And do you want me to add it to your mind map? Or whatever, right, that we could actually turbo power this in a way where we can model and implement and prototype and experiment with what this medium might actually look like in the future. And that excites me a lot. Anything, so what work, what didn't work, what can we improve for next time? What should we do differently better next time we do something like this? Pete? Quick observation, we didn't get enough diversity. Totally. I'm trying hard and it is really, really difficult. If I might double down on my request of every person who comes from my demographic to invite someone who isn't like you into this call and it may not stick, they may not join, but please, pretty please, let's work really hard to make this a much more diverse conversation. It must be diverse. This isn't just a wishful thinking thing. We actually have to do that. And one way we can do that is to focus on topics that are meaningful to people not like us. And so I'm going to do a couple calls in OGM about that. Thank you. Other things you might do better? Other improvements? I think the process was sloppy. I mean, nobody, a couple of people missed the green flag and so forth. So I can figure that out a little bit better. I am not the most structured event person. I'm really comfortable being kind of loosey-goosey on events and seeing what shows up and making room for what shows up. But if we want to do things that are easier to digest or more driven towards some kind of end product or whatever else, we may need more of that. Lizzie would be awesome to have in the group, might that be, please? Having an opening question is always helpful. Yeah. And I teach the daughters and sons what big questions they want to have answered. I teach the nerdfighter gang sign all the time. Yeah. So I have a thought in my brain, let me show it to you as we wrap. I have a thought in my brain that might make a really great topic to bring Lizzie and a bunch of younger people in, which is this one. So I am actively researching this 2020 market generational tipping point. And I got this really, it's around Greta Tonberg and the climate change protests, the Douglas school kids who are protesting gun ownership and murders. This was all before George Floyd, before coronavirus and all that. This was already a thought in my brain. I'm incredibly interested and we're in an election where there's a way too few number of days between now and election day and a bunch of kids coming into 18 years old at that point and then a generation after that that's going to do interesting things. So I think maybe what we do is pick a topic like this or maybe reshape it so that it makes sense. But let's pick a topic like this and then let's all of us invite younger people into the conversation. Does that make sense? I'd also recommend you invite David Brinn, who has written this prophetic piece and he did it about 10 years ago and he said the turn of the century actually begins 15 to 20 years after the turn of the century. Right. And he went to like you know around 1715 the Napoleonic campaigns and the war of 1812 and then of course World War One and boy it certainly seems he's right now. I mean it's just everything, all the anticipation, all the excitement when we get three zeros or two zeros and then everything goes to hell. Can you find that book or essay or reference? I will send it to you. That's probably going to take me a minute and the call might be over. And Brinn is a friend so can easily invite him. Cool. Any last words? We're going to wrap our call. We've almost gone to ours. I appreciate everybody's patience. This has been magical for me. Any last words in the spirit of where we've just been? I like to think that intellectuals tend to like policy and they think that when they get the policy right the change happens. But in fact there's a huge step between policy and action. And we don't know how to talk about action in this context well enough. You just triggered 12 thoughts in my head which are too many to put in the conversation right now but I agree. Hadi I think you might have the last word. Yeah. So it's good to have the last word. Thank you. I just wanted to say one of my like action items in the next few weeks is going to be I'm going to be building models for a problem which I feel is really important and especially for the context I come from which is how does climate change affect our city and our agriculture and so on and so forth. So I was really in fact I came this far with the intent of finding good tools to work with. And I just want to thank everybody because you've actually given me a whole playlist of tools and I can then experiment with those tools in the workshops which I facilitate and you know and I can also contribute some feedback to your to the you know the comparative study for example if something comes out of that. That sounds fabulous thank you and it gives us lots of things to chew on as we have this conversation down the road. I thank you all. This has been fabulous. See you on the inner tubes. Very I did find the. Oh fabulous thank you and he actually posted it too I think. Let me see what I did. Oh yeah there we go. Yeah he asked the question whether the 21st century began in 2014 and I think you would now argue no but it's an interesting article. Very cool. Thank you. Thanks Peter.