Just waiting for the recording to start, good. Alright, the recording has started, we're all set, ready to go. Let's take a moment to pray and then we'll get started. May I request somebody to pray for the class and then we will start, please. Who would like to pray? Father in the name of Jesus, we thank You for this gathering. We pray, commit ourselves unto You, and We will help us to learn and be able to put everything we learn into practice. Father, we thank You for how far it brought us as a group throughout the semester. This we ask in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Thank you. Thank you, Felix. Alright, welcome everyone to the class. Thanks for connecting. So today we're going to continue first on this whole aspect on personal preparation, which we started speaking about last week. Let me just share this with you. We covered some of these last week, so we will pick up from where we stopped and put this in the chat. And then we will get into some final comments here. So we were talking about personal preparation for a supernatural life in ministry. So last week we talked about intimacy, our identity, that we must as people who are wanting to be used by God in the supernatural, we need to be in that place of intimacy with God. We need to be established in our personal identity in Christ and not based on identity on the ministry itself. Third, we talked about compassion, being compassionate for people, moving out of compassion for people. A life of holiness, number four, holiness as being committed to walking in holiness and purity before God, walking in dominion and authority that we approach situations and knowing the dominion and authority we have. Now not with a sense of arrogance, but the sense of authority. And these are two different things. Arrogance is being proud and outproud in our own selves. But what we are talking about is having a sense of dominion and authority because of who God is and what he can do through us. It's when we face situations and people come to us with their needs you're not intimidated by the need or the complexity of the situation or the challenge that's before us. We have that sense of dominion and authority and knowing that every demonic work can be destroyed. Every demonic work can be undone as we operate in that. And then we spoke about number six which is growing in the anointing that we continually, you know, keep growing in the anointing that's on our lives. Let me just see where, how far did I cover that? One minute. All right, growing in our anointing and just... I think we've covered till five minutes. Oh, if I walk into dominion and authority, okay. Yeah, so let's pick up from number six then. Yeah, let's look at my notes here. So, growing in the anointing. So, we must, we're picking up for number six. So, we, as we continue to seek God to be used by him and to see the supernatural take place, we personally, in our own selves, right, as instruments, we must seek to grow in the anointing on our lives. So, remember when we said, when we spoke about the anointing?  That's God's presence and power being released through that human vessel. So, we can grow in the anointing that's on our lives. That means we can increasingly express or release more of the presence and the power of the Holy Spirit through our lives, right. That means we are conduits for channels, but the channel can release more, have more of the anointing flowing. So, what are some of the things that will help us grow in the anointing and us being able to release more of God's anointing on our lives. Now, of course, remember there is grace, gift, and power. These three things are aligned, should be aligned in our lives. God's grace upon us is giftings and then the power of God is released through us in alignment to the grace and the gift of God. So, one important thing is to grow in the grace and in the gift or gifts that God has placed on your life, right. So, example, and you know all of us may be graced and gifted differently. So, in whatever grace and gift God's placed on your life, you grow in that, okay. And then the power of God or the anointing of God is really expressed through the grace and the gift in your area. So, example, if a person is, you know, an evangelist, so maybe he spends a lot of his time preaching the gospel. Now, he can grow in his area of grace and gift and is calling as an evangelist, right. But just seeking God more, learning how to, you know, be more open or how to preach the gospel even more effectively. And then it's seeing God, learning how to flow with the Holy Spirit while he's ministering. Maybe in his evangelistic meetings, he can learn how to be more sensitive. He can learn how to step out with the Holy Spirit. So, these are things, his growth, his personal growth in grace and gifting, in his calling. And as you grow in your grace and in your gifting, what will happen? The anointing, more of the power will be able to flow through your life, okay. So, we are like conduits, right. So, we can imagine the conduit meaning like a pipe or something. So, if you make the pipe bigger, you can have more of the flow of those rivers of living water, right. So, that means spiritually growing, you're increasing in the grace and the gift of God on your life. There are things that you and I can do depending on our grace and gift to grow in those areas of grace and gift so that the conduit, the pipe, so to speak, okay, just becomes bigger so that there is more of the flow of those rivers of living water which is the anointing of God flowing through our lives, okay. So, we grow in the anointing of God on our lives but then we make, we do our part, we make, you know, we put our efforts to grow in the grace and the gift so that there can be more growth in the anointing. Example, again, just another example. So, we all know about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, okay. But now, if that gift is neglected, what will happen? It's going to hinder the expression of the Holy Spirit because the expression of the gift is actually a manifestation of the Spirit. It's the flow of the anointing. It's a manifestation of the Spirit. But if I don't express that gift, I'll just leave it to gifts. If I just leave it dormant, what are we doing? We are preventing the manifestation of the Spirit, the expression of the Holy Spirit. But if I can receive learning and training on the gift of the Spirit and I can practice it myself, that means I learned to step out. What happened? I'm doing what I can do when I'm using the word I means all of us. We are doing what we can do personally to sharpen our ability to exercise the gifts. But in the process, these gifts are really manifestations of the Spirit. It is true that it happens as he wills. But I have my part to play in learning how to pick up what he's saying, learning how to express what he is wanting to express. So that's my part that as I work on it, I learn, I step out and practice. I'm making myself more available so that the Holy Spirit can manifest. That is the expression of the anointing taking place through my life, right? So even in the flow of the anointing, we do our part to grow in grace and gift, right? So by receiving training, equipping, practicing, other ways to watch other people, see how they operate, see how they function, and so on. And then you can, that can sharpen us in our grace and gift. And that will eventually result in the growth of the anointing on our lives through the grace of the gift God has given to us. And that brings us to point number seven, which is impartation. So part of growing in the anointing, yes, to receive impartation from people or from other ministers of God. Now this is again a spiritual truth, a spiritual fact. You see it in both the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old Testament we are all familiar with what happened between Moses and Joshua, Moses and the 70 elders, Elijah and Elisha. So we understand that the impartation aspect in the Old Testament, the impartation even happened over time. When we think about Elijah and John the Baptist, the scripture tells us that John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah and they lived at different time periods. They had no physical contact and yet there was, you know, quote-unquote impartation because he came in the spirit and power of Elijah. I'll just come back to that in a few minutes. And then in the New Testament, of course, we see again examples of impartation. We see Timothy receiving through the Apostle Paul, through the laying out of the hand of the elders, Paul tells Timothy, you know, stir up the gift of God which is in you, which was given to you by the laying out the hands of the elders and do not neglect the gift of God. We also see Paul and the believers at Rome in Romans 111.  And then in Romans 15 he says, I want to come to you the fullness or the blessing of the Gospel of Christ. So this whole aspect of impartation is something we see even in the New Testament. But then we must keep in mind that some things about impartation and I'm not teaching fully or explaining fully about impartation but just touch upon the important key things here. First of all, remember that impartation always happens aligned and I may have mentioned this earlier. It happens aligned to God's grace and gift on our lives. Right. So, you know, I can't go and try to get an impartation from somebody who's who's not anointed with the same and not operating the same grace and gift that I'm called. Right. So example, I mean just in the natural, a junior carpenter receives impartation from a senior carpenter. Junior electrician is not going to go to a senior carpenter for impartation. Right. It's aligned. There's a proper alignment. So depending on the grace and the gift that God's given you, you draw from somebody who is operating the similar grace and gift, you receive impartation. Impartation happens through association. That means that there is that life-to-life connection and it's happening through which impartation takes place. Sometimes, impartation can happen in an instant through just the laymen of hands but most often it happens through life-to-life connection that there's a reason God connects that way and then you're receiving through that. And whatever is received through impartation must be developed by the recipient. So even though you know God imparts into our lives through impartation, we have to develop it. That's what Paul wrote to Timothy.  Meaning, look it's been imparted into your life but you have responsibility about that. You can just leave it dormant and it'll not be of any use. It'll not bless anybody. But you stir it up, you exercise it. So that really shows us that impartation doesn't mean suddenly you'll become a super wamp, super minister, super anointed minister.  So impartation is a genuine thing. You see both in the Old and the New Testaments, but you understand how it works. Sometimes people mistakenly think, you know, if I just give money I'll get an impartation. That's not true. In fact, Peter rebuked Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8. He says, you think that the gifts of God could be purchased by money. It doesn't work that way. So it's not about the money you give that that'll get an impartation. And really it's what you're drawing through that person. And you know the interesting thing like I said about Elijah and John the Baptist, they never had any kind of association and yet this was a sovereign work of God, right? That the spirit and part that Elijah walked in was put upon John the Baptist across hundreds of years. And here comes John the Baptist. But what we do see is John the Baptist never worked a miracle. So that means he didn't walk in the same expression or in all the expressions of the anointing that Elijah carried. But there was one aspect that was transferred which was to turn the hearts of the people to the Lord and to prepare a people for the Lord. That's what Elijah did. Mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18. He challenged the prophets of Baal and he said if God is God, serve him otherwise serve Baal. And we see how he prepared the people for God. And that aspect of anointing was transferred to John the Baptist who came in the spirit and power of Elijah to draw the hearts of the people back to God and to prepare them for coming of the Lord. So we learned something that impartation is a sovereign, is also a sovereign work of God. God could transfer anointing across time and generations. And we also learned that impartation doesn't always happen in full measure. That means there's only, there could be certain aspects of the anointing that are transferred, not necessarily everything. That means one person may carry, let's say, for example, if he's carrying five graces on his life, a person who's associated in drawing from that person may receive three of those five graces. So it happens in a measure in part, not necessarily in entirety. So these are things to keep in mind as we talk about impartation. And thank God today we have technology, you know, for me, I believe in, you know, reading and listening. Like, for example, there are many men of God. I've never met these people in person. So there's no chance of them laying hands on me or anything. But through the reading of books or through the listening to their experiences, I try to draw from their lives. And I especially like to go back in time.  Contemporary preachers and ministers, not so much. And I just prefer, you know, drawing from the lives of those men who lived, you know, so for example, like Taylor Osborne, or if you want to develop that healing ministry, you know, listening to somebody like the recordings for Taylor Osborne, reading his books, those those really helped me in the early days. He was a wonderful healing minister. And then, you know, and many of these things are available on YouTube as well. You could draw from their minutes by just watching. Now they have died and gone. These men of God and women of God have died and gone, but you get a chance to listen to the recordings or read their books. And through that, you could receive, you know, things that God has had placed in their lives. So that's just one way.   But through the reading of their books and listening to their messages, and you could draw to some measure you could receive through their lives. But that really helps. But I want to emphasize, at the end of it, you have to personalize it. That means you have to develop what you receive. You have to nurture it and develop it in your life. A few more points here on personal preparation.  Number eight is Srikumar, go ahead. You have a question. Thank you, Pastor. Pastor, I just want to know, like, as you said, even if you hear the messages or read the books, the impartations used to happen. And also you said that, you know, that impartation also happens by laying hands. So is it like laying hands is every time a man of God lay hands upon a person that impartation happens or this happens only when that person intentionally wants to impart something. Like how you said that the Paul was actually telling to the Romans that when he was writing the letters to the Romans, he said that I'm coming to impart the gifts to you. So and is it something which a man of God has intentionally has to impart on the people or is it just if I'm desiring, like as you said that when I'm reading the books, so I receive that impartation. Is it only work based on my desire? Maybe the man of God is maybe like he's not praying for the impartation, but I'm just going and asking him to lay hands upon me and pray. But in my heart, I'm desiring that I should receive something from him. So in that case, whether that whether I receive that impartation. Second question is when the Paul says in the Philippians chapter one word seven, that you are the partaker of my grace. So is this what is the difference between when we say the impartation and the grace and can I receive different graces from different man of God so that I can I can be you know, more sharply used for the kingdom of God. Thank you, Pastor. Thanks a lot. Good, good questions. So about impartation, how does it actually happen? Right. So obviously, just because a man of God lays hands on people impartation is not going to happen. Obviously, because you know, you can maybe we can look at Bible. I'm sure Elijah must have laid hands on so many people. Paul, the apostle, must have laid hands on so many people. Not all of them became apostles. Not all of them, you know, ended up as preachers. So just because a man of God lays hands, then even today, you know, a man of God can maybe lay hands on hundreds of people. And out of that, maybe one or two may even emerge out in the ministry, doing something similar to the man of God. So it's not, you know, so the answer is no, just because a man of God lays hands on people doesn't mean that all of them will receive. So to answer your question, it is really dependent on two things. One, it's about the recipient more than the giver. So for example, when we have a graduation service, and we've been doing, I mean, we didn't do it the last two years, but before that, every year, the day before the graduation, we'll have all our students and we'll all lay hands and prophesy and impart. And whenever I lay hands with people, I say, God, everything that said may give it to this person. So that's my prayer. But does that mean that every student will operate in it? No, because it's not just about me desiring to give everything. It's also about them receiving it. It's also about the grace and the gift that's on their life. You know, if I'm a pastor and they're called to be something else, it's okay that there has to be an alignment of grace and gift. And also they must long for this, you know, whatever they see in my life, if they don't, they're not interested in anything, then it's not going to happen. So I think a lot of it has to do with the desire from the person. You know, so there's got to be this alignment of grace and gift. And there's got to be the desire, the pull. And then they have to subsequently develop it further. And there's an impartation, but they have to flow in it. They have to work on it. So to answer your question, it really, I would say, really depends more on the recipient than the person. And it can happen even through remote ways, which is through listening to the teaching or reading the book. You know, it can happen through that, that God will impart through it into the life of the person. It doesn't always have to happen through the laying on a fence. Okay. So does that address both your questions, Shrikma? Yes, sir. Then the difference between the grace, the partaker of grace, when he says the partaker. Yes, thank you. Yeah. So this is in Philippians 1. And this is actually Philippians 1 verse 7. And then in verse 7, he says, you are all partakers with me of grace. Now, I really have thought about these two verses, you know, in the past, because I did notice, especially the charismatic spiritual circles, these verses were used for fundraising. In what sense?  And so, you know, especially when in the US, living there, these verses would be used a lot by, you know, these charismatic, spiritual preachers to raise funds. So you give to us, you partner with us in the gospel, and you will partake of the grace that's on our lives.  And so it was used like that. And then I said, look, is this what Paul is saying? And actually, that's not what he is saying. Right? And, you know, they are partners together in the gospel. They're all serving together in the gospel. But then in verse 7, he's not saying explicitly, you're all partakers with me of my grace. And I'm ready for the new King James. He says, you're all partakers with me of grace. That means, look, we are all serving in the gospel, and we are all partaking of God's grace on our lives. Right? So just think about that. And you can look at it carefully. Look at it in different versions. So the implication of those verses, verses 5 through 7, is not about, look, Philippians, you are receiving of what's on my life. It's not about that. It's more of, we are all fellowship, we're all joining together. And we are all enjoying God's grace together on our lives. That's the idea. Just think about those verses. Look at it, study it. And so that's what he's saying here, that we are all partakers of God's grace, joining together in the work of the gospel. Now, can I receive from other, so I'm not discrediting the fact that we can receive from the grace and the anointing that's on another person, but I wouldn't use these verses, Philippians 1, 5 through 7, to talk about that. Because really, if you look at it closely, it could be understood that just look, we are all enjoying God's grace together. Is that okay, Shri Kama? Yes, sir. So is there any difference between the impartation and grace then? Impartation, so grace can be understood in general that God is being good to us, His favor. Grace is also understood as divine enablement, empowerment in somebody's life. And in that context, yes. In that context, there can be an enhancement of grace on somebody else's life through impartation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Pastor. Thanks a lot. Yeah. All right, let's take up some other questions here. Rose, so Bethel Church, I would stay away from those kinds of things, Rose, simply because John chapter 3 tells us, ultimately, everything we receive, we receive from God. What is that word exactly? John 3, 34 or John 3, 27. A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. It's ultimately, even in the impartation process, ultimately, we all have to look to God. So even though I may say, I'm going to go to some person and say, please lay hands on me, pray for me, I want to receive the grace that's on your life or the anointing that's on your life. Wonderful. But ultimately, I have to receive it from God.  It's weird. And we shouldn't be doing such things. If it happened in APC Bible College, I'll call those students and tell them don't do it ever again.  Okay. Anyway, all right, let's just look at Charles' question. If a pastor prays for impartation as done and there's a spin don't double up, they'll say, what happens? He talked about it, but said more like, so, yeah, so one is, you know, a pastor may, you know, so let's say he lays hands on 25 people or 30 people or 50 people, whatever. It doesn't mean everybody received an impartation. It doesn't mean everybody received impartation. But for those who did receive, if they don't develop it, it just means that they are like Timothy, they are just leaving it dormant in their lives. And they need to stir up the gift of God that's in their lives. Okay. So the real test of whether somebody has received an impartation is in the manifestation of that grace in their lives.  You know, Elisha took up the mantle, said, where is the Lord God of Elijah and he parted the waters? And he did what Elijah did, you know, and that was evidence that, yeah, here's the junior prophet who stepped into what his, his, his man, the person Elijah had. Okay. Okay. So a Prabhakar's question about the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' garment and she received. Now, the answer is yes. This is an example where the virtue, the power that was in Jesus was imparted to this woman so that there is an impartation. But usually the word impartation is used in the context of transferring anointing or transferring grace for ministry. So that's how the word impartation is used usually. But in this case, it was the anointing flowing into the woman causing her to be healed. So we don't use the word impartation because it's a work of God that's taking place to heal, unlike impartation, which is a transferring of anointing to empower somebody else to do the work of the ministry. So the woman of the issue of blood was healed by touching the hem of the garment of Jesus. We say, look, the anointing flowed into her life. The anointing touched her, you know, so we just use that language. We don't necessarily use the language of impartation because the understanding of impartation is a little different. Is that okay, Prabhakar? All right, say your question, please. Sorry, Pastor. I just wanted to just add that the pastor for Bethel Church, he came out and mentioned that they don't do grave soaking. What they usually just do is those who have gone to be with the Lord, they really, you know, did a lot for the kingdom of God while they were alive. They just go there to kind of draw inspiration, not necessarily soaking anointing. He actually came out on an audio show and actually, what do you call it, discourage that they don't do grave soaking. And then just to also compliment what you mentioned about impartation. Let's also remember that it is the Holy Spirit that is in those who impact. So invariably, like you said, sir, it is not them. It is the Spirit of God, engracing, impacting upon whoever is being impacted. Right? The vessels are just point of contact. You know, the Spirit of God can work directly and he can work indirectly. Just to buttress what you said, sir. That's all I wanted to add. Excellent. Thank you. All right. Let's go back. Yeah. So eight, nine, and ten. What I want to talk about here is these are simple things. As part of our preparation to be used by God, our personal inner wholeness is important. It means inner wholeness refers to our own personal emotional well-being. Right? Because if I personally am not in a place of emotional wholeness, my problems tend to taint the expression of ministry through my life. And sometimes it's just you know, so bad things happen. So example, if a pastor has problems with immorality, right?  And he's ministering. You know, that's a problem. In many ways. One is sometimes, and I'm not saying in every case, you will see all of this. I'm just sharing some things that I've heard and seen. Sometimes in his preaching and teaching, a lot of the connotations will be sexual, you know. And then you're wondering like, why is that coming through? And that's because emotionally his inner person has a problem and it comes out in the preaching and the teaching. Sometimes his areas of problems, addictions become actually areas through which unclean spirits can operate through his life. And the expression of the ministry may look good, but they're actually unclean spirits operating through his life and they affect people. And it takes somebody with spiritual discernment to recognize what is right, what is of the Holy Spirit, what is coming through his areas of weakness, actually unclean spirits operating through his areas of weakness. So he's a genuine minister of God. The Holy Spirit is operating through his life, through his strengths and through things that are areas of consecration to the Lord. The Holy Spirit is operating, but through his areas of impurity, addiction, unclean spirits can exert their influence. And it's hard for us to understand, but then you can see it, you can discern it, and you can see the results of it when it affects people. Okay, so as a minister of God, I have a responsibility for the unseen area of my life, the inner person. People are not going to see it. They only see the outside, right? They see the person on stage or they may see the person whom they're talking to. But if there's no inner wholeness, this can affect. I'll just say example, if a preacher or a minister of God has hate inside him, maybe he hates one other preacher. One is you may, it may come out in the preaching, right? In his preaching and teaching, you'll find that he's, he's criticizing that person. Sometimes they do it openly by name. And sometimes it may be very subtle, but you can say, hey, those things that what he said about this actually coming from a place of hurt. It's coming from a place of hate. There's no love of God in those words and those things he said. You can discern it because he's hating somebody else and he's speaking like this. So it's coming out in his preaching and teaching. And then in his ministry to people, his, that hate can, in many ways, affect people that he's ministering to. For instance, he may be very harsh in dealing with certain kinds of things that are, you know, in his mind, in his emotional days, related to that kind of a pastor or preacher. He'd be very harsh in that, and he can end up hurting people, sometimes abusing people simply because of hate inside him towards somebody else. Now, these are real things which many times just go unnoticed in the Christian world, right? Because everybody's looking at the performance. Everybody's looking at numbers. Everybody's looking at the show. And nobody's like, okay, was discerning like, hey, is that really of the Holy Spirit? Is that really glorifying Jesus Christ? Is that Christ like, you know, people are not pausing to think and ask those questions, you know, and so people are not just discerning. Where is this coming from? Is that from the Holy Spirit? Is it from hate or jealousy or pride or greed or lust, those kinds of things. So basically point number eight is, as ministers, it's important for us to let God work in a wholeness in our own lives so that we don't let those things flow out of us and hurt people.  So the moment I get angry or the moment I do something wrong, I tell God, God, I'm sorry, I denounce it, cleanse it, you know, you're putting it away. But for somebody to continue in that, that's a problem. That's a place of, in a wholeness that's needed to be, that needs to be addressed. Number nine has to do with humility, which is very important, because remember, God gives grace to the humble. God resists the proud, but he gives grace to the humble. So you want more grace to be given to you. What happens? You'll have to become more humble. Right. So the place of humility is the place where you receive grace. And the higher you go up in ministry, the more grace you need to stay there, because it's going to be more challenging you know, takes a lot more. So the higher you go up in ministry, the lower you have to go in humility in order to receive more grace to stay up there. The problem with many of us is, as people, as God begins to elevate us, you know, do more powerful things through our lives, because we forget humility, you know, soon pride comes in and so on. And then what happens? The mighty fall, because we've stepped out of a place where grace can keep us. And the only place grace is available is the place of humility, because God gives grace to the humble. So we have to watch over our lives and that, and nobody can do it for us but ourselves. You know, there may be some people who may come and tell you, hey, you've become so very proud now.  Right. So you have to be careful. We have to be careful. We have to keep a check on our own lives and, you know, always stay humble before God. Okay. Number 10 is that we always have to keep learning and expanding. Okay. We never come to the place where we say, okay, I know everything. Right. No, you and I have to continue to keep learning, keep expanding, you know, keep researching the scripture, studying and say, God, open my eyes. How does that work? You know, how can I, you know, receive more of the prophetic? How can I receive more of the word, the word, the gifts of the spirit? How can I, you know, just there's always that constant learning and expanding, learn from other good ministers of God, learn from other good examples in the ministry. And most importantly, keep learning from the scriptures and keep searching the scripture, studying, meditating, engaging with God. And he continues to expand our understanding, our learning. And through experience, we keep growing. And lastly, I just want to share four simple thoughts here before we wrap up this class. I've already taken another five minutes. As in line with what we've said, want to, you know, encourage us to pursue the supernatural in everyday life. That happens every day. Yeah. Now, many of us, if we are in ministry, if you were pastoring a church or whatever, you know, we sometimes we live from Sunday to Sunday, because the next time you're going to preach is next Sunday. We tend to live from Sunday to Sunday and we only expect miracles on Sundays. But that's not the way to live, right? For us, every day is an opportunity for the supernatural. So in everyday life, so whether it's Sunday or Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday or whatever day of the week it is, we need to be open to pursue God for the supernatural. And in light of that, I want to present these four thoughts. One is expectation.  Don't limit the supernatural only to a certain day or a certain place or a certain time. And for those of us in ministry, our problem is we only limit it to Sunday morning on the stage, on the pulpit kind of thing. That's not right. And for us, our expectation must be God any day, any time. I just want to see the works of God. You know, every time there's a need or ministry of somebody, I want to see the works of God. Right? Charles, I'll come to you just after these few thoughts. Number two is take risks, right? So faith, and you've heard the statement, faith is spelled R-I-S-K. Right? Faith is spelled R-I-S-K. Just another biblical verse or anything just to help us to motivate us. That two step out in faith really is to take a step off, is to take a risk from a natural standpoint, not from a spiritual standpoint, you're on safe ground because you're walking on the Word and you're resting in God. But from a natural standpoint, it may seem like a risk. Here, I'm doing something that's out of here, the normal. I'm stepping out of the natural into the spiritual mind. So be willing to take risks, you know, in order to see the supernatural. Sometimes God may tell you to pray for a stranger. Sometimes he may remind you of somebody, but do that. Just willing to take risks. That's like Peter stepping out of the boat. Right? And number three is step up to higher levels. That means, see if you want to see more of the power of God, you know, we need to step up to higher levels. Like if you're comfortable operating here at a certain level, just stretch yourself a little bit more. Okay, let me operate it at something a little higher than what I'm used to be living to step up to higher levels. So practically, maybe you're used to receiving words of knowledge, you know, in a certain way, like maybe you're used to seeing pictures coming up. Wonderful. But what about, and maybe you're used to giving one word? Wonderful. But how about saying, God, I just want to go more. I want to see, I want to not only see a picture, but I want to see more details or God, I want to hear more. I want to hear from the Holy Spirit more, seeing pictures is good, but I want to hear more.  Right.  You know, so in different areas, you say, God, take me to higher levels, stretch me a little bit more. Right. So in everyday life, we constantly do that. We constantly pursue God that way. And number four is, don't give up. Be relentless. You know, so we may not see 100% success every time you pray for the sick person. You may not see miracles happen instantly. It's okay. I'm not going to give up because Jesus said, the works he did, I will do and greater works. So God, I want to keep pressing in and I'm not going to quit. I'm going to be relentless. Nothing is going to stop me. I'm going to keep learning, keep pressing in and I'm going to keep pursuing because Jesus already made that statement. The works he did, we will do and greater works because he's gone to the Father. So you never quit. Don't relent. Don't give up. Don't bank out of this. Keep pursuing. He has spoken it and we're going to make the journey. Okay. Charles, we can take your question or your comment right now. Thanks. Thanks much. I'm inquiring. Okay. I'm following up the statement that expect the supernatural daily, every day. Pastor, what do you have to say about this setting, especially here in Uganda, when they are saying on Thursday, we are going to raise the dead, we are going to make the lame walk, we are going to make the sick healed, bring them, bring them, but on other days they are not doing it. What do you have to say about that? How is it related to expecting the supernatural on a daily basis, not on certain days only? Thank you. So I am guessing that maybe on Thursdays they may be having a special service or a special gathering to pray for such people. So there's nothing wrong with that. It's just maybe it's just a convenient thing that you pick a day when everybody prepares themselves and they come together on that particular day in order to minister to people who are sick and who need healing and who need deliverance. So there's nothing wrong with that.  So I would say do that plus do it every day informally. So that's a formal thing like okay we're having a service where you can bring people in so we can pray for them minister to them. Okay that's a formal thing. It's good, it serves a purpose, it's fine, but on all the other days we can still pray for the sick wherever they are, wherever you get an opportunity, we can still minister to the supernatural. So do both. Thank you Pasta. Okay all right let's take a question from Louis Pasta. In this part of the world the subtle language is one has to be under spiritual covering before one can receive impartation into ministry. That's the concept of spiritual covering has become an issue. What is your thought? Now see one thing in the Christian world is that we keep recycling mistakes over and over again. So this whole thing about spiritual covering was a huge doctrinal error that it really affected the world Christian world back in the 80s I think 80s to 90s and it had its roots earlier to teachers like Watchmen Knee and Witness Lee. So basically what happened was let me look at church history. So there were these predecessors and they these were good men I mean and I'm not saying anything these people are wrong but they had in their teaching these ideas that you know they took spiritual accountability to an extreme. So see it is true that God has placed people in spiritual authority. This is biblical you find it in Paul's writing to the Corinthian church you find it in many places in the episodes that God has placed people to be overseers right. Holy Spirit has placed people as overseers. That means they watch over our spiritual lives. That is true. But what happens if you take that to an extreme where you begin to say that because God has set somebody to watch over your spiritual life. You cannot do anything without their permission or this is the only place you need to be committed or this is the only place you to receive spiritual input. That is a big mistake that is not biblical right because what does the Bible say? He's placed apostles, prophets, bosses, teachers, evangelists to equip the saints. He's placed more than you know he didn't place just one prophet and one apostle and one pastor. No he's placed many and all of them serve to build up the body of Christ. So anyway so what happened back in the 1980s as this whole shepherding movement came out. It was promoted by four or five main Christian leaders who were based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida in those days and they banded together and they came up with this idea called this teaching which later was called as a shepherding movement but they said every person must have a shepherd and you must be under the covering of your shepherd. Well and good you know God does place shepherds but it was interpreted and applied globally to the extent that you could not do anything without a shepherd. Almost to the point like you know people started telling you know calling a lot. So lots of abuse happened with that doctrine and a lot of abuse happened. People were being controlled. People were if you don't have a spiritual leader or you were referred to as a spiritual orphan all kinds of abuse happened. Now this happened in the 80s and 90s and then these four or five men I think I forget the exact number these leaders actually repented of teaching the doctrine publicly and Carisma magazine carried that thing that like these men said look what we have taught is wrong but by that time that doctrine had spread all over the world and had already hurt many people. So that's the shepherding movement but it was a recycling of what was previously you know in some way taught by you know these men watch many and witnessly in their books. So it's actually like a recycling of things. So now here we are about you know 40 years later and the church is recycling that whole thing again in so many parts of the Christian world but now it is coming on in a different form saying you know you have to be under a spiritual covering to receive impartation you have to receive yeah see there is genuine there are genuine pastors or shepherds they're not controllers of God's people they're shepherds they're there to guide that they're to protect the care to care they're not there to control they're not there to abuse right and God has placed many shepherds or many pastors or many preachers or many prophets or many apostles it's not just one so you'd be unmeant to receive from all of them right so personally and I've given a long talk on this but just to quickly answer your question Louis to force somebody to come on the quote unquote your spiritual covering in order to receive your impartation it's not biblical it cannot be backed by scripture and maybe just have to go back to that earlier verse in John 327 I think who was it saying was mentioning right ultimately everything comes from God and man is only a channel so in many ways we are repeating mistakes made by the church in previous years and we should avoid it yes it is true that you know we all of us are planted in a local church we thrive there until we you know move to another place but we cannot be controlled by any person is that okay okay so people wrap up with this I will put out whatever notes on this and put a simple assessment for you to do you can take time to work through it and continue in your journey seeking God to work through you supernaturally uh Charles says we don't feel like ending may not Charles there's there's there's a lot we can learn and we will continue meeting next semester learning new things okay and growing together in the things of God okay if there are no more questions bevel rapper thank you pastor for your patience in answering our questions it's really really really really appreciative honestly um you take your time and you're not always in a rush but you always take your time to answer our questions and clear our confusions we're really grateful I am really really grateful for seeing thank you thank you all right Charles is saying I'm coming to Bangalore for graduation welcome Charles welcome all right so let's take a moment to pray and then we will dismiss who would like to close out this class and pray okay okay please pray thank you sir let's pray our father in heaven we thank you for how far you've taken us and where you've brought us to and all that we have learned in the course of time we thank you that we're not the same people that started this course Lord but Lord we have been transformed by the teaching of your word by the equipping of your word thank you Lord for your son who you've used patiently Lord to guide us to teach us to expose us to clarify our our concerns and our confusions thank you for using him alone in our lives to impact upon us the knowledge of your word and the understanding of your word we pray in the name of Jesus that you reward your son abundantly and increase him on all sides and expand his influence for your kingdom we pray that for us who have learned and being under his teaching by the spirit of God that we will take all that we've learned and multiply your word and be a blessing to others and set people from any kind of ignorance to know the truth of your kingdom and all that Lord we have been privileged to walk in we pray that Lord the supernatural will be a lifestyle for each and every one of us that 24-7 even while we sleep will enjoy the supernatural walk and manifest in the supernatural and not just our lives oh Lord manifest in the supernatural Lord we pray that by our own lives many will come you will learn and be inspired to also walk in the supernatural Lord above all let everything we do bring you glory and bring your kingdom here on earth and further your work here on earth thank you everlasting father for in the name of Jesus Christ we have prayed amen amen amen thank you thank you everybody god bless you enjoyed our time together continue strong and i'll see you again soon god bless each of you god bless you all thank you thank you bless you bye now bye everybody god bless thank you thank you everyone thank you god bless bye now


Let me turn on the recording. This is the build OGM call on Tuesday, August 17, 2021. Yes, if you're paying attention to world events, it's hard not to get depressed. I made the mistake of picking up ministry for the future again and making a little more progress. And it's like, oh, man, this is depressing. Yeah. And all he's doing is playing out what happens if we don't meet our pledges, like one set of scenarios, physical, climate, catastrophe-wise, for if the countries who were supposed to pledge to reduce emissions and all that actually don't. And then who has what kind of rights to do what? And on the letter that Jack sent out, was it yesterday or the day before yesterday with all the promises we have been crashed through not followed up on and how even the promises are not anywhere near what needs to be done? And then you go, yeah, I think this may not work. I mean, it's really hard to see where you can master the will for people to, because this is, I mean, we are at a stage right now where you have literally the need to mobilize. And there is nowhere near the understanding and the will to do that. Or the resource or the space. I mean, 2 thirds of Bangladesh lies that pretty much at or just above sea level. How are you going to move those people and where are you going to put them? Yeah, right. There's currently more area under fire in Siberia than there is in the entire rest of the world. You combine all the fires around the world and the one fire in Siberia is larger than the other. And it's in such an unpopulated area, you can't even fight it. I had not heard about that. I'd heard about fires that didn't realize they were that scale. So anybody with a cheerful thing for us? Cheerful? Anyone? Euler? Euler? I'm cheerful. Excellent. Stacey, that's very nice. And Santa Sangre. Oh, I didn't know this movie. Sorry, it's just a fun remembering. That's great. That's great. Thank you. All right. I'll leave these things in. Does anyone want to check in with a build-o-gme sort of thing? Whether, Pete, I don't know where you are with your various projects and how they sort of fit, that might be really interesting. And Klaus, it'd be good to just think about the food project right now and what to do with the call that's coming up today and so forth. So, Pete, do you want to jump in? Yeah, sure. And I also have a question for after-check-ins, which is, what do we want to accomplish this call? EES is still being interesting. It's funny, I've got an email from Jordan saying, so how's that experiment going? And I need to answer him. I've been doing other stuff. But EES is going pretty well, I think. It was interesting. I think it was Kreitzer that started talking about Afghanistan. Mom, actually, maybe it was me posting a link. But we ended up using the general EES channel for a little bit of Afghanistan stuff. And I was reflecting this morning how it was interesting that I or anybody else didn't start a quick EES thing about Afghanistan and not that we have the bench to do that. There's only so much folks can do it. But it is another interesting EES event. When it started going down, I was thinking a lot EES-wise about it. Yeah. The big accomplishment I've got with the EES right now, I think, is an architectural draft for the EES intake system, which is more complicated than I thought. But otherwise, Massive Wiki is still interesting. Bill and I are working a little bit on skins. He's interested in the two-column skin that another column could be for. It'd be for now, basically, probably. So we worked through some of that yesterday. He and I have both got partial mock-ups. Wendy and Bill and I are also, we made it kind of a breakthrough, I think, where one of the things in adopting Massive Wiki is just getting through the clunky parts of the tooling that we've got hacked together, which is fairly easy to do. But kind of impossible for normal folks. Stacey, a skin is also known as a theme. And the way websites work nowadays is you can just change the way they look by the equivalent of turning a knob. But it's a whole set of configuration files that describes how it's going to look. Thank you. And Massive Wiki already has tooling, which turns Massive Wiki into a website. And it's got one starter skin that's not very fancy. And we need more. So another part of adopting Massive Wiki is learning how to Wiki, which the Wiki folks knew in 2003, 2004, 2005. And then it more or less died. So that was C2 Wiki and Meatball Wiki and things like that. And in social text, we did a fair amount of Wiki. So the way I think of a Wiki, there's lots of different ways to think of a Wiki. One of them is that it's a community. Another way is that it's an encyclopedia. Another way is that it's a database or a file cabinet. And to make it simple for people to adopt Massive Wiki, I've kind of had this idea that the first thing that we should teach people is you've got a file cabinet that you're using already. It's Google Drive, or it's Windows Drive, or you've got some files and folders and things like that. We should just kind of lift and shift that modality to Massive Wiki, which is fine. It works well that way. And it reduces one of the unknowns, right? Like, how do you Wiki instead of how do you file in file cabinets? And that's kind of been my operating principle for a while. Let's just teach people the tools and then with a familiar set of actions. And then we can teach them how to do something better than a file cabinet. Wendy tried again to get into Obsidian, and she got stuck on how do I organize my filing cabinet because Obsidian doesn't come with built-in organization. You kind of build it yourself or borrow it from somebody else. And she's like, she got really, really, really stuck on just, Pete, if I do this taxonomy wrong, it's not going to work. It's going to be clunky. And I'm going to end up with yet another file cabinet, of which I already have too many. So she was so stuck that it made me think, Wendy, you're distracting yourself with the construction of the file cabinet. The reason that we have hierarchical organization and concept of folders and things like that, it's because we are used to physicality. We learned how to do information architecture from a library.  You can only arrange something in physical space like that hierarchically, while you could do it a lot of other ways, but it would be worse. But like a Wiki, a hypertext space, a graph with search and with linking and duplication of information, it's super easy to have Wendy and I in conversation are talking about a path through the knowledge space. And today, we take a little diary and we take a tour. This is Pete or Jerry or any of us talking about climate change and carbon sequestration and carbon element and carbon and iron and iron smelting. And that's something that you can't, that bouncing around and linking is something that you don't do in physical space. But in a hypertext space, it's as normal as reading, basically, or as normal as talking, talking through stuff. That's just the way that people work. They work in networks really well. So it energized me to recast or begin to recast, at least, the way that I want to help people learn mass Wiki. And one of them is starting with Wiki as a conversation. Wiki is a story. Wiki is a narration through a space with more than one person. So instead of helping Wendy figure out the best taxonomy that we can that's going to be, like, limited because it's files and folders, I want to have conversations with Wendy and conversations with Bill, and I want Bill to have conversations with Wendy and continue to grow that so that we have real Wiki in motion rather than we're just building a better file folder. So that's the long story short. That's really, really interesting to me. And one of the things I noticed in using Massive and Obsidian was that we rapidly started getting into just a simple folder hierarchy. And it's like, OK, what do we name the folders? And the moment you're in a folder hierarchy, I know from using the brain that you're kind of in a trap. And the brain is now in version 12, I think. When the brain version 7 was coming out, Harlan and I had a WebEx call, and he did a demo of the brain 7. And what he was doing was he was going to make it so that any time you added a new thought to the brain, it would create a new folder in your finder or Explorer, depending on whether you want macOS or Windows. And five minutes in, I said permission to speak freely, sir. He chuckled, and I was like, what are you doing? You're about to take this non-directed graph that I can attach anything to anything.  And the next day, I got a nice email from him that said, hey, thank you for saying what you said. It turns out half the company was trying to tell me what you said, and I wasn't listening. I'm not doing that, don't worry. And then he went back to, effectively, the same brain I've been using for 23 years. It has not really changed since then. But I feel like we headed off a disaster there, partly because, and I think one of the forces there was, he was being tugged by businesses to make the brain look more like the Explorer, more like the finder, which I can totally understand. It's one of the reasons why Prezi, which used to look interesting, got lobotomized into being more like PowerPoint, and recently got real lobotomized to a point where I can no longer use Prezi. So basically, to make it look more like the Office Suite, more like PowerPoint, right? And that's kind of the death knell for interesting things. Then it takes me back to when I first experienced Wikis and the Wiki namespace, which I was screen sharing while you were talking, Pete. I hope that worked for everybody, but for me, the namespace of Wikis is actually really liberating. In that, you just make a new page name, okay, great. If there's not already a page by that name, you are good to go. And like you can cruise and start doing that. You might need to train your community in sort of a layered namespace so that everybody namespages correctly. And that gets complicated really quickly because you start having to remember sort of almost like a file structure nomenclature. That gets a little funky. You can also layer in things like categories, category pages, hashtags, other ways of finding stuff. But the namespace is a really liberating thing. And the brain's namespace within my brain file only is the same kind of liberating. I can just give something a name and I realize that naming matters. So I'm careful about typing properly. I try to eliminate typos and all that kind of stuff. But the brain is, one of the things that makes the brain usable at all is that it's good at search and finding duplicates and all those kind of things. So now because I realized that I've forgotten half the stuff I've put in my brain, when I see a new thing on the web, first I search for it in my brain. And a third of the time I put it in 15 years ago, I just don't know it. And I'm like, awesome, then I improve it. But otherwise I then figure out where to put it, how to add it. And the where to put it is different from using wikis, but not the next step, which is what to link it to, right? So I need to, only because the brain is perfectly happy to have an orphan thought, which means a thought that has no parents. Perfectly happy, the brain won't be upset. I'm upset. So I have as much as I can, I get rid of all orphan thoughts. Everything is hanging from something. Everything has an up and including circular references. Like there's no top to my brain at this point. I playfully did a long time ago when I sort of went from me, which was kind of the top for a while up to, my parents up to whatever and kept going. And then final thought, which is about emergent. And I love that it's emergent events, sense-making and ontologies and topologies and other kinds of large semantic structures. And the feeling I've gotten over and over is that ontologies are really important and the semantic web of what we know is important. And yet every effort I've seen that started to try to build a complete ontology of anything, that winds up being a huge thing and really ungainly. It winds up cutting away a lot of possibility and promise as much as it makes things better, it makes things worse in some ways because you have to make some assumptions about ontologies like that. And in particular, if your ontology doesn't permit a lot of multi-linking the way the brain is happy to do, I can link things up to a lot of different things. So I can create extra rich connectedness like a young baby's brain, this was like very richly connected. And then whatever we don't reinforce and use starts to wither away, right? Similar sort of thing, the brain software doesn't care if I overlink things, but in a strict ontology, I can't do a lot of sort of linking back up. And there's this interesting neighboring sort of conversation about the Linnaean taxonomy of critters and how it's been replaced by cladies. And cladies are kind of an attempt to do a much overlapier way of saying, hey, these are the things that these critters share in common, likely because of their evolutionary path. And I'm an amateur in biology, so I see Mark Antoine furrowing his brow and I would happily learn more about this. But I see that the taxonomy, the Linnaean taxonomy was failing us in ways that are probably sort of reminiscent of what I've said so far. And sorry I said so many things, but it's a really rich topic for me, Pete, because if in starting to use Massif, we need to start thinking again about the folder hierarchy, that's a difficult architectural design. And I'm in favor of not worrying about the large, the ontology in the large and just doing an emergent ontology as you go and letting the space emerge in all these different places as it happens and then entering into community on the different topics so that as these different sort of local ontologies emerge and connect, they're not stupid. They get smarter because you bring in people who actually understand each of those spaces, right? And they help you go, no, no, no, no. The current situation is more like this, do this instead of that. And that's a conversation I don't have enough of because I'm basically a lone ant at the fungus face feeding my own little version of reality by myself. And it's an obscure enough tool that I don't have that conversation going in enough places. I go a little bit farther than local ontologies. I think ontology is a tool but it shouldn't be an overarching organizational construct. And so I'm not even sure you want local ontologies that much except for sense-making, being able to coordinate with each other. And I think what you really want is chunking, naming and linking. You want the wiki functionality and that's kind of the core organizational thing. And I think one of the reasons I love the brain a lot is that it really resonated strongly with the wiki namespace and the linkability and all of that stuff without the burden of wikis and lots of lots and lots of text. And then last little thing as you talked about meatball and some of the early wikis wikipedia kind of ate the whole space. It just took the oxygen out of the room so that other little wikis nascent wiki projects had no audience and they were rare enough for corporate clients and Pete, you experienced this firsthand with social text that it was not enough space to make a go of writing wickily and working wickily at the time and now who knows what's happening? So Mark Antoine, then Stacy, then Klaus. Basic agreement with a lot of what's being said there, not on the clay, because clay they're actually monophyllitic groups, they're very strict trees, more strict than linear to a point. Really? So you had it backwards. It's just that linear was an attempt to understand lineage without the genetic tools. So you do it through traits and so you approximate lineage through traits and it turns out that you can only go so far without the genetic tooling and clades is strict lineage. Now, of course it's a bit more complex because of sometimes mixing and stuff, but nonetheless. Anyway, that's absolutely not the point. The really important point you're talking about, A, I agree totally that forcing your brain into an anthology or a hierarchy is extremely limiting because things exist among many axes of classification and forcing yourself into one is highly limited. Caveat, on the other hand, why people go back to trees all the time is that they give a very easy way, as you said also to do sense making and to say, you know, here's the trees, here's the, and that gives you a clear idea of what's the details, what's the depth first search will give you a first level which is a common basis of understanding. And it allows you to know what are the big categories that we need to share before we get into details and as a communication tool, I think it's fundamental. And it's always the paradox of the more network-y tools is that very soon you get an illegible bulb of wires and nobody knows what's important, what's prominent and how to get to choose paths. And sometimes you don't want to choose paths and you want to explore and you're counting and sharing the video and that's fine. Sometimes you're using Stigmergy and, you know, what's popular, but that's also a trap, I think. But sometimes you want a kind of, here's the overview according to a structure and anthologies basically give you a often pre-negotiated structure. And what is important, I think, is multiple anthologies and multiple ways of classifying things. The multi-trees are interesting and, of course, lattices. As we say, well, you're working on the so-called feature analysis. It's there's, you can cut, you can cut and dice things this way or that way. And then it's the intersection of these multiple ways to classify things that are yield interesting categories. So, yeah, no, I just wanted to go between the trap of wanting to put everything in one hierarchy to roll them off and the value of hierarchies as an initial sense-making device. And it's just, not just actually, there was a post recently by Liam Neal about everybody uses folders because we're so used to containers, to physical containers, like totally agree it's a trap. But on the other hand, God, our brain is made to, we were made to live in trees and understand trees. It's part of our genetic heritage. And it's, I don't want to make them central, but I don't want to dismiss them to this balance. And over. Stacy, over here. Okay. So part of the reason that I'm so cheerful is because this week I spent time actually starting to write because I knew that I wouldn't be able to explain what I want unless I create a sample. So I started writing My Story, which is actually a platform for all the ideas I wanna use. And as I'm hearing Pete talk about Wiki, well, so let me just, so I start writing and it starts with an invitation and I put my imaginary link to the person that offered it. So her name is Cindy. And in my imagination, somebody would be able to click on the link and go to Cindy's website. So it's also a networking thing and a way to lift people up. In essence, it's like Jerry's brain with the story. It's my story. And instead of, so it's all the, it's the Jerry's brain, but it starts with me. It starts with my, so it's a human center. Hypothetically, Stacey's brain.  And that's the way I see the networking happen happens in a meaningful way. Now, for me, because what I'm trying to do, my story is more a healing journey. So it's an inner journey. And what I have to say my opinions are about the universe and the world as I see it working. So in my second paragraph, I mentioned Barry Court. So there's a link to him. There's a link to his work. But I use music in mine. So because I'm also interested in education and the way I would do it, there are breaks for physical things like I have a song. So I pulled, Google made, I had never used Google Docs before, made it very easy for me to pull over a link and put it in, which was very exciting. So I have my song there, which for my program, because it's about healing and something else, you would take a break, get up, you'd be dancing, moving, whatever.  So one document is how my dashboard would look. So like on my dashboard, I have my daily log. I have recipes that come out of it because part of my morning check-in has to do with feeding the body and soul. But everybody would put their own recipe. I have the contacts, which are all the people that I get linked to. And hopefully they will do the same thing and it will link to them. And so it's like an interactive, it's like pages of brains.  But I do want to say one more thing. The muggles that I've talked to are really excited about what I've been doing. They want to play with me. And that goes to mustering the will that Klaus said. I think the way we muster the will is through some sense of play. And that goes to the game show I've been talking about, which I also wrote a page and a half on. So it might be more clear. So I just need to know where to put that and how. And I'm complete. Excellent. And Stacey, like in my wish world, lots of humans would be weaving their stories using whatever tools are amenable to them and sort of interconnecting them to one another the way I think that you're describing, which is lovely. And then it occurs to me that the cult of Rome, the Rome research folks, if Rome were a good collective mind, which I don't think it is quite yet, but if it were, then using Rome for the kind of storytelling you're talking about might in fact weave the larger tapestry where when you link to your song and somebody else said, oh, I like that and linked to it also. And that song became sort of a canonical page inside the community, for example, or a recipe or whatever, that could be really interesting. And again, I don't know if I'm sort of picking on Rome. And then obsidian is kind of Rome-like, although I don't know where that breaks. And so in principle, if using obsidian were easier, then maybe creating your essays in obsidian and making them linky might be an interesting choice as well because Google Docs, while beautiful and easy and super at the multi-user thing, just does not understand namespaces and wiki-like behavior. And that's kind of where it breaks for me is where it falls down. It's like, man, if only they had added some more wickiness to Google Docs, it could be like the system to eat the world, but it's not. Although it is eating the world. Go ahead, Stacy. So just to, so the whole idea or the game that I've been saying is that, like for example, we would need a music library. So it's a way to get individuals like me to add, I guess in the way people add to wiki, I don't know, I'm not really that familiar with how the process goes, but that was the main reason. And the difference would be whatever we create, that belongs to the commons. It's not, it's free. It belongs to us or whoever wants to use it. And I think people would want to come to us. So it's sort of like, if we build it, they will come. Well, and that energy is being eaten right now by Spotify, I think mostly is like, if somebody wants to do playlists, they do playlists on Spotify and many people pay Spotify, they're 10 bucks a month or whatever, I do not. And I just never went to Spotify. I don't really like it, haven't used it. And I think it's mostly proprietary and your information, your collections of songs that you love are then locked away inside Spotify. And good luck to you. And I think what we would like is for, and as far as I'm concerned, those are just playlists. And part of the exciting conversation Hank and I had yesterday is that so many things are just playlists and more things should be just playlists. I like to me PowerPoint presentations should be playlists of pages in a wiki, for example, something I've experimented with before. And I'm happy to go back into that because I love that, how it works and what it does makes a whole ton of sense to me. Let me pause for a second. Anybody with any other comments about what Stacy just said? Okay, Klaus, the floor is yours. Yeah, coming back to the idea of wiki as a pathway or showing pathways, this is, I think, what we actually accomplished with the Gene Ballinger Kumu project here. So when you look at this, can I take the screen for more to explain that? So when I look at how this model has evolved here, you can move this thing around. You can click on individual steps here. Let me just widen this a little bit. And when you see these fad lines and red lines, there is meaning in each of them. And then there are related stories. You can click on substories here that explains the specific subsets of meaning-making. And the entire thing is guided by things like societal needs. And then actually what we have been talking about in this group also is systems value system. How the system value system really governs the entire structure because anything that happens within this structure is dominated by the values that try fit. So there is a collage of session videos that we have here. If you're interested, the conversation here on 190919 is sort of structural because we have had several sessions where we acknowledge the complexity of the conversation. We acknowledge that you have to develop some sort of prioritization within this information. And so it was a somewhat painful conversation with the key programmer. There are a couple of guys and they were just masters at Kumo, right? I mean, they were incredibly gifted because here they also developed several sub-stories where the entire main construct is being used to create a subjugated story. If you go to the start presentation, then it goes into text, which then is amplified by the link here. And so it's really a model worth exploring.  So he uses not the related story to then go with these loops that are explained as such. So that was pushing, acknowledged by Chin and the programmers and there was one guy who was a software expert on logic and continuity. I mean, that was really a pretty impressive group. And I basically provided context. So this one conversation that I was pointing out, you can tell the angst and agony in the programming team, and then Chin basically saying we can't publish this because it's just too crazy. But I think you find in here the logic that Pete was referring to where Vicky has to show some sense of some pathway to meaning making, where you understand how the system is designed. So I would, I mean, it was a gift, right? I mean, he has Chin is the master, the systems thing, putting it into putting his time. I mean, he spent about six months on this thing. The other thing is if you go back to the model, if I am I sharing the screen? No, no. You released it, you can go back and share again. Okay, the one good grief, what did I, let me... Yeah, I found it hard to navigate Kumu like you just got into trouble. Yeah, it really is, but... There we go. When you go down here to issues, you can see the text and the links and conversations that took place to get us to this screen. So you can see a lot of files that I contributed and others, so you can... I mean, it's a really involved conversation, but you see some files here if you're interested in food systems and how they work that provide you a wealth of background information. Klaus, thank you for that. And so I followed, I had had a food systems conversation with Christina Bowen and with Jean and I've seen the rural food systems map back a year and a half, maybe two years ago. And then I visited the link when you put it in the chat recently and I'm looking around and by myself clicking on the Kumu map itself, I was disoriented. I just didn't know what I was doing. Nothing made sense at all. When I see the stories unfold is the only time I understand Kumus is when the like the narrative you just presented, those make sense to me and I'm like good with that. And or of course, when Jean or Christina basically explain and do storytelling using the power tool, that's great. I discovered Jean tried for an hour and a half, two hours to train me how to use Kumu. I discovered I don't speak Kumu. Like my brain doesn't logically create diagrams, anything like he was creating. And I wasn't gonna be able to invest the time to groove new patterns to do that. At least that was my perception at the time. So we kind of gave up there. But also then I see the list of, hey, here's a whole bunch of videos you could go to which is great to have a list right there. I didn't, I don't know that the 19th is like a really good conversation. And so what I kind of want layered on is like an easy way to access your own perspective on this beautiful body of work. Cause I know there's lots of ponies in there. I know there's lots of ponies in there. They're just hard to get to. And I can't link easily directly into, I think one of those stories. So from my perspective, what I said yesterday about nuggets narratives and points of view at a conversation you were in class. But is that I could, I would then happily include my favorite point of view. So my favorite narrative from one of those Kumu stories in as part of my point of view. And I'd be like, hey, and this story over here told using Kumu perfectly represents my point of view about what we need to do to heal the food system and the soil and so forth. So I'm trying to, so I'm looking at all this going, okay, okay, okay, how does it weave together so that in our variety of tools for which we each have personal preferences, we still have a way to express this in a way that makes sense to muggles coming in, right? It needs to look simpler. The dashboard or the point of view, the means for expressing a particular point of view needs to be pretty simple and crisp so that it takes us into Stacy's game design and her set of tools and how that weaves into what other people are doing, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. By no means did I mean to make a pitch for Kumu here. No, it's like it's a magic power tool that really there's lots of ponies in there. I just find it hard to make sense of them myself in a way that other people have trouble landing in the middle of a brain making sense of it. Same thing, same problem, sorry. But the point I was trying to get across is that they figured out how to prioritize the information and link it together to show patterns, right? So they take one topic and then that topic holds true in the story format by linking particular pieces of information that create a story. And so that's what I think we're missing because we have to somehow make sense out of these stories so they become actionable for practitioners like me. I can look at this and say, yeah, that makes sense. I can act on this. Exactly. And you reminded me of one more thing I wanna add before passing it back to Mark Antoine which is that I believe this particular Kumu map includes sort of the old story and the new story of farming which the old story being the recent story of industrial agriculture where you pour chemicals and strange seeds onto the land and then it produces a whole bunch of stuff in monocrops versus soil fertility, crop diversity, cover cropping and a bunch of other principles that create a different system diagram entirely. And one of my worries about Kumu is that the assumptions you make while drawing the first system diagram dramatically affect the story you tell and the points you can make with the system diagram so that if my underlying assumptions were the traditional diagram of how industrial agriculture works then the objective function of that, you know lots of yield of calories off of an anchor of land would pay out if I just poured more fertilizer on it and it would be hard to argue otherwise if that were what I was presenting. So what I like about this particular Kumu story is that I believe it juxtaposes the two stories making an argument for the new story the regenerative agriculture story, which is great but fancy tools use the wrong way can easily lead us down the wrong path. A small side piece, I've only been a juror on one jury in my life. It was a motorcycle accident in San Francisco and a car had cut off a motorcycle on a route that I was accustomed to driving and the driver of the car had an expert witness who showed a diagram of the intersection and then showed pictures of the dense of the apparently it was a BMW motorcycle because you could see the fins of the sideways cylinder on the door, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And he proved that the driver was actually like in lane two instead of further for the right. And in the middle of deliberation I don't know if this is legal or not but I came up with, oh, wait a minute this is that intersection right across from I think Costco where this street, the division, the visit arrow I don't know which one or 11th street or something turns from one way to two way.  So in the middle of deliberations I'm like, hey, the car dude is clearly lying and everybody else is like, yeah, I know that intersection and so we found for the motorcycle guy we didn't have to be impaneled or anything, et cetera. It was a fun story but it was a story for me about how expert data can be incredibly intentionally misleading and so how do we make our way through and sorry for the really long regression there but I was excited to retell that story but how do we make this so that the stories actually can be found to be lies or the old narrative or whatever again in an easy way so that you Klaus and you Stacey can actually use these things. But we will never come to a point where we can fix this thing down, right? This is a adaptive system. So whatever model we build has to have the capacity and the understanding that it's best available information at this point in time subject to revision at any moment, right? But if we don't subscribe to what is best available information and which is circling, right? And we can't move. And so in order to create movement we have to lock down saying, okay this is what we know right now that's best available information. We'll adjust as we go along. We'll just keep iterating our way through this. I agree and hopefully we do that in an open way so that our assumptions can be found and questioned and improved so that our arguments can be improved so that our stories can be borrowed and retold hopefully in a consistent way because they could be borrowed and retold in a completely spun way that reverses the meaning for example, right? Hey, love your story. And I've been telling it over and over again. It's like, I didn't say that. I used to get people who said, hey, saw your issue of the newsletter when I used to write Esther's newsletter and love the latest issue of the newsletter. So I learned to say, oh, what did you like? And half the time it was something I hadn't actually written or meant to say. Like half the time they'd totally misinterpreted or found something in it that I didn't even mean to say or might even actively have disagreed with. Sorry, Mark, I'm trying to go ahead. Fascinating. This is a generic problem in my view. I just like us to go back in the sense that we have specialized tools and we need specialized tools for storytelling of complex issues. And I was very impressed by the CUMU storytelling evolution. And I think that it's obvious that not everybody can master a tool like CUMU because not everybody understands complex systems. On the other hand, we want everybody, I think it should be almost taught in school how to read a CUMU diagram and understand the underlying system dynamics. I don't expect it to all happen. So that means we have to make these things as crystal clear as we can. And certainly CUMU is doing the best job I've seen in that direction. And yeah, but CUMU, because it's a storytelling device, it's a single author. It's a curated view, it's a single author view and it's fine, it's necessary and it's important and we need to be able to mix that with multi-authors so that somebody who doesn't speak CUMU can say, you know what, I think there's an influence loop missing and they won't be necessarily able to say how this influence impacts the whole interaction dynamics because they're not a systems expert or the complex systems dynamic expert. They're able to say, you know, I don't, I expect to see an arrow here. And that is where this dialogue between the storytelling tools and the merging collective intelligence tool I think is absolutely primordial and they both need to exist. And that's why the emphasis is on ecosystem. CUMU needs to speak to the brain, what is it, the bateman, the rate graph and so on and so on. That is why this is so important because we need the storytelling but we need to have the conversation with people who are not expert storytellers for any given tool because yeah, that's an important skill, over. Thank you. And there's lots of really interesting and beautiful storytelling and analytic tools, most of which I would say in my own experience, really need an expert at the helm. And those experts have done a thing and they did it long ago and they're not available for hire to have the conversation again now. I mean, like any Leonard's story of stuff animation with just the simple line drawings is really powerful. It cost them $100,000 plus to actually make and there was an illustration studio graphics house that did it for them. And but it made it had a great effect because it was beautifully done. And line drawings hard to repurpose but it's a storytelling tool, right? Same thing with the RSA animate. I don't know if the Royal Society for the Arts RSA has done a lot of reanimations of graphic illustration of good speeches. So Sir Ken Robinson's speech about his education killing us is a really notable one. And they do a very, very nice job of illustrating them. And then I look at that and I'm like, okay, great. Why is that illustration not available as a vector drawing online that I can actually use and then link to and add links to it? And why is it when there's a drawing of a bank with a bank facade with columns and a pediment and all that kind of stuff why is that not linked to the banking system somehow? So we can sort of dive in and see what Sir Ken might have thought about that particular question and link it then to a conversation elsewhere. And, and, and, and, and. So I'm looking for the tools to be more open and more linky and working with more shared data. And why can't that connect back to a Roan research database and connect back to a Kumu diagram and connect back to me using the brain? And, and at this point I can, I can hold if anything has a permalink, anything with a URL I can actually weave into my context. So that's been pretty good for me for 23 years. But it's not what we're talking about. So Pete, we ate most of our call on the thing you raised which was a beautiful question. I think it's a great conversation. Stacey Hank, do you wanna has this triggered anything for you or? You wanna go first, Hank? I already spoke. Yeah, Stacey, please. No, she was asking if you wanted to go first. Yeah, I, please go first. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Two quick things. Well, something just got validated for me because months ago when I was trying to set up my game I had requested one of the people to do what I want the mapping with the brain. The other one wanted to use Kumo and I wanted him to do it. And he was angry because he thought I was asking that it was double work, but it wasn't. What I was trying to do was set up a situation that they would be inspired to maybe mix it together and that it would work for two different brains because my brain works more like yours, Jerry where this person's brain like I think Pete's brain probably works both ways. But, you know, he could go. Depends which boot module you loaded. I don't even know what that means. But the other thing I wanted to say is I'm glad Klaus mentioned Jane Ballinger because I had forgotten his name but I had listened to his talk on why simulation doesn't work. And I got really excited because it plugged in in my brain where I think I have a piece of the answer because to me, simulation doesn't work because it doesn't account for the emergent adaptation of the participants, whoever's in the ecosystem. So again, the idea of this game that I keep talking about is sort of you, it's sort of plugging in to that emergence and then redesigning as it goes. So I'm complete. Next, Stacy. Thank you for thinking about that. Yeah. As much as I can follow the conversation being a non-tech oriented person but I do know how to use wikis and federated wiki. So got a general idea of what you mean. I think in the world of the models as I belong to on this front, the whole idea of being able to curate conversations and get different authors in some way curated so that people can access the work and know if it's the idea of one person, 10 people, 1,000 people, if the author is an expert or just someone with an opinion. I think that's extremely important. One of the projects I'm working on in my, let's say non-tech world is how can you set up a kind of distributed global innovation lab, a mission lab to deal with the SDGs. How could an organization like open, I guess open global mind isn't an organization but how could organizations that I do belong to which are distributed in the way that open global minds is function as a global distributed mission lab and how could a group of people who enjoy exchanging ideas with each other and maybe co-creating like open global minds could actually focus their attention on co-creating something good approaching a good breakthrough ideas for approaching realization of SDGs as Klaus, for example, is working on with CFS and possibly other people in the call are working on and I think other people in ODM are working on. So this is sort of long around about way of saying I love this conversation because I have lots of questions and I don't have enough answers and I have the feeling that somewhere in this conversation there are answers which could be tried out in societal prototypes. So that's why I like to join this conversation and other ODM calls. And I'm hoping for the time that in my mind in any of your mind something clicks and we say as Klaus is already engaged in something. Yeah, this can be low, it can be low key under the radar but it needs something practiced in practice with a real problem that someone is waiting for an answer and we use open global mind as a way of generating a curated set of answers. And when Jerry said earlier about the conversation we had yesterday together, let me just post one of the summaries I made of that in the chat because I thought yesterday we had come upon something which is in the category of what Jerry has been calling weaving the world which relates to this. So anyway, that's my take on this conversation which I've enjoyed very much. Thank you, Hank. Yeah, and at the start, this is the build ODM call and had I been more organized or gotten a little further ahead in my thinking I would have loved to sort of go back to weaving the world and talk about what you just put in the chat, Hank, because that's my current notion on how to build ODM well is to go do like leading the world as a show to invite communities, people interested parties in to do the weaving around a series of interesting conversations and then to sort of work different layers at the same time the surface layer above the surface layer looking and smelling like a vlog or a podcast under the surface then would be people weaving together the rhizomal networks or the mycelial networks or the fungal networks of nutrient exchange and value creation and all of that as we move forward through these different kinds of issues. And then what would show up as byproducts would be hopefully a bunch of people with different kinds of points of view on the whole work as we move forward and those points of view would be usable and reusable if we do this right. So yeah, so trying to do something like that and trying to simplify the whole thing. Stacey, is that the right video? I used to be a systems thinker that was being resonating for me.  I was just typing that in. I think just, I was looking, I'm trying to turn it off. Yeah, exactly. You need to pause the video. There we go. Things are hard to juggle. And Pete, that's the same one that I found. Ah, yes. Yeah, same link. And I think it is the right one. So we're good. Well, Pete, you've got your hand raised. I have a quick separate topic. In the past week, I've been thinking about federating and working together and stuff like that. And one of the principles for me has become make offers and ask for things. So I might say to Bill, hey Bill, I can offer conversational, conversational interface to your knowledge. Could you help me, you know, X, Y, Z? And thinking about that and thinking about offers and asks that OGM has. I, OGM, in the touchstone of what is OGM, OGM can't really make offers because it's not an organization. So it's a philosophy or, you know, a way of living or something like that until you can make an offer. And then when you can make offers and asks, then you've got an organization. So a lot more thinking behind that, but hopefully it'll develop in the next few weeks. Thanks, Pete. Mark and Tony, you've got to go. We've reached the top of our hour. It's probably a good moment to wrap this call. Klaus, I'll see you in a couple hours. Or in an hour, I think. Yep, one hour. And we'll go forward from there. But thank you again for the collective inquiry. This is lovely.