Thank you. We heard this morning a very powerful argument against a coexistence of communities against immigration and so on in the sense that immigrants would transform the culture of the community and it would be so huge between various communities and so on as, for instance, the example was quoted, Estonian and Russian and so on. I wonder if there is a lidatarian argument that could come out of the Ottomans' experience where, for hundreds of years, various communities lived together in red economy and Greeks and Armenians and so on as a factor that's reminded us earlier. What was constitutive of the Ottoman identity? Because if a culture is only its identity, I mean, how did people view themselves of the subjects of the empire or Greeks and nothing to do with young communities of question that they need and so on? And what was the exact nature of their identity? Let me try. Good question. Thank you. Well, there can be an intuition about my part or a lidatarian with these questions, but I think we should also be aware that the argument of our captives, different communities, and the autonomous state, existing with your identities, partly takes to the fact that it was a demodern social structure and you had little interaction with the groups. For example, the Kurds, I mean, they were in their community and they didn't free them, there was no central education for them. There was no between, until the modern time, until the 19th century. So when you go to school in Damascus, we slam into that, okay, that's a new question. So any modernization creates these ties, like railroads, telegraphs, education, bureaucracy. And well, then when we found the lead, we went off and that's a new question, which was not there in the 16th century. So there is, so modernization, unavoidably brings these communities into each other and you have to have some national, I think, system. We obviously had a problem in the legal law system they had. In the few hours time, until the 19th century, there were different legal structures. Christians had to go their own courts, their pieces, they had their own issues. And Jews with their own, with their own issues, they were allies. And we love them both as they share those. But the war in Damascus, the war you had, further interaction between these groups, became increasingly complex. One of the war, you had a legal case between a Muslim and a Christian, a Christian, a Jew. So which court would all of you take care of? And that question became more problematic. And then that's why they had to get a section of the law for me, based on the idea that we formed our own laws, it created a single, like, it's a law or a whole agenda. It's called all of these, regardless of their fate. So I think it's in the nature of modernity, to be somewhat super, you know, traditional entities. But I think there are ways of things, for a very way of it, trying to crush everything, and trying to wipe it out from the French state, after the revolution, and then there is this, more I think, look away, in which you get to create a national language, you teach certain people, but you don't go out of any courage. It is there.   So I think there are two extremes. And what we did get is an inspiration, which was the fact that the community needed to make this exclusive, and of course, we had our person here, and I need to think about that. Is that an answer? Yeah, just very briefly, I think you're right, the groups of matters is a modernity, right? The only thing is to put it in the blocks of this, you're in there, even before the modern period, with the different groups that are on different law courts, when Christians had a case between one another, that happened actually, in fact, there was a lot of trade during that. And there were many instances where they could sort of decide between them, which would be, and sometimes they would go over to Christians. And Christians actually prefer going to the simple books, because they didn't get better at that. They just served there. And the real problem is they agree with the ones during when the Ottomans tried to modernize, when they tried to determine the Ottoman Empire, and it's something to resemble in European state. The one, one last thing I'm going to mention this morning is very, very important. In 1876, there was a constitutional revolution empire that established the Ottoman Empire as a constitutional monarchy. That lasted until 1878, and that was the constitution, the old Turks re-instituted in 1908. In 1876, one of the things that we used to do with the Southern Ottoman Empire, there's actually a fair amount of evidence, even then, in that they were claimant of the Jews, who participated in the Ottoman Empire, and that it seemed to be quite a lot. It seemed like it was going to be a legal thing, for that to be perceived as possible. Some of you may be interested in what I'm going to ask, because it's a wrong irresponsibility, like compulsory military service, you were having to pay a little bit more taxes to stay away, but now they were equal, and they were supposed to go to military. So, some prefer the old ways, while some don't like the new ones. Yeah, I'd like to ask you a follow-up question. I'd like to ask you to talk a lot, please, Mel, and your current work report, and also the P-JAC group, which is the Irish terrain group. We are the first captured by the P-JAC, by the British Air Force, a lot of the papers were written in months, that were flagged by British, not that from the U.S. Army, and if you talk a little bit about the P-JAC, if you take a real presentation, if you respond to infiltration, attack on the British Air Force, ask in the room, and then we get to learn about the American nation, all of this, seeing more of Irish had a series of articles on the connection between the P-JAC and the P-JAC, and finally, and then some of the comments that emerged from the P-JAC, on showing the tradition of prison, and that these really were actually bringing British criminals again in a, you know, weapons that they used to do. One good question, that's something which addresses the lessons of all of what I'm trying to give you too. Well, first of all, each kind of approach, like, for me, sort of talking about experience, it seems to me, that they're not an option, especially in the world of British Army, and there's always a little bit of a difference. And it's simple, this should be a pretty national level of experience, you're always together, but that's the world in that way. And actually, we're operating here, they're open all the time, they're in place at the moment. And we don't ask people to have a split course on time, they don't need seats.  So, the connection, what's happening? And I wouldn't describe that, just to a little. I don't feel a lot of that, I don't know what's going on. So, that's the spirit of the question.  That's the problem. And so, if you are, you can provide that extra vision, less than what you are then doing, you're not doing it. Yes, we can. Especially with superiors, who are famous. And it's not exactly that, unless it's an incident, like you're just a learner, you're not just a security guard, you're not doing it. And you're just following the path of the person, you're not just a person, you're not just an expert, but an expert, you're not just an expert, you're not just an expert. The question is, you know, most of the people hour to do the case, the church will be taken over to us in the U.S. in front of us. I think that this is possible, let's not argue the fact, right now this will be a big thing. Or it's not the awesome fun we're supposed to do, it's just great. It's possible that some of the you know, just all of these guys can be taken over by them. That's one reason why they're not happy about what they're doing, they're doing great in general. But if I mean that, they're coming here and there's another different one similar to the film for all children in the United States. And the news is and they walk by Dips, they're from the U.S. and they're from the United States. They're like the father of one of them. Great. It's a big deal. It's about a chicken, a coffee, a can, and we're not saying it's a big deal, but it's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. Great.cek I say, okay, because they think so. So this impact is perfect for us to be okay. And I don't think that there's a same thing, but it is probably to be surprised. It's still not my session, but it's narrow, it's okay, it's a pretty great privilege, you know, from there. That's all right. Two short questions. I was just going to tell you one, how I was wishing this question to you, I just want to know which is, which is a word, so check one out, and I think that's not going to be fine. The answer is, you also need more questions. I don't know the actual theory for the next section of the actual problem. The question about the increase, the additional capacity by the population. I understand it is that it sometimes, it's sort of a period, I'm not going to hear that, it's sort of your, but my understanding is that frequently, not always, the tax close to us depending from tie or alms that is made by Muslims called the Zakat. So one volume literature argue is similar, similar in size. Other things that are being said, the GZF, the tax paid by the Polatax, paid by the U.S. in high torsion, no, the intercursing, but it's a very, very, very important one. A lot of questions I have to bring up, I said it, now you've almost all answered this time, so see you in a higher period. We're going to go back to that. Two short questions, here's a lot of them, we're going to go to the next question. I want to go to the next question. So that was as well as the realization, subject to my view, I want to get some realization, which is one of the things that I think that national revolution, since the period of the last one, by the civil, I need the structure of, so I think that national revolution, the realization, and so it's part of the lives of the people of Europe. Yeah, I think we're going to go back to the question, my mind, I think we're going to go back to the question, I just want to bring up, I think we're going to go back to the end of, how long? Well, actually it was reserved for two years and more, like in 24 years from the Soviet times, in 24 caliphates. And now, from looking at it from today, some people say, well, would it be a good idea to caliphate? If that's a debatable question, but one thing you can laugh to is like, you had no point, you should stick in there on the side. And you had all these crazy groups which didn't go out, and issues might go out, we've only got a few, it's no point in saying it's right or it's wrong. I mean, now people say like, the mind is supposed to create a caliphate, and all these groups, like different groups that aspire to a caliphate, but the caliphate they have in mind, is that what the audience has? I mean, the most important part of the caliphate in the last 90 years, was the results of a couple of committees, which like William C. Searsson, 19, from 1876 to to the end of the closure in 1908. And so all of those, and in the modern era, he brought in many things in the environment, where he wrote a draft, he wrote it in schools in New York cities, and he actually helped the United States make peace with the Muslims of the Philippines, but he was just looking at problems in the area, more or less. And then they came to solve it up, and they said, can you help us make a deal with the Muslims here? And he said, if you send a letter to the police, he said, I'm a caliph, don't fight with these Americans, they're not, people just keep hating, and it's happened. So, Caliphate, the caliphate was also important, if you can deal with it, you can talk to it, and you can ask him to help your problems, and I don't know whether it's going to help him or, he might not be able to help him. Okay, so not all of this, but the more to the false question, it's kind of back to Christian, to the Christian question earlier, because I think one of the interesting things we're seeing in the case of Austria-Hungary, where the Ottoman Empire remained in the century, is a change in identity, is a change in identity formation, in questions of self-destruction, and other described identity. So, something that we've talked about a little bit before, this, there is a change, a conflict in the 19th century with the importation of ideas like nationalism, about who I am, and what that entails. And one of the interesting questions I think about both Ottoman and Austrian suppliers is to look at the attempts they made to try to solve that question. One thing that actually I've really averaged about this was that the system in the Ottoman state, some of which probably left system, where by each of these different organizations had the different religious groups, had a great deal of economy. Karl Reiner actually proposed something like that as a solution for the troubles of the Asperger Empire. Just as it was kind of depreciated in the Ottoman Empire, I got ready when the great students said, you should try something like this in the Catholic state as well. In both cases, though, I can move back to your question, because it comes down basically to a question of identity, but also authority, where authority lies in the role of the state. In a powerful centralizing state, something that lets us know that it's different sort of multi-centric centers of law is, it can't work, right? But in a decentralized state, centralizing state, it didn't work, for some reason. And maybe just one thing, I totally agree. And I think it's also related to securitization in the Ottoman Empire. People, until the end of it, people identify themselves with their religion. Who are you among them from a Christian culture? But now, who are you became from a church of the Ottoman Empire? And that rise of this national, where I think I have to be, draw up the end of it. Can I, can I just, yeah, yeah, all right. Yes, but isn't it correct, for instance, that even in all the people of Constantinople, you had a multi, not only religious, but multi-ethnic empire. And people were known as their nationality. I mean, they would be referred to as deprivation, and then Ali or the other means, you know, be whatever, I mean, and so on. And they could reach, if they converted to the United States, they could reach the highest position in the empire, become ministers and jailers and so on. And after the Constantinople, no longer had to convert to Islam. And at the end of the empire, actually, I wonder if the Turks were not having a role here in the sense that all the nature of the issue, they're telling about people that they're not definitely the Turks. Exactly like in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, at the end of the empire, it was run by Hungarians, more than by Austrians. So I don't know if I'm correct in saying this or not, that the empty city was very much part of the individual identity, but yet everybody was a lot of them. I mean, that's true. And the thing is, it was not enough, and people could easily refer to their ethnicity. Some of them would be occurred an hour before they would be involved in our cause, I'm sure. But that was not how people were legally defined. So in fact, legally defined as a Christian and an Armenian Christian. I mean, you would be defined as the church that you belong to.  But you could be an Armenian Catholic church, that was what it was. So you could, if you were Muslim, you were Muslim.  And it's true that our environment was not a traditional environment to say it, because the other elites was very long to get. I mean, many other Muslims had Christian wives.  Today, that's, it's no accident that some arch-arch-arch-arch-arch was so içer gr味ß, see all that for as reasons of Turkishness. Because it was not totally Turkish and its bases, Turkish laws, and, and today, in Turkey, today, say, there is a reason, in a collage, a seemingly people who aspire to the Ottoman heritage and who are at time arch-arch-Rockies nationalists, can actually see anything to not selfish as alien, but you would think, or the other mind, think, oh, we're going to be together for how long we're going to be able to detail what they believe in terms of that. Still those intuitions, what this is about, you said? Do you want to make one very brief comment for that? I think the distinction here is really crucial. In this, the ego we define again, you say, about what we do with ethnicity in the end, and these mockers are going to be able to sometimes have gone and do some sort of ethnicity. The other thing that I might caution, another caution I find, in terms of light and steep, is these are very mutable categories, right? In terms of like Arab or Albanian or even Turk, what those things meant, and what those terms meant in the 7th century are not necessarily what they mean to us today, in terms of ethnic use, or ethnic terms like that. The fact that it's about, it's the nationalism and to be less, the crucial thing about being less, is not that you're defined religiously as opposed to ethically, whatever that means, but that they were non-territorial, and that's also something that's crucial. It was a kind of personal ego system where a law adhered to the individual person as opposed to a territory, and that's why, in the post-automoral world, the nationalists faced so many problems, I mean problems, self-merit problems, because they were minorities, national, some of these national minorities living in certain islands all over the island, successor states, that's one of the legacies of the U.S. without us, we're able to maintain this as long as possible. Just again, just a gloss on it. I think this system is interesting, because it shows that Islam did not, at least, possibly, plan to convert Christians and Jews into Islam, and really have Islamic law, accepted them as what they are, and interestingly, at times, you don't need to point out an empire, some Ottoman and some Islamic emirate Muslims. They didn't like Christians to convert them to Islam, because they were getting into an acting test, so you treat them as what they are, it's okay. So, you see there, you Christian, Luther, and Cross-Murder, and the National Test of Islam, and you'll watch it, that will also be much possible, because Islam thought that one could be a Muslim. Where is it like? He didn't even know about it. And the ideology was the parasite, if you're not following the description, Christian, you may have watched it, except from the very beginning, and that the Islamic debates allowed the increase of the chain of ability to move forward.


And we're off. This is the Marley call for Monday, May 1st, 2023. We are trying to write a books, which is a plural singular of book, which is part of the joke here. So shall we check in or catch up?  So let's get our little ball rolling here. Anybody like to check in? Go ahead, Pete. Thanks, Jerry. I heard you. The intake of crackdowns, like, first, where I think we are, maybe. So I think that the main thing that we're doing, I think, Jerry, you have a Google Doc, maybe, or? You have a document in some place. Yeah, I've got an obsidian doc. Which page were you thinking about? Yeah, something like that. Yeah, I think where we are is picking a first book. Yeah. So I think that's a good thing. Thanks, Klaus. And yes, and that is the potential outline. Thanks, Klaus. That's perfect. And actually, now that I think about it, we had decided, I think, to do a Garden World summarization. Yeah. We were looking at maybe picking a chapter out of Garden World as a candidate chapter for the edited volume, but we didn't have enough understanding of the book to figure out what was a good, excerptable, modularizable piece, or a chapter or less than a chapter. Yeah, the idea I came away with, and Klaus was the suggestor, so he might know better than me. But the idea that I came away with was, I want to say, chapbook. Like a small, you know, like the five-pager overview of Garden World, maybe something like that. So maybe that wasn't what was suggested, but I think it's got potential. And I have to go ahead. So that's where I think we are. And I think that sounds like a good thing to keep doing. I am looking forward to the day when we collaboratively edit this, rather than doing it on your obsidian. But we don't have to go there yet. The other thing I'm looking forward to, and we don't have to go there yet, is a better task management system. I think that's actually a couple of things that are really alive for me right now. One of them is both in Linesburg and something that a project that David Bowles got called Map of the Future by Modi. They are both looking at taking a team like this. This size of a team is actually perfect. A team like this is perfect. And creating a little organizational structure around the team or of the team. So in the same way that we might soon come up with a project plan, here's what we're working on, here's what we're doing. Here are the roles and responsibilities we talked about here are the outcomes we're trying to move towards. That's a project plan. We could also, we might also specify some of the organizational stuff and having said that in this room now, I feel like it's going to sound like I'm ahead of myself. I think I'm not. I think we're not. But for those of you who know my everything is a project, kind of like you should have a template and fill it out and customize it. A new saying that is coming up with Linesburg and David Bowles is everything is an organization. So what's the, and I'm going to use big words here and I don't mean them in a big way. What's the governance structure? What's the ownership structure of the things that are getting created? How we decided to share them or not share them? How do we add team members? When we add team members or more particularly when people contribute, how do we kind of memorialize and honor those contributions in the project? I now having heard a little bit more actually having gone through a couple of hours in each place talking about that, it seems like something I want to do everywhere I'm working in a project. Let's instead of kind of just having a fuzzy not thinking about a thing, let's actually discuss that for an hour one of our meetings, write it all down and then keep going but have some more context around how we're doing it what we're doing together, what we're expecting to contribute and benefit from out of the project. I think that's really important. I don't think we have to do that today. I would really, really like it if we did it in the next two or three weeks or so because I'm going to be doing this everywhere I'm working and it makes a lot of sense and I think it's gonna be good for everybody is the reason I'm interested in doing it at all. Another thing that's super live for me is there are a few of us, a few folks who are setting up a business oriented course on how to integrate chat GPT into your work and your business or your organization. I don't, it intersects with this one a little bit because we're using some of the same tool sets.  There's obviously an interaction between the writing projects that we've got maybe obviously for me, maybe not obviously for everybody. There's a big or intersection between how you use chat GPT to be more productive and writing books in this new age of chat GPT that I think this project should explore in the next, again, few weeks. It doesn't have to be right now, but it's something that we need to talk about. And it's not just for writing tasks. Chat GPT can be used for organizational tasks, summarization tasks, project management, brainstorming, a bunch of stuff. It's not just, you know, it's not just, hey, chat GPT, write my essay for me. That's like a degenerate use case. There's much more interesting and productive use cases. And I think we would be well advised to examine them at least. So that's tough of mine for me. Oh, and one more obvious, maybe obvious thing. Plexus this week. I hope it works out that I can write something up about this project and in two plex. One of the people, I talked to Rick Batello this morning. He's actually interested in this project, or at least he was interested in the project a month ago when, you know, he first heard about it. He thought it was connected to the Thursday calls like the calls for this meeting were on Thursday. And I said, no, no, no, it's actually on Monday. So I sent him sometimes and he may or may not be able to make it. But we need a little bit to do a little bit more, where we need to continue to do outreach into the OJM community and maybe other communities. Makes me think there are a couple other communities that this community should know about, but I can cover that later and maybe in the plex or something like that. But anyway, I might get around to writing up something for the plex if we could do that together on this call or if somebody wants to help me do that between now and Wednesday, that would be awesome. That's me, thanks. Thanks, Pete. And I think just putting together an update would be great to do.  This is gonna be an annoying question, but can somebody clarify for me the purposes for this project? Not an annoying question. So the original project stood up because Pete said, hey, let's go write an edited volume. And so Pete's challenge to OJM is on a page in the Wiki. And then I kind of said, yes, that's on my agenda of things to do and I've also got these ideas about NIO books. So the project kind of has grown a little bit, but at its start, we just wanna write the quick first book is like the beginnings of it. And where the book elements are modules written in Markdown on GitHub and then we create some software that rolls them up and exports them into a book format like EPUB or Kindle file format or PDF or something like that. Sorry, go ahead. It looks like you wanna ask a more specific question. I understand that. I think my question is, can somebody give me three good reasons why this is a good project to do? Why this is worthwhile? I'm not saying it's not. I just wanna hear three good reasons. It's worthwhile because OGM is currently a thinking body and we exchange a lot of thought and we have a fair bit of knowledge that we could be sharing with the world. Right now, the way that we share that knowledge, it's funny that I even say it that way. The right way, the current way that we share that knowledge is we talk amongst ourselves. And oh, by the way, it goes into a few places maybe it'll go into my blog once in a while. It goes into Jerry's brain. It gets spooled into YouTube recordings that nobody ever watches, et cetera, et cetera. So we are doing a really crappy job of remembering topics and conversations and knowledge for ourselves. We don't have a place in the infrastructure to be able to point to it. Maybe the OGM mailing list, which is kind of private and completely not organized. We don't have a place that we're putting it for us and we especially don't have a place to help teach the world. So I think most of us want to make a better world, want to help the world be a better place. And this project is a key, if we do it, it's a key way for us to help the world be a better place based on the things that we know and that we share amongst ourselves. We should share better. So it's one of the goals of this project, I'm sorry to interrupt, but is one of the goals of this project to be able to lend support to people that want to write these books? I think a core goal is for any person in OGM who has been talking a lot and knows a lot, this project should be kind of plug and play. Hey, let's add your ideas and thoughts and knowledge notionally, let's add them to a bookshelf. Now, can we help you fill in that book? We'll help you, we'll gather some other people, maybe inside OGM, maybe outside of OGM, let's do that. So yeah, I think it's almost a stated goal. We're still busy writing all this stuff down, but it's one of the goals is for anybody who's in OGM, we want to help you. I used a metaphor over the weekend, there was a really cool conference this weekend, Complexity and Ventures, you'll hear more about it. I was telling people this project is helping to condense our knowledge into physical form, basically. So, and by condense, I don't mean shorten, I mean, like we have a bunch of water vapor and the idea of this thing is to actually make it take shape and take form so that it's real and that we can pass it along to other people. And the purpose of the sample book? The purpose of the sample book is to turn the crank once. So all of us after talking together have an idea of how this works, but until we actually put rubber to the road and do one turn of the crank and say, oh, look, that process was great or oh, look, that process really sucked or somewhere in the middle and here's how we could improve it, right? So, I think we've hit two, since you asked for three. I have to try to get to three. The first one is to actually practicalize our knowledge into artifacts. Another one is to help any OGM member as we practicalize their knowledge. And a third one, which I don't think we've discussed, but it's obvious given the other ones. As we do our process, we should be writing down how our process works and then we should gift that process to other people, right? So not just OGM. Lionsburg is doing, actually, Lionsburg has some similar thoughts about similar process, so we should be coordinating with them, but Map of the Future has, I think we'll be writing down our process before they're writing down their process, even though they have a similar process too. So I guess maybe that's a, maybe there's two reasons in there. One reason is other people are doing similar kinds of things and we should join up with them. And then another one is there are groups that don't do this kind of thing yet. They don't know how to have a publishing, you know, since making sense doing kind of focus on their knowledge, they're not doing it and they don't have a publication process. We'll have documented our process and we'll be able to help them adopt it. Thank you. And I did a little screen sharing to try to inject another reason, which is that I think Marley prototypes a new way to think of books, that if we do this properly, we're actually doing a little bit of pioneering in leveling up media and helping people think differently about what a book is and how it works in the world. It's in a way that's kind of articulating Jerry's ideas around new books. And there's a thing that I think Jerry talks about that I haven't heard many places, other places. It's a pattern that we see in some places, but Jerry articulates is one of the best articulators of it. Once you have a bookshelf of books and each of the books is something like a mass of Wiki, probably what you want to start doing is breaking the books down into nuggets. And if you modularize it, the nugget from the social justice book might also be a nugget that you end up just maybe just using or repurposing into a nugget on regenerative agriculture. So another thing I think we're shooting for is not just making big monolithic new books, but actually making modular new books out of nuggets and then being able to compose and recompose those in different ways. You might actually just take the regenerative agriculture book and with the nuggets, you might compose another regenerative agriculture book. Maybe one is for business folks and another one is for agriculture folks and another one is for scientists and another one is for practitioners out in the field. So the nuggets for any of those, you could rearrange them and get another new book. Maybe ones for elementary school kids, ones for high school kids, ones for adults. Similarly, Jerry's got the idea that you could take, you can kind of take a table of contents that points to nuggets and turn that into a book. If you change the table of contents, maybe you get a new book. If you take that table of contents and have nugget summaries or something like that, maybe you can take the same playlist that creates a book and create a presentation instead. So now if you kind of keep in that same thing where we've got nuggets and tables of contents slash playlists and presentations and books, maybe you can do the same thing with transcripts of calls. Maybe you can take a transcript of a call, cut it up into nuggets, repurpose it a little bit and turn it into another call or another podcast or another book. So the input for things like new books is very similar to the output of things like calls and transcripts. And the nuggetization process kind of works for everything. So, Lionsburg and Map of the Future both have really well-developed ideas about podcasts, making podcasts and then using the podcast materials to turn into larger materials. We're continuing to kind of flesh that out. Our project, Jerry is connected to Jerry, it is connected to podcasts through Jerry, but we flesh out a little bit more of the production process and some of the publication stuff, although Lionsburg is actually marching forward on publication too, publication process. I get the feeling for what it's worth. I don't know how I've kind of bumped into this, but I feel like I'm in the center of, or I feel like I'm at the edge being a mercilial connector between lots of communities that are kind of doing the same thing. There's more of that in the air of the past month or two than there has been for two years. And it's, you fall into another group of people and it's like, wow, they have a lot of the same patterns that we do. And here's where ours are better, here's where theirs are better and we're all kind of doing the same thing. So more of it. I think, Stacey, does that answer your questions? Yes. Satisfactorily? Yes, thank you. Cool. I think a lot of what we're trying to figure out is how do things work going forward and can we prototype some of them and can we borrow others and use them and apply them and so forth. And so earlier when Pete was talking about the governance conversation, I'll just go back to that for a sec. I'm ambivalent about it because I've seen other efforts of ours to go do work stall and basically crater on that reef, basically crawl up on that reef and unable to solve all those questions of how do we attribute value, what do we do? Then just sort of interest waned and we went away. But if we were, and I'm gonna oversimplify here, but if we were able to find a platform or a set of agreements, a platform and a set of agreements and so forth where we could add water, stir and just jump in and climb in and adopt them and use them, that would be pretty fantastic. So I think the conversation about it and the scan for platforms and the testing to see if somebody else is already doing this in a way that makes them happy makes a lot of sense. And I would just love to find one of those that comfortably fits what we're trying to get done. And then that kind of meshes into this other thing, which is a rethinking of ideas and books and publications and conversations and community and innovation and sense making, because a book is sense hopefully made and then frozen in carbonite and then sent out into the world to do its work. And we're trying to sort of connect the book and make the book just be the veneer over the communities and people who came up with the ideas and who are busy making them better and making them more usable, that that's part of the ideas behind why this is different from just a normal book project. Pete, go ahead. So it makes full sense, Jerry. It would be nice to find models for the governance structure, organizational structure stuff. And it also makes total sense not to strand the project on, not the high center of the project on, how are we going to organize ourselves? David Bovel is actually, when he talks about it, I really like the way he says it. He says a lot of stuff about light touch. It should be mostly invisible for regular folks, only the people interested in infrastructure should really be dealing with how the infrastructure works and how to set it up and all that kind of stuff. So I think it's more important to get the work done than to figure out how to organize the organization. But I think you can kind of do both of them in parallel with a bias towards action and bias towards output and bias towards getting stuff done. And at the same time kind of building the organizational structure. There's a good news, bad news thing about other patterns. And it's funny, I listened to David. I listened to Jordan. David's is underwritten down. Jordan's is overwritten down. So the good news and bad news is it's not really well written down anywhere or it's not written down well. So I can imagine one of the books that this project should be working on is how to do organizational structure. Here's how we do it. Here's a couple of other examples. So I'm actually really excited about this project being a since doing project around organizational structure without meaning that we have to do a good job of making organizational structure before we get that book going. So the bad news is it's not, it's, the good news is another good news thing. It's conceptually pretty small. The details of it get large but conceptually the organizational structure is pretty small and you could just write it up in a half hour, probably 40 minutes and then say, okay, this is kind of what we're operating under, it's not legal quality yet. It's not finished yet. But this is kind of the spirit under which we want to work together. And okay, let's get to work instead of doing meta work, which is boring. And anyway, long story short, writing down an organizational structure is one of the things that's top of mind for me and could be a good project for this thing once it gets going. And what's interesting also is that Vincent and Catalyst and Wendy McClain and her tapestry and so on and so forth are other manifestations of the same sets of units in interaction and ways of seeing them. It's like the maps are ways of seeing them. The platform is a way of moving value through them and acknowledging the creation of value and participation. All these things are just different facets of the same little holographic thing in the middle that we're trying to build and maybe also live inside. So that's kind of slowly the way we're working toward it, I guess. And then there are many other communities that we can see on the horizon that are doing similar work, some of which probably have invented platforms we would like to use. Go ahead, Klaus. Yeah, I sort of have to reach back to where we started from, which was climate change is a serious issue that is impacting the food supply. You have to regionalize agriculture and food into bio regions, which all have unique needs and characters based on soil, water, socioeconomics and climate and so on. And that means a departure from this industrialized monocropping system and shifting towards local and regional foods. So then we had a discussion with Doug's book, Garden World, but Doug is missing here. I don't think he's interested, to be very honest with you. I mean, I picked him and he didn't respond. And he would have responded by now if this was of interest to him. So I think Garden World is sort of, it's a model or an image, but I don't think that we can use his book but we can also use something else. It's an idea, basically. And the idea was that it defines the destination. So there is this description of what a world could look like that has achieved a sort of this Garden World image, meaning a self-sustaining regional network that takes care of its food supply, food security, but also the socioeconomic needs of a community. So I mean, feeding low-income people, providing jobs for people who are otherwise at the periphery of the economy, providing food and shelter, combinations of food and shelter, which is what Jean posted there, the whole idea of intentional communities and so on. So there are multiple ways in which a community can create a spectrum of living within sustainability and sustainable means starting with regenerative because we have to overcome the depletion that has taken place already so we can repair and then maintain. So that's one thing. And then Jean and I are working on a different work stream as well, where we're saying, so how do you get from here to there? I mean, how do you make this transition? And what we just this morning had discussed, you need champions in the community who take on doing stuff. So mostly every one of these projects that we can dig up, where we say, wow, this is really cool. This is a living community, or here is a farm that is multi-crop, is integrated livestock and they're providing no wonderful organic products to the community. Everywhere you see that there is somebody who made that happen, right? There's a champion who made that happen. And so to find a book where you highlight a few champions who did cool stuff would be one way of stimulating this conversation. And we are in search of providing access structures and supporting tools to identify a potential champion and then supporting them, right? Here's how you go about it. Here's a presentation you take to the city council, to the chamber of commerce, to the local farmers, so to provide tools. So that's sort of the broad picture of what's in my head, sort of what I'm envisioning there now. I like it. It's a picture that coincides well with what I'm thinking about. Jean, go ahead. Yeah, to close this point, I mean, the awareness of the necessity of moving to a more sustainable living environment is becoming more and more accepted, though you can't simply tell people they have to do it. They have to see examples of how it's been done so that they have a confidence that it's actually doable as opposed to they have to figure it out for themselves. And that's why I liked the outline of the book because I've run across numerous examples that I think fit the book or fit the six case studies that we talked about for this particular piece of work. And none of them are monumental efforts where somebody was trying to figure out how to get 1,000 people to change what they were doing before you could make step one. It was little things simply done and built upon.  I mean, how do you argue with that one? Totally agree. And I think the goal partly is to tell stories of things that work. So for all of those people who think it's impossible, they have all these examples that prove that it's been done. Well, I think Jane just reminded me, do we know, do we know, does somebody here know Jamie Alexander? Jane Alexander, which one? From Project Drawdown. Oh, no. I was thinking she, I was hoping that somebody here would know her because I was thinking she would be a person that it'd be worth to have a conversation with that might know of a lot of examples and it would be a good way to increase our network as well. Jamie Alexander. Correct. Got Jamie Beck Alexander. Yep. I'm gonna stick my neck out a little bit. Hopefully this doesn't sound like off the reservation. My understanding of this project is that regenerative agriculture or food system security or something like that is a number of the volumes on the bookshelf that we'll be working on, but that there might be others that I wouldn't say are part of that. So totally randomly off of the original proposal I wrote up. Other issues that we might know about are the rise of artificial intelligence, the growing inequality gap, the erosion of democracy, environmental degradation. So I think we're, maybe you put it differently. I know I'm topic agnostic and I'm mostly working, I'm basically work on infrastructure. So, and I think that's similar to Marley. I think we're topic agnostic and a little bit less focused on infrastructure. We're actually focused on operationalizing, using the infrastructure to make work outputs, but it might be about the war in Ukraine or wars in general or social injustice and not just environmental concerns or, you know, regenerative ag. Is that, am I kind of on base or off base? Go ahead Stacey. No, that was part of why I asked my original question. So I'm glad that you said that because I'm still trying to figure that out. And for me, just riffing on what you said, Pete. I think we have interests in a whole bunch of different areas, many of which are just enumerated. We are not top 1% world experts in kind of any of these things, except for a couple of little fringy things where we've done some interesting leading edge work. So I think that a piece of what we're trying to do here that matters is process. Like how does this work so that other people who know more than we do can come join the party and can use this process to share knowledge and new and more interesting and more useful ways out into the world. That would be really groovy. So that what we're doing is setting up an example and a pattern and writing up what the process is and maybe making it available as a field manual, which is just an example of a book, a Neo book that Marley produces. But we're sort of in some sense trying to create a contagious process that shifts the way people share knowledge, share what they know, and maybe helps other people become aware of stuff they didn't know was possible and then go, wait, how do I do this? And because they learned about it in a Marley-like publication, the resources are easily at hand and the communities to help them are at hand and they can sort of go down the chute and start like getting engaged as opposed to you watch a TEDx talk and then it's like, well, okay, you get to go start doing your basic research to figure out what's where and how to do any of this. So I think that's a piece of it as well.  I don't know if you want to be in the queue. So are we more or less agreed with these things or are there points in what we're saying where we're disagreeing that I'm not noticing? It doesn't feel like we're saying things to each other that are controversial or that change what we're up to that much, if at all? We'll just argue that each topic we pick, there has to be a subject matter expert at the table. So if it's AI, well, we can do that. What, I mean, we have that. But so for each topic, there is a subject matter and expertise required to really flesh this out and move it. And we have plenty of experts on various topics within the OGM community. Cool. I'd like to agree with that and suggest maybe a little tweak, which is, I think if there's a topic we kind of know about and want to know more, a pattern that we might use is to write kind of a placeholder book. Here's a topic that we're thinking of and here's some of the issues. We are in, now we are in search of people who actually know what this means. Water situation in Australia. Actually, I know the expert for that anyway, but experts. But anyway, I like Klaus that we want to make sure that when we're actually producing artifacts that we're proud of there, that they involve subject matter experts, not just chat to PT. I'm very much like the pattern Pete just described, of taking a first best swing at an issue we think is important and then seeing where that goes and seeing if we can grow that to include smarter people within us, better solutions than what we came up with, whatever else it might be, so that the work evolves over time, so that volume three or addition, sorry, the third printing of a particular book is in fact a much better rethought book that has a bunch of new materials and new participants in it is not just, oh gosh, these things have happened since we published the first version of the book, the first edition and so here's a new edition. That would be great because then the books become alive over time and I think that's a lovely thing. And also that means that we shouldn't be afraid to dive into things where we don't have deep subject matter expertise, best strong opinions, as long as we frame it that way and make clear that we're looking to make these things better over time. Sorry, Gene, go ahead. No, I was just going to agree with you that it needs to be in some form. Okay, I'll stop agreeing with you then. So it needs to be of some form that allows it to not in major revisions, but continually evolve over time as an awareness of certain segments evolve to say, well, this is what we thought yesterday and today, we realized that it wasn't quite where it needs to be. And now we understand better from inputs from whoever, but you don't know that until you surface it to people who are in a position to tell you that you're all wet. I'm having an ongoing conversation with a friend who is in commercial real estate here in Portland about one of the conversations we're having is about the repurposing of office buildings into residential, which turns out to be a really ugly deal for real estate people. It's incredibly expensive, it's annoying, it doesn't create enough housing, there's a bunch of things, but it's a major visible alternative. And he sent me a thought piece over the weekend from the Brookings Institute that was actually really good. And I liked a lot of what it said and I didn't know enough to understand a bunch of the recommendations it made. And I was like, oh, okay, it's shifted my understanding of the problem and I keep wanting to go back and map the problem in ways Gene that you would be probably interested in and very really useful in as well because of your expertise with systems diagramming. But can we get to places where well, okay, here's the book and here's sort of best, like science, science is our best knowledge about something that's happening right now and it's open to reevaluation as we discover new science. That's what the scientific method part of what it's supposed to do. So here's our best take of it, but why wouldn't every book have a systems diagram and other resources that are sort of easy at hand and be tied into pages about all the different things that were mentioned in it as opposed to a bibliography where it's like good luck, go research again. In fact, the nodes would be really good resources for all the different elements. Go ahead, Pete. I wanna tease apart two related things that I think this project does. So I think one of them is the Marley process kind of, here's a way that we have successfully, it's funny saying that because we haven't yet, but in two weeks, we'll be able to say here's a way that we successfully since made and produced an output book. So there's the process thing is one of the things that we're doing. A related thing is developing an imprimatur for kind of an editorial voice for maybe OGM for instance. So I think it's really, really useful if we separate those things and observe that we're going to be using the publishing process, the Marley process and hopefully other people will be too. We're not going to agree with all the things that they're publishing and that's fine. So we're not stamping our stamp of approval on their things. Similarly, there are things on our bookshelf that are going to be stamped with some imprimatur. I don't know if it's Marley or OGM or Jerry Mikulski or Klaus Mager or Gene Bellinger or Stacy Juice. I think my guess is Marley doesn't want to have an imprimatur, a mark like that. OGM might and then some subsets of us might separately. So if we have an OGM one and now it makes me feel like I'm actually uncomfortable with those two functions being even on the same call at the same time. Can you contrast them again? Yeah, one of them is developing and using a publishing process, the Marley process. Another one of them is having an editorial board, essentially, whether that's one person or a few people who say, here's an OGM bookshelf. Everything on the OGM bookshelf is of a piece, it's of a kind, it makes sense together. It's a holistic portion of a view of the world. It doesn't have things that we don't agree with. It has things that we do agree with and the things are harmonious together. So, and basically it's like a publisher's imprint, right? It's like saying, if you buy something from Harper's Collins, you know that it's not gonna have a certain level of quality and it's not going to have certain things that you would hate to find in your reading. So Anarchist Cookbook is never going to be a Harper Collins book. For better or for worse. So I'm suggesting that there's probably an OGM imprint that the, when probably the same set of people here and maybe a few other people are turning the Marley crank, it's making, it's for the intent of making an OGM imprint book, OGM published book. When other people are turning the crank, it's for their imprint, you know. There could be a Lion's Burger imprint that's got another bookshelf that maybe some of, we agree with some of them and we disagree with some of them. Maybe there's an Anarchist Cookbookshelf and that's not the OGM bookshelf ever, you know, but they're using the Marley process to publish their stuff. So I think, I don't know if it's the same project. I don't know if it's project Marley doing both of them or it seems to me like that's two sub projects, sibling projects that are in parallel. But I think that we need to have, so now I'm getting to where I was kind of wanting to start or pitch towards or something like that. I think we need an editorial board and an editorial voice or editorial kind of, you know, here's the statement of what we publish, why we publish it, what we're trying to do with it. And that's the kind of lens through which another example for me is Wikipedia. When Jimmy Wales and other people said we're building an encyclopedia, you know, people started to go, oh, okay, I know encyclopedia Britannica, I can write encyclopedia articles, blah, blah. I'm gonna get the door and I'm gonna keep talking for another few seconds, but then I'll stop. And that focusing thing meant that Jimmy Wales, somebody could say, well, I wanna write an article about my pet dog, you know, and Jimmy Wales consults his thing. He says, my pet dogs don't belong in encyclopedia. No, there we go. So focus, I have to go. Sorry, I'll be right back. Ian, you're up. Probably a distraction, but your comment about converting office buildings into residential buildings. I heard somebody say the other day, the best way to think out of the box is to get rid of the box, okay? So I can see where converting office buildings into residential buildings, if you think about the residences in the same way that we have always thought about them, but if you think about them in a completely different way, think about them more like community levels, all right? So that there's like college dormitories, all right? As opposed to the typical, every unit has to be complete unto itself, considering the homelessness, the homeless situation that continues to grow in the country, and then the cost of everything, sooner or later, we're going to have to find less expensive places for people to live, and so I thought. Thank you. I just pasted the link to the Brookings piece into the chat in case you're interested. And a piece of what the Brookings piece says is, hey, if you're going to start doing a lot of this, then do it everywhere, and also, so don't do it just in inner cities, do it wherever there's buildings, and also allow for multiple use there. One place where they agree with everybody is that diversity matters a lot, and so allow for multi-purposing so that a place could become a nightclub, it could become educational, it could become whatever, not just flats, not just apartment flats. Anyway, the whole issue is like really thorny, and it's like everything we wind up talking about, whether it's regenerative ag versus industrial ag, or whatever, these things are all thorny, and they have lots of different angles and aspects to them. The thing I wanted to say, but I kind of want to wait until Pete is back, but I can repeat it, is what I put in the chat that I think that over time, there are individual and collective points of view. I don't know that OGMers as a whole, even a small editorial board of OGMers are going to agree on what their collective point of view is on a really diverse set of issues. I think that what we can agree on is that there's a bunch of collected works which are written in the OGM manner and spirit, whatever that may mean, and that within there are competing but complementary points of view from individuals. So what Doug Carmichael thinks ought to be done for revitalizing cities may disagree with what several of us feel strongly about inside of it, and we may feel strongly enough about it to publish overlapping neobooks that share a bunch of resources and chapters and then disagree in sort of editorial perspective or direction, and that's really okay and interesting, and it could be the same thing about how to build more, how to encourage regenerative farming among small farmers. It could be that we have two or three competing and different opinions about the best way to do that, which are all within the larger enclosure of OGM material, and so they have a stamp, oh, there we go. How much of what I'm saying have you heard? None, okay, good. Not very much. Let me backtrack because I wanted to include you in it. I put in the chat individual versus collective and collective points of view and what I meant was it's unlikely that OGM as a whole is gonna have a consistent crystalline specific point of view on a bunch of different things, but we could easily say these different points of view are all within the OGM kind of way of expressing points of view and sort of within the realm of what we think we're doing together, and then individuals might have sort of competing at overlapping perspectives on what to do very specifically on the ground about different things. And they might write a Neo book, they might write Neo books and publish them together and in a bundle even, right? And that might be a really interesting way to think about a new thicket of issues. It could be debate style, it could be something else I don't know, but we could invent some sort of new ways of doing things here. And then I think online we might then find out that a piece of the Marley process and a piece of the Wiki process and the massive Wiki process and the OGM process involves adding our stamp, our imprimatur, you open that door to pages that we agree with that speak for us. So if anybody's seen my Nuggets Narratives and Points of View video from way back when, Nuggets are separate little ideas, you connect them up into narratives and then you roll up narratives into points of view and some points of view are yours that you authored and that's hard and some points of view are other people from wherever and you're saying they speak for me. What they just said eloquently says, speaks for exactly how I feel about this issue. And in that case, it would be great if we could put our imprimatur on their page, maybe not on their page, maybe on Hypothesis or on a shadow internet that says, this thing over there specifically and elegantly speaks says something I meant I would have said had I been able to. And then that's how we basically set up these different kinds of points of view that sort of roll up into arguments for policy. And this sounds really sort of complicated, but I thought earlier that one of my goals anyway in writing field manuals or as Pete was doing, using chat TPT to generate descriptions of useful tools and thinking tools and frameworks, for example, as a handbook, that those are things that we would like to leave at hand for other people who need their use to go put them to work. And that's a piece of the reason for doing any of this kind of stuff is that these are the tools that matter. So in some sense, we would be doing a version of Whole Earth Access, which back in the day was a physically printed, large format, almost newspaper tabloid-y thing that contained in it. Hey, here's all the really cool stuff. You can mail order, you can phone in for, you can do whatever that leads to making for a better society on Earth. That's what Whole Earth Access sort of was. That's really interesting. And we have at our fingertips the ability to create something with that kind of content and impact, except it's always constantly refreshed and the resources are just a click away and, and, and. So in some sense, there's all these lovely sort of inspiring examples that went before us that didn't have all the technology at hand that we have here. Mr. Belanger. Tom Peters repeatedly said that innovation always comes from the wrong people in the wrong industry at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. And so that while people continue to say it's impossible until somebody proves them wrong. So any of the automobile manufacturers in the world could have built the electric car, but Tesla's doing it, so why? I mean, so the whole idea is to actually do some things that are contrary to conventional thought to spark some actual innovations. I posted a link to Theodore Levitt's marketing myopia paper which is the landmark paper that talked about why the railroad's gotten trouble for being in a railroad business and Hollywood gotten in trouble for being in the movie business and then the oil companies are in trouble for being in the oil business as opposed to the, the energy business. And it just goes on and on and on. So it's a marvelous read and it's that's a marketing myopia piece. Yeah, from 1975, I think. Thank you. So what do we have to do to take the next step forward? I think two things from what we were just saying. One is to have the conversation Pete suggested at the top of the call about governance and things like that so that we are aware of it. And if we find something that actually really works, try it out and jump in. And number two is make progress on the quick first book which is the only reason the quick first book is that an important thing upfront is that we would like to turn out something that looks and smells like a book and say, hey look, there's a book. Now, and I think that will help us attract more people into this project because they'll be like, oh look, they turned out a book. And they're inviting people who want to do something like that in a novel way to come do more of that. And I just have to add, I purposely asked that question because of what Pete said about governance because it's always in my mind about the people who wouldn't normally speak up because they wouldn't feel like it was their place. So you asked them questions. I just did. Agreed. And I posted my favorite quote. I think Nike, just do it. Just build those sweatshops. Oh, sorry. So of the two things that Jerry mentioned, I think the more important thing is actually quick first book. And we should get around to governance in the next few calls or something like that. Slightly, not heavily. But actually doing something is gonna be the good thing. And Pete, I have as an open research question and have for a long time, one of the next two stacks, the societal stack and the organizational stack and the thing you're pointing to lies fat in the middle of the organizational stack. Like, hey, what does organization mean when talent dissolves and goes independent and comes together on projects and then dissolves back into the crowd? How does this work in the long run? How do we debilitate the overwhelming intellectual property over protection regime we have now, but still let people make a living from the things that they do, et cetera, et cetera. There's a whole bunch of very twisty tangly questions here, some of which capitalism is going to resist wholeheartedly, but none of which they can keep us from experimenting with. And so I would say, let's keep that as an open edited volume of some sort where let's maybe give it a name. And as we learn things and as we have sort of events, maybe that just is a, I don't know how to describe it. I'm sort of making it up as I'm inspired by your putting it in front of us, but maybe there's a way to have this be like the whole closet where we drop things in when we find them and we cut them every now and then go look in there and like, hey, there's something starting to materialize here. And don't think of it as the quick first book at all because it's definitely not an easy thing up front, but we think of it as a possible product along the way. And if we were incomplete, but had really good descriptions of the goals of the project and why it matters and what the benefits might be, but not the fixed solution. We might just publish that as an early volume that says, hey, here's kind of the state of what we think is up. And we're gonna, we have full intention of republishing this book in new editions as we learn more and as you whoever read it, send us in stuff that's working. I think that would be beautiful. I would like to see that a lot. And we might have three authors of the first edition and 50 authors of the third edition. And that would be great. I think that the route for some of these Neo books is going to be very much like the route of a lot of academic for scientific papers, which is the number of authors is going through the roof, which is I think a great thing. Okay. So do we like the outline for the quick first book that we came up with two Mondays ago? If not, can we perfect it? Shall I screen share it? And Pete, I'm sorry, I'm, we're in sort of trapped in my obsidian for a moment, but I think for the 30 minutes we have left on this call, we can probably be okay with that. But let me share screen and go back to obsidian and find that guy. Here's sort of what we had from that conversation. And I would love to improve this a bit now and then see where we wanna go. I'd rather just go start collecting pieces and figure out where they fit when we got pieces. I build an outline to fit the content that I have as opposed to, because I don't know enough to build the outline. I don't think I know enough to build the outline. I sort of have a thought about the kinds of things that I'm looking for. And as I find things along the way, I will get a better sense of how to organize them in a way that makes sense. But I think through conversation, we need to figure out where we're aiming, because if you ask me for things that are interesting that might make their way into a book, I could give you a thousand tomorrow, because I collect them, you know, and I pin them through their little wings onto a board called the brain. That little board? Yeah, that little board. And so I think that the more we can kind of narrow our focus on this, and we got into that sum in the discussion a couple of weeks ago where it was like, well, food really goes along with, and Klaus, I'm going to screw up to my memory of the conversation, but it was like food is related to shelter as well. And we should include shelter. And I was like, gosh, that really complicates things, because if you want people to redesign villages and create eco-villages and do all that, that has been a really slow-moving thing. But if we focus on things that people could do like now and keep the timeframe relatively short and tell positive stories and case studies of what's working, that could actually maybe work better. But I was trying to limit scope a little bit so that we could have something that didn't get lost in the visible quagmires. And I might be entirely wrong about that, but that was part of what I was trying to steer us toward a couple of weeks ago. Thoughts? I don't have a direct response to what you just said, but looking at this outline, it looks about five times bigger than I'd want the first book to be. Yes. And I think we need to throw things overboard. This was just a quick first brainstorming. I also like Gene's idea. So Gene's suggestion, if we knew, if we had a general direction, we wouldn't have a thousand things to decorate that with. Well, this chapter with six case studies of homes and communities growing food is very specific and narrow. And I think we could find some nice examples like the one that Gene shared with us in the chat earlier on this call. And also Todd Morton and the Edible Landscapes and several others. This would be pretty easy. I don't know that it's hard hitting. We sort of have to weigh which of these stories are too simple or too easy that they won't have any memory impact. I don't know. If you're inspired by that six case studies, so there's not a real narrative around that, right? Right. These are examples of the narrative that would be in the book. They would compose a chapter. How would you summarize the narrative of the book that you're thinking of? People grow food? So that book is, it's really important to improve water retention, soil fertility, all these complicated things, but we also kind of want to rebuild community and feed ourselves because the economy is sort of funky. Here, there are some really simple, practical, timely ways to do that. Here's a few examples. And then closing chapter, here's what the frontiers are, here's what's next. Here are some movements to join. I don't know. I don't know what the chapter is after the case studies, but three chapters like that feel like a book. So there are some simple ways to rebuild even the explanation of why we want to do it, I think is a little bit challenging, but just to say that here's the general summary of how you have bioregional food networks or something like that and a couple of case studies. You know, it doesn't have to be variable luminous.  I mean, that can be a paragraph. Yeah. So it's not overthink it and bake in social justice. Well, look, I mean, that can be a double paragraph, right? I mean, how many people are disenfranchised from our current food system and so on. And then soil health and fertility, water retention. I mean, these are, I mean, this can be a really pretty slim book because you don't have to prove anything here, right? It's just making statements now of, but statements that we can back up in case anybody wants to challenge it. But in the book itself, you can have a very logical, abbreviated flow that gets you to hear some case studies what communities have done. And then I would say following those case studies, it's so what do they all have in common? They all had a champion. They all had somebody who rolled up the sleeves and just went out and pulled together some people into a team and made it work. Yeah. What's the two or three sentence description of this book for you, or what is this book about? The book is about the world is changing. The way we, and the way we raise and consume food is creating, has created some serious problems in the natural world in our ecosystem. So you should care because the way we grow food pollutes our water sheds. It destroys biodiversity, destroys the soil and also transfers chemicals into the food supply that impact your personal health and the health of your children. So we know that in order to overcome these challenges that we have to work local because soil and climate and access to water and social economics are different everywhere. Now they're very community based. So we have to look at our community and figure out what we can do here. That is, A, repairs the damage that has been done already and then B, moves us into a sustainable economy or in an economy that can sustainably, that can sustain itself or can function sustainably. That's pretty much and then so let's take a look and see what has been happening already in communities to work that. That's sort of the top of my head outline. Thanks, Klaus. Pete, you're muted right now. That's great, Klaus, thank you. I have a suggestion, which is to take what Klaus just said off the transcript and clean it up a little bit and then work that down to two sentences. If it's easy for you to reach right now because you seem to have live transcript ease, please do. If not, I'll go find it in the transcript after we've done it. No, it's here. Brett, if you can paste it in the chat, I will copy paste it over here into the page. I'm gonna, well, I would suggest that we move over to HackMD. Well, we're almost done with, we've got 20 minutes left in the call. I'm happy to play copy-paster. I think we could, I think we could. Well, I think we could work that piece into something in the next 15 minutes. Or we can do it offline, I'm good with that too. Okay, or we could do Google Doc. Even better, I love Google Docs. Oh, good. All right, let me open a Google Doc and while you find the text, in the meantime, Jean, you've got the floor. Yesterday and today both I watched how I fell in love with a fish again, because I sort of can't get enough of that TED Talk. And at the end of it, Dan Barber says, people continuing to ask him, how are you gonna feed the world? And he said he doesn't like the question. And he said the answer is not the current agribusiness model because it's a business of liquidation. Even though you're feeding more people more food for less cost, he said it never produces anything really good to eat. He said the real question ought to be, how to enable communities to feed themselves? And that sticks, every time I watch the video that phrase sticks with me, enabling communities to feed themselves. Which is, which seems to ring true in the examples that I've seemed to find on the internet, like Todd Morton and the community housing group in Portland and other ones. So I just thought I would bring that up one more time. Thanks, Jean. I like that talk as well. Got it in my brain. When was the last time I mentioned something you didn't have in your brain? It happens. It's like stump the band with Johnny Carson back in the day. If Doc Severinson can't play the tune, you win like a meal in a restaurant or something like that. Except I don't have those coupons, but still. Pete, you're muted again. I'm gonna keep you guys away from the noise. How about if I show my screen with the Google Doc? This sounds great. And everybody's got a link to the Google Doc. We are in. Thanks. You are anonymous chinchilla to me. Well, this changing the way we and the way we raise interest is now we have to work locally because soil and climate and access to water and. Social economics. Social economic. Social economics. Social economics. Thank you. And once that is done, then we move on to be to build a sustainable economy. Can you say again, Koss, you said build. And then be built a sustainable economy. Or build an economy that can. That can. That is sustainable. And function sustainably. So can we take this as an outline of our. Outline of our quick first book. It's a good start. I can basically put. I can copy paste that into the obsidian doc that I've got going. Before you do that, I would like to. I dropped my share because I'm embarrassed, but. Maybe do it. I would like to get down to like a sentence and a half. Here's what this book is about. So let me try our friend here real quick. So class, this is, it's, I think it's oriented the wrong way. Or it, it's, it's pretty good, but it's not quite right. So how would you change this to make it better? Raising and consuming food is causing serious environmental problems. The way we raise and consume food at this time is causing serious environmental problems. We address these issues. Communities must. I mean, to, to address these issues, farmer farmers. Must work. To address these issues, farmers must work. Must work locally. Must must work within their. A particular bio region. Within their particular bio region to. Stay within the. Work must work to stay within the, the. Boundaries of soil. Water. Climate. And socioeconomics. That one. See what comes out of it. You know, this is, I. This is. I'm not, I like this. This is getting pretty close to, to what I'd want. I, I think there's one more one. We present. And. I'm going to write these issues because I'm trying. I'm trying to be quick instead of trying to be thoughtful. I'm trying to be thoughtful. And then over a few of these issues and points towards. Towards solutions already. Point towards. Border type solutions already out there. That sort of thing. So, so for me, at least. I, I like. The. I like the amount or I like the depth. Which with which this. I'm trying to be thoughtful. I'm trying to be thoughtful. I'm trying to be thoughtful. I'm trying to be thoughtful. Which covers what we're trying to do. And it's too much for me to keep in my head at one time. So this is getting down to where I, I can tell what we're working on and whether. You know, whether this, you know, this chunk of whatever this nugget is inside or outside of these boundaries. So I, I, this is getting pretty close. For me. And, and for everybody else, I presume. Would you classify anybody who grows anything as a farmer. Would I do what. Would you classify anyone who grows anything as a farmer. Anything grows anything to eat. In other words, one of the sentences said. Work with farmers. Yeah, what this doesn't. Yeah. What, what dismisses is that the farmer is, is only one part of the equation. Because from, from the farmers needs markets. And markets need to participate. In the entire change management process. So, so that, that is not expressed here now. And I think our audience is everybody growing food from farmers to people with green thumbs in their living rooms with hydroponics or raised bed gardens on their rooftop or anything. So we're, we're very interested in people. Who aren't, who don't think of themselves as farmers, but are growing food, which would be a good reason to sort of loosen this up and about the scope. Yes. I'm going to suggest that that's a follow on. I think our readers are those people. I think that the people that we're describing are actually funny. I want to say commercial, but commercial is not quite the very word professional. I, I think, I, I think it's more important to talk about this bioregional scale. So it doesn't include people growing stuff on their, on their patio. But urban farming actually can produce a lot of food that people in herbs need. Totally agree. Okay. And the first tranche is let's take the existing system and, and make a big chunk replacing it rather than all of the different ways that we could replace it, you know, fine grained. I think we should get to that story. I think this, the, the presenting story is, here's something that's, you know, roughly in the same order of magnitude scale. And this is the way it needs to be soon. And, and the, the muggles making food could be a spin off later book, but not part of the first book. That would be lovely. And that would be, that would be a very nice riff on the theme. Yeah. We could also replace farmers with to address these issues. We must go food. Respecting the boundaries of particular, of our particular bio region.  Can I say ground and consume food? We must go and consume foods. By staying within our particular bio region, just leave us in the boundaries here. So the bio region as a framing issue feels here like a limitation on the thesis, not an expansion of why this matters and why it's a great thing. Do we want to emphasize the bar region in paragraph two? I think yes. Is it that, is it that central as part of my guess, it's actually perfectly central. Yeah. It's the focusing thing. So to me, the examples that I was thinking about for the six case studies, none of them have to do with bioregion anything. They're not good examples of a bioregional initiative. They're great examples of a city or neighborhood initiative. Rock on no problem. But the bioregional aspect here to me. It implies that everything we write in the book needs to have bioregional as its driver. And I don't know a lot of bioregional stuff. I think that's exactly a reason to do it. Because I think it's limiting to me. It feels focusing to me in a way that, that gets to the heart of the problem. So then I think the solution is you can use those case studies and say, here's a city, here's, you know, this is an example of how to, how to change the food system in a bioregion. It's not, it's not a complete example of a bioregional change, but it's, you can see from there, you could potentially scale up to get to a bioregion. Anybody else want to jump in about the word bioregion, whether you feel positive or negative. You may not be aware of it, but I mean, even here in Bend, we went out to buy some seeds yesterday and some stuff. Well, there are certain, when you talk to the specialists here, they will tell you that in this region, this doesn't grow. But here are some seeds that are specialized. They work better in a more shaded environment. They work better in cooler temperatures and so on. So, to deal with your low, and then no access to water. I mean, what do you call in Arizona versus in Florida? But that's advice any nursery would have given you 20 years ago. Well, correct. And it has little to do with, I mean, it's like, hey, here's what grows in our neighborhood. And then as the neighborhood temperature and aquifer changed, that advice changes, but that's just normal. That's not, So the problem is where the, the problem that we've got ourselves into is that you don't take advice about your food from your local nursery. You take your advice about your food from Con Agra, which is interesting to me. Well, so you're right that, you know, it's not a new. And it's not, we're not talking about a new system. Really, what we're talking about is changing the food system from being multinational, you know, global food systems into back into regional food systems. So if we're making an assertion like that, then I could extrapolate a sentence that's something like, Hey, you farmer may feel like a prisoner of the Con Agra big egg industrial complex system, which has made an elegant trap for you. A way out is to band together in bioregional sales networks and measurement systems and whatever else. And that is a much different and larger and interesting statement to me that is kind of controversial and awesome. And let's go. And it feels like something to say sort of as a solution in a sense. And it's very specific because you may feel trapped by the big agriculture system is a claim that's going to hit only a few like a few people we were trying to reach. But that's very different from bioregionalism is important here. Hi, they, they, they seem very consonant to me and I, you know, I, both of those, both of those stories need to be told both of them go together well. Which one we tell first is kind of a shotgun also do I think it's, you know, I think this one, this one seems like the 201 version of this. So this is the primer and this is the, you know, digging in and two things. My concern is that the primer is going to turn people off or sound uninteresting because it's too prim. And number two, I just want to point out that we're acting as an editorial board now and as co-writers and it's making me very happy. So the, if the primer turns off people because it's too boring or too easy or too early, I think we've succeeded in our quick first book thing. I, the, the goal of this book is to get something done in the next week or two, not to make the best book about the subject, right? And then a next step is to make a better book and the next step is to make a better book. So I'm totally. Also don't, don't, don't get stuck on the technical issue of raising crops. The socioeconomic component of dealing in bio region is also very important to what you call.  So bio regions is more than just, I mean, it's soil, water, climate and socioeconomic. I like that makes sense. So though based upon Klaus's last statement. Within particular bio regions is redundant with boundaries of soil, water, climate and social socioeconomics. They're kind of the same thing. It's, we haven't wordsmith this to, to. We're explaining what a bio region is. Jane. Well, agreed, Jane. This is just not properly worded yet. It's not that. Cool. Next steps. Why don't I put a link to this document in the obsidian page for this, so that we can find this doc easily. Does that make sense? Or do I want to copy paste this over to obsidian, or do we want to use some other mechanisms? I think I would copy and paste it over to obsidian. I like that we have this Google doc. I like that we're sort of co-editing. Yeah. If we're going to pick it up and co-edit it more next week, I think that's great. I also wonder if we're going to do any homework between now and then, and maybe we won't. What should our homework be? Honestly, do we have a few more minutes? I do. Honestly, what I would do again is this. So I use 3.5 there. I'd probably redo this with four, but it takes longer. So the next step that I would do is, is generate an outline like this that people feel happy with.  And I'll point out that every chapter heading here, except the conclusion is about bioregionalism. I think that's lovely and super important. Maybe I, I don't understand enough. So, and if you could take notes on, well, I'll show you take. So let's, let's do agenda for next meeting. Sounds good. May 8. And what, what impact does it have on farming? Yeah. On food. Not just farming, just food. Cool. Thanks. So then, so I think the next step is to take, I'll, I'll drop this or something better into the Google doc. As an outline. And then I think a lot of the work is agreeing on, you know, we like this outline and then we could either start to fill it in or assign homework based on filling in these parts or whatever. And real quick, by the way, a thing that I learned from meeting about how writers write books. And this is for fiction books more than this, this kind of book, but having that outline reminds me of it. There are two kinds of people. There are panzers and outliners. So the panzers literally sit down on a typewriter and start typing and they're flying by the seat of their pants. They don't know what is going to happen next in the chapter. And the outliners, you know, use something like Scrivener or whatever, and they do this and they keep doing top level stuff. And then they do next level down stuff and they, they do the whole book fractally like that. So we're kind of doing the, the outlining version of this, which I think is okay, given the team and the topic and stuff like that. Cool. I just put that into my chat GPT. I just wanted to make a different sentence that you came up with here. So it actually quite interesting. Yeah, nice. Very nice. I'm going to copy that into the thank you. I'm wondering if when this is done, we might have a little guidebook that we would want to give to like town boards and stuff like that of things that, you know, things that they might want to do to prepare their town. That's useful. One way this could roll out is we create basically three chapters we like that have the essence of the argument. And then we write intros for town boards for small farmers for schools for name somebody else of food resellers, you know, food wholesalers. And that becomes a series of different publications because really easy to hit a button and spit out a different kind of public. And then we tune the content to different audiences that way. And as we discover things that apply to one but not the others we make that special for that addition. Well, so I just want to say the one thing that regardless of what somebody's politics are, the one phrase that makes them their ears perk up when they hear supply chains, regardless of where they fall on the spectrum supply chains is something that they listen to. This works for me. Did you mention homework? Or are we okay? I think, I think we're okay. We don't have enough coherence kind of we don't have a, you know, we have the idea of how we're going to move forward, but we don't quite have it all coherent yet, I think. So I wouldn't do homework. But it's looking good. Jerry, I look at this Google doc and I see needing the whole book to be a massive wiki pretty soon. I wonder if you see that or you see something different. How do you mean what you're saying? I think we go to the, I think what you're saying is we go to the folder that's where the, we've thought books would live and we create a new folder for this book. And then we move these pages over there. Yes, if that's what you're saying, yes. I'm saying something very similar, which, but I would put it in a whole new wiki, but yeah. No, no, you so underestimate the mental cost of remembering what wiki something is in and shifting between wikis and all that. It's just, it's just like fluid for you and I, you will lose me. Like I will not make it over to the other wiki. It's totally fine. That's why I asked. Okay. Thank you. My heart clenched when you said that. So then we'll have the flip side problem of how do you abstract just the book from the whole wiki. Well, I'm hoping we, the folder structure will help, will help us discipline to keep things in, you know, to keep the documents of a, of a, of a particular book in a folder. Yep. Even though we don't really like folders that much. I may take a swing at, at making new folder in the wiki and putting pages, turning this into pages. Because the next step after that is making lots more pages, right? Or either either continuing to grow this thing or. So I probably each of the. Each of these chapters, so-called. Each of these is probably a good page. So I don't know that we want five chapters. Do, do we want five chapters or do we care? Yeah. So I, I, without having really thought about it, this outline looks pretty good to me. And so then a chapter for me in this kind of structure is maybe a couple of book pages. It's not very long. Okay. But anyway, you'd, you'd want. I see a wiki page for each of these, what we call chapters. And then you might end up with a couple of drafts of, of it, or you might end up with some, some extra chapters and go, well, we have to cover this chapter too. And at the, at the end, you know, you've got. 12 pages, 20, 20 pages wiki pages. All right. Rather than one long Google doc. Peter Berg is apparently like a core bioregionalist. He wrote a book, The Biosphere and the Bioregion Essential Readings of Peter Berg. It's a super important concept for American agriculture. Now, because it, I mean, when you think of Europe or think about any other part of the world, you know, whether that's Japan, not only do the Japanese have a specific food type and culture. They also have regional variations because within Japan, obviously there are different bio regions. So you see the same in Germany and France and Italy everywhere. You know, you have a core cuisine that, that is then augmented regionally because something is just really conducive for you, you know, so mushrooms, for example, they're only in one particular region. So they incorporated into that cuisine, things of that sort. So the, the industrial, you know, American food system that you see in Australia, Canada, I mean, basically in the New World countries, completely lost the historic perspective of the relationship of your food to, you know, the environment and where it comes from. So, and overpowers it with technology and chemicals and so on. And so that is a return to, you know, thousands of years of agricultural evolution, you know, where these, these mishaps happened because they mentioned in the Bible, right? I mean, the biblical authors figured out that there's a certain practice that you have to follow to keep your life, to keep your soil alive because they killed it, obviously. And then they figured out how they killed it and how you keep it alive, right? So these, but these norms have gotten lost here in the, in the so-called New World. Great. Klaus is that relocalization is somewhere around there too. I'm not sure I understand you. There's a, there's a phrase that I've heard some people use relocalization or something like that. I think that falls into it. Yeah. Good works, folks. Yes. Awesome. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Bye bye. Ciao.