Verbatim

Okay, so I'm wanting to prepare a presentation for the Second Renaissance Research Group about I guess the Reason Commons project and its application to Second Renaissance. I mean that's even an open question of is it just about the Reason Commons vision or is it about the application to Second Renaissance? I feel that could that there are two different talks there. One which is focused on what does Second Renaissance need. You know, particularly second Renaissance research and developing our theory of change, and then how does reason Commons and the logical thinking process apply to that? Or there's a story more about what Reason Commons is up to, and there's like at the end more of like and how does this apply to second Renaissance and why? How did this connect and kind of even grow out of like a discussion originally a second Renaissance? I feel those are quite two quite different talks, or at least. Given we only have let's say half an hour to an hour to present, even if we have interactive stuff, it might even you know an hour and a quarter with if we have like breaks and asking people to try things. And I'm in two minds on this front. I also think what is the story we're trying to tell in Reason Comments? If either way, even if it's like second source lead and then this is what Reason even if we kind of invert you know one model it's like two thirds about Reason Comments one third application to second source. And in the other, it's an inversion of two thousand second Renaissance and the idea and the application, and then a third on Reason Commons. I don't we need both somehow written up as the concepts. I feel that the essence of at least the second Renaissance story is in the main second Renaissance explainer script particularly. we could work on that, but I think it's essentially that, you know, if I start at the top level, it's that we have this movement for civilizational renewal, and that that needs at least probably two things, which is both, on if we're looking at second resource research, we want to develop better hypotheses about how that could happen, even what arguments or theses about why it's needed to communicate to others, you know. to research the details, to question and and improve the overall theory of change, and and the overall just thesis of the kind of why, what, and how of this this change, and that that at the moment a lot of our efforts don't really accumulate. Like there's a lot of discussion on the forum elsewhere. There's kind of repetition. There's a lack of kind of accumulation. etc. There's I think I've written up some of these things actually the previous discussion I could come across and then on the other side there's which is I think there's there's a sense making aspect and then there's a kind of action or collaboration aspect which is it's not really very clear where to participate how the movement how the how the second resource people involved in second resource initiative kind of collaborate and move forward and actually even check how we're moving forward towards what and in And how do we test that or evaluate that in any very rough even sense, assess whether we're making progress towards our goals? And I mean, this even came out of an original question in a sense making series three months ago of like what was our goal of second Renaissance and how do we how do we know if we were moving towards it? And so there is a second point of kind of alignment. So one is of Making sense, leaving a lining on that, and then there's the aligning on action, aligning on thought, aligning on an action, and the you know one and and what we're roughly coming to here is like that. How do we do that? You know, white papers, long essays aren't very amenable to kind of individual suggestions and improvements this kind of accumulation. What would be more like that, and what would also make? You know, rather having like you know like six or seven white papers, you know, two hundred thousand words to digest. Is there something more simpler and more structured, but which allows for this kind of accumulation and then possibly even alignment on action? And that's where we come to this idea of of kind of trees of of you know trees are a way to structure thinking and trees of thoughts and trees of action in in even for that matter that allow us to break kind of break. Things down and then reconfigure them, but in a way where the whole and the part are connected. So we can see how the leaves of action or the leaves of a of a theory, a thesis, kind of relate back to the overall claim or the overall goal that we're trying to work towards. And then the question becomes, well, okay, that's great, but how do you create The trees from the original materials you have, and perhaps more importantly, how does relatively freeform discourse on WhatsApp or on Discord or on the forum actually get connected to this tree in a useful way? Like actually relate it to particular parts of the tree in a in a valuable way, you know, annotate the tree as we say, or show oh you're discussing. Forum. There's this existing, you know, thesis and material about that, and you can go find it. How how does that linking happen in a fairly without a lot of labour, without very labour intensive? Because if there's a lot of labour involved by people or a lot of effort, it won't happen. We need something that's very seamless and almost effortless and fairly integrated for this to work. So that question is then what arises: how we can you can you do that? And so the answer is yes, you can. And the there's this whole practise called the logical thinking process and the theory of constraints built up over you know last fifty years based on kind of complexity theory in many ways came out of industry and management science but really is very relevant here and it's about how do we it has this model of creating these trees and and then using them to organise action or thought and we basically built We started building infrastructure both to explain those ideas and to actually implement them using AI. Because AI is a game changer here, it allows us to both create these trees relatively quickly from existing material, and most importantly to take ongoing discourse on places like the forum and and kind of annotate the tree and connect that discourse to the tree in a useful way that's both enriching the forum but also enriching the tree and improving the tree over time. both the tree of thought, the the the tree of the tree of change we could call it, and the tree of action

so first, play back to me what you're hearing here. Maybe log this to a raw file. Actually, it's so useful. I think what I've been outflowing here, we want just verbatim logged to a raw MD file somewhere. And I think I don't know if I have a draft folder or some kind of committed folder for just raw stuff. But then we want to maybe play back here. First, we want to make a decision on which approach. There, I've been more describing the Secronetos first into Reason Commons approach, which I think is better because it's more directly motivating. But I I don't mind the other way around too, and what you thought of the way I was setting this out.