Google's NotebookLM analysis of this blog

I am having too much fun! I put all the blog posts from this blog into Google's NotebookLM [ https://notebooklm.google.com/ ]. Here is what NotbookLM gave as a  summary:

"James C. March explores a wide range of philosophical and practical topics, arguing that non-violence involves creating options for others and that creativity is a form of responsible non-violence. The author questions the prevailing economic focus on efficiency and profit, particularly in industries like pharmaceuticals, suggesting it often disregards human well-being and democratic values. A central theme is the evolution and propagation of "memes" (ideas and culture) versus "genes" (biological survival), positing that human focus is increasingly on memetic survival through shared knowledge and collective understanding, facilitated by communication technologies like the internet and practices such as the scientific method for evaluating perspectives. The text also reflects on personal experiences, the nature of emotions, the challenge of learning, and the search for a universal philosophy of life grounded in the fundamental principle of survival." 

Not too bad for a summary of 20+ years of blog entries.

I used NotebookLM to create an "Audio Overview", which I published on Spotify [ https://open.spotify.com/episode/43mE3cJ5iYyRDFSBB79yaL ].

I've been trying slightly different versions of the input document, and getting some unexpected results in the corresponding "Audio Overview":

1. The order of the blog entries makes a difference.

I first submitted a document with the blog entries in reverse date entry, most recent blog post first. The audio overview focused too heavily on the recent posts. I reversed the order, putting the posts in date order. This seemed to give a more equal weighting to the posts. Note: The audio overview I published on Spotify is based on the date order posts.

2. How I referenced the blog entries matters.

A few versions ago, I submitted my blog posts without proper reference to each blog post. I didn't label each as written by me, or that all the posts came from the same blog. The resulting audio overview was strangely boring, and it wasn't just because the audio never mentioned my name (referring to the blog posts as "your sources"). In particular, the audio overview never knew the posts were all from the same person. There wasn't as much effort to try and tie the posts together. In retrospect, this makes sense, but it still surprised me.

3. WARNING! The exported XML from Blogger will include drafts of unpublished blog posts. I had to edit these drafts out after they showed up in a podcast, much to my surprise!

Overall, I'm blown away, by the two manufactured voices, and the summarizing of so many diverse blog posts over the past 20 years! Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would see such powerful artificial intelligence in my lifetime!

Ten Disciplines Towards a Shared Reality

When it comes to being human, one of our most successful survival strategies has been to share our experiences, among each other, and over time. Like the game "Civilization" and its cohorts, the history of the human species is shaped by our ability to pass on "memes" from one person to another, from one generation to the next. It is the development of language and other communication technologies (books, radio/television, internet), which has permitted us to see the world from perspectives across individuals over time. This "shared reality" moved us from individual subjective experience to a collective, shared objective experience, and gave us some insight into how to avoid dangers once thought of as beyond our control.

Just like genetic evolution, new ideas must be introduced and tested, and the successful trials must be remembered, embedded into the system, so that they are available in the future. In the genetic world, new ideas are introduced as variations in the DNA of a species. Changes occur frequently, though most do not contribute to higher survival rates, and so may be lost. In the genetic world, the rate of change and adaptation tends to be measured in hundreds of thousands of years, with species (tests that survived), lasting hundreds of millions of years.

By contrast, memetic evolution tends to introduce and test ideas on a much shorter timeline. A new idea (fire, for example) might spread quickly, as quickly as another person might show and another person might learn. In the past 30,000 years, humans have become more and more adept at sharing ideas, from word-of-mouth to writing to radio/television to the internet. We have also become more adept at testing new ideas, moving ideas of an individual into a more generic category of ideas that might be shared and useful to many. The scientific method is one tool we've developed to parse ideas. The economy (choosing with money) and politics (choosing with votes/guns) are two others. Social media "up/down votes" is yet another.

I make my genetic choices through my decision to have children or not, and my choice of partner. There are many sources of advice on the discipline of having children. And we have long recognized our genetic programming to procreate.

Disciplines around memetic propagation are less-well understood and practiced. Here are some disciplines I practice. I hope some day they will become habits, part of my way of being:

1. I do not repeat anything I am told without first being aware of the harm I may be doing.

Passing on memes without awareness robs me of my power to choose, my power to bring my best self into play, my power to define who I am, what I stand for, what I care about.

Yes, that meme may have made me laugh, but at whose expense? Yes, that meme may be very clever, but does it represent the world I want to live in? Yes, that meme may support my anger, my fear, but do I want to stand for anger? For fear?

2. I learn most from memes I don't believe or understand.

What I know is that I don't know everything. That means that learning is the process of figuring out, littered with mistakes. With each new piece of knowledge, there is the pain of being wrong. If I listened to my ego, avoided the pain of being wrong, I would limit my learning. This means I must constantly challenge myself with "wrong" ideas, in a quest to identify and compensate for my ego's need to be right. Collaboration is the agreement that we each are partly right, partly wrong, and our collaboration might lead to both of us learning something.

3. Logic provides consistency, but lacks inter-subjective reality.

As much as I might want to live in my bubble, my reality, I am limited to internal consistency. This means I will be denied reality. I have to communicate with others, share what I think I know, be open and learn what I don't know. Logic is a valuable tool, but it has its own limitations. Perhaps it is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

4. Correlation does not imply causation.

This is so fundamental to understanding the world that it is remarkable that I still see so many people believing in correlation. Unfortunately, others see the belief in correlation as a way to exploit and mislead people. Given enough data (and we have lots of data these days) almost anything can be shown to be correlated with something else. If I smell correlation in an argument, without support for causation, I immediately suspect the intention of the source of the meme.

5. It is my responsibility to make the best choices I can.

Although I am just one person, whose views may be wrong (since I don't know everything), it is still my responsibility to make the best choices I can. One of those choices should always be, talk with someone who might be more knowledgeable than me. I don't have to agree or choose their recommendation. But I should listen and consider their point of view. The world I want, the world I will fight for, demands that each human has a role to play, a contribution, and this is manifested in each individual's choices.

6. It is my responsibility to test the authenticity of any meme. What are its intentions? What were the intentions of the source of the meme?

For example: I don't trust advertising. Someone who has the intention of making money from my purchase may be biased. This demonstrates the power of independent sources. It is also why I don't trust reviews on the internet. How do I know what motivated the person to give that review? Were they paid by the producer? By the competition? Did they actually use the product? Unfortunately, there is more money to be made in writing misleading reviews than there is in writing honest ones. This leads to the economic solution of making reviews untrustworthy. I will ignore reviews (like I ignore advertising) until I find a way to trust the intentions of the reviewer. In some respects, this is the role of the "influencer", who is trusted enough by enough people that their opinion carries weight.

7. Sharing a discussion about a meme helps me evaluate the meme. A second opinion never hurts.

As I've said before, I am biased, my perceptions are biased, and so my conception of reality is biased. First, there is the bias of my particular life experiences, which are unique, valuable, and limited. Second, there is the bias of my ego, my conception of myself, which further processes my experience in such a way as to make me feel good. There is nothing so humbling as me having a discussion with someone else whose ego is as big as mine. 

8. I must be vigilant against memes that support my views. My ego will overestimate (bias) the value of these memes.

This is another way of warning against the feel-good my ego generates from the self-validation I get from agreement. 

9. I don't pass on memes without putting my perspective into the mix. That means no cut and paste. If the meme is worth repeating, it's worth seeing from my point of view.

Making me stop and think when I'm about to cut and paste is always a good thing. But more importantly is my self worth, the value of my experience, my opinion. Humility (the result of interacting with others and finding out I was wrong) drives me to reduce my voice, reduce my confidence in my own experience. Putting the effort into writing something in my own words, based on my own experience, helps me believe my point of view has merit. Of course, I have to watch out for my ego, too :-) 

10. I encourage others to be more disciplined about accepting and passing on memes. This takes effort, diplomacy, and compassion. 

Finally, any discipline worth practicing is worth sharing. Disciplines are memes, too. If they are not shared, they will die out (or have to be rediscovered).

Disciplines are hard. If I already did these things automatically, I wouldn't have to learn them. Disciplines tend to be in response to unwanted automatic (often genetic) responses. Whether the discipline is in reaction to a learned habit or a genetic response, the discipline will be hard work, at first. Fortunately, repeated practice turns most disciplines into a habits.

I practice these ten disciplines as my commitment to our shared reality, a world where we collaborate, share ideas, and work together to overcome challenges to our survival. These are good things. It's a big part of what has gotten us here, today. We haven't gotten here without making mistakes. We'll make more. It's how we learn. But the alternative is a world where mystery dominates.

May your disciplines become habits! And may your subjective reality be augmented to include memes from other people's realities, for your survival, for the survival of the human species, and the planet.

Consumers Unite!

Tired of being the guinea pig of targeted marketing? Is your digital feed being overrun with advertisements? Are you worried about your privacy, and what the cloud knows about you? [I just read about the Apple Siri settlement.] Now YOU can do something about it! First, a little background...

Advertising is not new. It's been around at least as long as recorded history [for a history of advertising, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_advertising ]. But with the growing consumer market of the late 1800's, and the widespread use of printed matter for communication, advertising became a way to reach consumers on a mass marketing scale at a relatively low price. Mass media moved to radio, then television, and now internet. Advertising moved with it.

Now, in the age of connection, advertising is at the bleeding edge of research and development that targets consumers based on their behavior through the internet. Is this a good thing? I wrestle with several concerns.

1. Do I feel comfortable with the idea that someone/something is watching me, evaluating me, with the intent to sell me something based on who they/it thinks I am?

2. Should I be concerned about all the data that is being collected about me, building a file on me, that I don't even know about and cannot view or contest?

3. How do I feel about having a model, like AI, deciding what sort of person I am and selling that information to the highest bidder?

As for the first concern, I have to remind myself that I have lived my entire life in the shadow of various people watching me, beginning with my parents, then teachers, then employers and neighbors and acquaintances. In fact, my social behavior is watched by all those around me, and people draw conclusions about who I am. In some ways, social behavior supports trust, which allows me to live in relative peace and harmony with my neighbors and fellow human beings. To that extent, I accept that being observed helps build trust. But what about using that information with the intent to sell me something?

This leads me to a concern, in general, about AI. What if models (including AI) are more complicated than I can understand? How will I ever be able to tell if the intent of the model aligns with my preferred choices, whether those choices are economic, political, or social? How do I support what I believe in, and refuse support for that which I don't?

This is not a new dilemma, just a more complicated one. For example, I often question the intent of reduced choices suggested by institutions like family, government, education, economy, and religion.

My second concern (collecting data, building a file, which is perhaps unknown and unavailable for view and/or challenge) is also not new. For example, people are always building opinions of me through their observations of my behaviors. I don't have access to their brains, nor do I have the right to view and/or contest their content. Knowing this does not help me, though it does give me pause and question my concern. How would I prefer information about me be kept? And isn't it my responsibility to disclose my beliefs through my actions, thereby offering to others their trust in me? If I don't behave predictably, if I don't disclose my beliefs, why would anyone trust me?

My third concern (having a model, like AI, deciding what sort of person I am and selling that information to the highest bidder) is probably no different than my discussions about my first and second concerns, except that the observer is no longer a member of the human species. I have similar qualms about being observed by aliens from another planet, I guess. My gut tells me my concern is more based on a fear of the unknown than particular reasoning.

All this thinking about my concerns has reduced my concern about marketing, but not removed it. And I HATE advertisements!

So, here is something I can play with, if achieving nothing other than confounding the marketing and confusing the advertisers: behave in a way that misleads the database into thinking I am someone I am not!

I've already been testing this out on Facebook. Over time, my Facebook feed has been increasing the number of "unsolicited" posts (posts by entities I don't follow). About a year ago, it got so bad that nearly 80% of all posts on my feed were NOT from people I follow (i.e. - "advertisements"). I saw a post from my "friends" for every five posts from non-friends. I almost quit Facebook.

But then I remembered that my feed was an algorithm based on my previous Facebook behavior. So I changed my behavior. In particular, I quit Facebook every time my feed showed me three unsolicited (unfollowed) posts in a row. I used "back" "back" "back" to exit so that it was clear I was choosing to exit and not just distracted by something else. I figured even a relatively unsophisticated algorithm would be able to hear THAT message. Sure enough, my feed started showing fewer and fewer unfollowed posts. I've been doing this for a few months and, to my delight, I see almost all the posts from my followed "friends" with never more than two unfollowed posts for every followed post. That puts the unsolicited posts down to 66% from 80%. My next experiment is to exit Facebook when there are two unsolicited posts in a row in my feed.

I'm going to do another couple experiments...

- Asking Alexa questions that might lead to Amazon ads that have nothing to do with me, but end up charging advertisers I don't like the finder's fee (I would be generating "fake" leads).

- Using Google to search for things I don't want, again costing advertisers "fake" leads.

If I were really mad, I could target advertisers just like they target me. I could lead a consumer revolution where we'd all target a chosen, strategic advertiser, and generate so many fake leads that the advertiser pulled out!

But first, I better check on Reddit. Might already be a thing. Hope none of the advertising bots are watching or they'll mark me as a "fake" ;-)

Chatbot Consiousness

A recent opinion piece in Scientific American by Susan Schneider ("If a chatbot tells you it is conscious, should you believe it?" scientificamerican.com) annoyed me. I haven't figured out why, yet...

First, the observation that chatbots are claiming to be conscious, would be no test for consciousness. Almost anyone can write a computer program to answer, "Are you conscious?" with "Yes".

IF INPUT = "ARE YOU CONSCIOUS?" THEN OUTPUT = "YES"

Of course, this is a simplified example, but it demonstrates how there are many computer programs that might answer "yes" to any number of inquiries as to consciousness. Asking a thing if it is conscious may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. In this same vein, I would disagree with Pascal's statement, "I think, therefor I am."(1)

I would argue that consciousness cannot be self-referential. In fact, I would argue that consciousness, by definition, is one thing observing another. Self-consciousness is one part of the brain watching another part of itself.

The attempt to define consciousness is similar to the attempts to define intelligence. As each test is developed, we become aware of other definitions that exist that are NOT in the test. In many ways, the attempt to define intelligence through tests is similar to designing and testing scientific models in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Each model may get us closer, but there always seems to be something beyond, something not captured by the model. This is particularly true in large scale complex models (like weather forecasting), and even more problematic when the models include members that change their behavior based on observations (like models with intelligent learning agents). Such complex systems may exceed the model's information content, allowing us to only model approximations.

Perhaps a better way of considering consciousness, as we generally experience it, is as a collection of models of various descriptions. Like intelligence, consciousness might best be represented as multi-dimensional.

As  Schneider points out, "AI chatbots have been trained on massive amounts of human data". But what she does not point out is that one could (and does) design chatbots on weighted sets of data. The most obvious example of this is the censoring of pornography and erotica from the chatbots, even though pornography permeates the web. If a chatbot was built from the actual data on the web, chatbots would be as obsessed with sex as humans. Instead, folks building the chatbots excluded these inputs from the learning data.

"Biases" in the chatbot models are many and large. For example, since the chatbot is built based on a weighted version of the web, bias is built in. Another bias is based on the content used to train the chatbot. More importantly, there is a lot of data that is NOT in digital form and cannot be fed into the learning algorithms of the chatbots. For example, life experiences that aren't in digital form. Approximations might be included, if someone has written about the experience.

Another challenge comes from the bias of Western thought, since there are countless cultures with little or no representation in digital form.  I ran into this bias recently when asking for sources about eight statements I gave the chatbot, including, "I will die someday" and "I cannot change the past". At first, the chatbot gave only western culture works. When I pointed out the bias, the chatbot acknowledged the bias and redid the list, which now included many works from the far east, as well as one source from Africa.(2)

Attempts to remove other "biases" have required more weighting schemes, giving some statements more influence than others. But who decides? And what biases are so pervasive that we are blind to them? Like the bias resulting from learning everything from what is written, rather than experienced? What does a chatbot know of the smell of a flower, the taste of an apple, the sound of a baby crying, the touch of a loved one, beyond what someone wrote? Until chatbots can incorporate all the experiences of a human being, they will be limited to approximating human beings, biased towards written (and visual) data.

As a statistician, I view bias as inevitable. No view is unbiased. My reality is not your reality. But we can share our perspectives and come to some agreement to reduce individual bias. For example, a good example of an algorithm we use to reduce bias of human observation is the scientific method.

Schneider is right to point out that "conscious" does not mean "responsible". In a similar way, we consider minors to be conscious, but do not hold them to the level of responsibility that we hold adults.

But I don't think it will benefit us to try and define chatbot consciousness in terms of human consciousness. Better to define and test for the traits we can observe and measure, tests which relate to the usefulness of the chatbots. In any case, consciousness should never be defined within a system. Consciousness only exists as an observation from outside the system looking in.

____________________
(1) For more discussion on "I think, therefor I am" see my blog entry on "Thinking about thinking".
(2) https://thoughtsideaswanderings.blogspot.com/2025/04/having-fun-on-sunday-afternoon-with.html

History of the financial services trademark "Early Warning"

In my never-ending search for ego gratification, I ask the AI's this question every six months:

Who is James C. March?

Most recently, I've noticed an improvement (though there is always that "James G. March" problem). Here are the results of a conversation I had with ChatGPT today (May 5, 2025)(1).

You said:

Who is James C. March?

ChatGPT said:

James Gardner March (January 15, 1928 – September 27, 2018) was a renowned...(1)

[Note: I omitted this dreaded "I can't find myself on the internet" problem. My father, James G. March, is searched for on the web much more than me. In fact, the likelihood of someone actually interested in "James C. March" is less than the chances of someone mistyping "James G. March" :-( Ouch! That just hurts!]

You said:

Not James G. March, James C. March

ChatGPT said:

I apologize for any confusion in my previous responses. Despite thorough research, I was unable to locate information on an individual named James C. March in the public domain. It's possible that this person is a private individual or not widely recognized in publicly available sources. If you can provide more context or details about James C. March—such as their profession, notable works, or the field they're associated with—I would be more than happy to assist you further.

You said:

Inventor of AI fraud detection system for banking industry called Early Warning

ChatGPT said:

I couldn't find any credible information linking a person named James C. March to the invention of an AI fraud detection system called "Early Warning" in the banking industry.

Early Warning Services, LLC is a well-established financial technology company that has been providing fraud prevention and payment solutions for over 35 years. They are known for products like Zelle® and PazeSM, and they partner with more than 2,500 financial institutions to enhance security and efficiency in financial transactions.

If you have more specific information or context about James C. March's involvement in this field, please provide additional details, and I'll be glad to assist further.

You said:

Founder of WJM Technologies and inventor of Early Warning

ChatGPT said:

James C. March is recognized as a co-founder of WJM Technologies, a company that developed an early warning product designed for screening new bank accounts to detect potential fraud. This innovation played a pivotal role in enhancing fraud prevention strategies within the banking sector.

In the early 2000s, WJM Technologies' early warning system garnered attention for its effectiveness in identifying fraudulent activities during the account opening process. Recognizing the value of this technology, Primary Payment Systems (PPS) entered into negotiations to acquire WJM Technologies. The acquisition was completed with initial funding from Concord, leading to a merger that combined the strengths of both companies. As a result, PPS became a combination of the original PPS and WJM Technologies, further solidifying its position in the financial technology landscape. Green Sheet

James C. March's contributions through WJM Technologies have had a lasting impact on the development of fraud detection systems in banking, particularly in the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques to proactively identify and mitigate fraudulent activities.

Now, the interesting part of this conversation is that ChatGPT DID finally find something about me! And when I looked at the "sources", I found one that was very interesting:

 

In a podcast by Early Warning (yes, it's a company, now, not just a product), I was told the history of Early Warning. The podcast is called, "Nickel and Crime". The episode is "Season 3, Bonus Episode: Early Days - The Origin Story of Early Warning".

 

"Fun fact number two, Early Warning was actually the name of one of our products at the time. So that's where that comes from." (starting at 05:48 in the podcast)

 

Yes, Early Warning, the company, got its name from Early Warning, the product. But if you're interested in some real history, where did the product name, "Early Warning", come from? First, a little background about the creators of Early Warning back in 1989, Wally Industries, dba WJM Technologies...

 

In 1988, Wayne M. Johnson and James C. March started a company in California called Wally Industries, Inc. We had wanted to incorporate as WJM Technologies, but found that the State of California needed the approval of a welding consulting company, WJM Technologies, in southern California. They refused. So we incorporated as Wally Industries and filed a "doing business as" (dba) with Sonoma County. We officially became Wally Industries, Inc., dba WJM Technologies.

I bet you can figure out where the name WJM came from,  but what you don't know is, Wayne had some left over, very nice, "Hersey chocolate" brochure covers. They were beautiful, very expensive, gold leaf lettering, and left over from his previous business.

 

 

WJM Early Warning Brochure

 

"I'll donate these and the logo to the company," Wayne offered. "We can use them for WJM Technologies."

 

As we built the first prototypes of a fraud detection AI system, we had to come up with a catchy name. We all liked "Early Warning", and a trademark search found several "Early Warning" trademark filings, but none in the financial services industry. We grabbed it, filed, and got the trademark in 1993.(2)

 

Another year goes by and we hear a company, Primary Payment Systems, is coming out with their own "Early Warning" product. We had our attorney send a copy of our trademark filing and a "cease and desist" letter.

 

Later, after PPS had bought us, President Larry Spooner talked about how frustrated he had been, learning the name "Early Warning" was already taken. It put the pebble in his shoe. He later told me how happy he was to finally get the name "Early Warning"!

 

 ____________________
(1) Here is a link to the actual conversation on ChatGPT.com: James C. March Overview.
(2) Early Warning Trademark Filing Case Number 74312772.

 

 

 

 

 

Thinking about thinking

Thinking about thinking? I don’t think so!
I think, therefore I am? Don’t believe it!
Is thought an illusion? Perhaps.

I prefer to start with something more universal, something that is true throughout the universe, shared by all. I prefer to start with survival.

To survive means to persist, from one moment to another. Usually, these moments are connected together in something I experience as “time”. I am the result of a long string of time, the survival of a way of being, which I know of as DNA. I am also the result of my own experience, which I will call my perspective. My DNA has survived through a process of trial and error, the adventures of a particular collection of atoms over many trials, many errors. I am a result of this process. My DNA has built-in connections to other moments, successful trials. These “instincts” guide me towards survival. But to allow me the flexibility to respond to my environment more immediately, more contemporaneously, my DNA has also given me consciousness, the ability to be aware of myself and my surroundings, at least in some limited form. And my DNA has given me memory, a way to organize my awareness across different moments. My experience, which builds my perspective, contributes to a system of memory, recording trials of cause and effect perceived during my lifetime. Insofar as my perspective contributes to my survival, some piece of my perspective may survive beyond my lifetime, through my recombined DNA.

But there is a more powerful way my DNA has contributed to my survival. I have been given the ability to communicate with other instances of DNA. This is done by sharing my lifetime experiences, communicating them to another, via my thoughts. This is the sharing of memes, ideas, thoughts, experiences.

The biological process of two-sex reproduction is shared by many other non-human forms of DNA. However, the sharing of experiences, the trials and errors during my lifetime, is not used by many forms of DNA. Humans have developed complex language to share their experiences. With language, I am able to share my experiences with others, who may pass them on, sharing my experiences beyond my lifetime. I can tell a child, “don’t touch the stove, or you might burn yourself”. If they understand me, and believe me, my experience can be passed on to another generation, potentially saving them from burning themself.

Even more powerfully, humans have developed technologies beyond language (books, PDF’s, and now AI) that allow life experiences to be shared over many moments in time and across great distances in space. If my thinking is persuasive, if I am able to communicate in such a way that people believe me, my thoughts might be passed through these powerful technologies to many humans, now and in the future.

The question then becomes one of “Whose thoughts should I listen to? If two people disagree, how shall I choose between them in a way that helps me survive?” Humans have developed a technology for this, too. We call it the scientific method, a process of comparing experiences across time and space, to come to a shared belief in experiences. Science focuses on that which can be reproduced, that which is potentially experienced by all humans. The scientific method helps us build models of our world based on observations that we all can experience. The models allow us to easily, efficiently, communicate our understanding of the world.

And we’re good at building models.

Of course, we went after the easiest models, first, including ones that could be mapped into simple mathematical equations. These models had few variables, with limited interactions. But that meant the harder models, equally important, with lots of variables and lots of interactions, were not developed or understood. Ecological systems, social interactions, weather systems are just a few of the models that we are now only beginning to understand and develop.

“I think, therefore I am?” Perhaps not. Perhaps it is more like, “We think, to discover who we are.”
____________________
(1) This was today's prompt from Collective Journaling led by Peter Limberg, which I was offered through the Internet Real Life sessions from The Dark Forest Collective on Metalabel:

Welcome to Collective Journaling, a place where we write in silence, together… with music :)

Song of the day: Money https://open.spotify.com/track/7hUuYv8NT8feTPZMG4RS5R?si=2c69928ee9094aa5

Quote of the day: "Think in the morning. Act in the noon. Eat in the evening. Sleep in the night." - William Blake

Prompt of the day: When is thinking bad? When is it good? What makes it so? Is there such a thing as good or bad non-thinking? And what makes that so? (Or just write about whatever is alive or bothersome for you today.)