Setting the Stage

Well...new year, new start...

The coming era of the NEH is likely to be about testing ideas in practice, to go beyond my theories. I was offered invaluable help with putting a local team together to work on this project, however, I feel I must unload my feelings about this new approach so that help can be channeled accordingly.

The previous stage of the NEH concluded when I reached a point where I envisioned what sort of business I wanted to create and wrote down my version of an "elevator pitch":  an online platform that provides the business model generation structure and process to [learn to] collaboratively transform socially just, spiritually fulfilling and environmentally sustainable ideas into value creating entities (businesses), by matching pools of entrepreneurs, work investors and  financial investors.

Then, again, all the questions about the how and the imperative to put a team together came to the table...should that team be local and/or global, how can I select "the right people"?? what kind of people do I need?? Isn't there a self organizing path to do this?? How do cells choose who does what and when, what influences their decisions, how would they define value?? Is there anything at all that they wouldn't consider of value?? I felt that there was something missing in the project. Yes, the "elevator pitch" may sound interesting to me, but for a team to agree to work under the same foundations, to agree on some basic/ground "rules" and use them in practice...that's where I felt there was a gap, and that's when I started to think about making some changes about the blog and the project.

I kept thinking about how what I envision would work and there are so many things in our cultural story that I believe require a fresh new start and that are essential to bring that vision to reality, that I thought the project would be better of if it focuses on the refined version of the question that gets me going: How would humans create, capture and exchange tangible and intangible value if we were to the earth, what cells are to our bodies? 

For instance, one of the things that I would like to see in this business project, is making high quality products and services the cheapest so that they are accessible to everybody, they become everybody's right to have, rather than a luxury for those who can afford it. Why is clean water, quality institutional education, high quality health services, organic food, energy and water efficient products, the most expensive things to get?? Yes, mainstream economics have an answer for this, but to me it is non-sense. If cheap means labor abuse, environmental degradation, social injustice, work/wage slavery...shouldn't these things be actually very expensive so that people don't get them and then we reduce stimuli for their production and increase pressure for their improvement?? Prices and costs should reflect quality in the opposite way we've been using that equation where cheapest means excellence and quality in every sense, expensive reflects negative customer satisfaction and low value. Would a cell work very hard and drive itself to exhaustion for something that creates cancer in its host body?? I think a cell does look for minimum pay for maximum return, what the value of the return is very different to that of human societies...so the question of what it is that we should value comes in handy.

Those are the sort of questions I would like to explore. I feel I need academic support, I would love to maybe accompany this project with a Ph.D because I sense that a mix with that side of cultural knowledge and science would give us more understanding of the possibilities. The bit that excites me the most so far, is that this exploration forces me to look at what we consider of value, define it and redefine it in different ways, which is in fact, what I anybody who might come to the team will have to explore as well, and we'd all have the freedom to create our own believes and set our own theories and run experiments to test them accordingly but all based on the same question, all to generate a pool of possibilities from which our societies would choose those more adept to their conditions and evolve. The problem is, is there such a thing as value for a cell, is there anything that a cell does that is not of value for it or for its host body?? So that makes me think...should I change the question to: If business where to behave like cells, what would they do?? how would they go about it? ...are they actually different questions?? businesses are value creating entities so...a cycle...this is where I am, and this is part of what I think needs to be clear if I'm to put a "research/practice team".

There are other two reasons for me to enroll in a Ph.D. One is that I like the Uni environment, the access to information, the smell of the library...I enjoy it a lot, I like studying which is a relatively new liking in my life. The second  might come out of some fear. It is very hard for me to actually talk about this idea to people because I don't think I have "evidence". For so many years I've been talking about things based on this question, but it is so different, I can't really talk about it to everybody, they sort of need to fall in some kind of greenie-hold-hands-and-sing category, which I love, but I don't really know many of them. When I'm asked for what I do other than looking after my child and if I'm planning to get a job, my answer is limited to say that the mainstream jobs, specially now that I'm set in a mining town, are absolutely frustrating for me, only to know that there will be a comment or some advice about how "oh...but this company is doing this or that, or you could do this or that there".

Imagine I could say "I am part of a group of bioentrepreneurs, we research  and build start ups and businesses based on cellular behaviour. We've run some tests and our findings suggests that if we choose to behave like cells in our bodies do, a lot of the world's issues would disappear. For example we ran this experiment and blabalbalblablaba and the blabla happened! and actually, we've got this start up in our platform that is doing X thing, it completely reflects the choice of what we call "cellular action"...." It just feels different just to think about me having some possibilities to show people...specially since we are so much of a "show me and I'll believe" kind of culture. 

I'd like to see a group of people who are interested in exploring the question as well and who are keen to run experiments to learn from them, test ideas, iterate and move forward our discoveries. 

I dream of many groups in different parts of the world undertaking the same quest to explore this question...I'd call those groups diasporas: for them, the exploration of the question in their local areas may imply differences, just as heart cells and liver cells are different and perform different functions within the same body...they are all cells, we are all humans.

I'd like to make the 'put a team together" process as public and visible as possible. And I'd like the group(s) that form to be able to build the business based on the findings. 

I hope the team building process goal starts soon, I'm very excited...keep checking.

A Fresh New Start

Well...I figured that's what had to happen. After making the move to create a newsletter to avoid pushing emails to online groups and lists, I realized that I've been trying too hard to get attention to form a group to work on a project to create a different story. In doing so, I apparently put more people off than I attracted to the ideas. And also I noticed that there is something essential in my approach that might not be helping: people don't really know what I do and that's understandable...I guess I don't have it clear...it's been a long battle for clarity. 

A reason for that lack of clarity is that I've been attempting to work on virtual projects to test my ideas and with the feedback I get, the projects have changed direction and have undoubtedly evolved. The problem is, people can't really follow and it is hard for me to give people a summary, a pathway or a follow up of that evolution. The project started as "the financial institutions of the future" and it is now the "cells of the earth" with so many twists in between. Cells of the Earth is not really a different project, is just a more holistic one, is one that includes the learning lessons from the feedback I've received all along. The question that "cells of the earth" poses is my motto. I started to write what was going to be a business model for it, then I realized that what I was writing was really my big vision, how I foresee the world if working under the premises of the cells of the earth. I've done everything that has come to mind to put a team together, I was challenged about how to go about it and now it is time to give things a bit of a twist. 

I'll "hide" the big vision document and the business model for a while and I'll stick to [the refined version of] the question that gets me going: How would humans create, capture and exchange tangible and intangible value if we were to the earth, what cells are to our bodies? (which inevitably gets me thinking about how we would treat each other, but that's for a different occasion).

There will be four blogs where I'll explore this question applied to different topics: Love: The Verb is where I'll share my thoughts and experiences about spirituality and religion. Ultimate Peace and Disc is where I'll talk about ideas and experiences around the development, playing and coaching of the sport. Holy Body!! is the space where I'll share my journey on creating a healthier body and/or life. The New Economics for Humanity (NEH)'s blog will be about the exploration of the question a bit more specifically, or more in terms of money, business and value. The NEH is the foundation of anything I do, that is why every blog links to it through both facebook and twitter.

I'm planning to test ideas with my local community so rather than saying to the virtual world "hey this is my project, what do you think, would you work with me on it?" I'm looking at "hey, I have this idea, I'll do something about it in my communities and let you know what happens". That way it is not anymore just about my dreams and theories, it is also about testing them on the ground, about how I can make those dreams happen, what's on my way to do so, what I can learn from the experience and what I can do next. Hopefully that approach will change things.

Because of this new start, I'll change the contents of the "about me" pages in all the blogs and will move all previous posts in the NEH's blog to the facebook page or somewhere where I can file them away but where they would still be available if anyone wants to review them. The transition has just started so it might take me a few days. 

I'll work with my existing supporters and build up from there...if it grows it grows, if it doesn't it doesn't. I won't make that number a critical indicator. Sure it gives me information, but I can't depend just on that. Thank you for being with me, I hope my experience is giving you something to think about. For now all I can say is, I'm not giving up. There is no way to fail if my goal is learning. Even if I try hard not to learn, there is always a new lesson...you can't fail learning. Welcome to my new era. 

What is the message and what should we do about it??

Following my previous post on emergence and how I would put lots of eggs in the Upgrade Democracy basket, I decided to share a few lines from this book. I happened to find stories about ants in different readings and so far, the ones told in this book as well as in Bioteams, got my undivided attention. I'll just share my highlights of a particular chapter called "Street Level". 

Deborah Gordon studied harvester ants and she says to Steven "I was interested in systems where individuals who are unable to assess the global situation still work together in a coordinated way...and they manage to do it using only local information".

Steven says 

"local turns out to be the key term in understanding the power of swarm logic...They think and act locally, but theur collective action produces global behavior...Communication between workers in colonies of the fire ant...relies on a vocabulary of ten signals, 9 of which are based on pheromones. Among other things, these semiochemicals code for task recognition ("I'm on foraging duty"); trail attraction ("There is food over here"); alarm behaviour ("Run away"); and necrophoric behaviour ("Let's get rid of these dead comrades"). 

...ants can also detect gradients in pheromones. Gradients in the pheromone trail are the difference between saying "there is food around here somewhere" and "There's food due north of here.

...The harvester ants...are also particularly adept at measuring  the frequency of certain semiochemlicals. Ants can sense the difference between encountering 10 foraging ants in an hour and encountering a hundred. Individual ants have no way of knowing how many foragers or nest-builders or trash collectors are on duty at any given time, but they can keep track of how many members of each group the've stumbled across in their daily travels. based on that information - both the pheromone signal itself and its frequency over time - they can adjust their behaviour and act accordingly.

Of course, it's always possible that an individual ant randomly stumble across a disproportionate number of foragers and thus overestimate the global foraging state and change her behaviour accordingly. But because decision-making process is spread our over a thousands of individuals, the margin of error is vanishingly small. For every ant that happens to overestimate the number of foragers on duty, there is one that underestimates. With a large enough colony, the two will eventually cancel each other out, and an accurate reading will emerge.

5 Principles to build systems designed to learn from the ground level, where macrointelligence and adaptability derive from local knowledge:

1. More is different: "The statistical nature of ant interaction demands that there be a critical mass of ants for the colony to make intelligent assessments of its global state... If we only studied individuals ants in isolation, we'd have no way of knowing that those chemical secretions were part of an overall effort to create a mass distribution line..."

2. Ignorance is useful: "Emergent systems can grow unwieldy when their component parts become excesively complicated. Better to build a densely interconnected system with simple elements, and let the more sophisticated behaviour trickle up"

3. Encourage random encounters: Descentralized systems...rely heavily on random interactions, exploring a given space without predefined orders. Without [them], the colony wouldn't be capable of stumbling accross new food sources or of adapting to new environmental conditions".

4. "Look for patterns in the signs: "A gradient in pheromone trail leads them toward food source, while encountering a high ration of nest-builders to foragers encourages them to switch tracks"

5. Pay attention to your neighbours: "local information can lead to global wisdom"

Undoubtedly, I have had many virtual encounters with citizens more than unsatisfied with the SOPA legislation which to me, only uncovers the incoherence of our current outdated democratic system. I don't think that bill will achieve its goal, I think citizens won't let that happen. But the strong "pheromone trail" I smell can only motivate me to create another option. At this precise moment where the debate is so heated, the proposal of a new democratic system may sound provoking and enticing to organizations like...google. There is nothing to lose if we ask.


This book is giving me a lot of food for thought and inspiring. It is also very relevant to my ideas of localization and human systems that consciously decide to behave life-like. 

E.M.E.R.G.E.N.C.E

"the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems" - in wikipedia

Something within me seems to be recognizing patterns, something seems to be trying to get my attention and I feel the need to share. After my last updated proposal for the Upgrade Democracy testing community, I read this post from Venessa Miemis where she says:

If we’re going to go beyond just sharing links with each other to actually *helping* each other, working together, experimenting, prototyping, and adapting to changing circumstances, *we* have to first change in order to make that possible.

I’m in the process of experimenting with this firsthand, bringing people togther into an online collaboratory space, and I’ll admit – it’s not easy. We’ve got a group of ‘change agents’ who want to do things together, to form ad-hoc teams around short-term projects, make something cool happen and improve our world and our lives — but how to begin?

Each of us is a free agent, delicately riding the edge of chaos and uncertainty as we try to pave our own path. Each of us likes the sound of a peer-to-peer culture, a transition from scarcity to abundance, a move from a transactional economy to a relational economy (ht jerry michalski), and a redefinition of value and wealth. Each of us sees the promise of a new way of working, living, and Being.

And yet there is still fear.

Are you gonna steal my idea? Are you gonna follow through with your commitments? Are you gonna take the credit? Am I gonna get screwed — yet again?

This is exactly what I feel...but I would dare to say this is how other millions of people feel...it's just my intuition here speaking. Venessa describes something that I see in a lot of people and blogs around: We all like the sound of...THE SAME THINGS!!. There is indeed something in common already within those of us, and it's not just that we like the same colours or style of clothes...there is something deeper in our beings that resonates in every project around. Think about what I understand of the Occupy movement: Each person was at the same place at the same time attracted by their own very different reason and in the end, those with similar motivations got together to "specialize" in groups. There was a general "something" in the Occupy idea, that fitted in the HEARTS of so many people around the planet. No political party could do that today because we feel indoctrinated by them, we feel constrained, limited by their expectations. Occupy and that which I'm talking about, allows us to be who we want to be and allow everyone else to be in the same place with us. 

The thing is, we haven't being able to summarized "that" into a set of words and we probably shouldn't try to. I don't think it is necessary, nor possible. The key to me is here: "Each of us is a free agent, delicately riding the edge of chaos and uncertainty as we try to pave our own path" ...our own path!! it is so true!! we all have an idea, and many of us are "alone" in the process and have been for long time. A friend recently told me that his project is not moving anywhere because everybody is trying to draw attention to their own projects...I agree. So the questions are, can we, should we, is it worth merging our ideas into something bigger?? 

I think it is definitely worth the experiment. If we all have projects that, because of our deep intentions, would fit into a common bigger scenario/picture/pattern/culture/story, then can we STOP for a second and pay attention to that bigger scenario that's forming around us?? To me, the scenario is the Upgraded Democracy. And the latest news that woke me up to that realization was what's happening in the USA with the SOPA legislation which to me, by affecting USA companies that operate massively and globally, would affect those millions of users registered in their sites. It is not only about affecting the industry, the economy and the jobs, or the privacy of the USA citizens. I feel that being a Colombian, leaving in Australia with accounts with all the subject companies, immediately puts me and my information exposed to their legislation effects. This makes it a global issue, it is a piece of legislation for the global population to vote on! 

SOPA, the disastrous Internet piracy bill that has been embraced by politicians because many of them simply don’t understand its technical implications. Or, as Thomas Friedman points out, consider the absence of any substantive topic relating to technology from the Republican presidential debates. - Slate Magazine

One valid approach is to vote against it when YOU can (I say YOU because only USAnians have the rights to do it). However, that's how it's always been done. It's not only that we want that specific piece of legislation not to go ahead, it is also that we want a different way to make those sort of decisions and consider that kind of legislation. Not because a group of politicians thought that it would be a good idea, means that it should go to congress and be voted on. Intuition tells me that if it was in the hands of the citizens, that legislation would've never been even suggested, at most it would've been recognized as the  unconstitutional idea that it seems to me, not worth putting it through. Another valid approach is to demonstrate the obsolescence of the current system by creating new one(s). I have the idea that when I get sick, part of my body is fighting the illness and another part is simultaneously recording details and generating code for the next time it appears. Well, that is how I see this situation too. We are fighting by voting and spreading the word but I don't see us recording the details and generating the new code. 

A lot of our projects require very different, if not completely new social, economic and political systems. Are we creating them?? Or are we just hoping that the current ones will give us some space?? 

It is and it isn't about a "unified mind". On the one hand, we want to keep everybody doing and working in whatever they feel like it. On the other hand, there is a foundation for those projects that needs to be built and I believe that all of us should be involved in one way or another. To establish future trading between us, we need to know that they way you "behave" matches the way I "behave" but we haven't created the foundation that allows us to look for those kind of behaviours we're looking for. 

I definitely believe that we should collectively and connected move towards an Upgraded Democracy and in the process I foresee both swift and deep trust  building. To me, that move is part of, if not the, foundation I'm looking for. Let's start with something small, anything. Anything that requires us to make decisions...literally anything. I have an idea/example: As a Colombian, I used to ignore the fact that USAnians are called, and call themselves Americans. Now, I can't ignore it any more. As another American I feel neglected. In a way, it translates to how I perceive the treatment that the US government gives to everything south from their borders. I assume that for most people that is just something they grew up with, they've been taught that way and never had the thought of ignoring and neglecting, it has happened unconsciously for many. Now I would like to ask you to make the conscious decision to acknowledge and recognize the presence of all other Americans by calling yourselves USAnians, or similar, and letting others know about your conscious decision. How do we go about something simple like that to make a decision and act upon it?? Regardless of whether you agree with me or not in the first place, I'm proposing this as piece of legislation. How do we go about it?? 


Even more basic question, if we agree on building that foundation where all of us and our projects would live, how do we decide on our first step? How do we decide if that foundation is Upgrade(d) Democracy or something else??


More to come....

Democratic Core Bioteam Selection: Ideas??

I've been talking and receiving feedback about this project and it seems like I need to take a step back and rethink about it. The main question was: Why haven't you got a team yet?? My answers are: That's what I've been trying to do since February until I reached the point where I thought "I need the business model first so I can talk to people" but the main reason I guess is, I don't know how to put it together. Everywhere I read It is suggested that I should put a team of 5 skilled people (the "right" people) and go out and find them. I agree I need to reach out and I feel like I've been unconcsiously tricking myself to not do it because I'm afraid of being laughed at or ignored. I welcome that challenge. I however am not that comfortable with 'the right people" concept....I mean, why are they right and others wrong?? Why impart some sort of inadequacy or adequacy on people I don't even know?? Plus, Cells of the Earth is about democracy, self organization and collective intelligence, so why should we select some and neglect others?? Under what democratic process could that happen?? 

So here I am a bit stuck: I would like to give the opportunity to anybody to be part of the core bioteam, I want the bioteam to grow and shrink as the load of work increases and decreases. I know that there needs to be people who are passionate and skilled about specific topics but, I believe that there is a lot of unknown potential in those who are not "experienced" and I haven't met yet. 

I have a few ideas about creating a core bioteam under democratic means, but I'd like to know people's thoughts about this?? I want to take the risk and go "out of the box" by doing this in a way it hasn't been done (that I know of). If you had no other option but to select your core team democratically, how would you go about it??

According to what I've found around I should have permanent physical contact with the team, or I should be able to meet with them physically and regularly or I should have at least an initial physical contact with them. Would that rule out people in other countries and virtual collaboration?? How would you go about it?? I need some light here!!

Building the Business Model...STOP!!

Step Back, Think, Organize, Proceed.

That’s what I did after I posted the this. At some point I was caught in a chicken and egg dilemma: “Should I build the draft business model (BM) and use it to build the core bioteam?? Or should I get the bioteam and then build the BM with them??” I was inclined to the former. Then, almost as soon as I published the post I started to get “messages” everywhere suggesting that I needed to focus on the team issue, and I realized that forming or putting together a team is what I’ve been trying do from the very beginning of the NEH. It has been a big, let’s say, “source of frustration”. Do I really need to have permanent face to face contact with a core bioteam for the CoE to be a success?? I think that having face to face contact with a team is very important for what I intend CoE to do. Amongst other things, it is about localization, and localization without regular face to face encounters and relationships with my locals doesn’t make much sense. So, at this stage I’m still not comfortable with the idea that I need a core physical bioteam for the CoE, but I do think that several local teams interested in the project should be created simultaneously.

So I decided to STOP with the BM goal and check my alignment with it. Here is the outcome of that decision:

I was asked to choose one place where the CoEproject  would start. Another piece of wisdom was “people invest in teams, not really in individuals”. I addition, very often I see the “get together the right people with the right set of skills” sentence. Initially my thought was “I’ll start it in Brisbane, Australia”. As time passed and I slept on the conversation without being able to completely convince myself about the “one team to start with” thing, a new exciting piece of the puzzle started to form. So, what if the project starts “here on earth”?? Can I make earth my place to start with?? I know, where else would I, right?…but, you know what I mean: How could it start simultaneously and globally??

Imagine: People interested in the CoE project from all around the world gathered in a virtual event. Our first test is to actually run the event together. With the help of an online map, people would add their locations to identify interested neighbors to form future diasporas.

What we would test with the event is, if a mass of people who don’t know each other well, if at all, can, under shared vision and values, develop its own “upgraded democratic [and decentralized] government”. 

"Many of the failures of our current democracy stem from a centralized, “one-size-fits-all” form of representation; we anticipate a world where legislation is crafted not by a few politicians, but by a broad network of people who have been entrusted by others to advocate on their behalf" - Upgrade Democracy

I thought about it because having ONE core team somehow selected by a few didn’t feel like democratic and actually seemed pretty biased towards the usual hierarchic/centralized governments we have today.

So the challenge is “we have to do this between all of us, how do we do it?? How do we agree on issues??Who does what and when?? How do we set our own policies??”

this is what I proposed to the Upgrade Democracy folks on the ContactCon Gmail Group

Then…I had to STOP again. The conference (read the proposal) with the authors is still something I’d like to do, but I think we still need more common ground between us, to be able to draw more motivation into the project, and with more motivation and passion, we bring resources and eventually more action…is my wild guess and hope. I feel we need some more glue to hold the Upgrade Democracy/CoE partnership to then reach out to more people. 


Creating a new way of organizing means giving up a lot of the preconceptions it’s easy to rely on. Schools try to teach problem solving, but they use the same techniques. Test scores, class rankings, online MBA rankings…all create a kind of hierarchy that hangs over the whole process. 


So I updated my proposal to this and sent it to ContactCon again. However, not surprisingly, it hasn't gathered much enthusiasm yet, meaning, no one has asked a question so far. So...should I just keep waiting with CoE on hold?? STOP again...no!!


Once the craziness of moving to a town in Central Queensland with my little family decreases, which hopefully is mid February, I would like to get the two things moving. I'd walk the two paths simoultaneusly, if that's at all possible, in order to try both conventional wisdom with unconventional support (putting a local team together) and search for the upgraded democracy dream. 


I feel  inspired by so many things that have been happening and have been reading and I really believe that it is time to put together our individual ideas into something big!! Let's not let the chance go away!! Will be back asap with more on taking advantage of the moment.

Your Wisdom is Required.

Dear all!!

I was introduced to a book called "Grow Your Own Carrot" by Bob Griffiths and I decided to try the methodology which is based on 5 steps of a process named GROW, which stands for Goal, Reality, Obstacles and Options, and Way forward.

My purpose with this exercise is to learn to provide enough and concise information about what I'm doing, so people have a real sense of whether or not they can and want to participate in and collaborate with the effort.

• The specific goal I’ll achieve using the Grow Process is "To finish the description of the 9 building blocks and their items for the “Cells of the Earth” business model canvas by the 31st of January 2012.
• I’ll have achieved it when I print out the google doc, file it in my physical folder and take a picture of it.
• This goal is important for me because
• It’ll allow me to have a foundation of the Business Model to start editing collaboratively.
• With it, I can go out and test it, progress in establishing a Core [bio]team and progress in the BMG process.
• With it, a core [bio]team can work towards a shared purpose, vision, goals and business culture design process.
• People will be able to explore if and how they can be involved with the project.

To achieve it I’ll devote 2 hours at least three days a week or its equivalent (if I have to miss a week due to traveling plans) and will base my work on my personal values: Love, passion, alertness/presence, change, and balance and wholeness (Local/Global, Known/Unknown, Matter/Spirit, One for all (Cooperation)/all for one (competition), Uniqueness and Diversity/ Patterns and Community)

Key milestones for this goal are:

• Each Building Block description finished (dates of completion available as a Task management file online?
• Physical folder by the 31st of January 2012.

There are steps in the process where I'll feel unmotivated, will find obstacles to which I would like to find the options and ways to move forward, or I'll have ideas to explore related to the Business Model I'm working on. I can't and I don't want to go through it all by myself, I know I have old habits that may prevent me from seeing things with new eyes, and I believe in the collective intelligence. That's why I am reaching out for your support. To avoid bothering you with yet more emails, at least once a week I'll ask [specific] questions on the NEH's facebook page every time I feel something requires multiple viewpoints, and you can decide to put as much or as little time to share your wisdom. It will imply relatively frequent reading of the Business Model Folder. In addition, if you feel like exploring more about this process and offering extra contribution, you can have a look at all of my online items related to this goal on my netvibes dashboard.

To be up to date with the changes on the business model canvas, please keep checking the Cells of the Earth Page and keep in mind that it will be constantly changing as I progress on its description. What I've already done in the Business Model description can be found here, this document is also available as a link in the Cells of the Earth page. 

I really hope to talk to you soon.

Tatiana Maya