April 18, 2024 • 49 mins
This episode dives into philosophical discussions on love vs. like and innovation, threading through the complex web of human relationships and the essence of pursuing the unknown. It challenges conventional views, drawing insights from various life experiences and parallels, emphasizing an open pursuit of future possibilities.
You can find a.m. on Instagram and TikTok at @absurdwisdom. We are produced and distributed by DAE Presents, the production arm of DAE (@dae.community on Instagram and online at mydae.org).
The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent. While we make every effort to ensure that the information shared is accurate, we welcome any comments, suggestions, or correction of errors.
You can contact us at daepresents@mydae.org.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
a.m. (00:00):
No, is to be within a specific discipline, a specific
world, a specific reality toknow is extremely useful for
getting things done within thatparticular discipline or world
or reality to be an effectivedoctor or a pastry chef or a
(00:21):
financial analyst.
There's much that is critical toknow, but knowing by its nature
is bounded by, and in factreinforcing of, the reality
within which it occurs.
For 25 years, I've worked withexecutives in large
organizations, grad students,tech entrepreneurs, religious
leaders, and no doubt mytoughest client, myself.
I'm developing the capacity toexplore what lies beyond
(00:44):
knowing, beyond certainty at apractical level.
This work is required for thingslike innovation, but more
importantly, I found that thisinquiry is critical for
maintaining one's humanity.
Oh, and if you're generousenough to be listening to these
conversations, I respectfullysubmit that at any point, if you
feel you understand what I'msaying, you're not listening
(01:05):
deeply enough.
I'm A.
M.
Bhatt.
Welcome to Absurd Wisdom.
And for today's conversation, weare continuing the ongoing
series with Ben Heller, CTO ofDriver Technologies.
Let's jump right in.
Ben (01:17):
I was poking around the used bookstore last week and
came across this book that, youknow, looked oddly familiar.
And my wife said, I think I haveone of his tucked away
somewhere.
So I started reading it and it'sby Brian Andreas and the book's
called Hearing Voices and it's acollection of poems and, and
sketches, and I won't read theentire intro, but basically he
(01:41):
opens with all the differentvoices that kind of exist in his
head creatively.
And those are creative forcesthat pull him towards in a way
from different things and how heat various times resisted those
voices and then learned toactually listen to them.
So I'm going to read a couple ofparagraphs.
Finally, I learned to justlisten and unexpectedly, they
(02:02):
taught me the secret of life.
Be a lover.
That was it.
Be a lover.
When you love, whether a childor your work, or the feel of the
wind licking your skin, you arein a state of grace.
You aren't asking your love tobe anything more than what it
is.
The paradox is that what it is,is beyond imagining.
It is real and true and veryrarely what you expect.
(02:24):
In my work as an artist, most ofthe time I don't have the
faintest idea what's going tohappen.
I sit down and feel the worldaround me and in me.
I become enchanted in the bestsense of the word.
I'm filled with delight.
I listen to the voices of myheart.
I draw a line.
I draw another line.
I remember the time I won awhole bag of marbles from my
next door neighbor.
(02:44):
I remember going to the beachwith all my cousins.
I draw more lines.
I remember more things.
I keep putting down lines.
Every line is a whisper ofmemory, of my life at that
moment.
People ask me how I come up withthe stuff I do.
I tell them it's all right therewhen I listen.
It is a powerful act of love tosimply listen well and fully.
(03:06):
I'll stop there.
I love that last sentiment,rather than comment on it.
I just love your reaction tothat.
a.m. (03:15):
Yeah.
It's all right there.
We just have shellacked over itwith so much pointless shit, but
it's all right there in front ofus.
Scott (03:22):
We were talking before about a musician that we both
know Bob Pollard.
I dropped that name.
Uncle Bob.
Uncle Bob.
And the thing that, you know,like I was saying, and according
to, you know, your storyreinforces it or whatever.
It's like, very prolific.
Like, hundreds of albums at thispoint?
Must be, yeah.
(03:43):
And not, not one of them is anymore precious than the other.
It's just making the thing.
And, you know, don't spend a lotof time fretting or, you know,
just, alright, that one's done,next one, kind of thing, you
know.
And it feels, it's like aconduit, you know, it's like,
comes through.
And that's kind of what I gotfrom that was, you know, get out
of the way.
Get out of your own way.
you know, what you love willdrive what you're doing.
(04:05):
Yeah.
Ben (04:07):
My understanding of his early records was he was
recording with like, do youremember those, those kids toy
boom boxes that had a plugin micis like one of those in his
basement.
And that's what he would recordhis early demos on was just kind
of shouting into that mic.
And it began, he was a scienceteacher at the middle school
science teacher at the time.
And it's a Dayton and He wasn'ttrying for an aesthetic.
(04:32):
It wasn't this intentional lo fithing.
Like, oh, it's gonna be raw andgenuine.
It's like, didn't occur to himthat he would need anything more
to express what he needed to inhis songs.
And if you haven't listened toany of his songs, especially the
early stuff right there, thereare Noticeable fidelity issues.
(04:53):
And I put issues in air quotes,but the songs are brilliant.
They're all brilliant.
They have incredible hooks andyou, you just, you feel that,
you know, there's some songswhere you get to the chorus and
it's like knocks the wind out ofyou just a little bit.
And it ended up actually kind ofspying a lot of imitators and
(05:13):
became this genre of lo fi musicthat, you know, that was
something that people werefalling into a little bit more
as a stylistic decision.
But if there's one thing aboutBob Pollard is he's, he's a
genuine creator.
And, and, and that's what,that's what I heard in this,
this introduction to thesestories.
And I really don't know theauthor.
(05:35):
well enough at all.
And I've just, I'm not eventhrough with the book, but the
intro got me.
This is like, if this isanybody's approach to their
work, I want to read it.
I need to, I need to absorbwhatever the result of that,
that process is.
And, you know, we've talked alittle bit about listening in
the past but listening aslistening as an act of love, and
(06:00):
as an act of love for thecreative process is putting it
together in a way that I hadn'tquite done before.
a.m. (06:07):
So like ten years ago I did a video on Valentine's Day
on the three words that we needto stop using, we need to agree
to stop using for a centurybecause they're just everywhere
and, and we've lost allrelationship to them.
And the three words were God,leadership, and love.
Ben (06:22):
I think I only used one of those.
a.m. (06:23):
But, but, but, but, but, but I mean in the general,
right?
So, so here I'm sitting herejust debating whether I want to
open up this whole sort ofthing, but I'm going to, let's
see where it goes.
So, so what's your definition oflove?
Like what, what, or, you know,how do you distinguish love from
like from other affects,
Ben (06:39):
Yeah, that's really interesting for me.
It has a sense of persistence.
I, sometimes I like things andlater I don't like that same
thing.
I think identifying love issomething that happens, this for
me over time.
It's a relationship to somethingover, over a period of time.
That's, that's consistent and isa source of energy.
(07:02):
I'm not going to comment on thedirectionality of that energy,
but it feels like there'ssomething there that that
survives on its own, its ownlife and its own timeline.
That's as close, I think, as Ican get.
a.m. (07:16):
I, you know, as with everything, I'm not going to
suggest this is right, but thisis just the framework that I
have sort of developed over theyears on it.
So I say I like something to me.
That's a management concern.
It means that what it producesreliably, I find a value or
pleasurable.
And whether that's a person or athing, right?
And then don't like is what itproduces reliably or, or, you
know, fairly reliably.
(07:36):
I don't find a value or I don'tfind, you know, pleasant.
And so Starbucks mentionedearlier, I don't like Starbucks.
It's reliable for producing athing that I find not
pleasurable.
I do like the coffee peddler,you know, Ryan's Place on East
Street.
It produces an output that Ireliably find favorable.
Ben (07:53):
That was there this morning.
a.m. (07:54):
Yeah, I say that again.
Shop local, kids.
Since we're mentioning RyanPizza Place out in West Haven,
Rebar, go check that out too.
That's this little dive pizzaplace in the Strip Mall in Savin
Rock area, West Haven.
Has the best bourbon collectionon this part, in this part of
Connecticut.
It's amazing.
It's, it's a product of Ryan's,you know curatorial prowess.
And so with people, you know, I,I find this, you know, Mel and I
(08:17):
used to have a lot of theseconversations back room just,
you know, because it's, it's,it's tough to have some of these
out in public because they just,they're such weighted, they have
such weight to them.
I don't like most people I meet,like, like the vast majority.
And what I mean by that isthey're reliable for producing
something I find, you know,because they're, because it's,
because they're not there.
It's their habituation that'sthere.
(08:37):
And so they're producing thingsthat are just to me, not
terribly interesting.
I don't mean they're not smart,not creative.
I don't mean any of that.
I just mean they're not there.
And so it's just not, it's, it'sa certain kind of positional in
society, polite, whatever,right?
Ben (08:52):
The rest of this episode is actually just am listing all the
people he dislikes.
So if your name appears here,please
a.m. (08:57):
Here's the thing.
So it's not dislike.
It's, I don't like, right.
I don't, I don't have an activenegative absence of like the
absence of it.
And, but, but again, it's, it'sa very specific thing.
It's not affect.
It's not an emotional.
I don't like you.
It's, there's a reliability thatyou have for producing something
that I don't find of value orinteresting.
And most often it's because mostpeople are walking around in
(09:19):
habituation.
They're playing a role.
Love is not related to like forme.
It exists in a different domain.
Now, like has a temper, has atemporality, has a past
temporality because in order forme to have this sense of you
were reliable for producingsomething that I find valuable
or not like Starbucks by itsnature, that's, that's a past
temporality.
I'm using evidence from the pastand then extrapolating into the
(09:41):
future, which really isn'tfuture.
It's repeat of past.
Right.
And I'm assuming you're going torepeat.
I go into Starbucks.
Actually part of the valueproposition is we will repeat
past for you.
Right.
That's a past I don't findvaluable.
And so I don't like Starbucks.
Coca Cola is going to taste likeCoca Cola.
Exactly.
Right.
And I don't like Coca Cola.
Right.
Love is in a different domain.
Love's temporality is future.
(10:01):
When I say I love someone.
What I'm saying is I'm willingto commit future absent any
evidence from the past.
There's no amount of like youcan build up with me that will
have me love you.
And there's no amount of dislikeyou can generate, right?
See the like, dislike is aproduct of behavior and value in
that behavior and reliability ofthat.
Love is solely up to me.
(10:23):
That it is a product of, I say,I am going to commit future with
you in the absence of having anyclarity of what future would be.
And in fact, in the face of afuture that for now might be an
extension of the past based onthe pattern you're going to keep
engaging in.
So in folks who worked for me inthe 30 years or 28 years of
(10:45):
advisory work, there's a, likewe would have this conversation
overtly.
I've only had it overtly in herewith a couple of people because
some people are still new enoughthat this shit just sounds
weird.
And part of my wanting to do thepodcast actually was to be able
to open up conversations thatare more about the ongoing
development of this place.
And then people listen in.
Cool.
But every, everybody that everworked with me on, on the
(11:06):
advisors, I said, you do nothave to like a single client, a
single one of them, but youcannot work here.
If you do not love our clients,not as affect.
but as engaging in a way whereyou are committed to future with
them with no possibility ofpredictability.
Right?
And I think it's the same herewith the students is whatever
you're reliable for that thepast says the kind of repeat
(11:28):
pattern that is the habituatedyou, whether I like that or not
is irrelevant.
If you walk in this door, I loveyou.
Meaning I am blank slatecommitting to future with you.
And whatever is emergent,engaging that emergent thing in
a way that generates value inour case for you and your
development.
I think in a healthy marriage,that's what's happening.
(11:48):
And marriages fall apart becausethey treat love as a static
thing.
And then when you stop doing A,B and C, maybe I don't love you
anymore.
But it's an ongoing, for me,it's an ongoing recommitment to
future.
And where it falls apart then isI'm withdrawing my commitment
around future.
Around the possibility ofsurprise for whatever reason,
(12:08):
right?
Because I, you know, so that's awhole nother thing we can kind
of explore.
It's tied into the leadershipwork, like, you know,
leadership, art, love, thosethings are exist in a thread for
me.
Because it's all about animpossible future, impossible in
the sense of there's noprecedent for it.
But liking is all about a pastand the continuation of a past
that is either desirable or notdesirable.
And so like dislike
Ben (12:29):
We've done episodes on like transactions.
Yeah, that's the idea of a likebeing tied to Something very
transactional in nature and loveexisting Separate from that.
I just wonder what's the what isthe generator or Predictor of
being willing to commit toloving something because
(12:50):
something about you has to saythis is worthwhile making this
commitment.
And if it's non transactional,which I think is fabulous right?
There's a value somewhere behindit, a different value,
a.m. (13:03):
right?
It's a simply matter of I say,and so there have been people
who've walked around on theplanet.
That are in love with the wholething that there, it is all
possibility that whoever youhave been, whatever you have
been, however, that I amcommitted to a, an unknown
future with you, with the world,right?
And it is not, there's nothingaffective about it.
(13:24):
We're just coming off ofChristmas.
My reading of the, I'm notChristian.
I'm very clear.
I didn't grow up Christian.
I'm not Christian and I dig thedude's work.
At least the direct reading ofit, you know, like dig it a lot.
Big impact on my life.
Pissed me off when I first readit.
Because, you know, I don't knowhow you actually read the New
Testament and then go back today to day life in terms of the
obligation, you know, or theopportunity to have some, a
(13:45):
certain kind of impact and, and,and not look at their other, you
know, wisdom tradition texts youread and it's like, okay, well,
how the hell did I go back?
You know, how do I, you know,how do I read the Bhagavad Gita
and not get into a very deepinquiry about, you know, kind of
how I, you know, Process my ownbehavior.
Anyway so it's, it's very muchnot a, you know a denominational
thing or a religious thing.
But when you read, that guydidn't like a lot of people.
(14:08):
You know what I mean?
There's a complaints about lotsof different people.
But the whole invitation was, sowhat?
Are you willing to?
Work towards a future that's,that's, that's a break from
habituation, a break from thepast, a break from, which is for
me, what, what love is.
Ben (14:24):
Well, the flip side of that is, I assume I can guess the
answer to this, but if you hadto put a percentage at the
number of relationships in yourlife that perceive you as being
well liked versus well loved.
Is the balance a hundred andzero, 50/50, 80/20.
(14:45):
Is it important to exist in aworld where anybody likes you at
all?
Is being liked important?
Full stop.
Is being loved important?
Full stop to put it on the otherend of that relationship.
a.m. (14:57):
Being liked is a critical if you want to actually get
anything done transactionally.
Right.
And so the thing you're in ajob, like the thing you're
reliable for producing issomething that is of value.
You're liked by theorganization.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, absolutely.
Your habituation works for them.
And, and so it can be very, evenin the context of, of personal
relationships in marriage,right?
(15:18):
Like, it's useful that I likeyou, that the things you
regularly produce.
Right.
But there are going to beaspects I don't like.
And so if the, if the marriageis based on those likes and
dislikes, it's going to fallapart.
Eventually the thing's going toget irritating enough, right?
Or there's enough of a gap.
I think there's also could be,you know, when there's, when
there's too much of adisconnect, right?
There are too many things thatyou do habitually just by virtue
(15:39):
of your machinery, or I do asvirtue of my machinery, that is
just a fundamentally out ofalignment for you, you know, no
amount of, of, of committingcan.
Potentially work.
Though I, I'll say that oneloosely.
I'm, I'm, I'm not, I'm notcommitted to that statement
necessarily.
Ben (15:53):
The lack of a commitment goes all the way down.
a.m. (15:55):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's turtles all the way down.
Ben (15:56):
Yeah.
a.m. (15:57):
But, but, but the point is that, that, that, that love is
hygienic work, right?
Like is maintenance work.
Keep tuning to make sure thatthe machine is running well,
that the outcomes that arevalued keep getting produced.
or the clarity of the outcomesthat are not valued, reinforces
not engaging, right?
But love isn't, isn't a, a amachine concern.
(16:19):
And by machine concern, I don'tmean is it a negative thing?
Again, really critical aspectsof life to answer your question.
So much of life is contingentupon those, the, you know, the
transactional so much of gettingthings done is on the
transactional.
And so those like, dislikedistinctions become useful.
When I want a cup of coffee,it's useful.
To know that Starbucks is infact reliable for a thing and to
know it's not my thing.
(16:39):
So I don't have to have baggageabout it.
I just, that's not where I'mgoing.
Ryan and coffee peddler isreliable for producing a thing.
And it's a thing that works forme that I like.
And so great.
So that, but the transaction of,I want coffee becomes very
straightforward.
Yeah.
But love isn't transactional.
It isn't about, you know, it isabout, am I willing to recommit?
Am I with every moment?
Am I willing to recommit?
Am I willing to recommit?
(17:00):
Am I willing to recommit?
Ben (17:02):
To add a flavor to that, I was talking to a former
colleague the other day, andhe's on to a new job, and he's
enjoying it, and I asked him abit about, you know, what's the
codebase like, how's it going,and he said, well, everyone here
is so nice.
They all like working here, andthey all, everyone likes each
other.
And the code base is areflection of that, meaning
(17:24):
everyone's afraid to tell anyoneelse that their ideas suck, that
you shouldn't, you shouldn't doit that way.
Let's consider another way.
And if there's an aspect ofthis, this sort of liked economy
that is very superficial andactually not advantageous for
the individuals or the group asa whole, Because you're
optimizing for making sureeverybody feels well liked, but
(17:48):
you're not really willing to behonest with each other, which is
super important for thecollective good.
a.m. (17:55):
Yeah.
There's no, there's, there's nolove in the organization.
Yeah.
Right.
There's no confrontation.
Again, back to the newTestament, lots and lots and
lots of confrontation becausethere's lots and lots and lots
of love, lots and lots of asense of a possibility beyond
where we are.
Right.
It's, it's when the thingcollapses into sentiment, you
know, to affect that it getsweird and gets turned.
And that's why I released thatvideo on Valentine's day,
however many years ago is, is wejust have lost any relationship
(18:17):
to that, to that terminology.
It is just another, I lovecheesecake.
What the fuck does that mean,man?
What does that mean?
Like I love the New YorkYankees.
What?
Ben (18:26):
It means you're committed to a future with cheesecake.
a.m. (18:28):
No, there's no possibility to have a, with the Yankees.
There's no possibility forcommitment.
You can't have commitment withthe Yankees because there's no
action you can take.
You can have hope about theYankees.
I hope they win the pennant.
I hope they win seven.
Great.
But you can't have commitmentrelative to the Yankees because
there's no action that you cantake short of highly
dysfunctional actions like Youknow, being a sniper at the
games and picking off theopposing teams, you know, like,
(18:51):
you know, dark, psychotic stuff.
Don't do that.
Right.
Yeah.
Obviously.
But, but but this is the point,you know like is psychological
and evaluative and, and love issubjective and committed is a
navigation point for action inthe future.
I mean, your kids are stillyoung and how often do they piss
(19:11):
you off?
Ben (19:12):
Every day.
a.m. (19:13):
Right?
Ben (19:13):
But I love them.
a.m. (19:14):
But I love them, which I'm committed to, despite what
you're reliable for at the ageof one, at the age of two, which
is like a pain in the ass stuffthat you're reliable for.
I don't like this, but I amcommitted to building a future
with you that's a break from anyof these habitual patterns.
Ben (19:29):
And that's part of keeping people around you, right?
Which I think is somethingyou've, you've mentioned in
previous episodes aboutcommunity is, is easier to have
love for someone and all flavorsof forgiveness, patience,
tolerance, acceptance.
If you know that they're part ofwhat you broadly speaking,
(19:51):
identify as your community.
You know, if if you're, Ifyou're the type of person who,
like you mentioned, loves thewhole planet, then you treat the
whole planet as your community.
And there've been those people.
They're rare who can wrap theirarms around the entire thing,
but they're there.
I think the reason that it'seasy for people to love their
children is it's really, in someways, the smallest community
(20:14):
that you can be deeply confidentis going to have a meaningful
role in your life for a lot oftime moving forward.
The goal is how to expand that.
And you know, the, thedevaluation of of loving
cheesecake or the Yankees orketchup or whatever it might be
doesn't really do that ideajustice of what your community
(20:37):
is because the Yankees are notpart of your community.
Right.
And cheesecake is not part ofyour community.
So you replace it with thesesymbols.
Right?
The, the kind of superficialmarkers of what you value, but
that's really, that's the otherhalf of the relationship.
That's, that's something youlike.
a.m. (20:57):
Well, this is it.
And it's a sort of an extremeexpression of like, and it gets
collapsed when I, the reason Ieven got on this thread is, is I
love the piece you read and,and, and, and in that last
sentence, actually I heard theword love being used in the way
that I'm using it.
And so that's why it sort oftook us down this rathole as it
were.
When I, when you say you'reembracing the whole world,
right?
When I look at nature, Ben, andI mean this literally when I
(21:19):
look at nature and thereforecapital L life, like the thing,
right?
I, there's nothing there butlove in the way that I'm talking
about it.
Not an affect, not an emotion,but a collective commitment to
keep the thing moving.
A commitment to a future,whatever happens, a commitment
to keep adapting so that we canbe in future together.
(21:42):
Like that's, that's, that's allI can see in nature.
It is a collective agreement,not in a human terms agreement,
right?
In, in, in, you know, the kindof brains we have all that, but
it is a certain collectiveagreement.
It is designed.
The whole thing is designedbased on this principle of, of,
you know, the way I'm using theword love.
Whatever happens, even if aspecies pops up and dumps
(22:03):
billions of pounds of plastic,the operating principle is love,
meaning we're going to find afuture that keeps the thing
going.
Ben (22:12):
I think you've said before, the planet will be fine.
We might not be here to see it,but the planet will heal.
a.m. (22:19):
So if you, if you take these, you know, not as right
distinctions, right?
Because again, I don't thinkanything that we've ever
developed or I've ever developedis right.
I think there are filters orlenses to look at that maybe
allow for a different way ofseeing, right?
So if you just take thesefilters and now look at how we
engage with problems and issues,and it is all affect and like,
positionality, And zeroengagement.
(22:40):
And then when, when, you know,love does enter the equation,
it's just cheap like that's gota wrapper on it, right?
It's still affective.
It's still, you know, it'semotional.
It's sentimental.
It's been hijacked.
Yeah.
And, and, and the folks who,who, you know, came along every
now and again and transformedsociety, they weren't pointing
to affect.
Yeah.
Yeah.
(23:01):
The, the, the the Ted talk I didone of the two TED talks I did,
they talk about this.
You know, if you think aboutwhat the new Testament is, and
then I'm going to also going totake a secular one.
Here's what, what thefundamental part of what I took
away from, from the newTestament at 13 and said, fuck,
you know, Here's what it is inyour blood, like down at the
cellular level.
You are wired to protect, biastowards, fight for, hoard for
(23:28):
those who share your DNA at aprimal biological level, a
little further out, maybe thosewho share your ethnicity or
social class, that you arefundamentally wired for that.
I invite you to say, fuck it andtreat every living person the
(23:48):
same way.
That's crazy.
It's arguing against 200,000years of biology.
It's pointing to a possiblefuture and then being committed
to it.
Secular example, the declarationof independence is saying we
have forever.
tribal or national separated bysome hierarchy or another, some
(24:09):
class distinction or another.
We commit with a fullacknowledgement that we're not
even doing it fully today and infact may never be able to fully
do it.
But what we commit to is anongoing future.
Of more and more and more andmore and more equality for
everyone.
That's actually what theDeclaration is, right?
(24:30):
It's, it's, it's an act of love.
It's a pointing to the fact thatthe past, this is what the past
is.
And if we do nothing, we'll keepmoving that way and it'll be
fine.
But we commit to a future thatbreaks from the past.
That is a horizon point that weprobably will never get to.
But we commit to keep moving inthat direction.
And the idiots who are runningaround now kind of pointing to,
you know, they're pointing tothe total opposite of what the
(24:52):
spirit of that thing is.
They're pretty pointing to apast, they're pointing to a, a
kind of a fixed thing, right?
And so, you know, there areprecedents for engaging this way
at quote unquote scale.
You know, the, the, the, themost significant one being
nature.
I could suck up the whole hourwith other examples but, but
I'll, I'll keep it, I'll giveyou the nature of the New
Testament and the Declaration ofIndependence but there are lots
of examples in, in world historyof people stepping forward and
(25:12):
saying everything argues againstit, it's impossible, it's a
break from the past it's notabout whether I like it or not,
but we're out for sort of everunfolding future in this
particular horizon.
Scott (25:23):
I was just thinking, you know, to paraphrase Bill Hicks,
you know, and what do we do?
We kill those people.
a.m. (25:28):
Of course we do.
Because we get to, you know, topoint to a break.
Scott (25:32):
He says, somebody shut him up.
I got a lot of money riding onthis.
Ben (25:36):
Well, I mean, sort of implicit in, in what you're
saying is the idea that there,there come certain inflection
points in history, whetherreligious or secular, where we
identify a need to break withsomething that is deeply coded
at an instinctual level, tobreak with our nature.
So, like, why?
(25:57):
You know, what's, why do webelieve that we're wired for
something that has this kind ofentropy towards the worst case
scenario, right?
Towards something that sowsconflict, that draws the, the
circle smaller and smalleraround the narrowest definition
of family or community of thepeople we care about.
(26:19):
And why is it actually importantto, to break from that, to treat
the entire planet as somethingthat's worth considering and
connecting with?
Obviously we're in an era whereI can, you know, we could be,
we're in the same room.
We could be doing this indifferent countries and it would
be fine.
You know, we, we have a globalcommunity now in a way that
(26:39):
maybe we didn't, certainlydidn't, when either of the
documents you just referencedwere made.
And yet they already saw theneed to break from our, our most
basic instincts and try to dosomething different.
So like, what are thoseinflection points and why do we
feel like we have to kind offight against this nature or
tame it?
(27:00):
And to me, there's a sense of.
Yes, that makes sense.
My value system puts us at aobjective good that exists after
both of those documents, buttrying to kind of peel it back
to a point like, well, is, isthe natural thing worth
listening to and why, and, andwhy do we, why are we in this
place where we're, we'refighting that continuously and
(27:23):
why it's important to fight thatand acknowledge that and
understand why.
I don't know if our nature is tomake everything smaller and more
insular.
And what you're really talkingabout is we have to love each
other on a much larger scale,engage with the whole planet.
Right.
And that's against our nature.
What is the implication of goingagainst that nature?
(27:45):
Like how do we, how do we listento that and know when we need to
fight it and when we need to gowith it?
a.m. (27:50):
So I don't think inclination is to make it
smaller.
I think make it more predictableto make it more machine like,
and, and the reasons we do thatare wired as it's safety.
It's a sense of safety.
The more you look like me, themore possibility that we are in
fact related.
And then biologically you won'ttry to kill me and steal my
food, right?
Like at a very crude level,right?
Ben (28:09):
Got it.
a.m. (28:10):
So it's about about this inclination to make life more
and more and more and morepredictable,
Ben (28:13):
which is sort of the social contract.
a.m. (28:16):
Yeah.
The triumph of the past of thefuture.
Some notion of a stable pastthat we're trying to bring into
permanent existence, which isagain, what a machine is, right?
The reason to love in the waythat I'm talking about it is
that we are not machines.
And that if we collapse intothat, we will cease to exist.
And in fact, it's what's, it's,it's what's been happening.
You know, we are creating theconditions to cease existing as
(28:39):
a consequence, paradoxically orcontradictorily.
As a consequence of our desireto stabilize a thing that is not
stable in the sense ofpredictable stability nature is
stable, but it's not predictablein the way we want
predictability 14 widgets everyFriday, et cetera, et cetera,
right?
That's not how it works.
(28:59):
And our desire to are reallypsychotic desire is a natural
desire.
When.
We could not clothe and feedourselves.
We did not have the technologiesto do that.
And we couldn't do it foreverybody.
The, the deep desire to bringthings under, in a state of
control and predictability makea lot of sense, but we are
pumping gas into a tank that hasbeen full for generations and
(29:22):
not realizing all the shitthat's spilling out and is
flammable.
Ben (29:26):
I get what you're saying.
So essentially predictability tothe point of having our basic
needs met after which there areother, there are other
objectives.
a.m. (29:36):
Yeah.
There's not a thing in nature,microorganism on up to, you
know, the largest mammal you canfind is not a thing that hordes.
A lion will lie down with thelamb after it's full.
It won't touch it.
It'll, you know, you see these,these, these, these things.
With the lions in there and thezebras in there, they're just
like hanging out at the pond orwhatever.
Because lions aren't hungryanymore.
(29:57):
It does not have a 401k plan.
You know what I mean?
Now, as human beings, werealized, oh shit, that's a,
that's a very tenuous way tolive.
And so having some stability,having some stores of grain, the
equivalent of right.
I mean, absolutely.
It makes sense, but we've so farexceeded our need for it and
don't know what else to do.
(30:17):
That we're with, that we'vekilled future in the way I'm
talking about future, nottemporal, like, you know, time,
like tomorrow.
Yes, there'll be a tomorrow.
I mean, possibility we've killedpossibility.
Yeah.
Killed art.
Ben (30:28):
This gets back to like every, every dinner conversation
I ever have when, you know, youcan get together with other
folks in the business worldsays, we have, we must innovate.
How do we innovate?
We've stifled innovation.
And, but this is, this isalways, it's always at odds,
right?
And I think we've talked aboutthis.
Before a bit, but the idea thatwe want to innovate, but we
(30:51):
don't like the people whoinnovate because the people who
innovate are disruptive.
And I don't mean disruptive inthe sense of like, we have to
disrupt the industry.
I mean, like literallydisruptive, like they're,
they're hard to be in a roomwith or meeting with sometimes
because they're unpredictablenot by definition, but by the
definition of, you know, whatmakes us feel comfortable in a
(31:11):
corporate environment.
And I mean, that's, we've donethat in our world in a lot of
ways, right?
Like, you know, predictably,you're driving down the highway,
there's probably gonna be aDunkin Donuts every 10 minutes
if you're in New England, or 30seconds in some parts of
Connecticut.
You know, like, we need these,like, repeated, segments of, of
(31:33):
kind of comfort.
Like the, this happens in NewYork City.
It's like every 20 blocks,right?
Every 20 blocks you get a newneighborhood, you get a new
laundromat, a new set of Chinesetakeout places, like you sort of
like the, the idea of what'slike necessary, or kind of these
building blocks ofpredictability and
repeatability, just get clonestamped You know, again and
(31:57):
again on the, on the surface,the surface of almost like a, I
think it's like a tile basedboard game.
It's like, oh, yep, that's thehexagon for human comfort and
we're just gonna kind of putthat down and we'll put another
one next to it and they all kindof repeat.
And so yeah, your question is aninteresting one of like, what is
enough?
How do you draw the line atenough?
(32:18):
And then limit thepredictability to the sphere of
enough and everything afterenough becomes chaos, but
allowable, intentional,beneficial chaos that can create
and innovate and inspire and doall of these things that don't
fit in with the box of havingthe Dunkin Donuts every 30
(32:41):
seconds.
a.m. (32:42):
It's organic chaos, right?
It's not, it's not randomness.
Yeah, right.
When just just on the first partof what you said, you know, we,
we you know, we bemoan the kindof lack of innovation, but then
too often when it when it quoteunquote shows up or when it's
acknowledged or engaged with,it's actually not innovation.
It's sort of hucksterdom.
It's hyperbole.
(33:03):
It's you know, we do, we do techeducation here, right?
You've got these, you knowOrganizations have popped up,
you know, in the last decadethat are going to be about
filling the tech gap that arejust same as before, just amped
up and they haven't solved adamn thing and you can, you
know, you can point this, youcan point to this in, in, in, in
(33:23):
every area, right?
Where there's so much of what,what looks like innovation isn't
innovative.
It is, it is, it is a mindsetthat previously existed that's
got, you know, a cool new PRteam behind it in a way.
I'm old enough to remember when,when, you know, like total
quality management was anamazing philosophy.
Dr.
Demings was an amazing humanbeing.
(33:44):
And what he had to say about howone could manage an
organization.
For both productivity and, youknow, like real human, humanity
based work.
It was spectacular.
It was boring.
And then like a decade later, ormore than a decade, but by the
nineties TQM got, got it, got a,you know, basically they got a
PR agent and it became SixSigma.
Six Sigma was the exact samething as total quality
(34:05):
management for the most part,but it was innovation.
It was new.
My God, this is it.
Right.
And so that's what innovationlooks like is it's underlying
mindsets or tools that haveexisted, but spun in a way that
has them look new.
And in that spinning, actuallylosing a lot of foundational
value.
And so the cycle time of thatinnovation to burn out is, is
(34:27):
really rapid because it actuallydidn't have substance to it.
That's not the case everywhere.
I'm not saying every innovationis that, but, but there's a lot
of that you see in the last twodecades.
Of things that look likeinnovation, but they're just
repackaged something else.
And because the emphasis is onthe packaging, the thing just
spins out, you know, and has avery short half life.
Ben (34:45):
Yeah, I feel like actual innovation has some measure of,
like, irritation and ignorancebuilt into the process.
You know I'm not, this is mycaveat, I'm not citing this
example because I think I'minnovating.
I'm not.
But I can see how the processhappens where, you know, my My
CEO will reach out and he'llhave an idea and I'll say, oh
(35:07):
well Here's like here's a reasonor two why things don't really
work that way.
It's really cute idea.
But the idea is like stuck inhis head.
It's stuck there.
It's like lodged.
And it's not that he won't takeno for an answer, but just the
idea of the answer being nodoesn't sit right.
You can tell it's like, I don'tknow, that just doesn't feel
like that should be how thisgoes.
(35:28):
And you can look and you canresearch and you can read the
docs, figure it just doesn'tseem to work this way.
But it's, it's almost like thisnagging feeling of like, This
isn't how, this isn't theversion of the world I thought
it would be living in, wherethis is the truth.
And I can't accept that this isthe answer.
And so the only way forward forme, rather than acceptance, has
(35:52):
to be changing the nature of myreality to conform with what
feels right to me already.
And when I can sense that he'sgetting into one of these modes,
it's, I have to like take mybrain, kind of save, dump it,
and then bring it back in a waythat's receptive to this, this
(36:12):
alternate universe where we'resuddenly jumping timelines where
it says, okay, so if this has tobe possible, if it must be true,
What do we do next?
Like, how do we, how do we jumpto this other universe in which
this is already a foregoneconclusion and we can do it.
And yeah, that's like an uglyand confusing way to birth an
(36:32):
idea, but that's what I thinkinnovation feels like.
And when you have the resourcesto see that through and you can
actually connect those dots,which is where I'll, I'll note,
I've not really done that yet,but I can see the process.
I can see how you get to theother side.
And it's not like having thisclean, well packaged idea.
(36:53):
It's a very ugly connectionbetween this emotional feeling
that things should be adifferent way than they are and
trying to actually scrape thatout with your fingernails.
And it's I think it's preciouswhen you get to do that, when
you get to put those piecestogether, because it's hard to
have The first, the idea or thatfeeling, like it has to be a
(37:14):
genuine feeling.
I don't think you can reallyfake that.
And then you have to go throughthis difficult birthing process
and also have the resources tobe able to put it into effect.
Those are a lot of requirementsfor that.
And I don't think in arelationship, to tie this back
to the earlier part of ourconversation, where two people
in a like economy exist, I Wherethat ever happens because you're
(37:38):
never going to get past theugliness of it being irritating
and the other person having tobe dragged along to say like, I
know, I feel this, this iswrong.
There is, there's something thatelse that needs to be this way.
Come with me on this journey.
Trust in that future.
a.m. (37:54):
You know, I've shared that, that, that a lot of what,
you know some percentage of, ofwhat I've discerned about,
effective organization comesfrom hanging out with the
Grateful Dead for so long.
So there's a period in the earlyseventies where Weir the
acoustic guitar player decideshe's going to start to play
slide.
And of course, you know, they'retouring 120, 150, 180 days a
(38:14):
year.
Like they're just on the road.
They don't rehearse.
They just play, you know, notbig on studio albums and they
just play.
And so he's, when he's learningslide guitar, he's learning on
stage.
Right.
And it sounds like shit, youknow when he's fulfilling and,
and the story goes and we'retells a story where at least he
used to tell the story.
He said one night after, youknow, a couple of months of
(38:35):
this, like after show, I'm like,fuck this.
I'm just, you know, it justsounds terrible.
I just, I'm going to stop, youknow just try to find time to
work on it when we're nottouring or whatever.
And he says from the other sideof the room, I hear Garcia say,
Hey man, you know what the curefor that is.
And I said, what is it justfucking play louder, right?
That's an act of love.
That's what love looks like.
(38:56):
It says there is no precedent.
There is no predictability.
There is no, you know, but I'mcommitted with you in the
future.
I'm committed with you to afuture where you're a slide
guitar player.
So just fucking play louder.
Like that's it.
That's what I'm pointing to.
That's how we engage the kids.
That's how we always engage theclients.
You know, 60 year olds who arelike, Oh my God, the corporate
(39:16):
equivalent of, you know, whenthey're trying to innovate in an
industry or whatever.
Oh my God, it sounds terrible.
Yeah, cool.
I got it.
Play fucking louder.
Right.
And I'm here to be part of theband with you.
So you, so we can kind of pickyou up when the thing kind of
goes, you know, whatever.
Right.
But just play louder.
Ben (39:31):
I'd never heard that story.
Yeah.
It's great.
I like the There's a book outthere somewhere.
Ready to be written aboutGrateful Dead as management
philosophy.
a.m. (39:39):
Yeah, I'm telling you, there's a, well, here's the
thing that they were mediocremanagers.
Like I wouldn't use them as, asin the way I talk about
management, like I wouldn't talkabout them.
The Stones is, who I'd use as,manager philosophy, like them in
there, you know?
But, but leadership, you know,how to be in a state of
constantly on the edge and outover your skis and riding with
(40:02):
it and then discovering thingsand bringing them back and
bringing them into now thepredictable space, but not being
content.
Every single show can containthat.
There was a period of the showthat was either the dark star or
it revolved into space.
What was the whole intention iswe're going to lose any
semblance forget about of oursongs.
We're going to lose allsemblance of sonic integrity.
(40:22):
Like it's not forgetting, noteven not music.
It's not even, it's not evennoise necessarily.
We're just going to play withthe, you know, the space of the
thing and out of those sort ofthings, songs, little snippets
of songs and melodies wouldemerge.
It became songs.
And you know, that's, that'swhat a healthy, effective
innovation factory.
They were a 25 year, 30 yearhealthy, effective innovation
(40:45):
factory.
Ben (40:45):
I wonder how all these formats apply to, you know,
different form factors.
Like, how do you take a touringrock band or the way a film is
made, you know, or just, thereare all these wonderful
practices in one medium that areinherently non transferable in
totem to other mediums, butwhere there's something to be
(41:08):
learned.
And you know, part of it isrespect that you can't just copy
that, like, don't try.
You're not gonna, you're notgonna take that and bring it to
your consulting business or toyour students.
But there's something there thatshows you it can be done.
In your own way, in your ownspace with whatever you're
actually trying to achieve.
a.m. (41:29):
For, for me, you know and how we, we taught it for all
those years in, in the master'sprogram with clients.
Leadership is inherently aunique act of self expression, a
one time act of self expression.
Not only can somebody else notrepeat it, you can't repeat it.
Each time you have to, like apiece of art, each time you have
to approach the thing as new.
And, and, and take nothing fromthe past as a formula.
(41:53):
Now you may well draw, but youcan't draw from it as a formula,
as a step, as a process.
Right.
There's, have you ever seenheart hearts of darkness?
Yeah.
That's another example of like,how the hell did he pull that
off?
And I mean,
Ben (42:06):
yeah, it reminds me of that or Burden of Dreams, the making
of Fitzcarraldo.
I also recently watched anothermaking of that's The Humiliated,
which is the making of Lars vonTrier's The Idiots.
a.m. (42:19):
Really?
I've not even seen that.
I'm not even familiar with it.
Wow.
Ben (42:22):
I don't know that I'd recommend it.
a.m. (42:23):
Okay, yeah.
I'm not a Trier guy.
He's a little too, I don't know.
Ben (42:27):
It's, it's, it's there for the taking.
It is what it is.
But the making of was Prettyphenomenal in so much as the you
know The point being all ofthese making of movies often
expose that the process of themaking of the movie closely
followed the point that themovie was trying to get across
in the first place.
You know, I think Hearts ofDarkness kind of shows the
(42:49):
isolation of all the peopleinvolved going through the same
type of trials as the boat goingup the river.
Fitzcarraldo, Burden of Dreamshows they actually dragged the
damn boat up the mountain.
It's insane.
It's insane.
And you know, the kind of again,humiliation of the characters in
The Idiots is what the actorsthemselves are experiencing as
(43:10):
it was being made and the likeemotional uncovery that that
happened there.
So it's, it just turns out that,you know, sometimes you don't
even need to really make thething, the process of doing it
proves your point.
a.m. (43:21):
And, and, and yeah, it's again, unique stuff.
I was smiling just because Ithink like one of my It's not
even a bucket list.
Like you know those fantasythings you have like if you wave
a wand?
Like, like, like a fantasybucket list for me is a cross
country car road trip withHerzog and David Lynch.
Just like, like a week in a carwith the two of them, man.
Oh god, that'd be amazing.
(43:42):
Because I think day to daythey're not like, they are them,
but they're not this kind ofpersona.
And I just find both of them sofascinating and revere both of
them.
Ben (43:50):
I'll just put it right out there.
If David Lynch or Werner Herzogare listening to the podcast,
you're invited guests.
We'd love to have you.
a.m. (43:57):
I'll come to wherever you are, man.
Absolutely.
Just to hang out.
No, both of them arelegitimately sort of I don't
have a lot of people I kind ofconsider, you know, like
reference points, but both ofthem are definitely reference
points for me.
They're amazing.
The one thing for me that youcan point to that's common,
right?
So don't take the GratefulDead's process or steps.
Don't take Coppola's, you know,steps or process or don't, you
(44:19):
know, like anything's the, it'sinherently, it is unrepeatable,
but what you can look at, whatwe found useful to look at and
that's common is the nature ofhuman relationships.
Seems to be consistent.
And, I'm going to keep beatingthe drum.
Very often, the people involveddon't like each other.
But they love each other.
Meaning they're willing to staycommitted to a possible future
(44:41):
that is impossible.
And yet they're committed tostaying in it.
But they irritate each other andthey don't like each other.
And when the thing is done,they, they, they leave.
You know, they don't, right?
Okay.
Grateful Dead had so manyblowups internally and, and Bob
and Jerry on one level were likeolder brother, younger brother,
but on another level wereconstantly like just not, you
know, from, you know, thirdparty, like, I don't, you know,
(45:02):
who knows the actual truth ofthat.
But my point is, I mean, if youlook at Hearts of Darkness,
right, like, was there a lot oflike, you know, Kumbaya and I
mean, you know, And so one thingthat does seem to be consistent
is relationship and, and, youknow, what we'd tell what I'd
tell the, the the executives inthe master's program, you know,
at a certain point, once, onceyou, cause you say certain stuff
on day one, it's like, what thefuck are you talking about?
Right.
But, but a couple months in,we'd say, you realize these two
(45:24):
years, the only thing we'reworking on is relationship.
And the only thing we're workingwith is listening.
There's a single tool and it'slistening and it's deepening
your capacity to listen andthere's a single capability
working on which isrelationship.
Your relationship to yourself,your relationship to other
people, and your relationship tothe world.
That's it.
That's the entirety of it.
And when I look at all these,you know, examples of
(45:45):
leadership, innovation, thingsthat are impossible I very often
find people who didn't like eachother.
Who irritated each other, whodidn't, you know, and it didn't
matter because they loved eachother in the way that I'm
talking about.
They were committed to a futurethat the past said was
impossible and they were willingto move forward on it and put
aside affect and put asideemotion, put aside like, and
(46:07):
dislike, and you got bad breathand you wear your, you know,
horrible cologne and whatever,right?
Yeah.
Because they had a shared, youknow impossibility they were
willing to commit to.
Ben (46:21):
I love it.
I think the moment of silenceis, it's sort of like sitting
back after a great meal and justdigesting for a minute, you
know, which makes sense.
Cause we did also have lunch nottoo long ago, but a more of a
conversational meal.
Do you ever, This is going to bea, a postscript, but ever
watched the Dana Carvey show?
It's like a sketch comedy.
a.m. (46:41):
Yeah, I'm familiar with it.
I've just, I've never seen it.
Ben (46:43):
Yeah, they used to always get like corporate sponsors and
they'd always shit all overtheir corporate sponsors every
week until their corporatesponsors kept dropping out one
after one after the other.
And finally, the last episode ofthe show, they couldn't get any
corporate sponsors because theykept making fun of them.
So they were sponsored by theChinese food place they got
lunch from across the street.
(47:03):
So I feel like this should besponsored by Starbucks and we'll
just keep taking them down oneby one by one.
a.m. (47:08):
Starbucks was a client, you know, so I, it was through,
it was through Starbucks that Igot turned on to the in the late
nineties to actually evenearlier than that, probably like
97, maybe 96.
The corporate socialresponsibility movement, you
know, back then you know,Schultz was in his sort of
early, you know, relativelyearly, you know, kind of
stability thing.
There's still a lot ofmeaningful ideology there.
They hadn't become a beast yet.
(47:29):
And they and Levi's were twolegit actually committed members
of, of BSR, our business ofsocial responsibility and, and
So, so at one point, all I wishto say, at one point they did
take a lot of money fromStarbucks.
So they, you know, it's 20years, 25 years later or
whatever, but they, I suppose ina certain way, indirectly are,
you know, funding this
No, is to be within a specific discipline, a specific
world, a specific reality toknow is extremely useful for
getting things done within thatparticular discipline or world
or reality to be an effectivedoctor or a pastry chef or a
(00:21):
financial analyst.
There's much that is critical toknow, but knowing by its nature
is bounded by, and in factreinforcing of, the reality
within which it occurs.
For 25 years, I've worked withexecutives in large
organizations, grad students,tech entrepreneurs, religious
leaders, and no doubt mytoughest client, myself.
I'm developing the capacity toexplore what lies beyond
(00:44):
knowing, beyond certainty at apractical level.
This work is required for thingslike innovation, but more
importantly, I found that thisinquiry is critical for
maintaining one's humanity.
Oh, and if you're generousenough to be listening to these
conversations, I respectfullysubmit that at any point, if you
feel you understand what I'msaying, you're not listening
(01:05):
deeply enough.
I'm A.
M.
Bhatt.
Welcome to Absurd Wisdom.
And for today's conversation, weare continuing the ongoing
series with Ben Heller, CTO ofDriver Technologies.
Let's jump right in.
Ben (01:17):
I was poking around the used bookstore last week and
came across this book that, youknow, looked oddly familiar.
And my wife said, I think I haveone of his tucked away
somewhere.
So I started reading it and it'sby Brian Andreas and the book's
called Hearing Voices and it's acollection of poems and, and
sketches, and I won't read theentire intro, but basically he
(01:41):
opens with all the differentvoices that kind of exist in his
head creatively.
And those are creative forcesthat pull him towards in a way
from different things and how heat various times resisted those
voices and then learned toactually listen to them.
So I'm going to read a couple ofparagraphs.
Finally, I learned to justlisten and unexpectedly, they
(02:02):
taught me the secret of life.
Be a lover.
That was it.
Be a lover.
When you love, whether a childor your work, or the feel of the
wind licking your skin, you arein a state of grace.
You aren't asking your love tobe anything more than what it
is.
The paradox is that what it is,is beyond imagining.
It is real and true and veryrarely what you expect.
(02:24):
In my work as an artist, most ofthe time I don't have the
faintest idea what's going tohappen.
I sit down and feel the worldaround me and in me.
I become enchanted in the bestsense of the word.
I'm filled with delight.
I listen to the voices of myheart.
I draw a line.
I draw another line.
I remember the time I won awhole bag of marbles from my
next door neighbor.
(02:44):
I remember going to the beachwith all my cousins.
I draw more lines.
I remember more things.
I keep putting down lines.
Every line is a whisper ofmemory, of my life at that
moment.
People ask me how I come up withthe stuff I do.
I tell them it's all right therewhen I listen.
It is a powerful act of love tosimply listen well and fully.
(03:06):
I'll stop there.
I love that last sentiment,rather than comment on it.
I just love your reaction tothat.
a.m. (03:15):
Yeah.
It's all right there.
We just have shellacked over itwith so much pointless shit, but
it's all right there in front ofus.
Scott (03:22):
We were talking before about a musician that we both
know Bob Pollard.
I dropped that name.
Uncle Bob.
Uncle Bob.
And the thing that, you know,like I was saying, and according
to, you know, your storyreinforces it or whatever.
It's like, very prolific.
Like, hundreds of albums at thispoint?
Must be, yeah.
(03:43):
And not, not one of them is anymore precious than the other.
It's just making the thing.
And, you know, don't spend a lotof time fretting or, you know,
just, alright, that one's done,next one, kind of thing, you
know.
And it feels, it's like aconduit, you know, it's like,
comes through.
And that's kind of what I gotfrom that was, you know, get out
of the way.
Get out of your own way.
you know, what you love willdrive what you're doing.
(04:05):
Yeah.
Ben (04:07):
My understanding of his early records was he was
recording with like, do youremember those, those kids toy
boom boxes that had a plugin micis like one of those in his
basement.
And that's what he would recordhis early demos on was just kind
of shouting into that mic.
And it began, he was a scienceteacher at the middle school
science teacher at the time.
And it's a Dayton and He wasn'ttrying for an aesthetic.
(04:32):
It wasn't this intentional lo fithing.
Like, oh, it's gonna be raw andgenuine.
It's like, didn't occur to himthat he would need anything more
to express what he needed to inhis songs.
And if you haven't listened toany of his songs, especially the
early stuff right there, thereare Noticeable fidelity issues.
(04:53):
And I put issues in air quotes,but the songs are brilliant.
They're all brilliant.
They have incredible hooks andyou, you just, you feel that,
you know, there's some songswhere you get to the chorus and
it's like knocks the wind out ofyou just a little bit.
And it ended up actually kind ofspying a lot of imitators and
(05:13):
became this genre of lo fi musicthat, you know, that was
something that people werefalling into a little bit more
as a stylistic decision.
But if there's one thing aboutBob Pollard is he's, he's a
genuine creator.
And, and, and that's what,that's what I heard in this,
this introduction to thesestories.
And I really don't know theauthor.
(05:35):
well enough at all.
And I've just, I'm not eventhrough with the book, but the
intro got me.
This is like, if this isanybody's approach to their
work, I want to read it.
I need to, I need to absorbwhatever the result of that,
that process is.
And, you know, we've talked alittle bit about listening in
the past but listening aslistening as an act of love, and
(06:00):
as an act of love for thecreative process is putting it
together in a way that I hadn'tquite done before.
a.m. (06:07):
So like ten years ago I did a video on Valentine's Day
on the three words that we needto stop using, we need to agree
to stop using for a centurybecause they're just everywhere
and, and we've lost allrelationship to them.
And the three words were God,leadership, and love.
Ben (06:22):
I think I only used one of those.
a.m. (06:23):
But, but, but, but, but, but I mean in the general,
right?
So, so here I'm sitting herejust debating whether I want to
open up this whole sort ofthing, but I'm going to, let's
see where it goes.
So, so what's your definition oflove?
Like what, what, or, you know,how do you distinguish love from
like from other affects,
Ben (06:39):
Yeah, that's really interesting for me.
It has a sense of persistence.
I, sometimes I like things andlater I don't like that same
thing.
I think identifying love issomething that happens, this for
me over time.
It's a relationship to somethingover, over a period of time.
That's, that's consistent and isa source of energy.
(07:02):
I'm not going to comment on thedirectionality of that energy,
but it feels like there'ssomething there that that
survives on its own, its ownlife and its own timeline.
That's as close, I think, as Ican get.
a.m. (07:16):
I, you know, as with everything, I'm not going to
suggest this is right, but thisis just the framework that I
have sort of developed over theyears on it.
So I say I like something to me.
That's a management concern.
It means that what it producesreliably, I find a value or
pleasurable.
And whether that's a person or athing, right?
And then don't like is what itproduces reliably or, or, you
know, fairly reliably.
(07:36):
I don't find a value or I don'tfind, you know, pleasant.
And so Starbucks mentionedearlier, I don't like Starbucks.
It's reliable for producing athing that I find not
pleasurable.
I do like the coffee peddler,you know, Ryan's Place on East
Street.
It produces an output that Ireliably find favorable.
Ben (07:53):
That was there this morning.
a.m. (07:54):
Yeah, I say that again.
Shop local, kids.
Since we're mentioning RyanPizza Place out in West Haven,
Rebar, go check that out too.
That's this little dive pizzaplace in the Strip Mall in Savin
Rock area, West Haven.
Has the best bourbon collectionon this part, in this part of
Connecticut.
It's amazing.
It's, it's a product of Ryan's,you know curatorial prowess.
And so with people, you know, I,I find this, you know, Mel and I
(08:17):
used to have a lot of theseconversations back room just,
you know, because it's, it's,it's tough to have some of these
out in public because they just,they're such weighted, they have
such weight to them.
I don't like most people I meet,like, like the vast majority.
And what I mean by that isthey're reliable for producing
something I find, you know,because they're, because it's,
because they're not there.
It's their habituation that'sthere.
(08:37):
And so they're producing thingsthat are just to me, not
terribly interesting.
I don't mean they're not smart,not creative.
I don't mean any of that.
I just mean they're not there.
And so it's just not, it's, it'sa certain kind of positional in
society, polite, whatever,right?
Ben (08:52):
The rest of this episode is actually just am listing all the
people he dislikes.
So if your name appears here,please
a.m. (08:57):
Here's the thing.
So it's not dislike.
It's, I don't like, right.
I don't, I don't have an activenegative absence of like the
absence of it.
And, but, but again, it's, it'sa very specific thing.
It's not affect.
It's not an emotional.
I don't like you.
It's, there's a reliability thatyou have for producing something
that I don't find of value orinteresting.
And most often it's because mostpeople are walking around in
(09:19):
habituation.
They're playing a role.
Love is not related to like forme.
It exists in a different domain.
Now, like has a temper, has atemporality, has a past
temporality because in order forme to have this sense of you
were reliable for producingsomething that I find valuable
or not like Starbucks by itsnature, that's, that's a past
temporality.
I'm using evidence from the pastand then extrapolating into the
(09:41):
future, which really isn'tfuture.
It's repeat of past.
Right.
And I'm assuming you're going torepeat.
I go into Starbucks.
Actually part of the valueproposition is we will repeat
past for you.
Right.
That's a past I don't findvaluable.
And so I don't like Starbucks.
Coca Cola is going to taste likeCoca Cola.
Exactly.
Right.
And I don't like Coca Cola.
Right.
Love is in a different domain.
Love's temporality is future.
(10:01):
When I say I love someone.
What I'm saying is I'm willingto commit future absent any
evidence from the past.
There's no amount of like youcan build up with me that will
have me love you.
And there's no amount of dislikeyou can generate, right?
See the like, dislike is aproduct of behavior and value in
that behavior and reliability ofthat.
Love is solely up to me.
(10:23):
That it is a product of, I say,I am going to commit future with
you in the absence of having anyclarity of what future would be.
And in fact, in the face of afuture that for now might be an
extension of the past based onthe pattern you're going to keep
engaging in.
So in folks who worked for me inthe 30 years or 28 years of
(10:45):
advisory work, there's a, likewe would have this conversation
overtly.
I've only had it overtly in herewith a couple of people because
some people are still new enoughthat this shit just sounds
weird.
And part of my wanting to do thepodcast actually was to be able
to open up conversations thatare more about the ongoing
development of this place.
And then people listen in.
Cool.
But every, everybody that everworked with me on, on the
(11:06):
advisors, I said, you do nothave to like a single client, a
single one of them, but youcannot work here.
If you do not love our clients,not as affect.
but as engaging in a way whereyou are committed to future with
them with no possibility ofpredictability.
Right?
And I think it's the same herewith the students is whatever
you're reliable for that thepast says the kind of repeat
(11:28):
pattern that is the habituatedyou, whether I like that or not
is irrelevant.
If you walk in this door, I loveyou.
Meaning I am blank slatecommitting to future with you.
And whatever is emergent,engaging that emergent thing in
a way that generates value inour case for you and your
development.
I think in a healthy marriage,that's what's happening.
(11:48):
And marriages fall apart becausethey treat love as a static
thing.
And then when you stop doing A,B and C, maybe I don't love you
anymore.
But it's an ongoing, for me,it's an ongoing recommitment to
future.
And where it falls apart then isI'm withdrawing my commitment
around future.
Around the possibility ofsurprise for whatever reason,
(12:08):
right?
Because I, you know, so that's awhole nother thing we can kind
of explore.
It's tied into the leadershipwork, like, you know,
leadership, art, love, thosethings are exist in a thread for
me.
Because it's all about animpossible future, impossible in
the sense of there's noprecedent for it.
But liking is all about a pastand the continuation of a past
that is either desirable or notdesirable.
And so like dislike
Ben (12:29):
We've done episodes on like transactions.
Yeah, that's the idea of a likebeing tied to Something very
transactional in nature and loveexisting Separate from that.
I just wonder what's the what isthe generator or Predictor of
being willing to commit toloving something because
(12:50):
something about you has to saythis is worthwhile making this
commitment.
And if it's non transactional,which I think is fabulous right?
There's a value somewhere behindit, a different value,
a.m. (13:03):
right?
It's a simply matter of I say,and so there have been people
who've walked around on theplanet.
That are in love with the wholething that there, it is all
possibility that whoever youhave been, whatever you have
been, however, that I amcommitted to a, an unknown
future with you, with the world,right?
And it is not, there's nothingaffective about it.
(13:24):
We're just coming off ofChristmas.
My reading of the, I'm notChristian.
I'm very clear.
I didn't grow up Christian.
I'm not Christian and I dig thedude's work.
At least the direct reading ofit, you know, like dig it a lot.
Big impact on my life.
Pissed me off when I first readit.
Because, you know, I don't knowhow you actually read the New
Testament and then go back today to day life in terms of the
obligation, you know, or theopportunity to have some, a
(13:45):
certain kind of impact and, and,and not look at their other, you
know, wisdom tradition texts youread and it's like, okay, well,
how the hell did I go back?
You know, how do I, you know,how do I read the Bhagavad Gita
and not get into a very deepinquiry about, you know, kind of
how I, you know, Process my ownbehavior.
Anyway so it's, it's very muchnot a, you know a denominational
thing or a religious thing.
But when you read, that guydidn't like a lot of people.
(14:08):
You know what I mean?
There's a complaints about lotsof different people.
But the whole invitation was, sowhat?
Are you willing to?
Work towards a future that's,that's, that's a break from
habituation, a break from thepast, a break from, which is for
me, what, what love is.
Ben (14:24):
Well, the flip side of that is, I assume I can guess the
answer to this, but if you hadto put a percentage at the
number of relationships in yourlife that perceive you as being
well liked versus well loved.
Is the balance a hundred andzero, 50/50, 80/20.
(14:45):
Is it important to exist in aworld where anybody likes you at
all?
Is being liked important?
Full stop.
Is being loved important?
Full stop to put it on the otherend of that relationship.
a.m. (14:57):
Being liked is a critical if you want to actually get
anything done transactionally.
Right.
And so the thing you're in ajob, like the thing you're
reliable for producing issomething that is of value.
You're liked by theorganization.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, absolutely.
Your habituation works for them.
And, and so it can be very, evenin the context of, of personal
relationships in marriage,right?
(15:18):
Like, it's useful that I likeyou, that the things you
regularly produce.
Right.
But there are going to beaspects I don't like.
And so if the, if the marriageis based on those likes and
dislikes, it's going to fallapart.
Eventually the thing's going toget irritating enough, right?
Or there's enough of a gap.
I think there's also could be,you know, when there's, when
there's too much of adisconnect, right?
There are too many things thatyou do habitually just by virtue
(15:39):
of your machinery, or I do asvirtue of my machinery, that is
just a fundamentally out ofalignment for you, you know, no
amount of, of, of committingcan.
Potentially work.
Though I, I'll say that oneloosely.
I'm, I'm, I'm not, I'm notcommitted to that statement
necessarily.
Ben (15:53):
The lack of a commitment goes all the way down.
a.m. (15:55):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's turtles all the way down.
Ben (15:56):
Yeah.
a.m. (15:57):
But, but, but the point is that, that, that, that love is
hygienic work, right?
Like is maintenance work.
Keep tuning to make sure thatthe machine is running well,
that the outcomes that arevalued keep getting produced.
or the clarity of the outcomesthat are not valued, reinforces
not engaging, right?
But love isn't, isn't a, a amachine concern.
(16:19):
And by machine concern, I don'tmean is it a negative thing?
Again, really critical aspectsof life to answer your question.
So much of life is contingentupon those, the, you know, the
transactional so much of gettingthings done is on the
transactional.
And so those like, dislikedistinctions become useful.
When I want a cup of coffee,it's useful.
To know that Starbucks is infact reliable for a thing and to
know it's not my thing.
(16:39):
So I don't have to have baggageabout it.
I just, that's not where I'mgoing.
Ryan and coffee peddler isreliable for producing a thing.
And it's a thing that works forme that I like.
And so great.
So that, but the transaction of,I want coffee becomes very
straightforward.
Yeah.
But love isn't transactional.
It isn't about, you know, it isabout, am I willing to recommit?
Am I with every moment?
Am I willing to recommit?
Am I willing to recommit?
(17:00):
Am I willing to recommit?
Ben (17:02):
To add a flavor to that, I was talking to a former
colleague the other day, andhe's on to a new job, and he's
enjoying it, and I asked him abit about, you know, what's the
codebase like, how's it going,and he said, well, everyone here
is so nice.
They all like working here, andthey all, everyone likes each
other.
And the code base is areflection of that, meaning
(17:24):
everyone's afraid to tell anyoneelse that their ideas suck, that
you shouldn't, you shouldn't doit that way.
Let's consider another way.
And if there's an aspect ofthis, this sort of liked economy
that is very superficial andactually not advantageous for
the individuals or the group asa whole, Because you're
optimizing for making sureeverybody feels well liked, but
(17:48):
you're not really willing to behonest with each other, which is
super important for thecollective good.
a.m. (17:55):
Yeah.
There's no, there's, there's nolove in the organization.
Yeah.
Right.
There's no confrontation.
Again, back to the newTestament, lots and lots and
lots of confrontation becausethere's lots and lots and lots
of love, lots and lots of asense of a possibility beyond
where we are.
Right.
It's, it's when the thingcollapses into sentiment, you
know, to affect that it getsweird and gets turned.
And that's why I released thatvideo on Valentine's day,
however many years ago is, is wejust have lost any relationship
(18:17):
to that, to that terminology.
It is just another, I lovecheesecake.
What the fuck does that mean,man?
What does that mean?
Like I love the New YorkYankees.
What?
Ben (18:26):
It means you're committed to a future with cheesecake.
a.m. (18:28):
No, there's no possibility to have a, with the Yankees.
There's no possibility forcommitment.
You can't have commitment withthe Yankees because there's no
action you can take.
You can have hope about theYankees.
I hope they win the pennant.
I hope they win seven.
Great.
But you can't have commitmentrelative to the Yankees because
there's no action that you cantake short of highly
dysfunctional actions like Youknow, being a sniper at the
games and picking off theopposing teams, you know, like,
(18:51):
you know, dark, psychotic stuff.
Don't do that.
Right.
Yeah.
Obviously.
But, but but this is the point,you know like is psychological
and evaluative and, and love issubjective and committed is a
navigation point for action inthe future.
I mean, your kids are stillyoung and how often do they piss
(19:11):
you off?
Ben (19:12):
Every day.
a.m. (19:13):
Right?
Ben (19:13):
But I love them.
a.m. (19:14):
But I love them, which I'm committed to, despite what
you're reliable for at the ageof one, at the age of two, which
is like a pain in the ass stuffthat you're reliable for.
I don't like this, but I amcommitted to building a future
with you that's a break from anyof these habitual patterns.
Ben (19:29):
And that's part of keeping people around you, right?
Which I think is somethingyou've, you've mentioned in
previous episodes aboutcommunity is, is easier to have
love for someone and all flavorsof forgiveness, patience,
tolerance, acceptance.
If you know that they're part ofwhat you broadly speaking,
(19:51):
identify as your community.
You know, if if you're, Ifyou're the type of person who,
like you mentioned, loves thewhole planet, then you treat the
whole planet as your community.
And there've been those people.
They're rare who can wrap theirarms around the entire thing,
but they're there.
I think the reason that it'seasy for people to love their
children is it's really, in someways, the smallest community
(20:14):
that you can be deeply confidentis going to have a meaningful
role in your life for a lot oftime moving forward.
The goal is how to expand that.
And you know, the, thedevaluation of of loving
cheesecake or the Yankees orketchup or whatever it might be
doesn't really do that ideajustice of what your community
(20:37):
is because the Yankees are notpart of your community.
Right.
And cheesecake is not part ofyour community.
So you replace it with thesesymbols.
Right?
The, the kind of superficialmarkers of what you value, but
that's really, that's the otherhalf of the relationship.
That's, that's something youlike.
a.m. (20:57):
Well, this is it.
And it's a sort of an extremeexpression of like, and it gets
collapsed when I, the reason Ieven got on this thread is, is I
love the piece you read and,and, and, and in that last
sentence, actually I heard theword love being used in the way
that I'm using it.
And so that's why it sort oftook us down this rathole as it
were.
When I, when you say you'reembracing the whole world,
right?
When I look at nature, Ben, andI mean this literally when I
(21:19):
look at nature and thereforecapital L life, like the thing,
right?
I, there's nothing there butlove in the way that I'm talking
about it.
Not an affect, not an emotion,but a collective commitment to
keep the thing moving.
A commitment to a future,whatever happens, a commitment
to keep adapting so that we canbe in future together.
(21:42):
Like that's, that's, that's allI can see in nature.
It is a collective agreement,not in a human terms agreement,
right?
In, in, in, you know, the kindof brains we have all that, but
it is a certain collectiveagreement.
It is designed.
The whole thing is designedbased on this principle of, of,
you know, the way I'm using theword love.
Whatever happens, even if aspecies pops up and dumps
(22:03):
billions of pounds of plastic,the operating principle is love,
meaning we're going to find afuture that keeps the thing
going.
Ben (22:12):
I think you've said before, the planet will be fine.
We might not be here to see it,but the planet will heal.
a.m. (22:19):
So if you, if you take these, you know, not as right
distinctions, right?
Because again, I don't thinkanything that we've ever
developed or I've ever developedis right.
I think there are filters orlenses to look at that maybe
allow for a different way ofseeing, right?
So if you just take thesefilters and now look at how we
engage with problems and issues,and it is all affect and like,
positionality, And zeroengagement.
(22:40):
And then when, when, you know,love does enter the equation,
it's just cheap like that's gota wrapper on it, right?
It's still affective.
It's still, you know, it'semotional.
It's sentimental.
It's been hijacked.
Yeah.
And, and, and the folks who,who, you know, came along every
now and again and transformedsociety, they weren't pointing
to affect.
Yeah.
Yeah.
(23:01):
The, the, the the Ted talk I didone of the two TED talks I did,
they talk about this.
You know, if you think aboutwhat the new Testament is, and
then I'm going to also going totake a secular one.
Here's what, what thefundamental part of what I took
away from, from the newTestament at 13 and said, fuck,
you know, Here's what it is inyour blood, like down at the
cellular level.
You are wired to protect, biastowards, fight for, hoard for
(23:28):
those who share your DNA at aprimal biological level, a
little further out, maybe thosewho share your ethnicity or
social class, that you arefundamentally wired for that.
I invite you to say, fuck it andtreat every living person the
(23:48):
same way.
That's crazy.
It's arguing against 200,000years of biology.
It's pointing to a possiblefuture and then being committed
to it.
Secular example, the declarationof independence is saying we
have forever.
tribal or national separated bysome hierarchy or another, some
(24:09):
class distinction or another.
We commit with a fullacknowledgement that we're not
even doing it fully today and infact may never be able to fully
do it.
But what we commit to is anongoing future.
Of more and more and more andmore and more equality for
everyone.
That's actually what theDeclaration is, right?
(24:30):
It's, it's, it's an act of love.
It's a pointing to the fact thatthe past, this is what the past
is.
And if we do nothing, we'll keepmoving that way and it'll be
fine.
But we commit to a future thatbreaks from the past.
That is a horizon point that weprobably will never get to.
But we commit to keep moving inthat direction.
And the idiots who are runningaround now kind of pointing to,
you know, they're pointing tothe total opposite of what the
(24:52):
spirit of that thing is.
They're pretty pointing to apast, they're pointing to a, a
kind of a fixed thing, right?
And so, you know, there areprecedents for engaging this way
at quote unquote scale.
You know, the, the, the, themost significant one being
nature.
I could suck up the whole hourwith other examples but, but
I'll, I'll keep it, I'll giveyou the nature of the New
Testament and the Declaration ofIndependence but there are lots
of examples in, in world historyof people stepping forward and
(25:12):
saying everything argues againstit, it's impossible, it's a
break from the past it's notabout whether I like it or not,
but we're out for sort of everunfolding future in this
particular horizon.
Scott (25:23):
I was just thinking, you know, to paraphrase Bill Hicks,
you know, and what do we do?
We kill those people.
a.m. (25:28):
Of course we do.
Because we get to, you know, topoint to a break.
Scott (25:32):
He says, somebody shut him up.
I got a lot of money riding onthis.
Ben (25:36):
Well, I mean, sort of implicit in, in what you're
saying is the idea that there,there come certain inflection
points in history, whetherreligious or secular, where we
identify a need to break withsomething that is deeply coded
at an instinctual level, tobreak with our nature.
So, like, why?
(25:57):
You know, what's, why do webelieve that we're wired for
something that has this kind ofentropy towards the worst case
scenario, right?
Towards something that sowsconflict, that draws the, the
circle smaller and smalleraround the narrowest definition
of family or community of thepeople we care about.
(26:19):
And why is it actually importantto, to break from that, to treat
the entire planet as somethingthat's worth considering and
connecting with?
Obviously we're in an era whereI can, you know, we could be,
we're in the same room.
We could be doing this indifferent countries and it would
be fine.
You know, we, we have a globalcommunity now in a way that
(26:39):
maybe we didn't, certainlydidn't, when either of the
documents you just referencedwere made.
And yet they already saw theneed to break from our, our most
basic instincts and try to dosomething different.
So like, what are thoseinflection points and why do we
feel like we have to kind offight against this nature or
tame it?
(27:00):
And to me, there's a sense of.
Yes, that makes sense.
My value system puts us at aobjective good that exists after
both of those documents, buttrying to kind of peel it back
to a point like, well, is, isthe natural thing worth
listening to and why, and, andwhy do we, why are we in this
place where we're, we'refighting that continuously and
(27:23):
why it's important to fight thatand acknowledge that and
understand why.
I don't know if our nature is tomake everything smaller and more
insular.
And what you're really talkingabout is we have to love each
other on a much larger scale,engage with the whole planet.
Right.
And that's against our nature.
What is the implication of goingagainst that nature?
(27:45):
Like how do we, how do we listento that and know when we need to
fight it and when we need to gowith it?
a.m. (27:50):
So I don't think inclination is to make it
smaller.
I think make it more predictableto make it more machine like,
and, and the reasons we do thatare wired as it's safety.
It's a sense of safety.
The more you look like me, themore possibility that we are in
fact related.
And then biologically you won'ttry to kill me and steal my
food, right?
Like at a very crude level,right?
Ben (28:09):
Got it.
a.m. (28:10):
So it's about about this inclination to make life more
and more and more and morepredictable,
Ben (28:13):
which is sort of the social contract.
a.m. (28:16):
Yeah.
The triumph of the past of thefuture.
Some notion of a stable pastthat we're trying to bring into
permanent existence, which isagain, what a machine is, right?
The reason to love in the waythat I'm talking about it is
that we are not machines.
And that if we collapse intothat, we will cease to exist.
And in fact, it's what's, it's,it's what's been happening.
You know, we are creating theconditions to cease existing as
(28:39):
a consequence, paradoxically orcontradictorily.
As a consequence of our desireto stabilize a thing that is not
stable in the sense ofpredictable stability nature is
stable, but it's not predictablein the way we want
predictability 14 widgets everyFriday, et cetera, et cetera,
right?
That's not how it works.
(28:59):
And our desire to are reallypsychotic desire is a natural
desire.
When.
We could not clothe and feedourselves.
We did not have the technologiesto do that.
And we couldn't do it foreverybody.
The, the deep desire to bringthings under, in a state of
control and predictability makea lot of sense, but we are
pumping gas into a tank that hasbeen full for generations and
(29:22):
not realizing all the shitthat's spilling out and is
flammable.
Ben (29:26):
I get what you're saying.
So essentially predictability tothe point of having our basic
needs met after which there areother, there are other
objectives.
a.m. (29:36):
Yeah.
There's not a thing in nature,microorganism on up to, you
know, the largest mammal you canfind is not a thing that hordes.
A lion will lie down with thelamb after it's full.
It won't touch it.
It'll, you know, you see these,these, these, these things.
With the lions in there and thezebras in there, they're just
like hanging out at the pond orwhatever.
Because lions aren't hungryanymore.
(29:57):
It does not have a 401k plan.
You know what I mean?
Now, as human beings, werealized, oh shit, that's a,
that's a very tenuous way tolive.
And so having some stability,having some stores of grain, the
equivalent of right.
I mean, absolutely.
It makes sense, but we've so farexceeded our need for it and
don't know what else to do.
(30:17):
That we're with, that we'vekilled future in the way I'm
talking about future, nottemporal, like, you know, time,
like tomorrow.
Yes, there'll be a tomorrow.
I mean, possibility we've killedpossibility.
Yeah.
Killed art.
Ben (30:28):
This gets back to like every, every dinner conversation
I ever have when, you know, youcan get together with other
folks in the business worldsays, we have, we must innovate.
How do we innovate?
We've stifled innovation.
And, but this is, this isalways, it's always at odds,
right?
And I think we've talked aboutthis.
Before a bit, but the idea thatwe want to innovate, but we
(30:51):
don't like the people whoinnovate because the people who
innovate are disruptive.
And I don't mean disruptive inthe sense of like, we have to
disrupt the industry.
I mean, like literallydisruptive, like they're,
they're hard to be in a roomwith or meeting with sometimes
because they're unpredictablenot by definition, but by the
definition of, you know, whatmakes us feel comfortable in a
(31:11):
corporate environment.
And I mean, that's, we've donethat in our world in a lot of
ways, right?
Like, you know, predictably,you're driving down the highway,
there's probably gonna be aDunkin Donuts every 10 minutes
if you're in New England, or 30seconds in some parts of
Connecticut.
You know, like, we need these,like, repeated, segments of, of
(31:33):
kind of comfort.
Like the, this happens in NewYork City.
It's like every 20 blocks,right?
Every 20 blocks you get a newneighborhood, you get a new
laundromat, a new set of Chinesetakeout places, like you sort of
like the, the idea of what'slike necessary, or kind of these
building blocks ofpredictability and
repeatability, just get clonestamped You know, again and
(31:57):
again on the, on the surface,the surface of almost like a, I
think it's like a tile basedboard game.
It's like, oh, yep, that's thehexagon for human comfort and
we're just gonna kind of putthat down and we'll put another
one next to it and they all kindof repeat.
And so yeah, your question is aninteresting one of like, what is
enough?
How do you draw the line atenough?
(32:18):
And then limit thepredictability to the sphere of
enough and everything afterenough becomes chaos, but
allowable, intentional,beneficial chaos that can create
and innovate and inspire and doall of these things that don't
fit in with the box of havingthe Dunkin Donuts every 30
(32:41):
seconds.
a.m. (32:42):
It's organic chaos, right?
It's not, it's not randomness.
Yeah, right.
When just just on the first partof what you said, you know, we,
we you know, we bemoan the kindof lack of innovation, but then
too often when it when it quoteunquote shows up or when it's
acknowledged or engaged with,it's actually not innovation.
It's sort of hucksterdom.
It's hyperbole.
(33:03):
It's you know, we do, we do techeducation here, right?
You've got these, you knowOrganizations have popped up,
you know, in the last decadethat are going to be about
filling the tech gap that arejust same as before, just amped
up and they haven't solved adamn thing and you can, you
know, you can point this, youcan point to this in, in, in, in
(33:23):
every area, right?
Where there's so much of what,what looks like innovation isn't
innovative.
It is, it is, it is a mindsetthat previously existed that's
got, you know, a cool new PRteam behind it in a way.
I'm old enough to remember when,when, you know, like total
quality management was anamazing philosophy.
Dr.
Demings was an amazing humanbeing.
(33:44):
And what he had to say about howone could manage an
organization.
For both productivity and, youknow, like real human, humanity
based work.
It was spectacular.
It was boring.
And then like a decade later, ormore than a decade, but by the
nineties TQM got, got it, got a,you know, basically they got a
PR agent and it became SixSigma.
Six Sigma was the exact samething as total quality
(34:05):
management for the most part,but it was innovation.
It was new.
My God, this is it.
Right.
And so that's what innovationlooks like is it's underlying
mindsets or tools that haveexisted, but spun in a way that
has them look new.
And in that spinning, actuallylosing a lot of foundational
value.
And so the cycle time of thatinnovation to burn out is, is
(34:27):
really rapid because it actuallydidn't have substance to it.
That's not the case everywhere.
I'm not saying every innovationis that, but, but there's a lot
of that you see in the last twodecades.
Of things that look likeinnovation, but they're just
repackaged something else.
And because the emphasis is onthe packaging, the thing just
spins out, you know, and has avery short half life.
Ben (34:45):
Yeah, I feel like actual innovation has some measure of,
like, irritation and ignorancebuilt into the process.
You know I'm not, this is mycaveat, I'm not citing this
example because I think I'minnovating.
I'm not.
But I can see how the processhappens where, you know, my My
CEO will reach out and he'llhave an idea and I'll say, oh
(35:07):
well Here's like here's a reasonor two why things don't really
work that way.
It's really cute idea.
But the idea is like stuck inhis head.
It's stuck there.
It's like lodged.
And it's not that he won't takeno for an answer, but just the
idea of the answer being nodoesn't sit right.
You can tell it's like, I don'tknow, that just doesn't feel
like that should be how thisgoes.
(35:28):
And you can look and you canresearch and you can read the
docs, figure it just doesn'tseem to work this way.
But it's, it's almost like thisnagging feeling of like, This
isn't how, this isn't theversion of the world I thought
it would be living in, wherethis is the truth.
And I can't accept that this isthe answer.
And so the only way forward forme, rather than acceptance, has
(35:52):
to be changing the nature of myreality to conform with what
feels right to me already.
And when I can sense that he'sgetting into one of these modes,
it's, I have to like take mybrain, kind of save, dump it,
and then bring it back in a waythat's receptive to this, this
(36:12):
alternate universe where we'resuddenly jumping timelines where
it says, okay, so if this has tobe possible, if it must be true,
What do we do next?
Like, how do we, how do we jumpto this other universe in which
this is already a foregoneconclusion and we can do it.
And yeah, that's like an uglyand confusing way to birth an
(36:32):
idea, but that's what I thinkinnovation feels like.
And when you have the resourcesto see that through and you can
actually connect those dots,which is where I'll, I'll note,
I've not really done that yet,but I can see the process.
I can see how you get to theother side.
And it's not like having thisclean, well packaged idea.
(36:53):
It's a very ugly connectionbetween this emotional feeling
that things should be adifferent way than they are and
trying to actually scrape thatout with your fingernails.
And it's I think it's preciouswhen you get to do that, when
you get to put those piecestogether, because it's hard to
have The first, the idea or thatfeeling, like it has to be a
(37:14):
genuine feeling.
I don't think you can reallyfake that.
And then you have to go throughthis difficult birthing process
and also have the resources tobe able to put it into effect.
Those are a lot of requirementsfor that.
And I don't think in arelationship, to tie this back
to the earlier part of ourconversation, where two people
in a like economy exist, I Wherethat ever happens because you're
(37:38):
never going to get past theugliness of it being irritating
and the other person having tobe dragged along to say like, I
know, I feel this, this iswrong.
There is, there's something thatelse that needs to be this way.
Come with me on this journey.
Trust in that future.
a.m. (37:54):
You know, I've shared that, that, that a lot of what,
you know some percentage of, ofwhat I've discerned about,
effective organization comesfrom hanging out with the
Grateful Dead for so long.
So there's a period in the earlyseventies where Weir the
acoustic guitar player decideshe's going to start to play
slide.
And of course, you know, they'retouring 120, 150, 180 days a
(38:14):
year.
Like they're just on the road.
They don't rehearse.
They just play, you know, notbig on studio albums and they
just play.
And so he's, when he's learningslide guitar, he's learning on
stage.
Right.
And it sounds like shit, youknow when he's fulfilling and,
and the story goes and we'retells a story where at least he
used to tell the story.
He said one night after, youknow, a couple of months of
(38:35):
this, like after show, I'm like,fuck this.
I'm just, you know, it justsounds terrible.
I just, I'm going to stop, youknow just try to find time to
work on it when we're nottouring or whatever.
And he says from the other sideof the room, I hear Garcia say,
Hey man, you know what the curefor that is.
And I said, what is it justfucking play louder, right?
That's an act of love.
That's what love looks like.
(38:56):
It says there is no precedent.
There is no predictability.
There is no, you know, but I'mcommitted with you in the
future.
I'm committed with you to afuture where you're a slide
guitar player.
So just fucking play louder.
Like that's it.
That's what I'm pointing to.
That's how we engage the kids.
That's how we always engage theclients.
You know, 60 year olds who arelike, Oh my God, the corporate
(39:16):
equivalent of, you know, whenthey're trying to innovate in an
industry or whatever.
Oh my God, it sounds terrible.
Yeah, cool.
I got it.
Play fucking louder.
Right.
And I'm here to be part of theband with you.
So you, so we can kind of pickyou up when the thing kind of
goes, you know, whatever.
Right.
But just play louder.
Ben (39:31):
I'd never heard that story.
Yeah.
It's great.
I like the There's a book outthere somewhere.
Ready to be written aboutGrateful Dead as management
philosophy.
a.m. (39:39):
Yeah, I'm telling you, there's a, well, here's the
thing that they were mediocremanagers.
Like I wouldn't use them as, asin the way I talk about
management, like I wouldn't talkabout them.
The Stones is, who I'd use as,manager philosophy, like them in
there, you know?
But, but leadership, you know,how to be in a state of
constantly on the edge and outover your skis and riding with
(40:02):
it and then discovering thingsand bringing them back and
bringing them into now thepredictable space, but not being
content.
Every single show can containthat.
There was a period of the showthat was either the dark star or
it revolved into space.
What was the whole intention iswe're going to lose any
semblance forget about of oursongs.
We're going to lose allsemblance of sonic integrity.
(40:22):
Like it's not forgetting, noteven not music.
It's not even, it's not evennoise necessarily.
We're just going to play withthe, you know, the space of the
thing and out of those sort ofthings, songs, little snippets
of songs and melodies wouldemerge.
It became songs.
And you know, that's, that'swhat a healthy, effective
innovation factory.
They were a 25 year, 30 yearhealthy, effective innovation
(40:45):
factory.
Ben (40:45):
I wonder how all these formats apply to, you know,
different form factors.
Like, how do you take a touringrock band or the way a film is
made, you know, or just, thereare all these wonderful
practices in one medium that areinherently non transferable in
totem to other mediums, butwhere there's something to be
(41:08):
learned.
And you know, part of it isrespect that you can't just copy
that, like, don't try.
You're not gonna, you're notgonna take that and bring it to
your consulting business or toyour students.
But there's something there thatshows you it can be done.
In your own way, in your ownspace with whatever you're
actually trying to achieve.
a.m. (41:29):
For, for me, you know and how we, we taught it for all
those years in, in the master'sprogram with clients.
Leadership is inherently aunique act of self expression, a
one time act of self expression.
Not only can somebody else notrepeat it, you can't repeat it.
Each time you have to, like apiece of art, each time you have
to approach the thing as new.
And, and, and take nothing fromthe past as a formula.
(41:53):
Now you may well draw, but youcan't draw from it as a formula,
as a step, as a process.
Right.
There's, have you ever seenheart hearts of darkness?
Yeah.
That's another example of like,how the hell did he pull that
off?
And I mean,
Ben (42:06):
yeah, it reminds me of that or Burden of Dreams, the making
of Fitzcarraldo.
I also recently watched anothermaking of that's The Humiliated,
which is the making of Lars vonTrier's The Idiots.
a.m. (42:19):
Really?
I've not even seen that.
I'm not even familiar with it.
Wow.
Ben (42:22):
I don't know that I'd recommend it.
a.m. (42:23):
Okay, yeah.
I'm not a Trier guy.
He's a little too, I don't know.
Ben (42:27):
It's, it's, it's there for the taking.
It is what it is.
But the making of was Prettyphenomenal in so much as the you
know The point being all ofthese making of movies often
expose that the process of themaking of the movie closely
followed the point that themovie was trying to get across
in the first place.
You know, I think Hearts ofDarkness kind of shows the
(42:49):
isolation of all the peopleinvolved going through the same
type of trials as the boat goingup the river.
Fitzcarraldo, Burden of Dreamshows they actually dragged the
damn boat up the mountain.
It's insane.
It's insane.
And you know, the kind of again,humiliation of the characters in
The Idiots is what the actorsthemselves are experiencing as
(43:10):
it was being made and the likeemotional uncovery that that
happened there.
So it's, it just turns out that,you know, sometimes you don't
even need to really make thething, the process of doing it
proves your point.
a.m. (43:21):
And, and, and yeah, it's again, unique stuff.
I was smiling just because Ithink like one of my It's not
even a bucket list.
Like you know those fantasythings you have like if you wave
a wand?
Like, like, like a fantasybucket list for me is a cross
country car road trip withHerzog and David Lynch.
Just like, like a week in a carwith the two of them, man.
Oh god, that'd be amazing.
(43:42):
Because I think day to daythey're not like, they are them,
but they're not this kind ofpersona.
And I just find both of them sofascinating and revere both of
them.
Ben (43:50):
I'll just put it right out there.
If David Lynch or Werner Herzogare listening to the podcast,
you're invited guests.
We'd love to have you.
a.m. (43:57):
I'll come to wherever you are, man.
Absolutely.
Just to hang out.
No, both of them arelegitimately sort of I don't
have a lot of people I kind ofconsider, you know, like
reference points, but both ofthem are definitely reference
points for me.
They're amazing.
The one thing for me that youcan point to that's common,
right?
So don't take the GratefulDead's process or steps.
Don't take Coppola's, you know,steps or process or don't, you
(44:19):
know, like anything's the, it'sinherently, it is unrepeatable,
but what you can look at, whatwe found useful to look at and
that's common is the nature ofhuman relationships.
Seems to be consistent.
And, I'm going to keep beatingthe drum.
Very often, the people involveddon't like each other.
But they love each other.
Meaning they're willing to staycommitted to a possible future
(44:41):
that is impossible.
And yet they're committed tostaying in it.
But they irritate each other andthey don't like each other.
And when the thing is done,they, they, they leave.
You know, they don't, right?
Okay.
Grateful Dead had so manyblowups internally and, and Bob
and Jerry on one level were likeolder brother, younger brother,
but on another level wereconstantly like just not, you
know, from, you know, thirdparty, like, I don't, you know,
(45:02):
who knows the actual truth ofthat.
But my point is, I mean, if youlook at Hearts of Darkness,
right, like, was there a lot oflike, you know, Kumbaya and I
mean, you know, And so one thingthat does seem to be consistent
is relationship and, and, youknow, what we'd tell what I'd
tell the, the the executives inthe master's program, you know,
at a certain point, once, onceyou, cause you say certain stuff
on day one, it's like, what thefuck are you talking about?
Right.
But, but a couple months in,we'd say, you realize these two
(45:24):
years, the only thing we'reworking on is relationship.
And the only thing we're workingwith is listening.
There's a single tool and it'slistening and it's deepening
your capacity to listen andthere's a single capability
working on which isrelationship.
Your relationship to yourself,your relationship to other
people, and your relationship tothe world.
That's it.
That's the entirety of it.
And when I look at all these,you know, examples of
(45:45):
leadership, innovation, thingsthat are impossible I very often
find people who didn't like eachother.
Who irritated each other, whodidn't, you know, and it didn't
matter because they loved eachother in the way that I'm
talking about.
They were committed to a futurethat the past said was
impossible and they were willingto move forward on it and put
aside affect and put asideemotion, put aside like, and
(46:07):
dislike, and you got bad breathand you wear your, you know,
horrible cologne and whatever,right?
Yeah.
Because they had a shared, youknow impossibility they were
willing to commit to.
Ben (46:21):
I love it.
I think the moment of silenceis, it's sort of like sitting
back after a great meal and justdigesting for a minute, you
know, which makes sense.
Cause we did also have lunch nottoo long ago, but a more of a
conversational meal.
Do you ever, This is going to bea, a postscript, but ever
watched the Dana Carvey show?
It's like a sketch comedy.
a.m. (46:41):
Yeah, I'm familiar with it.
I've just, I've never seen it.
Ben (46:43):
Yeah, they used to always get like corporate sponsors and
they'd always shit all overtheir corporate sponsors every
week until their corporatesponsors kept dropping out one
after one after the other.
And finally, the last episode ofthe show, they couldn't get any
corporate sponsors because theykept making fun of them.
So they were sponsored by theChinese food place they got
lunch from across the street.
(47:03):
So I feel like this should besponsored by Starbucks and we'll
just keep taking them down oneby one by one.
a.m. (47:08):
Starbucks was a client, you know, so I, it was through,
it was through Starbucks that Igot turned on to the in the late
nineties to actually evenearlier than that, probably like
97, maybe 96.
The corporate socialresponsibility movement, you
know, back then you know,Schultz was in his sort of
early, you know, relativelyearly, you know, kind of
stability thing.
There's still a lot ofmeaningful ideology there.
They hadn't become a beast yet.
(47:29):
And they and Levi's were twolegit actually committed members
of, of BSR, our business ofsocial responsibility and, and
So, so at one point, all I wishto say, at one point they did
take a lot of money fromStarbucks.
So they, you know, it's 20years, 25 years later or
whatever, but they, I suppose ina certain way, indirectly are,
you know, funding this
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.