June 5, 2023 • 52 mins
What if there was a way to embrace both radical innovation and radical preservation in our lives, without falling into the trap of codependency? Join me as I explore the fascinating nuances between symbiosis and codependency, and discuss how to move towards a ternary perspective that fosters growth and newness. I'll also touch on the importance of self-governance and constraining aspects of our nature in order to reach the zenith of what's possible.
Ever struggled with dark thoughts and feelings? Discover the power of a liquid state of mind, in which we suspend judgment and embrace our emotions for increased adaptability and a more open perspective. Learn how this liquid state is a prerequisite for claiming our inner infinite aspect and allowing ourselves to be present to and claim the shadow aspects of our nature.
Finally, we'll dive into the world of investing in people for wealth generation. Drawing from the dynamics between venture capitalists and founders of innovation, we'll discuss how to create an environment that encourages extreme perspectives and collaboration to foster graceful transition through the disruption caused by innovation. Join me for this fascinating exploration of balance between risk-taking and safety, enabling individuals to explore their curiosity and generate wealth for the nation.
Contact David Ding
Thanks for listening!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay.
So this one is about the natureof symbiosis, but I want to
talk about symbiosis from aternary perspective.
Symbiosis is typically twoentities living together as one
and enhancing each other'scapability and capacity to
(00:21):
thrive because of the dynamicsof that relationship.
And the reason for that isbecause symbiosis, the original
meaning of it, is companionshipor living together.
So a ternary perspective.
You would say that there arethree things living together
(00:44):
harmoniously that are enhancingeach other's capability and
capacity to thrive.
But in reality you can havemillions of things living
together symbiotically and thatwould really, to my mind, that's
a state of thriving.
but I think the word reallybecomes harmony at that point.
(01:05):
Harmonious, but there arenuances to this, and so the
first thing I want to do is justto share the nuance between
symbiosis and codependency.
Codependency is a word that'sgot so much shame attached to it
(01:26):
these days, but that's kind ofneedless.
The only nuance to codependencyis that there's a sense within
one of the living entities thatwithout the other it could not
survive on its own.
And so it's.
(01:46):
The bond is held in place by afear of death or a need to
survive, a belief that withoutthe other, that they could die
or that they will die, and soit's codependent.
In order to survive, i need you, and we've all felt this needy
(02:09):
energy from people before theneediness in others.
When you sense the gravity ofsomeone's energy pulling you
towards them and you can sensethe neediness in it, within them
, it's more than likely born outof a fear that unless they
(02:29):
continue receiving somethingfrom you, then at some level
they fear for their ownwell-being, and which is human
nature.
If you really believe that youincapable of surviving alone,
you will be radiating needyenergy, especially if your
(02:52):
vulnerabilities, the areaaspects of your life where you
feel as though you areinadequate, but if they are
revealed, it will certainlytrigger that kind of energy.
So symbiosis, on the other hand, comes from the perspective of
a sovereign entity knowing andunderstanding that, with or
(03:14):
without the other two components, it can survive.
So the fear of death has beennegated.
However, the desire to thriveand to become more and to
enhance your capacity to thriveand evolve and become more and
experience, you know, morediversity of life, more richness
(03:37):
of experience, you know it cancome, it can be enhanced
symbiotically.
And so it is not out of it,it's not born out of a need to
survive.
It's born out of a desire tolive, to live purposefully and
intentionally and to become moreand to experience more.
(03:58):
So very, very differentenergies, very, very different.
And you know the ternaryperspective.
There is an aspect of yournature that is born of something
infinite You are a binaryexpression of something that is
infinite.
There is an aspect of yournature that is indifferent to
(04:24):
death, but that's not the binaryaspect.
So hopefully, that sets thescene.
And so symbiosis.
From a ternary perspective, i'mgoing to look at the
disentanglement of what, to mymind, are the three aspects of
(04:47):
our own nature that worktogether as one, perpetually
seeking homeostasis together,but always in flux, and you know
.
So let's look at.
(05:07):
So I want to look at itactually through the perspective
of, let's say, governance.
So you, as a human being, youhave to govern yourself.
For you to be sovereign, youhave to be capable of
self-governing andself-regulating.
(05:30):
So, in a scenario within whichyou have become aware that you
are, you are not just one thing,you're not your body, you're
not your mind and you're notjust the electricity running
through those things, you areall three working together
(05:56):
symbiotically.
Then, while this is whathappened within me, the desire
to curiously explore the fullcapability and capacity of each
individual component had to comeat the expense of constraining
one or more of those aspects sothat the other could reach its
(06:18):
zenith.
And this is an experiment thatI did with myself over the
course of three years, and Icame to disentangle these three
aspects and understand theirnature as a singularity, from a
singular perspective, so that Icould consciously weave them
back together in ways that areharmonious and desirable.
(06:44):
And the thing that firstbecomes apparent is all of the
ways we are inadvertentlyrepressing aspects of our own
nature in order to experiencethe extreme of another, of the
desire of another component part.
So you know, one of the classicones is the desire for peace.
(07:06):
Most of us have a strong desireto experience peace, but what
it would say is that weinadvertently mistake comfort
for peace all the time.
We think that a state ofcomfort is where we're going to
find peace.
But you can be simultaneouslycomfortable and in a state of
(07:29):
discord and disharmony.
So comfort is not peace.
And in a perpetual seeking ofpeace through comfort, what we
do is we repress the aspect ofour nature that is seeking
challenge.
And unfortunately that's wheregrowth kind of stops If you are
(07:57):
averting challenge, then thereis no innovation in your life,
there's no newness, there's noaspect of your nature that's
seeking the newness, because allinnovation is born out of that
which is unknown.
And everything, all newness,everything that is unknown, has
(08:25):
to come from a state ofchallenge, challenging the
status quo, challenging thetruth, challenging whatever it
may be, because unless there's aproblem, there is no solution,
and the solution is innovation.
Everything in nature that isgrowing and evolving is a
solution to a problem, to someaspect of our nature that is
(08:50):
limited and wanting to expandinto something more.
So that would be my first realpoint of reference point is that
be very aware of where you'reinadvertently seeking comfort
instead of peace, thinkingyou're seeking peace, but
(09:12):
instead seeking comfort, becausepeace resides within the hearts
of men and women And it's astate of being that means you've
got your mind and your body andyour emotions working together
as one, harmoniously,symbiotically, aware of the
(09:33):
needs of each, of the nature andthe needs of each individual
component.
And then really, the zenith ishow they can complement each
other in order to enrich eachother's experience,
symbiotically.
So I'm going to go into sothat's the governance of a human
(09:57):
being, you receive a thought,and here's the interplay that I
utilize myself to make surethese components of my own
nature are complementary, and somy default setting is openness.
(10:19):
So I'm perpetually seeking tobe in a state, in a fluid state,
like a liquid state.
And if you think of wealth, ifyou think of people who are
wealthy managing portfolios ofwealth, they have varying states
(10:43):
or varying degrees of liquidityto their assets.
Some of their assets areextremely fixed over long
periods of time.
That's like a rock solid basefoundation.
Some of their assets areslightly more liquid.
Their ability to liquidatethose assets is they're able to
(11:03):
achieve it in a shorter space oftime if need be, but then they
always have a liquid pool thatthey can access very quickly
when they need liquidity, andthey can access that
spontaneously.
So the closer you are to beingin a liquid state, the more
spontaneously you can act.
So the more nimble you are, themore agile you are.
(11:26):
But you want to be as lean aspossible.
In a scenario within which youneed to act spontaneously, then
you want high levels ofliquidity.
Otherwise you can't capitalizeupon opportunities in the moment
(11:49):
that they arise.
It's the same as a human beingYou want to be as close to a
liquid state as possible becausewhen opportunities arise, where
a truth emerges, an emergingtruth arises that renders your
previous conceptions or yourprevious judgments obsolete, you
(12:12):
want to be able to evolve intothat new truth without
resistance, without trying tocling on to the previous version
of yourself that needs to nowdie so that you can become the
new version of yourself that hasadopted that new truth.
So if you are unable to befluid, if you are unable to
(12:40):
remain liquid, if you have notgot high liquidity as a human
being, then when an emergingtruth arises, what you'll do is
you'll reject that truth.
It will trigger you, you'llfeel pain and you'll want to
project your current beliefsonto the source of that truth.
(13:02):
Oh, but this and that and theother thing.
I've spent this many yearsdoing this.
I've spent this many yearsdoing that.
You know, i've devoted my lifeto this.
Now you're saying this isinvalid And so you'll want to,
(13:24):
and this, in fact, this.
I've come to know this emotionvery well.
It's good, it's messy, becausethe potential grief that you
have to feel in order to let goof some truths to allow create
space for an emerging truth tobe true.
The grief required sometimes isit's too overwhelming and it's
(13:44):
just not possible to let it goinstantaneously unless you
become highly, highly, highlyadept at being liquid but at
being fluid.
And this is the thing to be ina highly liquid state, you have
to have come to the point ofbeing able to allow your mind,
(14:06):
your thoughts, your impulses andyour emotions.
You have to be in a state oftotal allowing of all three.
That's the only way to be in aliquid state.
So you're prepared to be wrongin any given moment.
You're prepared to be.
You're prepared for everythingthat you currently believe now
(14:28):
to be rendered obsolete In thenext moment.
You're prepared to be presentand willing to judge every
single thought that comes, nomatter how dark and deep and no
matter what the interpretationof that thought might mean.
And that's the prerequisite.
(14:49):
If you receive a thought andit's really dark and it's about
yourself, and you know that ifyou are to interpret that
thought and judge it, you knowthat the interpretation of that
meaning means that you believesomething about yourself that's
really horrible, or that you'rereminded of a part of yourself
(15:11):
that you are still ashamed of,and so you have this fear of the
wrath of your own judgement,then you will project, you will
lash out against that thought.
You'll probably try and jumpinto a meditation to avoid it.
But to be in a liquid state, tobe fluid, to have high
(15:35):
liquidity as an individual,you're going to see the thought,
you're going to give it yourunconditional presence, you're
going to allow yourself tointerpret the meaning of that
thought.
You're going to allow theemotion that is evoked because
of your interpretation, becauseof what you believe it means,
and you're going to feel thatemotion wholly.
And when you feel that emotionwholly, you'll allow yourself to
(16:02):
interpret what that means.
I am this, i am that I'minsignificant, i am useless, i
am powerful, whatever it may be,the free flowing of a thought,
the use of judgement tointerpret the meaning, the
(16:27):
accepted truth of that meaning,evoking deeper and deeper
emotion.
And you're sinking deeper anddeeper into a state of allowing,
as you claim, that I am theinterpretation of those emotions
.
I am this, i am that, withoutresistance, remembering that
(16:51):
these are all of this poweryou're claiming as you go, i am
insignificant, i am powerless.
They are simply the aspects ofyour nature, of the infinite
aspect of your nature, that meanthe opposite thing in binary,
you see.
So if I'm, if I'm useless, if Iclaim that I am useless from a
(17:17):
singular perspective, theinfinite perspective, that's
what dormant potential is.
It's a pool of potentiality.
It's useless, you can't use itfor anything.
You cannot use it for anything,but it's the most potent state
in existence.
I'm insignificant, i don'tmatter.
(17:38):
It's because the infinite isimmaterial, it's pre-matter.
So you're just, you're claimingthe infinite, infinite aspect
of your nature, as you claimyour shadow.
You know, and I've come tobelieve, that the reason we call
it shadow work is because we'reclaiming the darkness, the
(18:01):
infinite space, the absolutepresence of all sound, of all
sound, of all possible sound,with no beginning and no end.
So you see, you know I am small, i am insignificant.
(18:22):
When you come to claim all ofthese parts of your nature that
you think are wrong or twisted,or distorted, you realise that
they're just hidden parts of theinfinite aspect of your nature
that the binary part of yournature is opposed to, because it
(18:45):
means the opposite thing.
So, being in this total stateof allowing, allowing every
thought, allowing everyjudgement, trusting every
judgement, claiming the truth ofthe meaning of that judgement
and then allowing the emotionthat's evoked because of what
that means, because of the truth, of what that means, and
(19:07):
sinking deeper and deeper intothe emotion as it changes.
I'm insignificant, i'm nothing,i'm not worthy, i'm a disgrace.
And you come to, you'll feelfeelings, and sometimes you
(19:28):
won't even have a word for it.
I've had that quite a few times.
It's like, oh, i've never feltthis emotion and I haven't even
got a word to describe it.
And so then what you do is youstart studying words to figure
out the meaning so that you caninterpret them properly, like
when I found the emotion withinme that I'm a disgrace.
(19:48):
Then I came to realise that it'sjust the opposite of grace.
So matter is disgrace.
If grace is fluidity, it's theinfinite.
A state of grace is nobeginning and no end, it's fluid
(20:08):
.
Then disgrace is what light is.
It's quantised sound, packetsof light.
That's what disgrace is thecreation of sound, and I found
that very vividly within myself.
So you see, everything is valid, and if there's anything you
(20:35):
resist within your body, anyexperience that you resist or
reject as a human being, it'sjust the perspective of the
infinite that your binary natureis rejecting.
And so the more and more youclaim of your shadow from the
(20:57):
binary perspective, they seemlike they make you less powerful
From the singular perspective.
They're making you profoundlyand infinitely more powerful
Because, as you're claiming theI am of those emotions, i am
insignificant.
You're claiming your infinitenature And you're becoming fluid
(21:19):
.
You're creating liquidity, soyourself as an asset, you're
becoming so adaptable to changeand so open to innovation that
you're becoming an absoluteforce of nature.
In truth And now I am.
(21:44):
So I do want to be open andhonest about the pros and cons
to having this perspective andto living your life like this is
you grow to become indifferentto people's suffering.
This is quite an intimate thingto share.
(22:05):
When I say indifferent topeople's suffering, it's more
that you become indifferent tothe emotions of pity.
So if someone's in a pitiablestate because you know they're
so close to a breakthrough,there's a part of you that
becomes really hopeful for themand you're kind of willing them
(22:30):
to go deeper.
Now that's a very difficultperspective for someone that is
feeling that that pain issuffering.
There's no way they can relateto that or resonate with it.
So, and the other thing is, youbecome indifferent to well, it
(22:54):
becomes highly irritating wheninnovation is being stifled.
So if you're in an environmentwithin which there's an
abundance of, let's say,consensus decision making and
it's stifling the innovationthat the individual human beings
that, if they were sovereignand empowered, could make a
(23:16):
decision to move forward andcreate innovation.
The process of consensusdecision making is stifling that
innovation.
That becomes highly irritatingand even worse if you're in a
company or an organisation thatis purely role specific and
(23:38):
there's dormant potential of thehuman beings in those roles
that's being underutilised.
You know, i use the in mypodcast.
I use the archetype of anaccountant quite often.
You know, an accountant canalso be a photographer and can
also dabble in graphic design.
It becomes highly irritating tosee dormant I call it wealth.
(24:00):
I believe that our gifts andabilities and our skills, i
believe that's the source of ourwealth.
And so when I see dormantwealth within a human being
being stifled because they areconstrained by a role, that
becomes highly, highlyirritating.
And so I'm always constantlyseeking to create pools of
(24:22):
wealth, of liquidity, that arereally just talent pools that
are not constrained by a role,so then they become highly
liquid and then, extremely, theycan spontaneously evolve to
meet an unmet need.
So, yeah, my perspective can beand I would say, my influence,
(24:56):
in an environment that isstifled can be highly agitating
for the people around me, andthen, you know, i kind of having
an indifference to that, to thefact that it is irritating.
It can be, yeah, it can cause abit of disruption, but that's
(25:16):
the nature of innovation.
So, but what I want to do is Iwant to temper this, because
symbiosis is important and notall human beings are capable of
walking around in a liquid state.
(25:37):
You know, they might be theequivalent of a fixed asset and
it might take them 12 months toreconcile in a conflict that
will lead them to a state ofinner harmony and therefore
reach a liquid state.
So, and you have to havesymbiosis, you have to have
everything.
If you want harmony, you haveto create an environment within
(26:02):
which whatever state a humanbeing is in is relevant.
And they don't have to.
They're not being forced tochange if that's not what they
want to do.
It's absolutely essential.
And so, in the same way that aportfolio manager manages a
(26:24):
portfolio of assets, managers,wealth, they do have some that
are fixed, they do have someassets that will take a long,
long time to liquidate, theyhave some that are slightly less
and then they have a highlyliquid pool.
You have to have an environmentthat contains, that allows
everyone to be exactly as theyare, without being forced to go
(26:49):
against their nature, and thisis where true harmony comes in.
So of course, it's aspirationalto be able to express your
nature in a liquid state.
Of course, there's no betterstate to be in order to thrive
(27:12):
and to grow, but that's noteveryone's cup of tea.
So there has to be anenvironment within which someone
can be in a state that does notwant to change, that wants to
remain where they are, and inasset management and portfolio
(27:34):
management, this is where youhave people who are focused on
preservation.
So when you want to preservesomething, you're not actually
trying to change it or get it togrow or change or do anything
different.
You're trying to pre-serve it,meaning that you're foreseeing
(27:57):
what it may need and you'reproviding it before it requires
that thing.
So how you're expressing yournature, how you are nurturing
that thing, is enabling it tostay where it is at now, and
this is critically important interms of infrastructure, and so
(28:20):
you actually don't.
In that scenario, the greatestthreat to infrastructure that we
are dependent on is change Yourfocus, and your intent is for
it to remain exactly the sameAnd without going too deep into
it.
This is where you know how Isee the sympathetic and the
(28:42):
parasympathetic nervous systems,whereby everything that the
body depends on for survival hasto be preserved at any cost.
You don't want it to alter andchange.
It has to be immutable to acertain degree, and those are
(29:04):
our fixed assets.
We want to preserve them, andthe nature of preservation is to
resist change.
It's to resist innovation.
So you see harmony.
In a state of harmony, everyonehas to be able to coexist and
(29:28):
follow their own nature, and sothis is where you see the
separation of powers.
This is where you see symbiosisas a really important thing.
You want there to be someonewho is resistant to change,
preserving the fixed assets,resisting change, resisting
(29:51):
innovation at any cost.
In society, we see these as ourregulators.
Regulators are in place to keepeveryone safe, to preserve the
health, the well-being, theinnocence of our people.
(30:11):
Their job is to resist change.
Their job is to resistinnovation so that the things
that we depend on wholly don'tchange.
Now, that doesn't mean weshouldn't be innovating, but
(30:33):
what it does mean is that weneed sandbox environments.
I mean that's an inevitability.
So resistance to testing sandboxenvironments by regulators?
that's not something I'm overlykeen on, and so this is where I
apply pressure.
You know, i totally understandthat your job as a regulator is
(30:57):
to preserve, protect andpreserve the status quo totally
get it.
But I need an environmentwithin which to explore the
fullness of my nature.
In a highly liquid state, withradical innovation totally
pushing the boundaries.
At the other end of thespectrum, regulators preserve
our essential assets that wedepend on for survival people
(31:20):
like me in a highly liquid state, ultra innovative.
I need an environment withinwhich I can experiment with
leapfrogging industries andsolving the biggest problems
that we're facing as humanitythrough radical, radical
(31:43):
innovation.
Now let's say in that scenario,let's say we build a prototype
and it solves climate change.
Now what's the problem withthat?
You might think that's awonderful thing, and but it's
just the beginning, because thetransition is the hard bit.
(32:08):
The transition is the hardestbit.
There are dozens of ideas thatI see on a regular basis.
There are white papers that Iread that can, that have massive
potential but probably needbillions of dollars to be
developed.
But it's the transition that'sthe problem, because unless the
transition can take placewithout doing any harm, you
(32:32):
can't implement that innovation.
You know, if the reason we'reinnovating is for the well-being
of human beings, and then thetransition is devoid of grace,
then what's the point?
Why does it say where we are?
(32:53):
And so this is where we need toget much, much better,
especially in New Zealand, wherea lot of other countries use us
as a sandbox.
They use us as a test bed toget product market fit for
innovation.
You know, because we are greatat adopting new technologies and
we're pretty representative ofa lot of economies, but we're
(33:16):
much more nimble, much moreopen-minded and, in truth, quite
a lot less sophisticated interms of regulation and things.
So good, safe place to testthings.
However, we haven't latchedonto this as a nation and we're
not leveraging our potential asa sandbox nation in the world.
(33:40):
That's attracting innovatorswhere they can come and get
product market fit for the R&D,and that's the.
You know, product market fit iswhat we call the value of death
.
It's the abyss in betweenvalidating the innovation or the
technology, like building aprototype and making it
commercially viable, and thendesigning operating models that
(34:06):
can scale that thing throughexponential growth.
And once you get product marketfit, that's.
That tends to be where.
That's the point, where you'vede-risked the venture.
And this is where the tug ofwar is between venture
capitalists and founders ofinnovation is.
They're always you know,they're always trying to get the
(34:29):
other one to de-risk it.
And so you know places likeCallahan Innovation, where I'm
working at the moment.
We try and bridge the space inbetween, try to align the
innovator with the fund and helpthem to de-risk it as much as
they can, and working withpeople who can help them to do
(34:52):
that as well, so that they cankind of, yeah, just bridge that
space in between to get productmarket fit Once it's been
de-risked through beginningproduct market fit, much, much
easier to get capital for thenext round, as long as the
numbers make sense.
So you see a scenario withinwhich we need these two to work
(35:14):
symbiotically.
You know radical innovation andyou know you could almost call
it radical preservation.
You want the extremes of bothand you want there to be tension
between them.
That's the whole point.
And but grace is where theymight meet in between.
So, for example, if I come upwith the solution to climate
(35:38):
change tomorrow and I can evenbuild a prototype tomorrow,
that's not going to be realizedin society tomorrow.
You know it could be afive-year horizon, three-year
horizon, 10-year horizon, whoknows?
But the important piece is howwe meet in between those who are
tasked with preservation, thosetasked with innovation, and we
(36:03):
come together to bridge thespace in between And that's the
very epitome of symbiosis tocreate harmony.
The bridge in between that webuild together is like the third
element in the ternary system.
(36:24):
So you're allowing for theextremes of both, by allowing
the extremes of extreme natureof both aspects to be what it is
and to be in opposition to eachother.
What the space created inbetween is a hybrid of both, and
(36:47):
it's as simple as that.
And in the same way, you as ahuman being, as a self-governing
entity, if you can figure outhow to do this within yourself,
then that's how you createharmony within yourself as well.
Where the decisions that you'remaking come from a place of
(37:16):
accommodating both perspectives,then you're golden and you want
to consciously create your lifein a way whereby you can
appreciate the extremes of everyaspect.
Where most human beings acommon theme is oh, abundance, i
(37:40):
want to create abundance formyself.
Well, you actually don't wantto create abundance, because an
absolute presence of allsubstance is actually its total
stagnation.
A total presence of everythingmeans that there's no presence
(38:01):
of a singular thing.
You can't discern separationfrom everything, and so you
begin to use lack to youradvantage.
You purposefully create lack,you purposefully operate at a
deficit of some aspect of yournature so that once a week you
(38:23):
can allow that a spike in thataspect of your nature to
experience something special.
When you purposefully introducelack into your life and you
allow it to compound, say over aweek, and then you indulge the
(38:44):
opposite, the opposing aspect ofthat nature, the experience of
it is profound.
And so you know, harmonydoesn't mean balance, it has
nothing to do with balance.
Harmony means that you're awareof how, the fact that every
(39:10):
aspect of nature is seekingsymbiosis, seeking harmony, and
you use that to sculpt your life, to purposefully and
intentionally create theexperiences that you want to
have.
And I think you know, seekingthat fluidity, seeking to be in
(39:37):
that purposefully, in thatintentionally liquid state
whereby you can spontaneously bereborn and allow the previous
version of yourself to die,without holding onto that you do
want an immutable baseline inyour life.
(39:58):
You want a baseline experiencethat you're going to trust
yourself, that you're nevergoing to allow to be altered and
changed.
You know that is the roof overyour head, the source of your
income, your daily routines andthe standard baseline that
(40:22):
you're going to determine ishomeostasis for you, for your
life, and you're not going.
You're going to trust yourselfenough that you're going to
commit to that baseline andyou're not going to breach it.
You may make amendments to itfrom time to time, but you're
going to agree that you're notgoing to put that stuff at risk
ever, no matter, regardless ofthe opportunities in front of
(40:43):
you, and this is how youself-regulate.
This is how you self-regulate.
You're open to spontaneousinnovation.
In the moment, you're willing toallow aspects of your nature to
(41:05):
die instantaneously, but never,never, at the risk of
disrupting your baseline, yourbaseline level of survival for
you as a human being.
Now I've pushed myself to theabsolute limits of this, so my
(41:26):
baseline, my baseline, is verylow.
One of the benefits of theexperiment that I've done is
that you begin to realiseexactly how self-reliant you can
be when you've got minimalaccess to resources, support and
(41:47):
when you're living as a recluse.
You begin to realise how youknow that you can actually
survive on your own, and that'sa very empowering realisation to
come to.
So I wouldn't recommend mybaseline for everyone.
Whatever baseline feels good toyou and right to you, you have
(42:11):
to trust yourself toself-regulate, that Nothing is
ever going to threaten that Andwhat that cultivates within you
over time is unimpeachable trustin yourself.
In the same way, societies growdistrustful of governments.
It's when they make decisionsthat detrimentally impact the
(42:33):
baseline or what they perceiveas the baseline level of
survival that a government needsto provide.
That's the singular issue isthat if you can't trust a
government to make decisionsthat will not detrimentally
impact the baseline,infrastructure and foundation,
(43:00):
that's the seed point ofmistrust.
But if you know that there's abaseline that is unimpeachable,
you can always rely on it.
You can always depend on it.
You'll be seeking more, you'llbe seeking to innovate, you'll
be wanting to take more risksbecause you know that that
safety net's there.
People think that if we providea baseline for human beings like
(43:23):
a universal basic income orsomething like that, we think
that they're just going tobecome perpetually lazy and do
nothing.
And the truth is some will dothat.
But what it will liberate is itwill unlock the curiosity and
the willingness of human beingsto explore And Kiwi's where we
(43:46):
really are explorers Big time.
We're a nation of explorers.
It's what we want to do, andpart of our nature is to be
curious.
Now, if you have anunimpeachable baseline that you
know that, no matter whathappens, you're going to survive
, imagine what that unlocks inyou, and it's actually immense
(44:12):
what it will unlock in you.
It's immense.
Your risk profile will changeradically.
So, as a nation, what is thebaseline that we want?
You know we have to be willingto allow people to totally and
wholly depend on it.
If that's what they, if they'reso afraid and if they're in a
(44:36):
state of such mistrust of theirown judgement If they haven't
been able to create anunimpeachable baseline for their
own life, it's going to takethem longer to build that trust
in themselves again.
But what will happen is if wecan give them a reason to trust
the environment around them,that for once in their life
(45:00):
their environment isn't seen asadversarial, it's seen as
nurturing, no matter whathappens, no matter what choices
they make in their life, thatwe're going to make sure they
are not, that they are going tosurvive.
If we can create thatunimpeachable baseline, those
people can begin to heal overtime they can begin to take
(45:21):
steps.
And, believe me, the stagnancythat comes from, you know, not
moving and not changing overtime by default that the
curiosity within people willarise and they'll begin to take
steps forward, and it may take ageneration or two or whatever,
(45:43):
it doesn't matter.
Government can work somewhatwith the people of New Zealand,
but we've got to stop makingdecisions that are detrimentally
impacting our baselinefoundation, and that begins the
very beginning of that is for usto stop making decisions to
(46:06):
give away our assets as a nation, our source of wealth.
We've got to figure out how tostop allowing our true assets,
which are our people.
Every human being has anendless array of capability
that's being untapped And thereare so many reasons for New
Zealander to go and liveoffshore now, especially in
Australia.
Some of the most talentedpeople I know that they, because
(46:30):
they're explorers, they go offto Australia, they go off to
bigger markets.
We have no ability to retainthat capability in New Zealand
And our assets are just, they'rejust all leaving the nation,
selling our sources of wealth,our assets, our land.
(46:50):
We have to build perpetualwealth in New Zealand so that we
have an adequate surplus to,first of all, create an
unimpeachable baselinefoundation for every human being
so that they know that, nomatter what happens, they are
going to survive, not thrive,but they will survive.
(47:11):
No matter what happens, nomatter what rug is pulled out
from underneath them, they willsurvive.
Requires wealth, requires asurplus and it requires that
source of wealth to becompounding and unimpeachable.
But at the moment we have amyriad of issues that we use as
(47:37):
a nation as reasons not tobecome wealth focused, not to be
portfolio focused.
Government Regulatorylegislation, rules.
We're not allowed to do thisbecause of XYZ Act.
(48:00):
Well, let's dissolve it.
Let's become wealth generating.
One of the interesting ones, ifind, is I work for a government
agency, callahan Innovation,and there's this recently we had
a whole bunch of chiefexecutives willingly take a 20%
(48:25):
pay cut from government agenciesto help the nation as like a
service to the public, becausethey're getting paid too much.
But the reality is is that ifyou are at chief executive level
for a government agency, evenfor the private sector, and then
(48:47):
you take a 20% pay cut, all ofa sudden you're at risk of being
going to a private sectororganization and then the
government agency losing theircapability and the wisdom And
it's so short-sighted, it's justunbelievable.
You know, if we want a powerfulcomplementary government to
(49:11):
create an immutable baseline, wewant the smartest people we can
find And those people they'renot going to be the cheapest
people, they're likely going tobe the most expensive.
So we have to understand, wehave to invest in people, not
try and get them to give awaytheir value.
(49:32):
It's insane.
I'm sure most people reallythey're not.
You know, if this triggers you,this kind of thing, i'd highly
recommend exploring what ittakes to become someone capable
(49:55):
of holding the responsibility ofa massive company and
organization, and the burden ofresponsibility.
It is utterly immense.
It is utterly immense.
Even more burdensome as afounder with investors, the
sense of obligation to turn yourventure into something
(50:17):
successful can be crippling.
So you know, if we want to bewealth generating as a nation,
we have to invest in the bestpeople.
We have to figure out how toretain them, how to enable them
to endlessly explore, and thatbegins with an immutable
baseline foundation that isunimpeachable, it guarantees
(50:41):
survival and then, throughosmosis, raises the risk profile
of all New Zealanders so thatthey can explore and they're
willing to take a risk in orderto evolve into something new and
something more because theyfeel safe enough to take that
(51:02):
step.
So that feels about like, aboutthe right place to end.
So the ternary perspective isbinary plus infinity, so it is
(51:25):
almost paradoxical.
But I think the best way tothink of this from a binary
perspective of ternary is a bittoo confusing is to just think
to yourself okay, in binary it'sabout polarity, so left right,
up down, and so what we actuallywant is to enable and allow the
(51:51):
extremes of everything.
We need to create anenvironment where the extremes
of every perspective areaccepted and encouraged to
follow their nature andcollaboration bridges the space
in between, and that's how wecreate grace.
That's what grace is.
That's the bridge between theextremes.
(52:13):
Okay, yeah, i'm going to leaveit there.
That's it for now for thenature of symbiosis.
Talk to you later.
Okay.
So this one is about the natureof symbiosis, but I want to
talk about symbiosis from aternary perspective.
Symbiosis is typically twoentities living together as one
and enhancing each other'scapability and capacity to
(00:21):
thrive because of the dynamicsof that relationship.
And the reason for that isbecause symbiosis, the original
meaning of it, is companionshipor living together.
So a ternary perspective.
You would say that there arethree things living together
(00:44):
harmoniously that are enhancingeach other's capability and
capacity to thrive.
But in reality you can havemillions of things living
together symbiotically and thatwould really, to my mind, that's
a state of thriving.
but I think the word reallybecomes harmony at that point.
(01:05):
Harmonious, but there arenuances to this, and so the
first thing I want to do is justto share the nuance between
symbiosis and codependency.
Codependency is a word that'sgot so much shame attached to it
(01:26):
these days, but that's kind ofneedless.
The only nuance to codependencyis that there's a sense within
one of the living entities thatwithout the other it could not
survive on its own.
And so it's.
(01:46):
The bond is held in place by afear of death or a need to
survive, a belief that withoutthe other, that they could die
or that they will die, and soit's codependent.
In order to survive, i need you, and we've all felt this needy
(02:09):
energy from people before theneediness in others.
When you sense the gravity ofsomeone's energy pulling you
towards them and you can sensethe neediness in it, within them
, it's more than likely born outof a fear that unless they
(02:29):
continue receiving somethingfrom you, then at some level
they fear for their ownwell-being, and which is human
nature.
If you really believe that youincapable of surviving alone,
you will be radiating needyenergy, especially if your
(02:52):
vulnerabilities, the areaaspects of your life where you
feel as though you areinadequate, but if they are
revealed, it will certainlytrigger that kind of energy.
So symbiosis, on the other hand, comes from the perspective of
a sovereign entity knowing andunderstanding that, with or
(03:14):
without the other two components, it can survive.
So the fear of death has beennegated.
However, the desire to thriveand to become more and to
enhance your capacity to thriveand evolve and become more and
experience, you know, morediversity of life, more richness
(03:37):
of experience, you know it cancome, it can be enhanced
symbiotically.
And so it is not out of it,it's not born out of a need to
survive.
It's born out of a desire tolive, to live purposefully and
intentionally and to become moreand to experience more.
(03:58):
So very, very differentenergies, very, very different.
And you know the ternaryperspective.
There is an aspect of yournature that is born of something
infinite You are a binaryexpression of something that is
infinite.
There is an aspect of yournature that is indifferent to
(04:24):
death, but that's not the binaryaspect.
So hopefully, that sets thescene.
And so symbiosis.
From a ternary perspective, i'mgoing to look at the
disentanglement of what, to mymind, are the three aspects of
(04:47):
our own nature that worktogether as one, perpetually
seeking homeostasis together,but always in flux, and you know
.
So let's look at.
(05:07):
So I want to look at itactually through the perspective
of, let's say, governance.
So you, as a human being, youhave to govern yourself.
For you to be sovereign, youhave to be capable of
self-governing andself-regulating.
(05:30):
So, in a scenario within whichyou have become aware that you
are, you are not just one thing,you're not your body, you're
not your mind and you're notjust the electricity running
through those things, you areall three working together
(05:56):
symbiotically.
Then, while this is whathappened within me, the desire
to curiously explore the fullcapability and capacity of each
individual component had to comeat the expense of constraining
one or more of those aspects sothat the other could reach its
(06:18):
zenith.
And this is an experiment thatI did with myself over the
course of three years, and Icame to disentangle these three
aspects and understand theirnature as a singularity, from a
singular perspective, so that Icould consciously weave them
back together in ways that areharmonious and desirable.
(06:44):
And the thing that firstbecomes apparent is all of the
ways we are inadvertentlyrepressing aspects of our own
nature in order to experiencethe extreme of another, of the
desire of another component part.
So you know, one of the classicones is the desire for peace.
(07:06):
Most of us have a strong desireto experience peace, but what
it would say is that weinadvertently mistake comfort
for peace all the time.
We think that a state ofcomfort is where we're going to
find peace.
But you can be simultaneouslycomfortable and in a state of
(07:29):
discord and disharmony.
So comfort is not peace.
And in a perpetual seeking ofpeace through comfort, what we
do is we repress the aspect ofour nature that is seeking
challenge.
And unfortunately that's wheregrowth kind of stops If you are
(07:57):
averting challenge, then thereis no innovation in your life,
there's no newness, there's noaspect of your nature that's
seeking the newness, because allinnovation is born out of that
which is unknown.
And everything, all newness,everything that is unknown, has
(08:25):
to come from a state ofchallenge, challenging the
status quo, challenging thetruth, challenging whatever it
may be, because unless there's aproblem, there is no solution,
and the solution is innovation.
Everything in nature that isgrowing and evolving is a
solution to a problem, to someaspect of our nature that is
(08:50):
limited and wanting to expandinto something more.
So that would be my first realpoint of reference point is that
be very aware of where you'reinadvertently seeking comfort
instead of peace, thinkingyou're seeking peace, but
(09:12):
instead seeking comfort, becausepeace resides within the hearts
of men and women And it's astate of being that means you've
got your mind and your body andyour emotions working together
as one, harmoniously,symbiotically, aware of the
(09:33):
needs of each, of the nature andthe needs of each individual
component.
And then really, the zenith ishow they can complement each
other in order to enrich eachother's experience,
symbiotically.
So I'm going to go into sothat's the governance of a human
(09:57):
being, you receive a thought,and here's the interplay that I
utilize myself to make surethese components of my own
nature are complementary, and somy default setting is openness.
(10:19):
So I'm perpetually seeking tobe in a state, in a fluid state,
like a liquid state.
And if you think of wealth, ifyou think of people who are
wealthy managing portfolios ofwealth, they have varying states
(10:43):
or varying degrees of liquidityto their assets.
Some of their assets areextremely fixed over long
periods of time.
That's like a rock solid basefoundation.
Some of their assets areslightly more liquid.
Their ability to liquidatethose assets is they're able to
(11:03):
achieve it in a shorter space oftime if need be, but then they
always have a liquid pool thatthey can access very quickly
when they need liquidity, andthey can access that
spontaneously.
So the closer you are to beingin a liquid state, the more
spontaneously you can act.
So the more nimble you are, themore agile you are.
(11:26):
But you want to be as lean aspossible.
In a scenario within which youneed to act spontaneously, then
you want high levels ofliquidity.
Otherwise you can't capitalizeupon opportunities in the moment
(11:49):
that they arise.
It's the same as a human beingYou want to be as close to a
liquid state as possible becausewhen opportunities arise, where
a truth emerges, an emergingtruth arises that renders your
previous conceptions or yourprevious judgments obsolete, you
(12:12):
want to be able to evolve intothat new truth without
resistance, without trying tocling on to the previous version
of yourself that needs to nowdie so that you can become the
new version of yourself that hasadopted that new truth.
So if you are unable to befluid, if you are unable to
(12:40):
remain liquid, if you have notgot high liquidity as a human
being, then when an emergingtruth arises, what you'll do is
you'll reject that truth.
It will trigger you, you'llfeel pain and you'll want to
project your current beliefsonto the source of that truth.
(13:02):
Oh, but this and that and theother thing.
I've spent this many yearsdoing this.
I've spent this many yearsdoing that.
You know, i've devoted my lifeto this.
Now you're saying this isinvalid And so you'll want to,
(13:24):
and this, in fact, this.
I've come to know this emotionvery well.
It's good, it's messy, becausethe potential grief that you
have to feel in order to let goof some truths to allow create
space for an emerging truth tobe true.
The grief required sometimes isit's too overwhelming and it's
(13:44):
just not possible to let it goinstantaneously unless you
become highly, highly, highlyadept at being liquid but at
being fluid.
And this is the thing to be ina highly liquid state, you have
to have come to the point ofbeing able to allow your mind,
(14:06):
your thoughts, your impulses andyour emotions.
You have to be in a state oftotal allowing of all three.
That's the only way to be in aliquid state.
So you're prepared to be wrongin any given moment.
You're prepared to be.
You're prepared for everythingthat you currently believe now
(14:28):
to be rendered obsolete In thenext moment.
You're prepared to be presentand willing to judge every
single thought that comes, nomatter how dark and deep and no
matter what the interpretationof that thought might mean.
And that's the prerequisite.
(14:49):
If you receive a thought andit's really dark and it's about
yourself, and you know that ifyou are to interpret that
thought and judge it, you knowthat the interpretation of that
meaning means that you believesomething about yourself that's
really horrible, or that you'rereminded of a part of yourself
(15:11):
that you are still ashamed of,and so you have this fear of the
wrath of your own judgement,then you will project, you will
lash out against that thought.
You'll probably try and jumpinto a meditation to avoid it.
But to be in a liquid state, tobe fluid, to have high
(15:35):
liquidity as an individual,you're going to see the thought,
you're going to give it yourunconditional presence, you're
going to allow yourself tointerpret the meaning of that
thought.
You're going to allow theemotion that is evoked because
of your interpretation, becauseof what you believe it means,
and you're going to feel thatemotion wholly.
And when you feel that emotionwholly, you'll allow yourself to
(16:02):
interpret what that means.
I am this, i am that I'minsignificant, i am useless, i
am powerful, whatever it may be,the free flowing of a thought,
the use of judgement tointerpret the meaning, the
(16:27):
accepted truth of that meaning,evoking deeper and deeper
emotion.
And you're sinking deeper anddeeper into a state of allowing,
as you claim, that I am theinterpretation of those emotions
.
I am this, i am that, withoutresistance, remembering that
(16:51):
these are all of this poweryou're claiming as you go, i am
insignificant, i am powerless.
They are simply the aspects ofyour nature, of the infinite
aspect of your nature, that meanthe opposite thing in binary,
you see.
So if I'm, if I'm useless, if Iclaim that I am useless from a
(17:17):
singular perspective, theinfinite perspective, that's
what dormant potential is.
It's a pool of potentiality.
It's useless, you can't use itfor anything.
You cannot use it for anything,but it's the most potent state
in existence.
I'm insignificant, i don'tmatter.
(17:38):
It's because the infinite isimmaterial, it's pre-matter.
So you're just, you're claimingthe infinite, infinite aspect
of your nature, as you claimyour shadow.
You know, and I've come tobelieve, that the reason we call
it shadow work is because we'reclaiming the darkness, the
(18:01):
infinite space, the absolutepresence of all sound, of all
sound, of all possible sound,with no beginning and no end.
So you see, you know I am small, i am insignificant.
(18:22):
When you come to claim all ofthese parts of your nature that
you think are wrong or twisted,or distorted, you realise that
they're just hidden parts of theinfinite aspect of your nature
that the binary part of yournature is opposed to, because it
(18:45):
means the opposite thing.
So, being in this total stateof allowing, allowing every
thought, allowing everyjudgement, trusting every
judgement, claiming the truth ofthe meaning of that judgement
and then allowing the emotionthat's evoked because of what
that means, because of the truth, of what that means, and
(19:07):
sinking deeper and deeper intothe emotion as it changes.
I'm insignificant, i'm nothing,i'm not worthy, i'm a disgrace.
And you come to, you'll feelfeelings, and sometimes you
(19:28):
won't even have a word for it.
I've had that quite a few times.
It's like, oh, i've never feltthis emotion and I haven't even
got a word to describe it.
And so then what you do is youstart studying words to figure
out the meaning so that you caninterpret them properly, like
when I found the emotion withinme that I'm a disgrace.
(19:48):
Then I came to realise that it'sjust the opposite of grace.
So matter is disgrace.
If grace is fluidity, it's theinfinite.
A state of grace is nobeginning and no end, it's fluid
(20:08):
.
Then disgrace is what light is.
It's quantised sound, packetsof light.
That's what disgrace is thecreation of sound, and I found
that very vividly within myself.
So you see, everything is valid, and if there's anything you
(20:35):
resist within your body, anyexperience that you resist or
reject as a human being, it'sjust the perspective of the
infinite that your binary natureis rejecting.
And so the more and more youclaim of your shadow from the
(20:57):
binary perspective, they seemlike they make you less powerful
From the singular perspective.
They're making you profoundlyand infinitely more powerful
Because, as you're claiming theI am of those emotions, i am
insignificant.
You're claiming your infinitenature And you're becoming fluid
(21:19):
.
You're creating liquidity, soyourself as an asset, you're
becoming so adaptable to changeand so open to innovation that
you're becoming an absoluteforce of nature.
In truth And now I am.
(21:44):
So I do want to be open andhonest about the pros and cons
to having this perspective andto living your life like this is
you grow to become indifferentto people's suffering.
This is quite an intimate thingto share.
(22:05):
When I say indifferent topeople's suffering, it's more
that you become indifferent tothe emotions of pity.
So if someone's in a pitiablestate because you know they're
so close to a breakthrough,there's a part of you that
becomes really hopeful for themand you're kind of willing them
(22:30):
to go deeper.
Now that's a very difficultperspective for someone that is
feeling that that pain issuffering.
There's no way they can relateto that or resonate with it.
So, and the other thing is, youbecome indifferent to well, it
(22:54):
becomes highly irritating wheninnovation is being stifled.
So if you're in an environmentwithin which there's an
abundance of, let's say,consensus decision making and
it's stifling the innovationthat the individual human beings
that, if they were sovereignand empowered, could make a
(23:16):
decision to move forward andcreate innovation.
The process of consensusdecision making is stifling that
innovation.
That becomes highly irritatingand even worse if you're in a
company or an organisation thatis purely role specific and
(23:38):
there's dormant potential of thehuman beings in those roles
that's being underutilised.
You know, i use the in mypodcast.
I use the archetype of anaccountant quite often.
You know, an accountant canalso be a photographer and can
also dabble in graphic design.
It becomes highly irritating tosee dormant I call it wealth.
(24:00):
I believe that our gifts andabilities and our skills, i
believe that's the source of ourwealth.
And so when I see dormantwealth within a human being
being stifled because they areconstrained by a role, that
becomes highly, highlyirritating.
And so I'm always constantlyseeking to create pools of
(24:22):
wealth, of liquidity, that arereally just talent pools that
are not constrained by a role,so then they become highly
liquid and then, extremely, theycan spontaneously evolve to
meet an unmet need.
So, yeah, my perspective can beand I would say, my influence,
(24:56):
in an environment that isstifled can be highly agitating
for the people around me, andthen, you know, i kind of having
an indifference to that, to thefact that it is irritating.
It can be, yeah, it can cause abit of disruption, but that's
(25:16):
the nature of innovation.
So, but what I want to do is Iwant to temper this, because
symbiosis is important and notall human beings are capable of
walking around in a liquid state.
(25:37):
You know, they might be theequivalent of a fixed asset and
it might take them 12 months toreconcile in a conflict that
will lead them to a state ofinner harmony and therefore
reach a liquid state.
So, and you have to havesymbiosis, you have to have
everything.
If you want harmony, you haveto create an environment within
(26:02):
which whatever state a humanbeing is in is relevant.
And they don't have to.
They're not being forced tochange if that's not what they
want to do.
It's absolutely essential.
And so, in the same way that aportfolio manager manages a
(26:24):
portfolio of assets, managers,wealth, they do have some that
are fixed, they do have someassets that will take a long,
long time to liquidate, theyhave some that are slightly less
and then they have a highlyliquid pool.
You have to have an environmentthat contains, that allows
everyone to be exactly as theyare, without being forced to go
(26:49):
against their nature, and thisis where true harmony comes in.
So of course, it's aspirationalto be able to express your
nature in a liquid state.
Of course, there's no betterstate to be in order to thrive
(27:12):
and to grow, but that's noteveryone's cup of tea.
So there has to be anenvironment within which someone
can be in a state that does notwant to change, that wants to
remain where they are, and inasset management and portfolio
(27:34):
management, this is where youhave people who are focused on
preservation.
So when you want to preservesomething, you're not actually
trying to change it or get it togrow or change or do anything
different.
You're trying to pre-serve it,meaning that you're foreseeing
(27:57):
what it may need and you'reproviding it before it requires
that thing.
So how you're expressing yournature, how you are nurturing
that thing, is enabling it tostay where it is at now, and
this is critically important interms of infrastructure, and so
(28:20):
you actually don't.
In that scenario, the greatestthreat to infrastructure that we
are dependent on is change Yourfocus, and your intent is for
it to remain exactly the sameAnd without going too deep into
it.
This is where you know how Isee the sympathetic and the
(28:42):
parasympathetic nervous systems,whereby everything that the
body depends on for survival hasto be preserved at any cost.
You don't want it to alter andchange.
It has to be immutable to acertain degree, and those are
(29:04):
our fixed assets.
We want to preserve them, andthe nature of preservation is to
resist change.
It's to resist innovation.
So you see harmony.
In a state of harmony, everyonehas to be able to coexist and
(29:28):
follow their own nature, and sothis is where you see the
separation of powers.
This is where you see symbiosisas a really important thing.
You want there to be someonewho is resistant to change,
preserving the fixed assets,resisting change, resisting
(29:51):
innovation at any cost.
In society, we see these as ourregulators.
Regulators are in place to keepeveryone safe, to preserve the
health, the well-being, theinnocence of our people.
(30:11):
Their job is to resist change.
Their job is to resistinnovation so that the things
that we depend on wholly don'tchange.
Now, that doesn't mean weshouldn't be innovating, but
(30:33):
what it does mean is that weneed sandbox environments.
I mean that's an inevitability.
So resistance to testing sandboxenvironments by regulators?
that's not something I'm overlykeen on, and so this is where I
apply pressure.
You know, i totally understandthat your job as a regulator is
(30:57):
to preserve, protect andpreserve the status quo totally
get it.
But I need an environmentwithin which to explore the
fullness of my nature.
In a highly liquid state, withradical innovation totally
pushing the boundaries.
At the other end of thespectrum, regulators preserve
our essential assets that wedepend on for survival people
(31:20):
like me in a highly liquid state, ultra innovative.
I need an environment withinwhich I can experiment with
leapfrogging industries andsolving the biggest problems
that we're facing as humanitythrough radical, radical
(31:43):
innovation.
Now let's say in that scenario,let's say we build a prototype
and it solves climate change.
Now what's the problem withthat?
You might think that's awonderful thing, and but it's
just the beginning, because thetransition is the hard bit.
(32:08):
The transition is the hardestbit.
There are dozens of ideas thatI see on a regular basis.
There are white papers that Iread that can, that have massive
potential but probably needbillions of dollars to be
developed.
But it's the transition that'sthe problem, because unless the
transition can take placewithout doing any harm, you
(32:32):
can't implement that innovation.
You know, if the reason we'reinnovating is for the well-being
of human beings, and then thetransition is devoid of grace,
then what's the point?
Why does it say where we are?
(32:53):
And so this is where we need toget much, much better,
especially in New Zealand, wherea lot of other countries use us
as a sandbox.
They use us as a test bed toget product market fit for
innovation.
You know, because we are greatat adopting new technologies and
we're pretty representative ofa lot of economies, but we're
(33:16):
much more nimble, much moreopen-minded and, in truth, quite
a lot less sophisticated interms of regulation and things.
So good, safe place to testthings.
However, we haven't latchedonto this as a nation and we're
not leveraging our potential asa sandbox nation in the world.
(33:40):
That's attracting innovatorswhere they can come and get
product market fit for the R&D,and that's the.
You know, product market fit iswhat we call the value of death
.
It's the abyss in betweenvalidating the innovation or the
technology, like building aprototype and making it
commercially viable, and thendesigning operating models that
(34:06):
can scale that thing throughexponential growth.
And once you get product marketfit, that's.
That tends to be where.
That's the point, where you'vede-risked the venture.
And this is where the tug ofwar is between venture
capitalists and founders ofinnovation is.
They're always you know,they're always trying to get the
(34:29):
other one to de-risk it.
And so you know places likeCallahan Innovation, where I'm
working at the moment.
We try and bridge the space inbetween, try to align the
innovator with the fund and helpthem to de-risk it as much as
they can, and working withpeople who can help them to do
(34:52):
that as well, so that they cankind of, yeah, just bridge that
space in between to get productmarket fit Once it's been
de-risked through beginningproduct market fit, much, much
easier to get capital for thenext round, as long as the
numbers make sense.
So you see a scenario withinwhich we need these two to work
(35:14):
symbiotically.
You know radical innovation andyou know you could almost call
it radical preservation.
You want the extremes of bothand you want there to be tension
between them.
That's the whole point.
And but grace is where theymight meet in between.
So, for example, if I come upwith the solution to climate
(35:38):
change tomorrow and I can evenbuild a prototype tomorrow,
that's not going to be realizedin society tomorrow.
You know it could be afive-year horizon, three-year
horizon, 10-year horizon, whoknows?
But the important piece is howwe meet in between those who are
tasked with preservation, thosetasked with innovation, and we
(36:03):
come together to bridge thespace in between And that's the
very epitome of symbiosis tocreate harmony.
The bridge in between that webuild together is like the third
element in the ternary system.
(36:24):
So you're allowing for theextremes of both, by allowing
the extremes of extreme natureof both aspects to be what it is
and to be in opposition to eachother.
What the space created inbetween is a hybrid of both, and
(36:47):
it's as simple as that.
And in the same way, you as ahuman being, as a self-governing
entity, if you can figure outhow to do this within yourself,
then that's how you createharmony within yourself as well.
Where the decisions that you'remaking come from a place of
(37:16):
accommodating both perspectives,then you're golden and you want
to consciously create your lifein a way whereby you can
appreciate the extremes of everyaspect.
Where most human beings acommon theme is oh, abundance, i
(37:40):
want to create abundance formyself.
Well, you actually don't wantto create abundance, because an
absolute presence of allsubstance is actually its total
stagnation.
A total presence of everythingmeans that there's no presence
(38:01):
of a singular thing.
You can't discern separationfrom everything, and so you
begin to use lack to youradvantage.
You purposefully create lack,you purposefully operate at a
deficit of some aspect of yournature so that once a week you
(38:23):
can allow that a spike in thataspect of your nature to
experience something special.
When you purposefully introducelack into your life and you
allow it to compound, say over aweek, and then you indulge the
(38:44):
opposite, the opposing aspect ofthat nature, the experience of
it is profound.
And so you know, harmonydoesn't mean balance, it has
nothing to do with balance.
Harmony means that you're awareof how, the fact that every
(39:10):
aspect of nature is seekingsymbiosis, seeking harmony, and
you use that to sculpt your life, to purposefully and
intentionally create theexperiences that you want to
have.
And I think you know, seekingthat fluidity, seeking to be in
(39:37):
that purposefully, in thatintentionally liquid state
whereby you can spontaneously bereborn and allow the previous
version of yourself to die,without holding onto that you do
want an immutable baseline inyour life.
(39:58):
You want a baseline experiencethat you're going to trust
yourself, that you're nevergoing to allow to be altered and
changed.
You know that is the roof overyour head, the source of your
income, your daily routines andthe standard baseline that
(40:22):
you're going to determine ishomeostasis for you, for your
life, and you're not going.
You're going to trust yourselfenough that you're going to
commit to that baseline andyou're not going to breach it.
You may make amendments to itfrom time to time, but you're
going to agree that you're notgoing to put that stuff at risk
ever, no matter, regardless ofthe opportunities in front of
(40:43):
you, and this is how youself-regulate.
This is how you self-regulate.
You're open to spontaneousinnovation.
In the moment, you're willing toallow aspects of your nature to
(41:05):
die instantaneously, but never,never, at the risk of
disrupting your baseline, yourbaseline level of survival for
you as a human being.
Now I've pushed myself to theabsolute limits of this, so my
(41:26):
baseline, my baseline, is verylow.
One of the benefits of theexperiment that I've done is
that you begin to realiseexactly how self-reliant you can
be when you've got minimalaccess to resources, support and
(41:47):
when you're living as a recluse.
You begin to realise how youknow that you can actually
survive on your own, and that'sa very empowering realisation to
come to.
So I wouldn't recommend mybaseline for everyone.
Whatever baseline feels good toyou and right to you, you have
(42:11):
to trust yourself toself-regulate, that Nothing is
ever going to threaten that Andwhat that cultivates within you
over time is unimpeachable trustin yourself.
In the same way, societies growdistrustful of governments.
It's when they make decisionsthat detrimentally impact the
(42:33):
baseline or what they perceiveas the baseline level of
survival that a government needsto provide.
That's the singular issue isthat if you can't trust a
government to make decisionsthat will not detrimentally
impact the baseline,infrastructure and foundation,
(43:00):
that's the seed point ofmistrust.
But if you know that there's abaseline that is unimpeachable,
you can always rely on it.
You can always depend on it.
You'll be seeking more, you'llbe seeking to innovate, you'll
be wanting to take more risksbecause you know that that
safety net's there.
People think that if we providea baseline for human beings like
(43:23):
a universal basic income orsomething like that, we think
that they're just going tobecome perpetually lazy and do
nothing.
And the truth is some will dothat.
But what it will liberate is itwill unlock the curiosity and
the willingness of human beingsto explore And Kiwi's where we
(43:46):
really are explorers Big time.
We're a nation of explorers.
It's what we want to do, andpart of our nature is to be
curious.
Now, if you have anunimpeachable baseline that you
know that, no matter whathappens, you're going to survive
, imagine what that unlocks inyou, and it's actually immense
(44:12):
what it will unlock in you.
It's immense.
Your risk profile will changeradically.
So, as a nation, what is thebaseline that we want?
You know we have to be willingto allow people to totally and
wholly depend on it.
If that's what they, if they'reso afraid and if they're in a
(44:36):
state of such mistrust of theirown judgement If they haven't
been able to create anunimpeachable baseline for their
own life, it's going to takethem longer to build that trust
in themselves again.
But what will happen is if wecan give them a reason to trust
the environment around them,that for once in their life
(45:00):
their environment isn't seen asadversarial, it's seen as
nurturing, no matter whathappens, no matter what choices
they make in their life, thatwe're going to make sure they
are not, that they are going tosurvive.
If we can create thatunimpeachable baseline, those
people can begin to heal overtime they can begin to take
(45:21):
steps.
And, believe me, the stagnancythat comes from, you know, not
moving and not changing overtime by default that the
curiosity within people willarise and they'll begin to take
steps forward, and it may take ageneration or two or whatever,
(45:43):
it doesn't matter.
Government can work somewhatwith the people of New Zealand,
but we've got to stop makingdecisions that are detrimentally
impacting our baselinefoundation, and that begins the
very beginning of that is for usto stop making decisions to
(46:06):
give away our assets as a nation, our source of wealth.
We've got to figure out how tostop allowing our true assets,
which are our people.
Every human being has anendless array of capability
that's being untapped And thereare so many reasons for New
Zealander to go and liveoffshore now, especially in
Australia.
Some of the most talentedpeople I know that they, because
(46:30):
they're explorers, they go offto Australia, they go off to
bigger markets.
We have no ability to retainthat capability in New Zealand
And our assets are just, they'rejust all leaving the nation,
selling our sources of wealth,our assets, our land.
(46:50):
We have to build perpetualwealth in New Zealand so that we
have an adequate surplus to,first of all, create an
unimpeachable baselinefoundation for every human being
so that they know that, nomatter what happens, they are
going to survive, not thrive,but they will survive.
(47:11):
No matter what happens, nomatter what rug is pulled out
from underneath them, they willsurvive.
Requires wealth, requires asurplus and it requires that
source of wealth to becompounding and unimpeachable.
But at the moment we have amyriad of issues that we use as
(47:37):
a nation as reasons not tobecome wealth focused, not to be
portfolio focused.
Government Regulatorylegislation, rules.
We're not allowed to do thisbecause of XYZ Act.
(48:00):
Well, let's dissolve it.
Let's become wealth generating.
One of the interesting ones, ifind, is I work for a government
agency, callahan Innovation,and there's this recently we had
a whole bunch of chiefexecutives willingly take a 20%
(48:25):
pay cut from government agenciesto help the nation as like a
service to the public, becausethey're getting paid too much.
But the reality is is that ifyou are at chief executive level
for a government agency, evenfor the private sector, and then
(48:47):
you take a 20% pay cut, all ofa sudden you're at risk of being
going to a private sectororganization and then the
government agency losing theircapability and the wisdom And
it's so short-sighted, it's justunbelievable.
You know, if we want a powerfulcomplementary government to
(49:11):
create an immutable baseline, wewant the smartest people we can
find And those people they'renot going to be the cheapest
people, they're likely going tobe the most expensive.
So we have to understand, wehave to invest in people, not
try and get them to give awaytheir value.
(49:32):
It's insane.
I'm sure most people reallythey're not.
You know, if this triggers you,this kind of thing, i'd highly
recommend exploring what ittakes to become someone capable
(49:55):
of holding the responsibility ofa massive company and
organization, and the burden ofresponsibility.
It is utterly immense.
It is utterly immense.
Even more burdensome as afounder with investors, the
sense of obligation to turn yourventure into something
(50:17):
successful can be crippling.
So you know, if we want to bewealth generating as a nation,
we have to invest in the bestpeople.
We have to figure out how toretain them, how to enable them
to endlessly explore, and thatbegins with an immutable
baseline foundation that isunimpeachable, it guarantees
(50:41):
survival and then, throughosmosis, raises the risk profile
of all New Zealanders so thatthey can explore and they're
willing to take a risk in orderto evolve into something new and
something more because theyfeel safe enough to take that
(51:02):
step.
So that feels about like, aboutthe right place to end.
So the ternary perspective isbinary plus infinity, so it is
(51:25):
almost paradoxical.
But I think the best way tothink of this from a binary
perspective of ternary is a bittoo confusing is to just think
to yourself okay, in binary it'sabout polarity, so left right,
up down, and so what we actuallywant is to enable and allow the
(51:51):
extremes of everything.
We need to create anenvironment where the extremes
of every perspective areaccepted and encouraged to
follow their nature andcollaboration bridges the space
in between, and that's how wecreate grace.
That's what grace is.
That's the bridge between theextremes.
(52:13):
Okay, yeah, i'm going to leaveit there.
That's it for now for thenature of symbiosis.
Talk to you later.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.