David Ding: Regeneration
David Ding's podcast, documenting the revelations he had while awakeing to unity consciousness and holographic awareness.
For written summaries of each episode check out David's substack:
https://daviddingnz.substack.com
David Ding: Regeneration
The Nature of Symbiosis
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!
Okay. So this one is about the nature of symbiosis, but I want to talk about symbiosis from a ternary perspective. Symbiosis is typically two entities living together as one and enhancing each other's capability and capacity to thrive because of the dynamics of that relationship. And the reason for that is because symbiosis, the original meaning of it, is companionship or living together. So a ternary perspective. You would say that there are three things living together harmoniously that are enhancing each other's capability and capacity to thrive. But in reality you can have millions of things living together symbiotically and that would really, to my mind, that's a state of thriving. but I think the word really becomes harmony at that point. Harmonious, but there are nuances to this, and so the first thing I want to do is just to share the nuance between symbiosis and codependency. Codependency is a word that's got so much shame attached to it these days, but that's kind of needless. The only nuance to codependency is that there's a sense within one of the living entities that without the other it could not survive on its own. And so it's. The bond is held in place by a fear of death or a need to survive, a belief that without the other, that they could die or that they will die, and so it's codependent. In order to survive, i need you, and we've all felt this needy energy from people before the neediness in others. When you sense the gravity of someone's energy pulling you towards them and you can sense the neediness in it, within them, it's more than likely born out of a fear that unless they continue receiving something from you, then at some level they fear for their own well-being, and which is human nature. If you really believe that you incapable of surviving alone, you will be radiating needy energy, especially if your vulnerabilities, the area aspects of your life where you feel as though you are inadequate, but if they are revealed, it will certainly trigger that kind of energy. So symbiosis, on the other hand, comes from the perspective of a sovereign entity knowing and understanding that, with or without the other two components, it can survive. So the fear of death has been negated. However, the desire to thrive and to become more and to enhance your capacity to thrive and evolve and become more and experience, you know, more diversity of life, more richness of experience, you know it can come, 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 to live, to live purposefully and intentionally and to become more and to experience more. So very, very different energies, very, very different. And you know the ternary perspective. There is an aspect of your nature that is born of something infinite You are a binary expression of something that is infinite. There is an aspect of your nature that is indifferent to death, but that's not the binary aspect. So hopefully, that sets the scene. And so symbiosis.
Speaker 1:From a ternary perspective, i'm going to look at the disentanglement of what, to my mind, are the three aspects of our own nature that work together as one, perpetually seeking homeostasis together, but always in flux, and you know. So let's look at. So I want to look at it actually through the perspective of, let's say, governance. So you, as a human being, you have to govern yourself. For you to be sovereign, you have to be capable of self-governing and self-regulating. So, in a scenario within which you 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 not just the electricity running through those things, you are all three working together symbiotically.
Speaker 1:Then, while this is what happened within me, the desire to curiously explore the full capability and capacity of each individual component had to come at the expense of constraining one or more of those aspects so that the other could reach its zenith. And this is an experiment that I did with myself over the course of three years, and I came to disentangle these three aspects and understand their nature as a singularity, from a singular perspective, so that I could consciously weave them back together in ways that are harmonious and desirable. And the thing that first becomes apparent is all of the ways we are inadvertently repressing aspects of our own nature in order to experience the extreme of another, of the desire of another component part. So you know, one of the classic ones is the desire for peace. Most of us have a strong desire to experience peace, but what it would say is that we inadvertently mistake comfort for peace all the time. We think that a state of comfort is where we're going to find peace. But you can be simultaneously comfortable and in a state of discord and disharmony. So comfort is not peace.
Speaker 1:And in a perpetual seeking of peace through comfort, what we do is we repress the aspect of our nature that is seeking challenge. And unfortunately that's where growth kind of stops If you are averting challenge, then there is no innovation in your life, there's no newness, there's no aspect of your nature that's seeking the newness, because all innovation is born out of that which is unknown. And everything, all newness, everything that is unknown, has to come from a state of challenge, challenging the status quo, challenging the truth, challenging whatever it may be, because unless there's a problem, there is no solution, and the solution is innovation. Everything in nature that is growing and evolving is a solution to a problem, to some aspect of our nature that is limited and wanting to expand into something more. So that would be my first real point of reference point is that be very aware of where you're inadvertently seeking comfort instead of peace, thinking you're seeking peace, but instead seeking comfort, because peace resides within the hearts of men and women And it's a state of being that means you've got your mind and your body and your emotions working together as one, harmoniously, symbiotically, aware of the needs of each, of the nature and the needs of each individual component. And then really, the zenith is how they can complement each other in order to enrich each other's experience, symbiotically. So I'm going to go into so that's the governance of a human being, you receive a thought, and here's the interplay that I utilize myself to make sure these components of my own nature are complementary, and so my default setting is openness. So I'm perpetually seeking to be in a state, in a fluid state, like a liquid state.
Speaker 1:And if you think of wealth, if you think of people who are wealthy managing portfolios of wealth, they have varying states or varying degrees of liquidity to their assets. Some of their assets are extremely fixed over long periods of time. That's like a rock solid base foundation. Some of their assets are slightly more liquid. Their ability to liquidate those assets is they're able to achieve it in a shorter space of time if need be, but then they always have a liquid pool that they can access very quickly when they need liquidity, and they can access that spontaneously. So the closer you are to being in a liquid state, the more spontaneously you can act. So the more nimble you are, the more agile you are. But you want to be as lean as possible. In a scenario within which you need to act spontaneously, then you want high levels of liquidity. Otherwise you can't capitalize upon opportunities in the moment that they arise.
Speaker 1:It's the same as a human being You want to be as close to a liquid state as possible because when opportunities arise, where a truth emerges, an emerging truth arises that renders your previous conceptions or your previous judgments obsolete, you want to be able to evolve into that new truth without resistance, without trying to cling on to the previous version of yourself that needs to now die so that you can become the new version of yourself that has adopted that new truth. So if you are unable to be fluid, if you are unable to remain liquid, if you have not got high liquidity as a human being, then when an emerging truth arises, what you'll do is you'll reject that truth. It will trigger you, you'll feel pain and you'll want to project your current beliefs onto the source of that truth. Oh, but this and that and the other thing. I've spent this many years doing this. I've spent this many years doing that. You know, i've devoted my life to this. Now you're saying this is invalid And so you'll want to, and this, in fact, this.
Speaker 1:I've come to know this emotion very well. It's good, it's messy, because the potential grief that you have to feel in order to let go of some truths to allow create space for an emerging truth to be true. The grief required sometimes is it's too overwhelming and it's just not possible to let it go instantaneously unless you become highly, highly, highly adept at being liquid but at being fluid. And this is the thing to be in a highly liquid state, you have to have come to the point of being able to allow your mind, your thoughts, your impulses and your emotions. You have to be in a state of total allowing of all three. That's the only way to be in a liquid state.
Speaker 1:So you're prepared to be wrong in any given moment. You're prepared to be. You're prepared for everything that you currently believe now to be rendered obsolete In the next moment. You're prepared to be present and willing to judge every single thought that comes, no matter how dark and deep and no matter what the interpretation of that thought might mean. And that's the prerequisite. If you receive a thought and it's really dark and it's about yourself, and you know that if you are to interpret that thought and judge it, you know that the interpretation of that meaning means that you believe something about yourself that's really horrible, or that you're reminded of a part of yourself 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 jump into a meditation to avoid it. But to be in a liquid state, to be fluid, to have high liquidity as an individual, you're going to see the thought, you're going to give it your unconditional presence, you're going to allow yourself to interpret the meaning of that thought. You're going to allow the emotion that is evoked because of your interpretation, because of what you believe it means, and you're going to feel that emotion wholly. And when you feel that emotion wholly, you'll allow yourself to interpret what that means.
Speaker 1:I am this, i am that I'm insignificant, i am useless, i am powerful, whatever it may be, the free flowing of a thought, the use of judgement to interpret the meaning, the accepted truth of that meaning, evoking deeper and deeper emotion. And you're sinking deeper and deeper into a state of allowing, as you claim, that I am the interpretation of those emotions. I am this, i am that, without resistance, remembering that these are all of this power you're claiming as you go, i am insignificant, i am powerless. They are simply the aspects of your nature, of the infinite aspect of your nature, that mean the opposite thing in binary, you see. So if I'm, if I'm useless, if I claim that I am useless from a singular perspective, the infinite perspective, that's what dormant potential is. It's a pool of potentiality. It's useless, you can't use it for anything. You cannot use it for anything, but it's the most potent state in existence. I'm insignificant, i don't matter. It's because the infinite is immaterial, it's pre-matter. So you're just, you're claiming the infinite, infinite aspect of your nature, as you claim your shadow. You know, and I've come to believe, that the reason we call it shadow work is because we're claiming the darkness, the infinite space, the absolute presence 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.
Speaker 1:When you come to claim all of these parts of your nature that you think are wrong or twisted, or distorted, you realise that they're just hidden parts of the infinite aspect of your nature that the binary part of your nature is opposed to, because it means the opposite thing. So, being in this total state of allowing, allowing every thought, allowing every judgement, trusting every judgement, claiming the truth of the meaning of that judgement and then allowing the emotion that's evoked because of what that means, because of the truth, of what that means, and sinking deeper and deeper into the emotion as it changes. I'm insignificant, i'm nothing, i'm not worthy, i'm a disgrace. And you come to, you'll feel feelings, and sometimes you won't even have a word for it. I've had that quite a few times. It's like, oh, i've never felt this emotion and I haven't even got a word to describe it. And so then what you do is you start studying words to figure out the meaning so that you can interpret them properly, like when I found the emotion within me that I'm a disgrace.
Speaker 1:Then I came to realise that it's just the opposite of grace. So matter is disgrace. If grace is fluidity, it's the infinite. A state of grace is no beginning and no end, it's fluid. Then disgrace is what light is. It's quantised sound, packets of light. That's what disgrace is the creation of sound, and I found that very vividly within myself. So you see, everything is valid, and if there's anything you resist within your body, any experience that you resist or reject as a human being, it's just the perspective of the infinite that your binary nature is rejecting. And so the more and more you claim of your shadow from the binary perspective, they seem like they make you less powerful From the singular perspective. They're making you profoundly and infinitely more powerful Because, as you're claiming the I am of those emotions, i am insignificant. You're claiming your infinite nature And you're becoming fluid. You're creating liquidity, so yourself as an asset, you're becoming so adaptable to change and so open to innovation that you're becoming an absolute force of nature. In truth And now I am.
Speaker 1:So I do want to be open and honest about the pros and cons to having this perspective and to living your life like this is you grow to become indifferent to people's suffering. This is quite an intimate thing to share. When I say indifferent to people's suffering, it's more that you become indifferent to the emotions of pity. So if someone's in a pitiable state because you know they're so close to a breakthrough, there's a part of you that becomes really hopeful for them and you're kind of willing them to go deeper. Now that's a very difficult perspective for someone that is feeling that that pain is suffering. There's no way they can relate to that or resonate with it. So, and the other thing is, you become indifferent to well, it becomes highly irritating when innovation is being stifled.
Speaker 1:So if you're in an environment within which there's an abundance of, let's say, consensus decision making and it's stifling the innovation that the individual human beings that, if they were sovereign and empowered, could make a decision to move forward and create innovation. The process of consensus decision making is stifling that innovation. That becomes highly irritating and even worse if you're in a company or an organisation that is purely role specific and there's dormant potential of the human beings in those roles that's being underutilised. You know, i use the in my podcast. I use the archetype of an accountant quite often. You know, an accountant can also be a photographer and can also dabble in graphic design.
Speaker 1:It becomes highly irritating to see dormant I call it wealth. I believe that our gifts and abilities and our skills, i believe that's the source of our wealth. And so when I see dormant wealth within a human being being stifled because they are constrained by a role, that becomes highly, highly irritating. And so I'm always constantly seeking to create pools of wealth, of liquidity, that are really just talent pools that are not constrained by a role, so then they become highly liquid and then, extremely, they can spontaneously evolve to meet an unmet need. So, yeah, my perspective can be and I would say, my influence, in an environment that is stifled can be highly agitating for the people around me, and then, you know, i kind of having an indifference to that, to the fact that it is irritating. It can be, yeah, it can cause a bit of disruption, but that's the nature of innovation. So, but what I want to do is I want to temper this, because symbiosis is important and not all human beings are capable of walking around in a liquid state.
Speaker 1:You know, they might be the equivalent of a fixed asset and it might take them 12 months to reconcile in a conflict that will lead them to a state of inner harmony and therefore reach a liquid state. So, and you have to have symbiosis, you have to have everything. If you want harmony, you have to create an environment within which whatever state a human being is in is relevant. And they don't have to. They're not being forced to change if that's not what they want to do. It's absolutely essential. And so, in the same way that a portfolio manager manages a portfolio of assets, managers, wealth, they do have some that are fixed, they do have some assets that will take a long, long time to liquidate, they have some that are slightly less and then they have a highly liquid pool.
Speaker 1:You have to have an environment that contains, that allows everyone to be exactly as they are, without being forced to go against their nature, and this is where true harmony comes in. So of course, it's aspirational to be able to express your nature in a liquid state. Of course, there's no better state to be in order to thrive and to grow, but that's not everyone's cup of tea. So there has to be an environment within which someone can be in a state that does not want to change, that wants to remain where they are, and in asset management and portfolio management, this is where you have people who are focused on preservation. So when you want to preserve something, you're not actually trying to change it or get it to grow or change or do anything different. You're trying to pre-serve it, meaning that you're foreseeing what it may need and you're providing it before it requires that thing. So how you're expressing your nature, how you are nurturing that thing, is enabling it to stay where it is at now, and this is critically important in terms of infrastructure, and so you actually don't.
Speaker 1:In that scenario, the greatest threat to infrastructure that we are dependent on is change Your focus, and your intent is for it to remain exactly the same And without going too deep into it. This is where you know how I see the sympathetic and the parasympathetic nervous systems, whereby everything that the body depends on for survival has to be preserved at any cost. You don't want it to alter and change. It has to be immutable to a certain degree, and those are our fixed assets. We want to preserve them, and the nature of preservation is to resist change. It's to resist innovation. So you see harmony. In a state of harmony, everyone has to be able to coexist and follow their own nature, and so this is where you see the separation of powers. This is where you see symbiosis as a really important thing. You want there to be someone who is resistant to change, preserving the fixed assets, resisting change, resisting innovation at any cost.
Speaker 1:In society, we see these as our regulators. Regulators are in place to keep everyone safe, to preserve the health, the well-being, the innocence of our people. Their job is to resist change. Their job is to resist innovation so that the things that we depend on wholly don't change. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be innovating, but what it does mean is that we need sandbox environments. I mean that's an inevitability.
Speaker 1:So resistance to testing sandbox environments by regulators? that's not something I'm overly keen on, and so this is where I apply pressure. You know, i totally understand that your job as a regulator is to preserve, protect and preserve the status quo totally get it. But I need an environment within which to explore the fullness of my nature. In a highly liquid state, with radical innovation totally pushing the boundaries. At the other end of the spectrum, regulators preserve our essential assets that we depend on for survival people like me in a highly liquid state, ultra innovative. I need an environment within which I can experiment with leapfrogging industries and solving the biggest problems that we're facing as humanity through radical, radical innovation.
Speaker 1:Now let's say in that scenario, let's say we build a prototype and it solves climate change. Now what's the problem with that? You might think that's a wonderful thing, and but it's just the beginning, because the transition is the hard bit. The transition is the hardest bit. There are dozens of ideas that I see on a regular basis. There are white papers that I read that can, that have massive potential but probably need billions of dollars to be developed. But it's the transition that's the problem, because unless the transition can take place without doing any harm, you can't implement that innovation. You know, if the reason we're innovating is for the well-being of human beings, and then the transition is devoid of grace, then what's the point? Why does it say where we are?
Speaker 1:And so this is where we need to get much, much better, especially in New Zealand, where a lot of other countries use us as a sandbox. They use us as a test bed to get product market fit for innovation. You know, because we are great at adopting new technologies and we're pretty representative of a lot of economies, but we're much more nimble, much more open-minded and, in truth, quite a lot less sophisticated in terms of regulation and things. So good, safe place to test things. However, we haven't latched onto this as a nation and we're not leveraging our potential as a sandbox nation in the world. That's attracting innovators where they can come and get product market fit for the R&D, and that's the. You know, product market fit is what we call the value of death. It's the abyss in between validating the innovation or the technology, like building a prototype and making it commercially viable, and then designing operating models that can scale that thing through exponential growth.
Speaker 1:And once you get product market fit, that's. That tends to be where. That's the point, where you've de-risked the venture. And this is where the tug of war is between venture capitalists and founders of innovation is. They're always you know, they're always trying to get the other one to de-risk it. And so you know places like Callahan Innovation, where I'm working at the moment. We try and bridge the space in between, try to align the innovator with the fund and help them to de-risk it as much as they can, and working with people who can help them to do that as well, so that they can kind of, yeah, just bridge that space in between to get product market fit Once it's been de-risked through beginning product market fit, much, much easier to get capital for the next round, as long as the numbers make sense.
Speaker 1:So you see a scenario within which we need these two to work symbiotically. You know radical innovation and you know you could almost call it radical preservation. You want the extremes of both and you want there to be tension between them. That's the whole point. And but grace is where they might meet in between. So, for example, if I come up with the solution to climate change tomorrow and I can even build a prototype tomorrow, that's not going to be realized in society tomorrow. You know it could be a five-year horizon, three-year horizon, 10-year horizon, who knows?
Speaker 1:But the important piece is how we meet in between those who are tasked with preservation, those tasked with innovation, and we come together to bridge the space in between And that's the very epitome of symbiosis to create harmony. The bridge in between that we build together is like the third element in the ternary system. So you're allowing for the extremes of both, by allowing the extremes of extreme nature of both aspects to be what it is and to be in opposition to each other. What the space created in between is a hybrid of both, and it's as simple as that. And in the same way, you as a human being, as a self-governing entity, if you can figure out how to do this within yourself, then that's how you create harmony within yourself as well.
Speaker 1:Where the decisions that you're making come from a place of accommodating both perspectives, then you're golden and you want to consciously create your life in a way whereby you can appreciate the extremes of every aspect. Where most human beings a common theme is oh, abundance, i want to create abundance for myself. Well, you actually don't want to create abundance, because an absolute presence of all substance is actually its total stagnation. A total presence of everything means that there's no presence of a singular thing. You can't discern separation from everything, and so you begin to use lack to your advantage. You purposefully create lack, you purposefully operate at a deficit of some aspect of your nature so that once a week you can allow that a spike in that aspect of your nature to experience something special.
Speaker 1:When you purposefully introduce lack into your life and you allow it to compound, say over a week, and then you indulge the opposite, the opposing aspect of that nature, the experience of it is profound. And so you know, harmony doesn't mean balance, it has nothing to do with balance. Harmony means that you're aware of how, the fact that every aspect of nature is seeking symbiosis, seeking harmony, and you use that to sculpt your life, to purposefully and intentionally create the experiences that you want to have. And I think you know, seeking that fluidity, seeking to be in that purposefully, in that intentionally liquid state whereby you can spontaneously be reborn and allow the previous version of yourself to die, without holding onto that you do want an immutable baseline in your life. You want a baseline experience that you're going to trust yourself, that you're never going to allow to be altered and changed. You know that is the roof over your head, the source of your income, your daily routines and the standard baseline that you're going to determine is homeostasis for you, for your life, and you're not going. You're going to trust yourself enough that you're going to commit to that baseline and you're not going to breach it. You may make amendments to it from time to time, but you're going to agree that you're not going to put that stuff at risk ever, no matter, regardless of the opportunities in front of you, and this is how you self-regulate. This is how you self-regulate. You're open to spontaneous innovation.
Speaker 1:In the moment, you're willing to allow aspects of your nature to die instantaneously, but never, never, at the risk of disrupting your baseline, your baseline level of survival for you as a human being. Now I've pushed myself to the absolute limits of this, so my baseline, my baseline, is very low. One of the benefits of the experiment that I've done is that you begin to realise exactly how self-reliant you can be when you've got minimal access to resources, support and when you're living as a recluse. You begin to realise how you know that you can actually survive on your own, and that's a very empowering realisation to come to. So I wouldn't recommend my baseline for everyone.
Speaker 1:Whatever baseline feels good to you and right to you, you have to trust yourself to self-regulate, that Nothing is ever going to threaten that And what that cultivates within you over time is unimpeachable trust in yourself. In the same way, societies grow distrustful of governments. It's when they make decisions that detrimentally impact the baseline or what they perceive as the baseline level of survival that a government needs to provide. That's the singular issue is that if you can't trust a government to make decisions that will not detrimentally impact the baseline, infrastructure and foundation, that's the seed point of mistrust. But if you know that there's a baseline that is unimpeachable, you can always rely on it. You can always depend on it. You'll be seeking more, you'll be seeking to innovate, you'll be wanting to take more risks because you know that that safety net's there.
Speaker 1:People think that if we provide a baseline for human beings like a universal basic income or something like that, we think that they're just going to become perpetually lazy and do nothing. And the truth is some will do that. But what it will liberate is it will unlock the curiosity and the willingness of human beings to explore And Kiwi's where we really are explorers Big time. We're a nation of explorers. It's what we want to do, and part of our nature is to be curious. Now, if you have an unimpeachable baseline that you know that, no matter what happens, you're going to survive, imagine what that unlocks in you, and it's actually immense what it will unlock in you. It's immense. Your risk profile will change radically.
Speaker 1:So, as a nation, what is the baseline that we want? You know we have to be willing to allow people to totally and wholly depend on it. If that's what they, if they're so afraid and if they're in a state of such mistrust of their own judgement If they haven't been able to create an unimpeachable baseline for their own life, it's going to take them longer to build that trust in themselves again. But what will happen is if we can give them a reason to trust the environment around them, that for once in their life their environment isn't seen as adversarial, it's seen as nurturing, no matter what happens, no matter what choices they make in their life, that we're going to make sure they are not, that they are going to survive. If we can create that unimpeachable baseline, those people can begin to heal over time they can begin to take steps. And, believe me, the stagnancy that comes from, you know, not moving and not changing over time by default that the curiosity within people will arise and they'll begin to take steps forward, and it may take a generation or two or whatever, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1:Government can work somewhat with the people of New Zealand, but we've got to stop making decisions that are detrimentally impacting our baseline foundation, and that begins the very beginning of that is for us to stop making decisions to give away our assets as a nation, our source of wealth. We've got to figure out how to stop allowing our true assets, which are our people. Every human being has an endless array of capability that's being untapped And there are so many reasons for New Zealander to go and live offshore now, especially in Australia. Some of the most talented people I know that they, because they're explorers, they go off to Australia, they go off to bigger markets. We have no ability to retain that capability in New Zealand And our assets are just, they're just all leaving the nation, selling our sources of wealth, our assets, our land.
Speaker 1:We have to build perpetual wealth in New Zealand so that we have an adequate surplus to, first of all, create an unimpeachable baseline foundation for every human being so that they know that, no matter what happens, they are going to survive, not thrive, but they will survive. No matter what happens, no matter what rug is pulled out from underneath them, they will survive. Requires wealth, requires a surplus and it requires that source of wealth to be compounding and unimpeachable. But at the moment we have a myriad of issues that we use as a nation as reasons not to become wealth focused, not to be portfolio focused. Government Regulatory legislation, rules. We're not allowed to do this because of XYZ Act. Well, let's dissolve it. Let's become wealth generating.
Speaker 1:One of the interesting ones, i find, is I work for a government agency, callahan Innovation, and there's this recently we had a whole bunch of chief executives willingly take a 20% pay cut from government agencies to help the nation as like a service to the public, because they're getting paid too much. But the reality is is that if you are at chief executive level for a government agency, even for the private sector, and then you take a 20% pay cut, all of a sudden you're at risk of being going to a private sector organization and then the government agency losing their capability and the wisdom And it's so short-sighted, it's just unbelievable. You know, if we want a powerful complementary government to create an immutable baseline, we want the smartest people we can find And those people they're not going to be the cheapest people, they're likely going to be the most expensive. So we have to understand, we have to invest in people, not try and get them to give away their value. It's insane. I'm sure most people really they're not.
Speaker 1:You know, if this triggers you, this kind of thing, i'd highly recommend exploring what it takes to become someone capable of holding the responsibility of a massive company and organization, and the burden of responsibility. It is utterly immense. It is utterly immense. Even more burdensome as a founder with investors, the sense of obligation to turn your venture into something successful can be crippling. So you know, if we want to be wealth generating as a nation, we have to invest in the best people. We have to figure out how to retain them, how to enable them to endlessly explore, and that begins with an immutable baseline foundation that is unimpeachable, it guarantees survival and then, through osmosis, raises the risk profile of all New Zealanders so that they can explore and they're willing to take a risk in order to evolve into something new and something more because they feel safe enough to take that step. So that feels about like, about the right place to end.
Speaker 1:So the ternary perspective is binary plus infinity, so it is almost paradoxical. But I think the best way to think of this from a binary perspective of ternary is a bit too confusing is to just think to yourself okay, in binary it's about polarity, so left right, up down, and so what we actually want is to enable and allow the extremes of everything. We need to create an environment where the extremes of every perspective are accepted and encouraged to follow their nature and collaboration bridges the space in between, and that's how we create grace. That's what grace is. That's the bridge between the extremes. Okay, yeah, i'm going to leave it there. That's it for now for the nature of symbiosis. Talk to you later.
