40: Charles Broskoski - Everything is Personal

Speaker A: I think the hardest thing is like basically knowing yourself. You have to sort of like get to that place first before you can make decisions that are correct. Being creative is about problem solving. Understanding one's own perspective is about finding a way to sort of like put those puzzle pieces together. You're looking at something from this direction, you're looking at something from that direction, like what's the crossover and how do you sort of like draw something out from those two? I really stand behind that idea that it's just about decision making, especially in the past 100 years being an artist is like Duchamp, it's like about making Making decisions, that's all it is.

You can do infinite things, you have to decide what you're going to do. When someone says taste is a skill, that is annoying because you're talking about something that is personal. It's something that you develop over a long period of time, and I just think taste is synonymous with understanding of one's own self. When you talk about it like a skill, then you put it in this sort of like arena of like competition, you know? Consider the possibility that working with your friends on something that you think is cool is like the most luxurious possible thing that you can do.

The reward is the work that you get to hang out with your friends and make something cool. I have like very distinct memories of being in class, looking at a textbook, like having to be in a certain chapter and just like flipping ahead to a different chapter that I knew would not be covered just because it's like, what's over here? And I think it's part rebellion, but part just like being interested. Speaker B: Welcome to Dialectic Episode 40 with Charles Braskowski. Charles is the founder of Arena, which he spent the last near 15 years building alongside a number of collaborators and co-founders.

Arena is a platform for many things, and it's described in many ways, but I think the best and most useful would be a tool for self-directed education. Arena is a place where you can find, discover, connect, explore, and archive your ideas, mix-match them with everyone else's, and it leads to a kind of curiosity and intentionality around attention and the patterns that we find across the things that are meaningful to us. I talked to Charles extensively about his philosophy behind this kind of education, what goes into what he calls nodal points, or the things that change us, the things we discover, whether it be art, information, whatever, that inflect us over the course of our lives, and why it's so important to give a deep, open, careful attention to those things.

We also talk about his and the team's philosophy for building tools and building Arena. And what it's like to build a platform when it feels more like gardening than architecture. Charles's most important idea when it comes to nodal points is that the radar, the through lines, the connections between us and the things we care about are in fact who we are, that our identity is made up of that radar. And so it's actually far less important what these things are so much as it is what we see in them, what we connect to in them.

I think this is an amazing way to think about both authenticity, which is a complicated term and idea, as well as taste, which is another complicated term in the zeitgeist. And yet I think Charles's earnest approach to attention and the deep care that goes into it is clearly represented in Arena and in how he approaches his writing and discovery and creativity. Finally, we also talk about building independent businesses online and specifically Charles's approach to building what he calls personal businesses, heavily inspired by the classic film You've Got Mail. Charles believes that whatever you build should in fact be deeply personal.

Whether you're an arena lover or not, I hope this conversation inspires you to have a more open, intentional, careful attention, to look to be surprised, to look to find connections across the ideas and the nodal points for you, and ultimately to make things based on those inspirations. Before we get into the episode, I'd like to thank Notion. Notion is a creative tool for your life's work that teams big and small use to collaborate, get leverage from AI and agents, and ultimately turn their ideas into action. Notion natively integrates AI and agents into the place where you actually do your work, all of your contacts, your documents, your databases, whatever it might be, and lets you get leverage on top of them thanks to AI.

What I like about Notion's approach to AI is that they're not trying to automate the important work, the work that deserves your deep attention. In fact, their hope is that by giving you more leverage, you can focus on them even more deeply. I use Notion to prepare for, synthesize, look for patterns across all of my interviews and conversations with Dialectic, both as I'm scavenging for scraps and bits and clues, or as Charles might call them, noodle points. Ahead of the conversations and afterwards as I try to pull out the most important ideas and lessons.

If you don't use Notion or haven't tried it in a while, you can check it out at com/dialectic. And I hope you are inspired to gather your ideas there, look for interesting tidbits and patterns, and ultimately to make things. If you do, I hope you share them with me. If you enjoy this episode, please share it with a friend or give it 5 stars on Spotify, rate it, review it wherever you're listening or watching. And with that, here is my conversation with Charles Bruskowski. Charles Bruskowski, thanks for coming. Speaker B: Welcome to Dialectic Episode 40 with Charles Braskowski.

Charles is the founder of Arena, which he spent the last near 15 years building alongside a number of collaborators and co-founders. Arena is a platform for many things, and it's described in many ways, but I think the best and most useful would be a tool for self-directed education. Arena is a place where you can find, discover, connect, explore, and archive your ideas, mix-match them with everyone else's, and it leads to a kind of curiosity and intentionality around attention and the patterns that we find across the things that are meaningful to us.

I talked to Charles extensively about his philosophy behind this kind of education, what goes into what he calls nodal points, or the things that change us, the things we discover, whether it be art, information, whatever, that inflect us over the course of our lives, and why it's so important to give a deep, open, careful attention to those things. We also talk about his and the team's philosophy for building tools and building Arena. And what it's like to build a platform when it feels more like gardening than architecture. Charles's most important idea when it comes to nodal points is that the radar, the through lines, the connections between us and the things we care about are in fact who we are, that our identity is made up of that radar.

And so it's actually far less important what these things are so much as it is what we see in them, what we connect to in them. I think this is an amazing way to think about both authenticity, which is a complicated term and idea, as well as taste, which is another complicated term in the zeitgeist. And yet I think Charles's earnest approach to attention and the deep care that goes into it is clearly represented in Arena and in how he approaches his writing and discovery and creativity. Finally, we also talk about building independent businesses online and specifically Charles's approach to building what he calls personal businesses, heavily inspired by the classic film You've Got Mail.

Charles believes that whatever you build should in fact be deeply personal. Whether you're an arena lover or not, I hope this conversation inspires you to have a more open, intentional, careful attention, to look to be surprised, to look to find connections across the ideas and the nodal points for you, and ultimately to make things based on those inspirations. Before we get into the episode, I'd like to thank Notion. Notion is a creative tool for your life's work that teams big and small use to collaborate, get leverage from AI and agents, and ultimately turn their ideas into action.

Notion natively integrates AI and agents into the place where you actually do your work, all of your contacts, your documents, your databases, whatever it might be, and lets you get leverage on top of them thanks to AI. What I like about Notion's approach to AI is that they're not trying to automate the important work, the work that deserves your deep attention. In fact, their hope is that by giving you more leverage, you can focus on them even more deeply. I use Notion to prepare for, synthesize, look for patterns across all of my interviews and conversations with Dialectic, both as I'm scavenging for scraps and bits and clues, or as Charles might call them, noodle points.

Ahead of the conversations and afterwards as I try to pull out the most important ideas and lessons. If you don't use Notion or haven't tried it in a while, you can check it out at com/dialectic. And I hope you are inspired to gather your ideas there, look for interesting tidbits and patterns, and ultimately to make things. If you do, I hope you share them with me. If you enjoy this episode, please share it with a friend or give it 5 stars on Spotify, rate it, review it wherever you're listening or watching.

And with that, here is my conversation with Charles Bruskowski. Charles Bruskowski, thanks for coming. Speaker A: Thanks for having me. Speaker B: Did I get that right? Bruskowski? Speaker A: Bruskowski. Yeah. Speaker B: AKA Cab. It seems like you're Cab to almost everyone. Speaker A: Yeah. Cab is like a nickname I've had my whole life, but it doesn't make sense to say Cab Bruskowski because it's my initials. Yeah. Speaker B: Yes. Speaker A: It's like a PHP. Yeah. Speaker B: Well, ATM machine, we do it all the time. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker B: I want to start with a couple of quotes that are technically about writing, but I think they apply to much of what you are interested in. The first is from Arena, I think curated by you, but at the very least it's in the channel philosophy channel. And it's, uh, Lara Palmquist, uh, via Nico Chilla. She says, one of the writer's essential duties is to gather, to filter and weave fragments, to refract perspectives and form new points of contact. The reader in turn acts the widsith listening audience, learning from the sojourner's song about how to speak of the textures of life.

Such is the ongoing collaborative nature of a language we are not born knowing. We cannot express ourselves without first encountering the words of others. As is often remarked, effective writing serves not as explanation but imitation, a bowerbird's nest of noticings. Calling other minds to take roost. Speaker A: Oof, that's dense. Speaker B: The second one's a little more straightforward, but there's a writer I love, Benjamin Labatut. He wrote a book called When We Cease to Understand the World, among other things. And there's an interview of him talking about his creativity.

He says, I don't worry much about the shapes of the stories. It is all about research. I try to find things. To me, finding some other person's phrase is more important than coming up with it myself. It is the part that I enjoy. In that sense, writing has become more akin to walking and picking stuff up off the ground. And one final quote from you in some interview with Sophia Epstein: It's nice to look around. I think it's like the full-page quote. So my first question is, what is it with, with obviously that context around collecting, what does it mean to be creative?

Speaker A: Oof, that's dense. Speaker B: The second one's a little more straightforward, but there's a writer I love, Benjamin Labatut. He wrote a book called When We Cease to Understand the World, among other things. And there's an interview of him talking about his creativity. He says, I don't worry much about the shapes of the stories. It is all about research. I try to find things. To me, finding some other person's phrase is more important than coming up with it myself. It is the part that I enjoy. In that sense, writing has become more akin to walking and picking stuff up off the ground.

And one final quote from you in some interview with Sophia Epstein: It's nice to look around. I think it's like the full-page quote. So my first question is, what is it with, with obviously that context around collecting, what does it mean to be creative? Speaker A: Oh my God, man, you're really starting with the— Speaker B: Straight into the deep end. Speaker A: Yeah, yes. What does it mean to be creative? Well, I mean, the thing that you're pointing to, I think, with those quotes and the thing about being creative are maybe— they're related, but they're slightly different.

PW: I think those things are— those things to me are about understanding one's own perspective. You sort of have to understand where one's own gaze is naturally drawn to, and that Understanding that is sort of like understanding, yeah, understanding one's own perspective. And being creative, I think, is like making an idiosyncratic combination of those perspectives that you're drawing, you know? And I think a lot about, I mean, creativity is such a like weird word now and it's such a loaded word, you know? And I think it means a lot of different things to different people.

To me, it's sort of about problem solving. And I think, yeah, it's like, the connection that I can draw between those two statements or those two concepts is like, being creative is about problem solving, understanding one's own perspective is about finding a way to sort of like, put those puzzle pieces together. You know, you have like, you're looking at something from this direction, you're looking at something from that direction, like what's the crossover and like, how do you sort of like draw something out from those two? Speaker B: Almost what's the space in between?

Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: I wanted to ask about creativity. We're going to talk a lot about, I think several things you just implied there. Creativity is an interesting word as you alluded to, like, uh, means everything and nothing. Um, And I think I want to talk both about the curiosity, learning, research side of you and your world and arena, and also the thing you alluded to, which is almost the— what you refer to as nodal points, like this, what, what we actually give our attention to. But I want to linger on creativity just for a second.

Two other definitions that I thought were interesting that kind of came up in my research, and I'm curious with the backdrop of your answer. The first is from an Arena Influences channel, I think via Christina Badal. Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn't really do it. They just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. And then in another interview, it's actually you, I think you interviewing Yatuu. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: You say both of you seem— both him and Norm— both of you seem like you really understand that creativity has more to do with decision-making.

I think it takes a lot of artists a long time to understand that. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The connecting things is a Steve Jobs quote, which is funny. It's like we, we lean on that a lot and it feels like, like the, the thing that he's describing about being like, like feeling guilty about pointing to something. Speaker B: That specifically is, I'm surprised I didn't recognize it. Speaker A: Interesting. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a long, I mean, it's longer. Yeah. Yeah. But, um, Yeah, I always feel guilty pointing to him because it's such a— it's like such a thing.

Yeah, and the Yatu thing about decision-making. Yeah, yeah, both of those things are the same, are like pointing at the same place, I think. The decision-making thing, this is like part of my like quest to like get more people who would consider themselves creatives to start businesses. Because I think, yeah, like, like I really stand behind that, that idea that it's just about decision-making, especially now, especially like in the past 100 years, being an artist is like, like Duchamp, it's like, it's like about making decisions. That's all it is, you know?

And you have, like, you can do infinite things. You have to decide what you're going to do. And like, what is the rubric for deciding what to do? Um, CB: So yeah, I mean, the way that Yatu and Norm approach their practice and like, how it sort of like, blurs this line between art and business, I think is like, a perfect example of like, they're just making decisions, you know? They're like, focusing on a topic that they really want to, that they like, feel the need or like, desire to explore.

And then, like using their own perspective to sort of like chip away at that topic, you know, and decision-making there is just like a, it's like a personal, it's like a personal thing, you know? Do you know what I mean? Speaker B: Yes. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: There's an aspect of it too that is a, the decision-making is this like engine that is keeping, maybe there's something else that is the wheel in the, in the metaphor, I guess. I get you, but there, there is something about, again, another word that is sort of challenging now, but agency is like inside of that a little bit.

And like the most creative people, certainly the most prolific people to your point, are the ones who are like, just like the engine is going. Da da da da da. Speaker A: Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I think the hardest thing about that is like basically knowing yourself, you know, like the, like you have to sort of like get to that place first before you can make decisions that are correct, at least in my opinion. Yeah. Speaker B: I want to come back to that. Before we do, I think it's worth talking about what stands out to me across all of these sort of refractions of what Arena is and is for.

Um, you even, you guys say the point of how we describe Arena is not to box it in, which is great. Um, but it does seem to kind of continually come back to this theme of self-directed education. Or learning or curiosity or something. You describe it as Montessori, the reading room at the public library. I went, um, I went to the New York Reading Room yesterday. Oh, you inspired me. It was really lovely because I was finishing up the prep for this. Um, a couple others that you guys— Carly describes it as research as leisure activity.

Damon's a toolkit for assembling new worlds from the scraps of the old, which is awesome. Um, but again, it's coming back to this learning thing. It's specifically a self-directed form of that. Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: Have you always had a desire to be a lifelong learner? Speaker A: I don't know if I would have like, put it in those terms. Maybe prior to Arena, but I was always the type of like, reading a different book in class, that kind of thing, you know? Or like, yeah, going to the library, checking out my own books.

Yeah. And like, yeah, that kind of thing has just always been like, an impulse. Speaker B: Was some part of it almost rebellion, at least in that example you gave? Speaker A: Maybe. Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I also remember I have like very distinct memories of being in class, looking at a textbook, like having to be in a certain chapter and just like flipping ahead to a different chapter that I knew would not be covered just because it's like, like, what's over here? You know? And I think Yeah, it's, it's part rebellion, but part just like being interested.

Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: What, to the extent that's been a common theme, um, do you have a sense of what causes it? What like really feeds that energy in you and what causes it to atrophy to the extent it goes in waves? Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah, it really does go in waves. I think that thing, um, What feeds it? I think it's, it's a little bit of just making space for it. Um, honestly, I find it harder and harder as time goes on because like having a job that's related to using a screen means that like anything that you might be interested in has to compete with every single other thing in the world.

Speaker B: Yes. Speaker A: Um, So that's tricky. Yeah, it's a little bit, it's a little bit like you have to set up the conditions. Well, I don't know about you, but I have to set up the conditions for myself, which means like, it's like a little bit ritualistic, you know, like you have to get up in the morning, you have to like not look at your phone right away. Like it's all these kind of like standard things. Yes. Speaker B: Um, if, by the way, I'm not even sure it's real, like obviously it's especially relevant or needed with the internet.

Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: But you go like every writer, it's like Seinfeld's got his like room in his house where he locks himself away and he's got his legal pad. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, there's that kind of thing, but then there's also the like connecting to the interest thing. And it's also funny specifically to be working on Arena because, um, I like developed this habit a long time ago of just following any person on Arena who's like remotely active. And so like, my feed is just like nonstop.

Yeah. And it's the quality, I have to say, like, even if I wasn't being completely biased, is still really, really good. So that's an interesting part of it where it's like my job to kind of like look at Arena and make sure it's like functioning properly, but also there's like things pulling like interesting things pulling at my attention when I go on there. And I also feel like I have to carve out time to like just use Arena myself in like a nice way, like I would if I wasn't working on it.

Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: It says something that, uh, you imagine any other content platform on the internet, if you got the entire stream, which— Speaker A: Yeah, no. Yeah, yeah. Speaker B: Kill you? Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And, and it's shockingly not overwhelming. Uh, on Arena, but I do wonder what it would be like if I could like roll it back a little bit. Yeah. Speaker B: What's your relationship to the word research or to the act of research? Speaker A: Yeah, I was thinking about this this morning cuz I was, um, listening or I was reflecting on a show that I watched, which is called Neighbors, which just came out on HBO, which is— Speaker B: Oh, I heard about this.

Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Premiere was recent too, so it must have just come out. Speaker A: Very, very recent. Yeah. And, um, one of the neighbors is sort of like a, like a 4chan QAnon type person. And like the word research gets used in that context a lot, you know, where like, if you just, if you just do the research, like, you know what I mean? You'll find like, like there's this kind of like, um, uh, yarn on a, like a corkboard kind of like research thing. And when we started, we had to qualify the word research in a completely different way, which is like, is like, It's not academic, you know what I mean?

And now we have to qualify it like, it's like, yeah, yeah, it's pleasurable. You know what I mean? Like, like it's casual. Speaker B: It's a loaded word in a lot of ways. Speaker A: It's a loaded word. Yeah. Yeah. And I think also the way that people do research now, like this sort of started with these note-taking apps, like, like Roam when that was a thing. And now with ChatGPT and all of these things, doing research like to a person means, could mean something different, especially when you're thinking about it on the internet.

And I try and say like, I'd use the Wikipedia rabbit, like following links on a Wikipedia trail as like a way to lean into the self-directedness of what I mean, of what we mean by research, you know. Speaker B: It's a loaded word in a lot of ways. Speaker A: It's a loaded word. Yeah. Yeah. And I think also the way that people do research now, like this sort of started with these note-taking apps, like, like Roam when that was a thing. And now with ChatGPT and all of these things, doing research like to a person means, could mean something different, especially when you're thinking about it on the internet.

And I try and say like, I'd use the Wikipedia rabbit, like following links on a Wikipedia trail as like a way to lean into the self-directedness of what I mean, of what we mean by research, you know. Speaker B: Do you feel like you are researching in when you're using Arena in your daily life? Like, is that a— Speaker A: I don't know what else to call it, you know? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think like research is the closest thing, but it's, it's a little bit more like self-directed exploration. Yeah.

Yeah. Speaker B: Do you spend much time distinguishing between, um, passive learning and active learning? Speaker A: No, I don't think so. Yeah. Because I think it's, uh, I think it ends up being the same. It ends up sort of being the same. Uh, does it? No, it feels the same to me, to be honest. Speaker B: That was kind of my sense. And I don't think that would be a conventional view. Speaker A: Really? Speaker B: Wait, describe the, um, passive learning and active learning. I mean, part of the implication, or maybe at least part of the connotation might be that passive learning is more likely to be things that like you're doing for fun anyway.

Or even maybe like quote unquote research and active learning is like, I have to learn this thing. I mean, I'm probably like even, even still like too rooted in the traditional like school metaphor. Speaker B: That was kind of my sense. And I don't think that would be a conventional view. Speaker A: Really? Speaker B: Wait, describe the, um, passive learning and active learning. I mean, part of the implication, or maybe at least part of the connotation might be that passive learning is more likely to be things that like you're doing for fun anyway.

Or even maybe like quote unquote research and active learning is like, I have to learn this thing. I mean, I'm probably like even, even still like too rooted in the traditional like school metaphor. Speaker A: Yeah. I see what you mean. No, I mean, like, no, they, to me, those two things sound like different modes that one might be in, but they don't really sound like the end is all that different or the, or the motivation to do the thing is all that different. Speaker B: Uh, Huh. Huh. Okay. That might be something we come back to.

One other little thread. You— I think it was also in that Yatu interview. He, he apparently had danced in high school and you had made the comparison between skateboarding and dance, both being these things that you kind of have to teach yourself. Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: Most education, at least youth education, is not that. It's not self-directed or even teaching yourself. What about— what are you pointing at either inside of skate or dance or in general, like these types of activities? What, what about them builds that self-directed muscle? Speaker A: For skateboarding in particular, I mean, it's like embarrassing to admit, but I'm 43.

I still go skateboard. And the thing that I like about it compared to other forms of physical activity is you really are just deciding at any given point what you're going to do. And it's really based on like, it's really based on mood, you know? And the mood of what you're doing is influenced by so many different things. And I mean, without like, like, this is dangerous territory because I could talk about skateboarding for 2 hours, but one's own mood and sort of, I also really hate to use the word taste in this context, but one's a taste in skateboarding, like what you're doing is informed by like consuming hours and hours of skate media, you know, like you almost consume more reference for skateboarding than you do the activity.

At least that's how it was when I grew up. Speaker A: For skateboarding in particular, I mean, it's like embarrassing to admit, but I'm 43. I still go skateboard. And the thing that I like about it compared to other forms of physical activity is you really are just deciding at any given point what you're going to do. And it's really based on like, it's really based on mood, you know? And the mood of what you're doing is influenced by so many different things. And I mean, without like, like, this is dangerous territory because I could talk about skateboarding for 2 hours, but one's own mood and sort of, I also really hate to use the word taste in this context, but one's a taste in skateboarding, like what you're doing is informed by like consuming hours and hours of skate media, you know, like you almost consume more reference for skateboarding than you do the activity.

At least that's how it was when I grew up. Speaker B: Yeah. Speaker A: Um, So you're sort of like, skateboarding and dance are both very referential physical activities because you're sort of like pointing, like every trick has a connotation, you know? And when you're doing something, it's like a certain type of, there's like a certain type of skateboarding that you're doing, you know? And I mean, like I'm being reductive a little bit. Speaker B: Do you think that like playing guitar has this set of attributes? Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, probably.

Yeah. Speaker B: So what I'm kind of hearing, and maybe I'm forcing it, is there's a classic, like, idea that you, you're trying to sound like so-and-so. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: And then you end up sounding like yourself. There's maybe there's a modeling. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Or something. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You kind of like fake it until you make it a little bit. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker B: I think that relates a little bit to being a beginner. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Which I think is something that kind of comes up a lot too.

There's an interview with Daisy and Francis at Tasteland You just brought it up. You say, I'm kind of a poser apologist. Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: If you notice that you're into something, you have to start somewhere. You have to act like you know more than you do. There is some part of presenting yourself as how you want to be that is not bad. Just pushing yourself a little bit outwards. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for bringing up my poser philosophy. I love talking about this. Speaker B: Can, like, can posers Are posers earnest, or can they be earnest?

Speaker A: Well, I mean, first of all, I don't know if like poser means anything nowadays. I think I like reflect upon being young and learning how to skateboard and being at the skate park, and this like, um, the meme of like your good memories versus your cringe memories, and like the cringe memories are like etched in like marble. Um, like having these like terrible embarrassing moments of like asking a older skater, like how to do something and, um, you know, like this kind of stuff. Speaker B: Mm-hmm. Speaker A: Um, I don't think that would happen nowadays.

I don't know what I'm getting at. Speaker B: It's sort of like, why would that happen nowadays? Speaker A: Um, because I think like people have like this, it's the same thing why like, I don't think poser is a thing, you know, the, I think there used to be some sentiment that like one has to pay their, their dues in any particular activity. And I think that people are much more patient and empathetic towards learning and, uh, being a beginner and like everyone sort of having their place. Speaker B: I was going to say more like trying hard is way cooler now.

Speaker A: Trying hard is way cooler now. That's true. Speaker B: Even selling out or whatever. Yeah. Speaker A: Yeah. I think that's true. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's true. Yeah. And when I was younger or like the people that I looked up to were like Gen X people, which like trying hard is very much not cool. Or it's like way more complicated. Like everything has to be done casually. Yes. Yeah. Speaker B: It's interesting. I, I do wonder about the— to the extent you're right in that it is way easier to be a beginner or be open about being a beginner.

There is a— maybe, maybe the realm where we're more performative or where there's more complexity around it is The internet, like, yeah, it still has this bit where like it's cool to, again, try hard or sell out or whatever. Like everybody's in there. You do a sponsored post and you're in your buddy's comments being like, yeah, so sick or whatever. But like there, it does feel that, um, I don't know. I think about a place I spent a lot of time, Twitter, like the dominant artifice of Twitter over the last 5 to 7 years is the dunk.

Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: Which is, which is kind of like not— it's, it's kind of like screw you, poser. Speaker A: Yeah, that's true. Yeah. Speaker B: And I do think that at least the platform you've, you've built, like, there's something inside of this where you're, you're trying to say it's okay. Speaker A: Like, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I— yeah, I mean, they're very different modes though. Like, even though you would like, Arena is considered social only because there's some, like, activity can be public, you know? But I don't think it's social in the sense of Twitter where, like, the point is to talk to other people, you know?

Like, the things that you're interacting with on Arena is content, and you might interact with a person through content. Speaker B: Right. Speaker A: But on Twitter, you're just interacting with people basically. Speaker B: There's a few thoughts coming to mind. One is you have somewhere where you describe, um, social networks that are about doing an activity as being more— you didn't say virtuous, but I think that's kind of the implication. And you may have even been thinking about GitHub, at least old GitHub. And so there's something inside of that.

I guess I'm interested both in that and this notion that like, it doesn't have to be like Arena could be a totally private tool. Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: Um, I've used a lot of these types of, uh, tools that are, are much more private. Um, and it seems maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a whole back catalog of things that I weren't— aren't visible to me, but in doing a lot of— you have a lot of Marina channels and a lot of like, why is— why do that all in public?

Is it a default thing? Is it something else? Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: Um, I've used a lot of these types of, uh, tools that are, are much more private. Um, and it seems maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a whole back catalog of things that I weren't— aren't visible to me, but in doing a lot of— you have a lot of Marina channels and a lot of like, why is— why do that all in public? Is it a default thing? Is it something else? Speaker A: Yeah, it has to do with the sort of like different modes for me.

And I think this is. This— different people have different approaches to this. For me, for some of my beloved channels, doing them in public has like a little bit of extra pressure that sort of makes me more careful with them. Whereas if it was— and it's— I mean, the public on Arena is so slight that it really almost means nothing. Um, like no one is paying attention to what I'm doing really. Speaker B: Um, but I'm not sure that's true, but Uh, well, a couple of asterisks. One, you could say it's sort of like if you were publishing on a website, but not under your real name, like it's out there, but it's not like, that's kind of what you're implying.

But also you're the, you're the CEO of this platform. Like it, in theory, if anyone's going to be looking at anything on Arena, like people are going to be looking at your stuff. No. Speaker A: Uh, maybe, but I think, I think it really sort of like comes across as just like, oh, you know what I mean? Like. I think, I don't think it's like, people aren't analyzing takes in the way that they do on Twitter, you know, the interpersonal dynamics that come up on Twitter don't happen in the same way.

Of course. Of course. Speaker A: Uh, maybe, but I think, I think it really sort of like comes across as just like, oh, you know what I mean? Like. I think, I don't think it's like, people aren't analyzing takes in the way that they do on Twitter, you know, the interpersonal dynamics that come up on Twitter don't happen in the same way. Of course. Of course. Speaker B: Do you have many private channels? Speaker A: Yes. I probably have like equal private channels. Speaker B: So, so this is what I'm interested in, which is like to go back to the original theme, which is like, I think the point of this, not the only point of Arena, but certainly the way you seem to be using it and one of the stated uses is this self-directed education and research.

If that is the goal, perhaps it is this thing you've, you've picked up, which is like, it's almost an external pressure. Like if I know I'm writing something for an audience of 1 or 5 versus a journal, it does change the work. And so maybe it's kind of like that. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's part of it. But also, I mean, the thing that happens on Arena, the reason The, the real rationale to make something public is that things that you're adding to your channels will, if, if it's public, then other people will add those things to their channels.

So you sort of like ambiently get exposed to other things that may or may not have to do with what you're looking at. Speaker B: Kind of as an, as a pipe in. Speaker A: Exactly. And that's the utility of, that's the reason why having it be social at all. You know? Speaker B: Yes. Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: Kind of as an, as a pipe in. Speaker A: Exactly. And that's the utility of, that's the reason why having it be social at all. You know? Speaker B: Yes. Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Yes. Speaker A: And I mean, I think to relate it back to this, like, comparison to GitHub, at least when I first started publishing code to GitHub, like doing things open source, um, I don't know, like those things feel scary when you're— before you do them. And then, and then you realize that the feeling of those kinds of platforms where they're, where it's like public, but having it be public is not the point of it. It has like a different quality to it, which is like the publicness is a utility to you and to other people.

Yeah. And it's a dynamic that's like, it's really nice actually. Once you, once you sort of like get a handle on it. Speaker B: Yeah. It had me wondering about like whether this might be more, we, we, we've sort of all assumed that like social networks, first of all, we hardly even have social networks. We have whatever, like the, the, Instagram and Twitter aren't social networks. They're something, they're content platforms. Speaker A: Yeah, sure. Speaker B: But it like, they're, and it's, it's definitely closer somewhere in between Twitter and, and, and Arena.

But like, I was thinking of, uh, there's a platform I like called Letterboxd for movies. And there is something about the fact that it's kind of, or Strava maybe. It is kind of like this single player thing that can then, yes. And I think there's something there. Speaker A: Yeah. And I think that's why people point to Yeah. Letterboxd, Strava, any kind of platform where there's like, there's a, there's a primary thing to do, thing to do. And there's a secondary social part of it. Like it always ends up being better.

And it's also easier to make a business around those things than, than there are just telling that all of those are subscription businesses. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think, I mean, also it's why people still, like, I still see people point to Pinterest as being like, one of the last places on the internet, you know, even though it's like a shopping platform, it still feels like that, I think, to a lot of people. Speaker B: Hmm. Hmm. That's, yeah, that's, that's a, I wonder if that's ripe for more new things.

Um, one other core part of this that maybe blurs between what I think we will talk about around the attention and nodal point stuff, but we were, we were talking before we started recording. A clear, um, an essential part of the medium of Arena is the channel. And, and thus, like, I think one articulation of that would be the pattern. Um, you— there's a quote, uh, from Chris Alexander. He says, at the core of these books is the idea that people should design for themselves their own houses, streets, and communities.

This idea comes simply from the observation that most of the wonderful places of the world were not made by architects, but by the people. That's him talking about, I think it's all three books, so Timeless Way and Pattern Language. And so I, I, I, I thought it was an interesting way to start this conversation, which is particularly under the theme of like self-directed learning. There's something about organizing ideas in this way. If you want to take it in a kind of high concept form, you could call it a pattern. If you want to go low concept, you call it a meme or whatever.

Um, what is it about these kind of contextual buckets that like are helpful in learning and maybe eventually in making, to go back to Alexander's point? Speaker A: That's a good question. Well, I mean, I can only speak to my own experience and my, my own way of using Arena, which is that like the channels that I really have at the forefront, I sort of just use them as like a way to filter things that I'm seeing, you know? It's like a perspective through which to view a certain piece of information, like, does it belong here or does it not belong here?

And then when it belongs, when you might sort of like open up the bounds a little bit and say like, "Oh yes, this does belong here, like, come on in," and now all of a sudden the bounds are shaped a little differently, and then you can, you just have a way of looking at a piece of information or an idea or whatever that feels more personal, you know? Speaker B: Well, there's a memory part. There's a lot of things happening inside of that thing you describe, which is like partially you're, you're, it's a little bit just like, I know where this goes.

Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: And thus maybe I'll be, it'll be easier for me to filter it and remember it, remember it or whatever. To your point, there's also, you can imagine a channel that you've just created that has 3 things in it. If you add a 4th thing, it changes the whole thing. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Versus if it has a thousand. Are you typically creating channels or patterns or whatever these things are? Like you read one or come across one thing, like how does, how do they form?

Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Versus if it has a thousand. Are you typically creating channels or patterns or whatever these things are? Like you read one or come across one thing, like how does, how do they form? Speaker A: Yeah, it's, it's usually like I've been noticing something or like I've been noticing an idea forming and it has to do with a couple of things. And so it, I typically the way it starts for me at least is It will start in private. It will be a couple of things to start, you know what I mean?

And it needs to be like 3 or between 3 and 5 or something. And then once you have that, then you have like enough of a frame to like judge other things against. Speaker B: Right. Speaker A: Yeah. And like now, like, yeah, I have like maybe 10 of these types of channels that like over the years. And now I think the bar for me is so high of like what that frame could look like. Like, it has to be so— yeah, it's not complex, but it's more like nuanced, and some kind of combination of being nuanced and new, um, that I haven't made a new one, or I haven't had like a new successful one in a, in a while.

Speaker B: I suspect my senses— what you just described is actually a phenomenon that happens across as creative people become more experienced, the benefit is they have more of these, like, what, again, whether or not they use any of this language or not, even this conception or not. Yeah. It's easier for them to slot things in. Speaker B: I suspect my senses— what you just described is actually a phenomenon that happens across as creative people become more experienced, the benefit is they have more of these, like, what, again, whether or not they use any of this language or not, even this conception or not.

Yeah. It's easier for them to slot things in. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: But the weakness might be something along the lines of what you just described, which is that they're more rigid in what their set of patterns are. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. The bar. Yeah, the bar raises, I think. And it doesn't necessarily raise in terms of like, grandiosity, but it's, yeah, something more subtle than that. I mean, I will say I think that the last couple of ones that I've had that have been successful just end up turning into essays.

Like the things— Speaker B: Right. Speaker A: The collection of things sort of happened first, or I noticed that I'm saying the same ideas to people, like a couple of the same ideas over and over. And that means I'm thinking about something, and then there are other things in the world that remind me of that thing that I'm thinking of. And it's the life cycle, at least in recent times for me, has been that the frames come up, and then it sort of shortly turns into an essay, and then Yeah, well, this would be one of the strongest cases for this type of thinking, um, is maybe it goes back to the Christopher Alexander quote.

Speaker B: Um, I suspect that makes it way easier to actually make the essay, write the essay. Speaker A: Definitely. Speaker B: It's like I have an organizing frame. It's kind of like, yeah, otherwise you're just gathering scraps and it's like you haven't done the work to connect all the dots. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, definitely for me. Yeah. And I mean, obviously writing and collecting references are two very different things. I find collecting references to be infinitely pleasurable and writing to be excruciating. Speaker B: Well, maybe that's a form of passive and active learning.

Speaker A: Yeah, maybe. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Having the sort of like, bar of you can't just have these things be like, sort of peasantly, uh, opaque and like pointing to something mysterious. Yeah, yeah, right, right. Speaker B: Yeah, there's a line I love which is, um, writing is high-resolution thought. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Uh, or, or another one actually comes from, um, Paul Graham, the Y Combinator guy. He says writing turns your ideas from vague to bad. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker B: But there is, yeah, there, there is some kind of like, and obviously writing isn't the only form, but there's there's something very fun and generative about one and very kind of like it's almost compression.

Yeah, it's like taking all those. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. It's the decision-making thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker B: Oh, one other quote that maybe really said— you had said the things that do well in Arena tend to be prismatic. They do well with a lot of different perspectives and you can put your own perspective into it. Maybe this relates more into the social side. I'm curious Have you, have you ever had your, an experience where you've really seriously adopted somebody else's pattern or channel into how you kind of think or create, or you're adding a lot to or whatever?

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. It's the decision-making thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker B: Oh, one other quote that maybe really said— you had said the things that do well in Arena tend to be prismatic. They do well with a lot of different perspectives and you can put your own perspective into it. Maybe this relates more into the social side. I'm curious Have you, have you ever had your, an experience where you've really seriously adopted somebody else's pattern or channel into how you kind of think or create, or you're adding a lot to or whatever?

Speaker A: Oh yeah. Yeah, yeah, definitely. Yeah. There are patterns that come up on Arena, not necessarily in terms of like how it, like what kind of conceptual frame to draw around a set of references, but just patterns of using it in sort of like an open-ended way. Like, um, someone started this like inbox pattern of just like making an open channel, calling it an inbox and saying like, or like, this is a guest book. Like, come sign my guest book. Speaker B: Uh, almost like a user, like a UI kind of thing.

Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Someone else started this thing of like prepending your channel titles with a symbol so that they're grouped together in your index. Speaker B: Yeah. Speaker A: Stuff like that. Like I definitely adopt from other people. Yeah. Speaker B: Are there ways that you found that seeing the world in, in these types of buckets can be limiting? Speaker A: That's a good question. I'm like embarrassed to say no, I do not think that they can be limiting. I think it's, for me, it feels very productive to have, um, a sort of like set of constraints.

And I find the constraints that Arena has to be extremely productive. Like, I think that myself and other people who I work with Arena on all sort of like use it the same way and are really like— I don't know how to put it. Like, it's really hard at this point to imagine a different mode of working that is not like Arena, not like using Arena. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker A: That's a good question. I'm like embarrassed to say no, I do not think that they can be limiting. I think it's, for me, it feels very productive to have, um, a sort of like set of constraints.

And I find the constraints that Arena has to be extremely productive. Like, I think that myself and other people who I work with Arena on all sort of like use it the same way and are really like— I don't know how to put it. Like, it's really hard at this point to imagine a different mode of working that is not like Arena, not like using Arena. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker B: You've grown You've evolved around this certain type of scaffolding. Speaker A: Yes, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. I'm, I'm like deep in, you know?

Yeah. Yeah. For better or for worse. Speaker B: Yeah. For better or for worse. There probably are some limitations, but also it's been really empowering. Like you've, you've been augmented by this, this kind of way of doing things. Um, one last little bit on this, um, which is, I guess the implication if you're gathering all these things is that you might eventually look through them. Different ways people have described— I think Damon Zucconi said it's effectively just building a personal archive, or maybe this was you archiving the casual web. Two other quotes I really liked, one from the Describe Arena at a Party channel: "Everything not saved will be lost," which comes from the Nintendo quit screen message.

Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: So good. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: And then this other Wikipedia term I found— I can't remember what channel it was on, but it's tsundoku, which is acquiring reading materials but letting them pile up in one's home without reading them. Japanese. I think that last bit actually really has the implication I wanted to pull at, which is how often you're like, Do you really dumpster dive the archives? Like, to, and like, maybe this goes back to the writing versus just, it's really fun to just like pick up shiny objects all the time.

Going back through the archives certainly doesn't necessarily mean to be turning it into an essay, but it is a little bit of a different mode. And so I'm curious how you relate to that. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like I said, I have these channels that I sort of like, uh, treat in a more special way than my other ones. And I go back through those all the time. Speaker B: Almost like they're a gallery or something. Maybe that's not quite the right connotation. Speaker A: Something like that. Yeah.

Yeah. Speaker B: They're slightly more solidified or crystallized. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Or there's, there's just something about the, the frame that I find like continually attractive. And, um, at this point, having gone back and looked at them so much, it feels like all of that stuff is mine. Speaker B: Like, oh, you know it well. You've traced those grooves almost. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. But also like the things there are like, I'm responsible. Oh, not like, like, it's not like someone else. It's like all me. Speaker B: Like, oh, you know it well.

You've traced those grooves almost. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. But also like the things there are like, I'm responsible. Oh, not like, like, it's not like someone else. It's like all me. Speaker B: I've had, they've been in my house long enough that they're mine. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Um, yeah, but then some of the other things like, like our new, like, this is not like, not like a commercial for our new app, but like the new app has like a widget on it. Yeah. And so like hooking up some, some of my like very gigantic channels to that.

Channels that might be more like, I'm like throwing a link in here to read later. Sometimes I'll get to them and sometimes I don't, but like having them just continually come up is also just a nice way of— like, I think part of our job as like people who are maintaining and building Arena is figuring out thoughtful ways of resurfacing that stuff without being too didactic about it. Yes. Speaker B: Yes. Well, and there's someone who used a lot of tools from Delicious, all like, there is a temptation. I'm, I'm curious and I like dopamine from new information.

So I just, I grabbed, I'm doing the Sudoku thing, but there are diminishing returns. Speaker A: No diminishing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I have like, I have a real problem buying books. Like I have way too many books. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Yeah. Let's talk about nodal points. Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: There's so many kind of different ways to take this, but maybe a place to start. Two quotes. One that's maybe just energetically sets the tone. It's a tweet from Ted Nelson. Speaker A: No diminishing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I have like, I have a real problem buying books.

Like I have way too many books. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Yeah. Let's talk about nodal points. Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: There's so many kind of different ways to take this, but maybe a place to start. Two quotes. One that's maybe just energetically sets the tone. It's a tweet from Ted Nelson. Speaker A: Oh, great. Speaker B: All caps. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: There is too much to say and it goes in all directions. This is not just a slogan, but my most fundamental belief. Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: And then a quote from you in this excellent piece you wrote that I think if any people are going to go read anything, maybe this or one other that we'll come to later.

But you have a piece called Here for the Wrong Reasons in which you describe nodal points and you go on to say, when you encounter a piece of life-changing information, no matter how large the change part is, you are simultaneously discovering and creating yourself, becoming incrementally more complete. Your perspective is made up of a meandering line through these points. Learning, or maybe some precursor to learning, is a lot about developing the intuition to recognize when something you find in the world is going to be a nodal point for you. There's a lot there.

Um, maybe the first place to start would be like, what, like, what is life-changing information? Or what are you, what are you getting at when you say that? Speaker A: I don't know. I feel like it's different for everyone. Like, do you feel like you can point to like an early, an early piece of life-changing information? Speaker A: I don't know. I feel like it's different for everyone. Like, do you feel like you can point to like an early, an early piece of life-changing information? Speaker B: There's a really important part of the piece perhaps that anchors this, I think, or at least sets the tone around it, which is you're describing kind of these— for Borges and

com and skateboarding, like you're describing. And so I think that with that tone, certainly, I think maybe somewhere else you describe it as something that causes an inflection. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: And so I, at the very least, with regard to art, I think it's easy to think about what were the things that kind of helped me develop that intuition you're you're describing. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. I, yeah, like I, like I also said in the piece, I tend to like, um, my weakness is nostalgia, you know, and this is like a family, a family weakness.

Like my whole family is afflicted with this, but I think about early books, you know, and wonder whether or not like, the book formed the inclination or like the inclination was there and I recognized it in the book. And that's kind of like the thing that I think I'm trying to point out with this thing, which other people do as well. And yeah, so the life-changing part is like, I think it's about that recognition. You know what I mean? Like, it's about just sort of understanding like, this thing is made for me, me, or I'm made for this thing, or me and this thing share a strong connection.

And like I said before, I think the hardest thing about like being creative is just understanding yourself, you know? So the change part is sort of about this like understanding that— understanding yourself, understanding your own perspective, you know? Yeah. And whether or not the perspective is made when you encounter the thing or if it was already there. You know, it's a quantum question. Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They're, they're sort of artifacts that where you had that experience of feeling like of, of realizing that there really are things out there that feel like they were made for you.

Speaker A: Yes. Yeah, yeah. Speaker B: Maybe a part of this then On this never-ending kind of path towards completeness or cohesiveness. You describe somewhere else in that piece, like it's sort of like these things are contributing as a piece of a very large puzzle, at least considered in retrospect. Maybe I answered the question in how I asked that, but like, do you aspire to completeness or, or towards some kind of Fullness? Speaker A: No, no. I think that this is like never-ending, ideally, you know, because I think— Speaker B: Is it increasing?

Like, is the picture dialing in resolution? Speaker A: Yeah, it's dialing in resolution. That's a good metaphor. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Cool. Speaker A: Yeah. But I don't think there's like a— Speaker B: Perfect. Speaker A: Yeah, sure. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Well, there's a, there's a Kevin Kelly line I like where he says the goal of life is to become yourself by the time you're on your deathbed. Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. Speaker B: Which is maybe— Speaker A: Exactly. Yeah. Speaker B: But it's asymptotically approaching a limit. Speaker A: Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Um, another kind of key frame or key idea you use in the piece is this idea of radar, and you're pulling from Desire Lines. But effectively, I think the critical point here is that it's a verb, not a noun, in terms of how we relate to these things that are these objects of, of our attention, more active than static reference. Um, one other piece, you, you, you're describing Desire Lines, which are these, the classic image of the the walkway, and then there's a, an additional path made through the grass that shows where people actually wanted to go.

And, uh, you describe desire lines as a path made by walking. Speaker B: Um, another kind of key frame or key idea you use in the piece is this idea of radar, and you're pulling from Desire Lines. But effectively, I think the critical point here is that it's a verb, not a noun, in terms of how we relate to these things that are these objects of, of our attention, more active than static reference. Um, one other piece, you, you, you're describing Desire Lines, which are these, the classic image of the the walkway, and then there's a, an additional path made through the grass that shows where people actually wanted to go.

And, uh, you describe desire lines as a path made by walking. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: So there's an active orientation here. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Um, yeah. Speaker A: How— Speaker B: why is that active part— maybe to tie it back to any, any, anything, um, that we enjoy— like, why is that active recognition, the agency inside of it, like, why is that so critical? Speaker A: I think it's so critical because it feels increasingly rare. You know? Like, it's really hard to feel a connection to one's own radar.

You know? I think there's so many things that diminish one's own ability to have a connection to your own radar. So Yeah. Speaker B: And just to maybe to define it since I'm pulling from these ideas, a radar, radar is the reason you care about a quote unquote nodal point. Speaker B: And just to maybe to define it since I'm pulling from these ideas, a radar, radar is the reason you care about a quote unquote nodal point. Speaker A: Sure. Yeah. Speaker B: A nodal point being one of these things that change is inflection.

Speaker A: Right. This, the recognition of the thing, like the thing belongs to me or, or like me and the thing have this, uh, some kind of relationship, some kind of relationship. Like that recognition is what I'm calling, yeah, radar. It's attention basically. Yes. Speaker B: But again, an active attention. Speaker A: It's an active attention. Speaker B: I consume many, many things for which there's no radar happening. Speaker A: Yes, 100%. Speaker B: To go back to your point. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think the radar's ability becomes dulled over time, you know, with a lot of exposure to information.

That's one part of it. But the other part of it is, I mean, it's like literally, gigantic corporations' business models to try and hijack the radar without being too like social networky about it. Like, that's what it— you know what I mean? That's what it is. Yeah. Speaker B: Yes. And, um, the, the, there's like a, it's a diffuse attention maybe versus a highly active attention. Speaker A: Um, yeah. I mean, like the way that I was describing earlier, this like, um, this sort of like, ritualistic thing of like, getting into the mode of wanting to sort of like, explore ideas or let your intuition guide you or something like that.

Like, the stage has to be pretty clear in my opinion, or at least for me. Speaker A: Um, yeah. I mean, like the way that I was describing earlier, this like, um, this sort of like, ritualistic thing of like, getting into the mode of wanting to sort of like, explore ideas or let your intuition guide you or something like that. Like, the stage has to be pretty clear in my opinion, or at least for me. Speaker B: Yeah. Speaker A: And so, like, it really means that like, one should like, not have a lot of a thing, not have a lot of things like pulling at you.

Speaker B: Um, that's kind of what I'm about to diffuse. Speaker A: It's like, yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Totally. Yeah. Speaker B: Hmm. Speaker A: Yeah. Which is, I mean, it's a hard, like you have to actively, I mean, one part of it is having active attention or active radar, but you have to actively try to set the conditions for yourself. Speaker B: Yeah. It's, it's this kind of like, like the magnitude or something of our attention? I mean, I guess it's not like— I'm trying to think about the ways to distinguish this.

I could be incredibly engaged with something that I don't have this relationship to. Part of that's just a medium. Like if I go see a film versus scrolling my phone, like I guess maybe part of my question is like how much of this is about reflecting on it or something like, like I suspect there were things that you just happened to come across that you actually had very little intentionality towards. Speaker A: 100%. Speaker A: 100%. Speaker B: And they like blew you. Speaker A: Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But you have to, I think, I think the thing that I'm sort of trying to point out is like, like you have to be in the mode where it's possible to recognize it or it's possible to be blown away by the thing.

And there's different types of being blown away, you know, like one can be blown away just by like the pure artistry of a film or, or something like that. And you might not have this sort like personal connection that I'm trying to illustrate or articulate. But the personal connection thing I think is like, you really have to, you know what I mean? Like, there's a certain mode and it's a fleeting kind of mode also, you know? Like— Speaker B: Perhaps what you were implying at some level is that actually, Regardless of what the object is, I need to be at a certain state.

Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Like you have to be ready for the thing. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: There's another piece of this, which is obviously we've been talking around it, but like you go on to kind of explicitly talk about how this ties into identity. You say the radar, your radar is you, not the things you focus on, but the orientation, the internal rule set, your magnetism towards things, the natural intuition that you've had your whole life. Um, forgive me if this is a little too esoteric, but like, maybe this is a distinction between we are what we love and like, we literally are our love.

Speaker A: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Speaker B: Does that make any sense? Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's, that, that's also part of trying to figure this out is like, yes, it's not the things, like it's not the collection of things. It's, it's like the fact that you recognize the thing. Speaker B: Where my mind went with thinking about this was almost like, um, you can imagine a sort of youthful, like a teenager. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Who really has attached their identity to like the music they're into or whatever.

And it's like they haven't quite made this jump yet. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker B: And they're like, who are you? Well, I have all these songs. Speaker A: Yeah, I'm super into hardcore or whatever. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hmm. Hmm. Speaker B: Why do you think it's tempting to, to to do that, at least for young people? Like, why do you think it's so tempting to map our identity not to the radar but to the objects? Speaker A: That's a really good question. I have no idea. I have no idea.

But I think, like, maybe it's because there's a preciousness about the objects. Yeah. When I think— when you first— when you first see those things that feel very special to you, like, you think it must be the thing, right? Speaker B: Right, right. Speaker A: It's not me. It's that, like, that thing is special, you know? I think it takes a really long time to understand that like, in the way that teenagers might describe like a band or a song or something, you know, this sort of like cliché thing of like, you gotta listen, like it's the best thing in the world.

You know what I mean? And it's not, yeah, right. You'll change your life. Yeah. But it's not actually like, this is like a certain thing for a certain person at a certain time period. Like there's conditions at play. Speaker B: It relates, I think, to another thing you go on to kind of think about and discuss in the piece, which is— oh, actually, it's rooted in this notion of like, there might be rocks I haven't turned over, almost. Like, what if there are no little points that are going to change my— inflection points that are going to totally change my life that I haven't discovered?

Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: If there were one soulmate out there for me and I haven't found them, or whatever. Like, and what you kind of go on to— let me see if I— maybe, maybe I have it. Yeah. What gives me anxiety is if there's a nodal point out there that I will never come across. What if the one is a piece of information that I will never get a chance to give my attention to. And then Damon, uh, Zucconi kind of reframes it as like, we actually have thing-shaped holes in us.

Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: And where my mind went, and I think this ties back to the teenager thing who hasn't learned this yet, and it creates an abundance, maybe, which is like, my love is abundant and I can find things to give it to, and it's actually not the things. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yes. Damon is really, um, regretful about how he articulated that. The thing-shaped holes, I think, like, I'm very sorry, Damon, um, that we're bringing this back up. Um, but yeah, yeah, yeah. It goes back to the thing of like, it's a verb, not a noun.

Like, yeah. Like, like the, like the thing that you're pointing towards could be anything and no one can really tell you what that thing is, you know? Like, yeah, I tend to also think about like, the way that I use Arena or the way that I like, go through a used bookstore with this sort of like, thrift store mentality, you know what I mean? Like, a person could go into a thrift store and maybe buy anything and put in the right context, that thing was the right thing to buy, you know?

And same thing on Arena, like, there's telling, like, quality is sort of like, it's not like a, I don't know what I, I don't know how to try and quite articulate what I'm trying to say, but like, like quality is sort of not like on a binary scale. It's like, there's, there's this, uh, all-encompassing, um, way at which one can approach a thing. Speaker B: Yes. Speaker A: Um, in the same way, like, again, like not to like over-reference Duchamp, but like, just like taking a thing out of a situation and putting it into a different context, like.

Like, that can be done with anything. Yeah, the shittiest JPEG that you see, you can like take that and like find something meaningful from it if it's like coming from the right place. Speaker B: Yeah, if you're open. Speaker A: Yeah, if you're open to it. Speaker B: Yeah, there's an Annie Albers quote, material is metaphor: students worry about choosing their way, I always tell them you can go anywhere from anywhere. Speaker A: Yes, exactly. Yeah, and that's the kind of thing that I mean like gives me comfort and anxiety at the same time, you know, because it really foregrounds agency and one's own perspective and highlights this thing of like, um, like the most important thing is like knowing yourself, you know?

Speaker B: Yeah. Speaker A: It's the only thing. Speaker B: Yes. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: One other piece of this that kind of had me thinking about, you can kind of be curious in like a truly open-ended way without much discretion. You say, I feel like I have to constantly remind myself of the things I'm actually interested in. Sometimes I wonder if there's a problem with being too curious. That is when you feel like you're interested in everything. While we do want to cultivate a curiosity, we also think about encouraging more sustained, deep thinking.

Put another way, like over— overly, overly simplified, like curiosity and adoration are not the same. Or deep attention are not the same. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: And so I wonder about that with like one view just says like if there really are infinite nodal points and it is about my disposition, I mean, like maybe, maybe that's the answer, but like I should just be like, all like looking at as many things as possible and just like waiting to see, like, whereas I think what you're implying here and what I, what I, what feels maybe more resonant to me, especially if it is about my disposition and not the thing, is that I should be looking more carefully at fewer things.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I think it's something like that, but I, I don't think there's like a one-sized solution. I don't know if I believe that. I mean, I, I'm like, as you're talking, I'm sort of thinking about the mode in which a person is going down. Like, everyone goes down, finds themselves going down a Wikipedia hole, you know, it's like the purest, uh, the like purest reason to believe that like hyperlinking was like a good decision, you know? Um, it's like, it's like fulfilling that, that dream. Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: But I don't think that that Sometimes one can find like a thing that's important in that kind of activity, but I don't always think that like just going down a Wikipedia hole is like, like it's much better than just sort of like letting your feed take you, but, but it doesn't mean like, like it's, it's a step towards the right direction, but it's not always an indication that like this is going to like yield, um, good results or good like life-changing information. Speaker B: It's, it's sort of, I think goes a little bit back to the passive versus active.

Yeah, like TikTok is full passive. Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: Yeah. Learning and then like, I don't know, like doing extremely hard research in the stacks is and like, yeah, maybe the point is to sort of oscillate there and catch yourself if you're just doing the— this is maybe this brings up an interesting question. It's like, should this always feel fun or easy? Speaker A: I don't think it's like you have It's something I wouldn't call it like fun or easy, but it's related to those things. Speaker B: Like it's downhill.

Speaker A: Like, um, no, I don't think it necessarily needs to feel downhill. I think it needs to feel, um, like engaging is not the same thing as fun, you know? Speaker B: Yeah. I'm pulling this thread and I'm like, I'm kind of locked in. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's a nice place to be. And I think, yeah. But like I just said, like, I don't think that that's like, an indication of something. It's not an indication of like, the gold is there. But like, having that kind of practice I think is like, useful for getting towards what I'm talking about.

Just being able to have a sort of like, radar or an attention, like a radar or an attention span that's like, that feels more tuned, for like lack of a better word. Speaker B: Tuned feels like a good word. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Tuned feels like a good word. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: I want to briefly broach the topic of taste, which you already alluded to being messy. As a quote, people often think about making work as if the person on the other side will have no choice but to enjoy it if the work is good enough.

But it's nice to think about the practice of viewing or consuming as an art form in itself. I think this is kind of getting at something we already talked about a little bit. Um, but it is interesting because it sort of does feel like sometimes there is work that is good enough, like work that is so like, I don't know, I'm thinking like on one hand there is stuff I have engaged with that, that I, I guess I was, my act of viewing or consuming was an art form in and of itself and that it took a lot of work.

And there are other things where like I watched Casablanca for the first time recently. And like, it didn't take— like, there wasn't, there wasn't much effort required. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker B: I'm not really sure what my question is, but, um, yeah, it's hard. Speaker A: It's hard also to like, um, like in this particular time period in the past 3 days when we find ourselves in like Taste Wars 10 or whatever. Speaker B: It's literally, it's a sequel to a sequel to a sequel. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I tend to think that there is a distinction between objectively or like, nearly objectively good things, you know, versus things that feel specific to a person. Yeah. Yeah. I think there's something different there. And I think one is just like, being able to, recognize and appreciate what a person has done. But, and another thing is like recognizing that like this person is talking about something that you feel like you've been thinking about for your whole life but haven't been able to articulate. Yeah. And I think like, like I hate now to use the word taste, but I think that if I were to try and like, like really hone in on a definition that I thought was correct or describe the quality, uh, that like people that I know who I think like have the best taste in the world, it's more towards that, the second relationship, which is just like, like self-knowledge, right?

Speaker B: It's literally, it's a sequel to a sequel to a sequel. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I tend to think that there is a distinction between objectively or like, nearly objectively good things, you know, versus things that feel specific to a person. Yeah. Yeah. I think there's something different there. And I think one is just like, being able to, recognize and appreciate what a person has done. But, and another thing is like recognizing that like this person is talking about something that you feel like you've been thinking about for your whole life but haven't been able to articulate.

Yeah. And I think like, like I hate now to use the word taste, but I think that if I were to try and like, like really hone in on a definition that I thought was correct or describe the quality, uh, that like people that I know who I think like have the best taste in the world, it's more towards that, the second relationship, which is just like, like self-knowledge, right? Speaker B: Like self-knowledge thing you keep coming back to. There's a, one of the next things I had and I think it really connects, you had, um, reflected on, um, having Cory Archangel as your professor, I think, in college.

Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Like self-knowledge thing you keep coming back to. There's a, one of the next things I had and I think it really connects, you had, um, reflected on, um, having Cory Archangel as your professor, I think, in college. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Um, and describing this kind of experience in class, you say the first part of class was everyone talking through some links they found on the internet. People would bring in things that may not seem interesting at first, but Cory was amazing at parsing out why something might be interesting.

It showed you it's important to think deeply about why you like what you like. First of all, like, I think a really wonderful and kind of generous thing, like, what do you think made him good at that. To what extent did you learn about even being able to do that for yourself from him? Speaker A: He, like, I mean, I don't want to like, uh, overstate it and embarrass him, but like, I think he played a large part in that kind of practice or looking at things with that sort of perspective of like, kind of like it's a game, you know?

That like, taking something out of context, like whatever the thing is, a piece of media content or whatever, and like, placing it here and having it kind of be like, a reflection on you, and that as like, a move was like, just like a different way of relating to things that I had never I feel like I had experience, but like, he took it to like, a different level in my opinion. And he like, I remember him, um, so I worked, I was his first studio assistant after college, and he very generously took me around to like, see art shows.

Like, his studio was in Chelsea, and we would like, go on a lunch break and then just be like, okay, like, let's just go look at shows. And he would just like, show me around and like, talk about how he was like, looking at things and like, why something might be interesting and maybe like, what the context around something might be. Like, he was also very young at the time and like, also sort of trying to understand this for himself, but being sort of like, open source about how he was coming to an understanding.

And I remember him talking about like, "Oh yeah, like, you know, this like, person can just put a, you know, like a mop," in a gallery, and it's like— and you're just like rolling your eyes, but then you think about like where he's come— where this person's coming from, you know, just this kind of thing of like relating to me in like a human way, um, this sort of like gestural conceptual art way of relating to, to things in the world. Speaker B: It sounds both like, uh, properly critical but also like very personal.

Speaker A: Yes, that's a really nice way to put it. Speaker B: Which is, I think, something we tend to forget in the conversation about all these things. Like, I just want to— the taste thing again is sort of silly, but like, I always like to bring up, like, taste is kind of like— it's like a product of eating food. It's like, what do I actually like? Yeah, we're talking about it's like we're going around pointing at all these dishes that we haven't tried, being like, this is the good one.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's why, I mean, like we should not get into this, but like, like the conversation around this is annoying because I mean, when someone says taste is a skill, that is annoying because you're talking about something that is personal, you know, it's something that you develop over a long period of time. And, and it's to me, yeah, again, like I just think this is taste is synonymous with like an understanding of one's own self. And, um, when you talk about it like a skill, then you put it in this sort of like arena of like competition, you know?

And like, people are comparing one's own taste to another one's, which like doesn't really make any sense. It's like saying, "I'm like better than you because I like this." Like, to your point, it's like, "I like this hot dog, you don't like this hot dog, like I'm better than you," is insane. Speaker B: When you put it like that, it's both insane and also like totally plausible. Like people, yeah, we do that. I want to come back to the competitiveness, but one last thing on this briefly. I think this was in that same Tasteland interview.

You said there's no single thing that could convince me that someone has good taste. It's the composite. And I think the implication here is that, or at least one implication is that it takes time to evaluate both somebody else but also ourselves in taste. And so I guess like as one kind of final piece in this, or maybe to not use that word like this, why is duration and almost like reference to yourself over the course of time so important in this self-knowledge as you kind of grow through it? Speaker B: When you put it like that, it's both insane and also like totally plausible.

Like people, yeah, we do that. I want to come back to the competitiveness, but one last thing on this briefly. I think this was in that same Tasteland interview. You said there's no single thing that could convince me that someone has good taste. It's the composite. And I think the implication here is that, or at least one implication is that it takes time to evaluate both somebody else but also ourselves in taste. And so I guess like as one kind of final piece in this, or maybe to not use that word like this, why is duration and almost like reference to yourself over the course of time so important in this self-knowledge as you kind of grow through it?

Speaker A: Yeah. Well, so I think, I mean, part of this class that you were talking about with Cory Archangel, like, like we were using Delicious. And Delicious was just this— basically the way it worked is you would send links to Delicious instead of saving them to a bookmarks bar. So you would look back and see this sort of like trajectory of like, oh, I was thinking about this thing. Like, this thing was important enough for me to save. And then like a week later, like I can sort of draw the connections between these two things.

And so I think the duration is like, it's about a sort of like ongoing conversation that you're having. With yourself. And yeah, I mean, when you bring up this, like, there's not one single thing that could convince me that a person has good taste, like, I think about someone who I think has, like, the best taste in the world who I know is Chris Charron, who was our original designer, who's also, like, the designer for Cahill and a musician and just, like, has impeccable taste and highly idiosyncratic. I don't know, like, if this is still a thing.

I mean, I have to, like, air out his taste for a second, but, like, I don't know if it's still a thing for him, but he's, like, was for a long period of time obsessed with Tom Cruise. And I'm, like, thinking about that versus, like, every other thing that he likes. Like, it makes sense, you know? But when you just take that one thing, it, like, sounds Like, like, it's like, it's not evidence. You know what I mean? Like, like the compo— Speaker B: like the, the trajectory is that it's almost like a, uh, to extend the food metaphor, it's almost like a dish.

Like there is some— this ingredient in the context of all these other ingredients is quite interesting. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Yeah. When you say he has great taste, one other kind of— you even admitted at the time you like, you didn't love this framing. It was sort of like this person's world is complete. And maybe what you're getting at is like, it was more cohesive. The resolution is dialed. Like, is that what you mean? When you say he had great taste, what do you specifically mean? Speaker A: It's so, like, it's at once refined, but it's also so specific to him and his personality.

And when you see the connection in a person with like, those two qualities going hand in hand— Speaker B: Like a self-knowing that can be really active. Speaker A: Right. A self-knowing that can be really active, but also like, works in the world in a sort of like, particular gestalt that like couldn't really be replicated by someone else. Yeah. Speaker B: Yeah. I like that a lot. You briefly referenced the kind of competitive nature of taste. The other kind of big idea you're working through in that piece, Here for the Wrong Reasons, is this— what you, I think, frame as like competitive realities.

Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: And there's an articulation you have where you're talking about like thinking the incentive is for us to all think of ourselves as brands. And think of information or content as like a resource to, to use in this way. You go on to make an amazing Bachelor reference with, with "here for fame, not, not love." And you say, someone whose interests are more strategic than personally intuitive, a person whose interests accumulate with an awareness of how they will reflect back onto them, a person who follows nodal points not from an innate desire, but from the expectation of some kind of reward, social or otherwise.

There isn't a clean way to get around the idea that personal expression is always at least in part performative. Expression is partly fun because it's performative. And so like those two together, the first is this total cynicism you heard from Fame Not for Love. The second quote, I should have made clear, it was distinguished. Like those are intentional a little bit, like like, yeah, uh, your, your platform, like Arena itself is actually a great example of this where it's like, it, it seems to be sort of resisting the, or you're trying to have it resist the perils of the first part, but also alt taste is a little performative, a little bit, like even if even to ourselves.

Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Um, and so I guess I'm curious how you like square those two things. Like what amount of performativeness is tolerated? Is it about a self-awareness about performativeness? Speaker A: Yeah, I think it's about— I think it's about motivations and expectations, you know. And when it's like— I mean, like, these are like very— these are like my own rules now that I'm just like coming up with, but I think that, um, In my mind, doing it in public and having it be performative and just being confident with like, I wanna say joy, you know?

Like finding joy in a thing, showing off a thing with joy, not expecting like someone to look upon, not the whole motivation can't be, like, I'm showing off and you should look at me as someone with good taste. Speaker B: Or even, I want a specific reaction. Speaker A: I want to— yeah, you can't, you can't basically want any kind of reaction at all in my, in this worldview of, of like standards. Speaker B: Is joy performative though? Um, like real joy, I would argue, probably isn't very performative. It's enthusiastic.

It's not internal. Speaker A: Yes, it's like this rare combination of being able to, um, like show the thing with love and do it in public, um, without expectation, which I think is extremely hard and maybe almost naive at this point to expect. Speaker A: Yes, it's like this rare combination of being able to, um, like show the thing with love and do it in public, um, without expectation, which I think is extremely hard and maybe almost naive at this point to expect. Speaker B: A child could do it. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker B: I think that's on the, on the kind of broader theme of, of competition. And I think you alluded to this earlier. Two more quotes. Social media has largely made permanent a world of individual realities, but it also underpinned that world with the perspective that The larger structure holding everything together is competition. In order for your reality to be the most real, it has to win. And then a second quote: You have to think of content or information as a resource, and doing so means that in some ways you're producing or consuming in order to cultivate a position, rather than treating content as something out there to be curious about, to be fascinated by, or to love.

The last part, obviously, I think is, is the thing hanging over all this and like this authentic taste, whatever. Like, I guess what I'm— what I was trying to— what I was thinking about a little bit is like this, this idea that in order for your reality to be the most real, it has to win. Like, artists and you— and I don't— maybe we'll get to this— I don't know if you still consider yourself an artist, but like a part of that is actually being opinionated. In fact, I know you're quite opinionated about software and how you make software.

And so on one hand, like, great artists are sometimes just like loving or whatever, the joy thing. But oftentimes they're saying something. They're actually trying to have their reality win. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: And maybe this gets back to the same tension we were just discussing around performance. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: But like, maybe it depends on the context. Maybe it depends if you're just in this sort of enthusiastic learning period versus constructing something. Speaker A: Yeah. CB: Yeah. I mean, I think like a, I mean, really good example, like, it's just top of mind.

I'm making an excuse to bring up Taste Wars, Ted. But like, a really good example is seeing the different ways that this is sort of like playing out on Twitter and people taking one side against this sort of like, taste is a skill thing, other people taking other sides. It's like, it feels like people are trying to align themselves properly and that the goal is not so— I mean, whatever. This, this conversation is annoying for a lot of different reasons, but like, like one of the reasons it's annoying is that it feels like the goal in the end is to like end up on the winning side of this.

Speaker B: Yes. Speaker A: You know? Speaker B: And, and to feel honestly in this case, to feel better about one's own like position. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Which is like a problem with Twitter in itself, but like, but like the other part of it is, well, it's this sort of thing about, of, of, of talking about the thing you're doing rather than like doing the thing, you know? And when you talk about taste, then you're like, then you're like talking about the idea of loving something and not like actually putting your attention towards the thing or whatever.

But I think in relationship to that, maybe when I was like going to shows to art shows in New York more regularly. Experiencing a show, feeling like it was successful, like, like something was, something ineffable was communicated to me, and not really feeling like that was so much of a competition but more of an ongoing conversation. This is sort of like a long way of saying that like the motivation towards these things plays a large part in how the tone of that thing goes, you know? Like, if one is like, doing these things to like, dunk on someone to like, end up in the right spot so that they will be in a better spot later on, that's different than like, "I've been thinking about this thing for a really long time.

Speaker B: Like, I'm gonna articulate this in the best way possible." And by the way, I care about the response, but in a way that is less about my ego perhaps. Speaker A: I mean, it's a delicate thing, but it's a delicate thing because it's, it always comes into play. But I think like, like you care about, I, I think in one mode you care about the response because you want the conversation to keep going because you love the conversation so much that you want things to be generative and you want to be, you want to add to the conversation so that someone else can add to that.

Speaker B: You know, the other is to signal. Speaker A: The other is to signal. Yeah. And, and they're like percentages of everything and every way of dealing with this, obviously. Speaker B: Obviously, so much of this is, is about attention. Um, and I think really what the piece is about— loving attention, right? I was also thinking there was some, some kind of brief line you just said, we have to pick which things we give our attention to. We— there's a finiteness about human attention, and it's hard not to think about that in the context of, of like this other form of intelligence where we've created, which, which the whole Actually, the whole feature and bug of it is that it has infinite attention, basically.

Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: There's this quote you have about it, about it that prompted something for me, which is, if you're really focusing on the moment, on something you love, on something in the world that feels like it's made for you, you can't be thinking about how it will benefit you or how it will reflect back on you. We were just talking about this. These two modes are at odds with each other. True attention requires that you don't view something in the world through the lens of what can this thing do for me?

Yeah. And I have a couple questions on this, but my first is, can you fake it till you make it on this front? Meaning, like, can you actually— can you be a poser around it and then, and then end up loving it? Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yes. I totally believe that. That's why I'm a poser apologist. Because I think, I think like, if you find yourself wanting so hard to associate yourself with an idea, then there's like, that means something. Speaker B: There's some radar happening. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

And if you're willing to sort of like be vulnerable to, um, to like maintain that position, like, that's also very important, you know? Speaker B: Okay, cool. Um, the other part of this is at Rude, it's like, um, I think actually this whole thing we, we just spent the last 5-10 minutes kind of talking about is is it inward looking or outward looking in a way? There's— you have this thing about like the common advice is to do more things for yourself, not for other people. And you kind of like invert it and you say like, actually, we should point our attention out into the world.

Yes. How like understanding what connects you to the world, your radar, what draws you in. You have to pay attention, pay attention to what you're paying attention to. It almost reminded me of like I don't know if you ever listened to or read the David Foster Wallace "This is Water" speech. And like, that's really his core contention is like, he's got this line about you can be trapped alone at the center of a school-sized kingdom worshiping some kind of thing for yourself, or you can turn your attention outwards. Yeah. And that was where I kind of found myself going is almost like a possible resolution for this is just like, making your attention more generous?

And some, like, generous is a— maybe that's a question. Like, like, how, how does one cultivate that, that generosity of attention, that external outward-facing attention? Speaker A: Yeah, right. The thing that I learned from Corey, to go back to what we were talking about earlier, is one could find anything interesting if you look at it long enough or from the right direction. Um, and And I think the sort of like generosity of attention is around that, you know, sort of like, like, not like you have to give in completely to this idea that like, I could look at this forever, you know, like you can't, like, that's unproductive, but you can like open up the aperture a little bit to, to be able to like, I mean, what I was saying to you before we started talking, the thing that I really miss about being in New York is just like having random conversations.

With people on the street. And that activity sort of reminds me of this, like, anything can be interesting, you know, because you can really— I found that you could really quickly get into that mode with someone where you both might be looking at the same thing and sort of trying to like, you know, make a little joke or something or like, look at it from a funny angle as a way of relating to each other. And you're sort of like, very quickly seeing something from someone else's perspective. So yeah, I think it's about this like, it's about being empathetic to perspectives and like, understanding that one can look at anything from a million different directions and find a way in, find like, a personal way in.

Speaker B: It's a form of kind of like, looking with some amount of humility or something like that, or even like, It's not quite the, like, I'm searching for some kind of language or like, it's not quite intentionless, but it's like a looking with a willingness to be surprised or something. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, the thing that I'm talking about in this piece or like the activity that I'm annoyed by is like, like there's another way of looking, which is just like, like, how can this thing benefit me?

You know what I mean? Speaker B: Like, yes. Speaker A: Like, I want that object, like that will make me look good. Like that is like a really damaging mode, um, to sort of like have as your rubric for looking at things in the world, in my opinion. Speaker B: Yeah. What am I going to get from this? Speaker A: Yeah. What am I going to get from this? Speaker B: It's, um, it's almost the looking without needing anything. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Yeah. I appreciate you indulging me on the attention thing.

I interviewed, um, you, you referenced in, um, in one of the, in the channel for that post, um, Nadia Asparova's book Antimemetics, and I had a similar conversation with her, and it's, I think the attention thing has just continued to come. There's something metaphysical about it, and it feels very sort of, um, it's like the one scarcity left. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. It gets so quickly metaphysical, which is why it's like, I'm like, well, whatever. I can like be that person for a second, but like when you start talking about it, I don't, it's not, it's not like bullshit, you know what I mean?

Like there is no end to the amount of attention that you can pay to something. It's not, that's real. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. It gets so quickly metaphysical, which is why it's like, I'm like, well, whatever. I can like be that person for a second, but like when you start talking about it, I don't, it's not, it's not like bullshit, you know what I mean? Like there is no end to the amount of attention that you can pay to something. It's not, that's real. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: I want to talk a little bit about maybe a grab bag of things I would broadly describe as like design.

Um, I think like toolmaking sort of maybe a form of like gardening that you do, like in shaping mainly Arena. Speaker A: Okay. Speaker B: First, on maybe the, a little bit of the thread we were, we were on, um, there's an interview with you in The Creative Independent back in 2017. Um, and you say, before when I was working on my solo show as an artist, I was thinking about what it means to be generous as an artist. At the time, I thought it was about being really personal or really open, like to the point of being diaristic or sharing images of me and my family.

Towards the end of making that show, I decided no, it's actually about tools. It's actually removing myself entirely and making things for other people to do stuff. I decided making tools is the nicest thing you can do as an artist. So Arena still feels like a natural extension of where I was going. Arena has changed the way I think. I continue to think about things the same way I would as if I were making art, but I just don't make art. What— maybe— I mean, that was a long time ago.

What, what, what is so generous about making tools? And basically, maybe more broadly, I don't want to get too in the weeds of what we were talking about just now, but like, what is, what is generous? What makes an artist generous? Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Those are two separate questions. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. That's, that, I mean, that question is, that's super personal. I mean, I don't mean like, uh, I won't answer it. I mean, like, like, it's specific to the person and how they define that kind of thing.

But for me, for me, that's the sort of like, next logical conclusion in this like, conversation that I was creating with myself and like, the work that I was making at the time. The thing that's generous about making tools is that like, you're sort of like, trying to optimize for reinterpretation, I think. At least, at least That's how I would approach making tools. Like, these things should be used in different ways. And because, like, I think about tools in the, in the realm of software, I tend to, like, want to play with this, um, on the spectrum of open-endedness and sort of like rigid and intentional.

Speaker B: Right. Right. Oh, you could argue that's generous. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's, yeah, there's, there's, there's parts of, there's other parts of it too, which is that like, like what I would want from a tool is sort of like what I try and do with Arena. Yeah. Um, so I'm like trying to be generous to like a person who might share my same perspective. Hmm. Speaker B: Is Arena art? Speaker A: No, no, I don't think so. Um, No, but I do think that, um, yeah, everyone that we employ at Erwina has an artistic or creative background.

And I think it's, yeah, this is like, I tend to think that it's harder to learn how to make creative decisions in business than it is to sort of like learn the practical parts of running a business. So it's not art, but I, I like treating decision-making within the context of running a business as a creative act. Speaker B: Is Arena art? Speaker A: No, no, I don't think so. Um, No, but I do think that, um, yeah, everyone that we employ at Erwina has an artistic or creative background. And I think it's, yeah, this is like, I tend to think that it's harder to learn how to make creative decisions in business than it is to sort of like learn the practical parts of running a business.

So it's not art, but I, I like treating decision-making within the context of running a business as a creative act. Speaker B: And if I'm to infer correctly, your, your sort of baseline implication is easier to teach creative people business than teach business people creativity. Speaker A: I think, but but I'm sure a ton of people would disagree with me. Yeah. Speaker B: On the note of design specifically, you reference this 37signals old blog post about making opinionated software. And I think it's them. They say the best software takes sides.

Yeah. And then this is you. We tend to approach the problems we solve from a cultural perspective rather than a purely technological one. And maybe those two ideas aren't exactly related, but they felt related to me. But I'd be curious for you to actually explain that, that specifically the distinction of, and maybe with the lens of taking sides, like what is it, what does it mean to approach something? I mean, one very simplistic reading would be it's like, it's not mechanical. It's not the bare metal. It's actually this like much more soft, amorphous sort of human thing.

Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, I think that, like I said, I mean, like I've said a lot, like I use Arena myself, like as a person. And so, uh, what I mean by like, we take, we take, we try and like approach things from a cultural perspective is like an understanding of like what we would want As people who use the software, what we're seeing our community, like the peop— the other people around us who are using Arena, what we're seeing, how they're, how they're using it, what they're coming up against, what's frustrating them.

There's those things, which maybe is like a little bit more like that's table stakes, but I think there is something to be said about it actually being a sort of like rare case. When one is making software that you are the, you know what I mean? Like a lot of people are making these things as like, like they're trying to make smart business decisions and having like smart business decisions not be like the number one reason why we do things and more like, like how is this gonna add to the conversation?

Like how will this change the dynamics of what people are doing on Arena? Yeah. Um, because we're using it ourselves and we don't want the quality to dilute, so like like that being the number one thing is, I think sort of what I mean. Speaker B: Are you conflating business and technology there? Speaker A: I think so a little bit. I mean, yeah, like, like I, I also can't say that we like don't make strictly technical decisions because we spend like a ton of time, uh, just trying to make things super fast.

Speaker B: Are you conflating business and technology there? Speaker A: I think so a little bit. I mean, yeah, like, like I, I also can't say that we like don't make strictly technical decisions because we spend like a ton of time, uh, just trying to make things super fast. Speaker B: Right. But there is a meta thing here, which is like technology wants something. I think often we think of technology as being sort of value neutral. It's not. And so maybe that's the other force that's pushing up against this, which is like, what is the platform?

Speaker A: Yeah. Well, yeah, there's what does the platform want, but there's also like, like we have things, I mean, to, to what I was just saying, like the things that we're opinionated about are like, it should be super fast, like faster than is reasonable and it should be very minimal. It shouldn't have too much of a feeling. Like, content should come through way more than arena as an interface comes through. And we think about those things just as qualities in themselves, but also like, what kinds of like behavior or feelings do those qualities engender?

Speaker B: And so in that sense, there are cultural decisions. I was gonna say they're almost like taste decisions. Speaker A: Well, I mean, the weird thing about like, like, uh, like being opinionated like that is it can sound like taste. Speaker B: Yeah. Speaker A: Or, and it can also sound like being principled or like having morals. Speaker B: Sure. Speaker A: Sure. Sure. But it really is just like, yeah, having an experience of using software over the life of our, of our entire lives, understanding the things that we think are like well done and trying to like emulate and like push past those qualities as much as possible.

Speaker A: Well, I mean, the weird thing about like, like, uh, like being opinionated like that is it can sound like taste. Speaker B: Yeah. Speaker A: Or, and it can also sound like being principled or like having morals. Speaker B: Sure. Speaker A: Sure. Sure. But it really is just like, yeah, having an experience of using software over the life of our, of our entire lives, understanding the things that we think are like well done and trying to like emulate and like push past those qualities as much as possible.

Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. On this note of like what the platform is going to be or wants to be, the way you talk about it often feels more like the classic kind of gardening, bottom-up versus, versus top-down. You say it often feels like Arena itself has its own needs and desires, that Arena has its own personal intuition, and that we, you and I, are figuring out what it wants to be together. We try to listen to how we all talk about Arena, pay attention to how changes to the platform bring about new needs and ideas, and recognize the times when we, you and I, have strong urges to do something on Arena but can't.

These are the times when we know how to make Arena more complete. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: That goes back to so much of what you just said, the principle stuff, like, but I'm so interested in like like, almost like embodying, like, the feeling— like, what literally— maybe you could give an example, like, what is happening when there's something you guys want to do and that you can't, that, like, crosses that threshold? Because, by the way, I suspect there have been times when, given that you are pretty principled, there are things you feel like you kind of want to do, maybe you, Charles, want to do that aren't right.

Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: That goes back to so much of what you just said, the principle stuff, like, but I'm so interested in like like, almost like embodying, like, the feeling— like, what literally— maybe you could give an example, like, what is happening when there's something you guys want to do and that you can't, that, like, crosses that threshold? Because, by the way, I suspect there have been times when, given that you are pretty principled, there are things you feel like you kind of want to do, maybe you, Charles, want to do that aren't right.

Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'll give you, like, a counter example to this, which is coming up in my head as you're asking this question. The thing that people have brought up the most in terms of a feature request over the lifespan of Arena is like, I want to be able to see my channels and other people's channels in graph view. Like I wanna see this thing like a ma— like a nodal map. Speaker B: Right. Speaker A: And like, we've definitely, I mean, people have explored it with our API.

We've explored it. We keep coming back to this like conclusion conclusion that it's just a novelty and it doesn't actually provide anything. Speaker B: Like, it gets brought up for every product. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. And it's like, and it's a, and it's a thing that feels like, um, it would be valuable in some way, but actually like doesn't deliver in the way that— at least from the way that we're using Arena, it doesn't deliver in the way that you think it's going to deliver. Speaker B: Almost like the Arena doesn't want that.

Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yeah. And that's, and like, unfortunately or unfortunately, like that's our particular take. Um, but it's also one of the reasons why we're like, we're opinionated that like Arena should always have an API. Um, and that is like, it's feeling more and more like a radical position because like the things that live on Arena. There's no algorithm, it's people doing this, and that's super rare, you know? Like, people are categorizing information, you know? And like, they're doing it because it's a— Speaker B: What a waste of time.

Speaker A: Well, I mean, yeah. No, it's just, yeah, it's a wild thing to think about. And I think that it is just inherently valuable, but at the same time, we do believe that like, there interpretations of like what Arena can and should do that someone should have the ability to, um, enact if they want. Speaker B: It's almost two spiritual aspects of the platform that are kind of at odds, but you're like, you're allowing them to exist in slight tension. Speaker A: Yeah, I think so. Speaker B: Yeah. Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Two, I, I know Ted Nelson has been very influential. Two ideas from him. One, mediums are infinitely harder to create, create than media. And two, recognizing parallelism as an essential part of thought, which I think is obviously very, very central for his work. But I think it's at the very least influential to you. Also, one other line from you: the key is that Arena isn't doing the work for me at all. It's just an environment that is oriented to this type of activity. Speaker B: Two, I, I know Ted Nelson has been very influential.

Two ideas from him. One, mediums are infinitely harder to create, create than media. And two, recognizing parallelism as an essential part of thought, which I think is obviously very, very central for his work. But I think it's at the very least influential to you. Also, one other line from you: the key is that Arena isn't doing the work for me at all. It's just an environment that is oriented to this type of activity. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Which is almost getting at the medium idea a little bit. Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Like, I'm curious what's been most important in creating that environment you talk about quite literally, I would call Arena a medium. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: And why, why is— whether it's literally parallelism as Ted describes it or just bidirectional linking, like why that's been so important to create this type of environment that produces what you want. Speaker A: I mean, to like put it in way dumber terms, like, thank you. I think, I think like what we're trying to get at is like, like, what are the optimal conditions to get at the kind of content that we want?

In order for that content to come in, one has to have the quality of being fascinated with something, you know? Yeah. So, so the parallelism or like the structures of Arena like even the positions that we take as a business, like saying like no algorithms ever. Like one way to think about it, one very real way to think about it is like, these are the conditions that have to exist in order for like the good content to come through. Speaker B: It's a, it's, um, a very strict constraint in some sense.

Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Or prompt. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But, but like, because it has this sort of like a little bit of a learning curve, like a, like it has an open-endedness that feels ungenerous at first. That's— Speaker B: it's a threshold. Speaker A: It's a threshold. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Yeah. One idea that comes up a lot is, and maybe you're pointing at different things. I, I even have a few interpretations, but is this idea of space. One place you say, I don't always want to be augmented.

I want space in my software, which is maybe capturing the, the, the real kind of essence of it. And then you go on, um, it's just a bunch of people recognizing that it's really hard to think when you're attached to the internet all the time. Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: Which is really poignant. And then finally, in, in this piece you have on Bohm Dialogue, um, it's a longer one. You say it's so easy to treat technology as though it can prescribe a solution to a particular problem. Software developers build complex workflows, create new methods for faster communication, and and tune information delivery to an individual level.

But what humans really need is much more simple: time and space to think and process. There are, I think, actually like two kind of core articulations of space that fit Arena. One is the one I was just describing with all those quotes, which is like almost like negative space or something. A gap. The other is actually like spatial interfaces. Yeah. Both are clearly very deeply seated in how you design this product. I'm curious why. One, to the extent they ever interact, and two, like why you particularly on the negative space one, like why you kind of keep seemingly coming back to that.

Maybe it's just a personal thing. Um, maybe it's about that threshold. Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, like, like also part of what I'm trying to point out with that is like, like it's about what we do, but it's also like what we don't do. So like, not like deciding not to do these like graph things or like be too heavy on animation or like design an interface that like looks too slick in one particular direction is like another form of space. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. It's like like, it's like letting the person's content, intention, intention, or whatever, all that stuff come through more than what we're doing.

It's a, it's a really fine line to us. I think that like, um, like it should look good, but also not really like too much of anything. Yeah. And that's a hard, yeah. Speaker B: Yeah. Speaker A: It's like a really hard thing to pull off. Mm-hmm. But I like, that's what we aspire to. Speaker B: It's a Good transition. One of my favorite things I read of yours is actually this blog post on Arial, your new typeface, which is A-R-E-A-L, misspelling of the proper Arial. A few ideas that I actually think play so well into what you just said about space.

First is Johannes Breyer at Dynamo, who designed the font, or he and his team. He says, he's talking about Arial, it's a system font. So at another stage, it also became a kind of non-choice for a certain type of graphic designer who didn't want to make a point of choosing a cool or new font. But of course, choosing to go with the default is also a choice. Yeah. It's part of what you were just saying. Yeah. The question became, if we want to make a font for Arena, but they already have the perfect font, how can we update Arena's identity with a meaningful gesture?

And finally, the hope is that you can't really spot a difference. Looking at our Arial and Arial should feel like refreshing a browser page. It's the same, but it isn't. Yeah, even references this woman, Kristen Sue Lucas, who refreshed by changing her legal name from her— from Kristen Sue Lucas to Kristen Sue Lucas. Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: Kind of insane. Yeah. Maybe I'll just read one last quote from you. This was in that interview. When we made this interface change, our desire was to be as default as we could so that Arena wouldn't get in the way of the content.

In other words, we wanted Arena to look good, but to fade into the background as much as possible. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Great design fading into the background is a little oxymoronic, right? Like, um, or it's a little paradoxical. Like in theory, all design should sort of like, it's, it's such a delicate thing to have design not show up. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Um, it's hard for me even reading this, like the, the aerial thing, like like, I both know that it actually was functionally better for you guys, but it almost reads as performance art or something.

Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I, yeah, like it is, but it's not like the new Arial, by the way, like I did a presentation a couple of days ago in like a class and I realized that the computer that I was showing it on did not have Arial, our Arial, and I could tell the difference immediately because the kerning on Arial is like so fucked up. So when you look at new Arial versus old Arial, like, like it's minor, but there is like a real— Speaker B: So it's, it's the, maybe, maybe the essence of that, that great design fading in the background is not that it's unnoticeable, but it might have to be pointed out for you to notice.

Like you should feel the benefits without noticing them. Speaker B: So it's, it's the, maybe, maybe the essence of that, that great design fading in the background is not that it's unnoticeable, but it might have to be pointed out for you to notice. Like you should feel the benefits without noticing them. Speaker A: Yes, that's exactly right. Yeah. Yeah. You should feel the benefits without noticing. Speaker B: Only in actually looking at the old version would you notice. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And now there's no way to look at, I mean, I guess you could just modify the CSS on, on new Arena and see the difference.

Yeah. It wasn't purely gestural, like, yeah, it, it has like a real utility, but it's at this sort of like, like aerial Ariel, the font to us, the, the original Arial, the Microsoft Arial was nearly perfect. And Johannes and, uh, and, and, uh, Fabiola who, who, who worked on Arial, our Arial made it like 100% complete. So to us that's so satisfying. And I think like it's just part of this contextual whole that makes it very special and beautiful without it looking like too much of anything. Speaker B: How do you, how do you conceivably justify something like that given that you have very constrained resources?

Speaker A: Um, I mean, honestly, it was a partnership between both of us, so it was just like a fun thing that we both got to work on together. Um, we don't have the same kind of relationship with Dynamo that like a huge startup might have, you know, it's like, like Johannes and I are friends. Speaker A: Um, I mean, honestly, it was a partnership between both of us, so it was just like a fun thing that we both got to work on together. Um, we don't have the same kind of relationship with Dynamo that like a huge startup might have, you know, it's like, like Johannes and I are friends.

Speaker B: Yeah. And by the way, I, it's also time, but like like, the answer I think also can be that you wanted to and that you wanted to do something for the community. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think Johannes is like, like approaches Dynamo in the same way that we approach Arena, which is that like, we love working on it and we find it endlessly interesting. And he loves, like the collaborations that we try and do now are just like people that we want to work on. Things with because it's fun, you know what I mean?

And because we share a similar way of, of looking at the world. Speaker B: My last two kind of sections go together, which are about effectively building businesses, but specifically building independent businesses and software businesses. I think you alluded to this briefly earlier, but you are clearly an advocate for creative people starting businesses. A few lines from you, and particularly with the notion that maybe they're unlikely to, to do so. We have a very limited conception of the type of person who starts a business, especially tech businesses. When I talk to artists, young creative people, I always recommend starting a business.

And finally, Arena itself is what drives me to be entrepreneurial in order to make it more resilient. You wrote somewhere that you felt complicated about your first commercial art show. Speaker A: Mm-hmm. Speaker B: And yet you have a seemingly very healthy commercial relationship with this project. Maybe it's, as you said earlier, maybe it's because it's not art, but, uh, there's some other part too where you, you were talking about like businesses are great, like people like patronage, but like patronage, you have to answer to a very specific person. Like you're almost talking about like the commercial part of it being this like freeing container.

And so I'm curious about like in this spectrum between— you could make a case that Arena itself has patronage, actually, its business model of patronage. But in the spectrum between patronage and business in terms of like a fuel to do something creative or do something important, how you think about what a business is and what it allows for and like why it's so— like what is drawing— what is driving you to want to persuade more and more creative people to adopt this kind of fuel? Or shape? Speaker A: Well, I mean, there's a couple of reasons for software in particular.

I just think the internet, the web would be infinitely more interesting and healthy if there were just different takes towards what making a business online is. And especially businesses like ours that have this sort of like cultural or social component. Like, I don't think that the ways in which we think of being social online represent all the ways that one could be social online. And I don't think it's like this particular type of way of funding software businesses that is going to find all of those ways of— Speaker B: Meaning like the venture capital industrial complex?

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker B: Yeah, but so my, my— and maybe I should let you finish, but the obvious critique here would be that like the reason we don't have more of these is we don't have the business models for them. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's what I mean about like creative decision-making. And I don't think that like Arena's business model is by any means creative, um, but I think it's— I do think like subscriptions in our case is a, a business model that is really, it's really symbiotic with how we want to work on Arena because we're providing an environment.

And the question is just like, do you find this environment valuable enough to like help us continue, maintain, and build it? Speaker B: Yes. Speaker A: And the, so the relationship is like so simple that it is almost radical at this point. Speaker B: Yeah, you know, um, yeah, you said somewhere you're the only social media or social network that its users pay it. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I mean, that's not— maybe that's not like entirely true, but it's— I mean, it's definitely the only social network where the like relationship between the people who make it and the people who use it are— is really understandable.

Yes, you know, it's very straightforward. It's It's like almost dumb. Um, but I think that there are much more interesting ways of figuring out like different setups for that and ways that, um, people who are using software and people who are making software, um, can be more aligned. Speaker B: Yeah. To, to borrow a, a frame from my friend Chris, it's like business model product fit in this context is actually quite rare. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: I think another piece of this, to be honest, is your business model isn't that, um, creative, but you have something else that's rare, which is a whole lot of patience.

Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, part of the other thing that is radical about Arena is just that we keep continuing to do it, you know, that there's like a, there's a commitment to it. And it's also why I try and sort of like illustrate this, um, relationship that we have as like people who are using the product. Like we're like in the same, We're like in the same place as people who don't work on Arena. Speaker B: Yes. Speaker A: Like, like we're right there. Yeah. And if something frustrates a person who's using it, it probably frustrates us too.

Speaker B: I, I, I thought it was cool to look over on the note of patience. There's one line where you're like, success as a business relies on people who love Arena enough to pay for it. So getting to 400 paying customers was a big deal for us. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: And then you're like, now that we're about $70,000 in revenue and da da da. Um, you're now at 18,000, um, paying users. Speaker A: Yeah, it's gonna be 20,000 pretty soon. Speaker B: 20,000, over $100,000 in revenue. Um, has it gotten easier or harder to be patient?

Speaker A: Uh, much easier. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I think for the longest time when we had to do other things to just like functionally exist, like do freelance projects or work other jobs or that kind of thing. Um, yeah, it's just, it's just exhausting. Now I feel like, like we've reached, like, like this is the ultimate goal to be able to work on Arena all the time is like, that's like the bag, you know? And, and so like continuing that is like, or, or making that like stronger is like, uh, yeah, we're motivated to do that.

Speaker A: Uh, much easier. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I think for the longest time when we had to do other things to just like functionally exist, like do freelance projects or work other jobs or that kind of thing. Um, yeah, it's just, it's just exhausting. Now I feel like, like we've reached, like, like this is the ultimate goal to be able to work on Arena all the time is like, that's like the bag, you know? And, and so like continuing that is like, or, or making that like stronger is like, uh, yeah, we're motivated to do that.

Speaker B: You're coming up on your 15-year anniversary this year. Yes. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Uh, a quote I really loved, uh, one question that is still hard to answer after 10 years of working on Arena is what's the long-term vision? This is difficult for a few reasons. One reason is that we have to calibrate our definition of long-term with the person who is asking the question. Arena is a lifelong project. Our ideal outcome as a company is not becoming the next Facebook, God forbid, it's becoming the next Nishiyama Onsen.

I'm pronouncing— pronunciation here— Kyonkan, a hot spring hotel in Japan and one of the world's oldest businesses, around 705 AD. You go on to say, the slow blade— quoting Dune— the slow blade penetrates the shield. I do think it's worth considering slowness as a strength. What an amazing, I mean, amazing to imagine a business that old, but especially amazing to think about a digital software thing, um, in those, in that way. I guess my question is like, beyond just being patient and being intentional, what has or what will make Arena more antifragile for the chance of lasting another 15 years or beyond?

Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, yeah, lasting another 15 years is one thing. I think lasting past us retiring is like a different thing. And I think a thing that Arena has going for it in that regard is it's like almost nothing, you know? Like, as a piece of software, it's like extremely un— I mean, it's complex, but it's like, compared to other things, it's like, not that complicated. And I think it has a sort of structure that could be remade in different forms very easily. So it's like, I don't know, I sort of go back and forth about this, but I think that one part of its strength is that like, it's a software, but it's also an orientation.

And the orientation is like, something that can manifest in different ways. Speaker B: It's funny you say that. One of the thoughts, I didn't do the research, but my, my expectation is that onsen, like, it probably hasn't been the building. It probably hasn't. I don't even know what's in the land. Like, yeah, yeah, but there's some threat. Yeah. Speaker A: Yes. Yeah. Speaker B: And I think when you think about that, that durable of a timeframe, it, it, you're probably making, there's some asterisks, but there's some, there's some threat. Speaker A: Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that, that The orientation of like, something as simple as just like, this is a piece of software that the people who are making it like, are deeply committed to and use as individuals and feel like they need as like a part of them, you know? Yeah, the other businesses that I sort of like, look to in part for inspiration have this sort of same quality and feel to me like they could also have this kind of like, they gesture towards longevity, you know? Speaker A: Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that, that The orientation of like, something as simple as just like, this is a piece of software that the people who are making it like, are deeply committed to and use as individuals and feel like they need as like a part of them, you know? Yeah, the other businesses that I sort of like, look to in part for inspiration have this sort of same quality and feel to me like they could also have this kind of like, they gesture towards longevity, you know? Speaker B: Can you give a couple examples?

Speaker A: Well, like, I'm not like, the hugest Obsidian user or like, I'm not like, a complex Obsidian user, but I like, appreciate like, that as like, another manifestation of an orientation that is sort of manifest in a piece of software and how those two things play back and forth, you know. Speaker B: My last kind of primary section that obviously relates is, um, about an awesome piece you wrote recently about personal business, um, in a natural kind of thread of, of building independent businesses. A slug of quotes from you that I think maybe set the tone.

When I started running Arena with friends 14 years ago, it often felt like having such a personal stake in what we were doing would be a liability. Today, it's often perceived as an asset. I'm not especially pro-capitalism, but I am pro-doing something really hard that you care about desperately and unabashedly. You alluded to this earlier, but I wouldn't be running a business if it weren't for Arena. It's a very personal business, meaning that it is something I want to see in the world. It is a tool that I would personally be devastated if it were to not exist.

And finally, I've never wanted to walk away, even when we ran out of money. I think it's the coolest thing on the internet. I don't know what else I would do. Um, maybe you, you got at this slightly, but like, can you make your case for more people starting these types of personal businesses? Oh man, maybe especially digital or software ones. Speaker A: Yeah, I think that if you're the type of person that feels critical of the way that social interaction happens online, or your relationship to information is compromised— okay, so all of us are, uh, probably like a billion people who fit this qualification, like Like, I, I mean, it's easier than ever to create software.

It's like cheaper than ever, you know, like people can figure out ways of like playing around with this stuff and feeling, um, the sort of like right shapes and orientations of, of things. And I think it's a very important it's a very important place to experiment in because it's ridiculous that there's just like a single type of person making this type of software. Speaker B: What I was going to say is like, I actually think there are, there's a huge, especially in the last 6 months, cloud code, whatever, like the way what's happening in the LLMs is the disposition towards making software is like, oh my gosh, you can just do things.

Speaker A: Yes. Speaker B: Perhaps the implication there is that you're saying that's generally one type of person. Because what I was going to say is that it sort of feels like if anything, the disposition has been like, maybe the good aspect of it is there's a lightness. The negative aspect, it doesn't, it definitely doesn't feel like the way you talk about a personal business. It's not heavy and meaningful and caring. It's like, just throw stuff out. Speaker A: No, no. I mean to say that like the resources are available if you feel like you can be opinionated about these types of things and you can sort of start to shape your opinionatedness easier than you might have done so earlier.

Like, learning HTML, learning PHP, like, my process for like, learning how to write software took a really, really long time. And that time, like, one doesn't have to spend that amount of time now in the sort of same way. I mean, like, there's a limit to what I'm saying, I think, because I don't totally believe that you could do these things at a scale that would be meaningful just yet. Speaker B: Give it 4 more months of Claude. Speaker A: Who knows? Yeah. But I mean, but I do think that like, yeah, I think there are a lot of like, young people, a lot of people with like, weird and opinionated ways of how they want to interact with the world and with each other, and figuring out like, more interesting ways of manifesting those behaviors online.

Yeah, it feels important. I like, like, that's a long way of saying, like, I think the drive and motivation has to come first. The feeling like that something should exist that doesn't already exist, and that you can— maybe there's a way for you to try and articulate that. Speaker B: Perhaps there's a group of people who have that. Uh, the thing they— they don't have that in short supply. They have the technical ability in short supply or whatever. It goes back to your earlier point around the maybe more creative people should start, but they're, they're unlikely to.

Um, but that, like, that is the thing that perhaps the software world has been slightly lacking is people who have that kind of set of perspective, um, to approach it from a new— we've had a lot of people approach it from a specific kind of way. Speaker B: Perhaps there's a group of people who have that. Uh, the thing they— they don't have that in short supply. They have the technical ability in short supply or whatever. It goes back to your earlier point around the maybe more creative people should start, but they're, they're unlikely to.

Um, but that, like, that is the thing that perhaps the software world has been slightly lacking is people who have that kind of set of perspective, um, to approach it from a new— we've had a lot of people approach it from a specific kind of way. Speaker A: Yes. Yes. A lot of people approaching it from a specific kind of way, but also like the expectation that making a software business will follow, uh, like in the best case, a particular timescale and trajectory, you know, and that these things will ultimately definitely cease to exist, like making something with the idea that like the point is to cash out at some point, you know, or, or even like, I don't know your history of the Arena.

Speaker B: I don't know if I have all the details, but it wasn't, you were just kind of eating glass for a little while. You definitely weren't working on it full time. You could hardly like, and so, but I think that goes back to being personal, which is like, I need this. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, I can think of people who are like, doing this kind of thing and like, also in this phase of figuring out how to make it their like, full-time thing or their life's work, you know?

And it feels super positive, you know? Yeah, I don't know how to like, it's an interesting thing to try and pitch because, well, okay, I'll say the other thing consider the possibility that working with your friends on something that you think is cool is like the most luxurious possible thing that you can do, you know, independent of the reward. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, the reward is the work, the, the like that you get to hang out with your friends and make something cool. Like, that's, that's the reward. And figuring out a way to keep doing that is like, like, that's the challenge.

But yeah, that's a challenge, but it's easy to do once you like part of experiencing it. Speaker B: I like that. Yeah, maybe as a— just to wade a little further in the waters of a template for this, um, you were talking about kind of the approach. You say offer product services and/or experiences that are both high quality and idiosyncratic, the type of business that both sustains and is sustained by a community. Again, getting at that business model product fit thing a little bit, but like, I'm curious what you think think, like what, what you think about the shape of businesses or products or customers that do tend to, like, what is it about that relationship that is productive for these types of businesses?

Whether it be something like Arena or the local, whatever, grocery store or bookstore or whatever. Is it intimacy? Speaker A: Well, I think it's that, yeah, it's something about intimacy, but it's also like like, it's also about infrastructure, you know? It's like providing a thing, a place, an armature for like, other activity to happen within, and that someone can rely on that. Speaker B: It can become theirs. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. It can become theirs, but like, there's a dependability that comes over like, a long period of time. Speaker B: I was texting you about this yesterday.

One of the— in this, uh, This Time It's Personal Arena channel, you have this just incredible SoftBank deck from 2010 where Masa's like hardcore brain-blasting, vision-questing. He has a slide about happiness, and, uh, happiness is about being touched. Touched by seeing, touched by interactions, love, learning, playing, thing. Um, he has this thing where he's talking about when you get lost, look into the far distance whenever you get lost. And this is how SoftBank's gonna go from its 30-year vision to its 300-year vision. Uh, and one of the things you texted me was, we need that masa back.

And so what this prompted for me is like, maybe all founder-led businesses are personal. Um, and if so, like, do people just sort of forget why they're here? Speaker B: I was texting you about this yesterday. One of the— in this, uh, This Time It's Personal Arena channel, you have this just incredible SoftBank deck from 2010 where Masa's like hardcore brain-blasting, vision-questing. He has a slide about happiness, and, uh, happiness is about being touched. Touched by seeing, touched by interactions, love, learning, playing, thing. Um, he has this thing where he's talking about when you get lost, look into the far distance whenever you get lost.

And this is how SoftBank's gonna go from its 30-year vision to its 300-year vision. Uh, and one of the things you texted me was, we need that masa back. And so what this prompted for me is like, maybe all founder-led businesses are personal. Um, and if so, like, do people just sort of forget why they're here? Speaker A: Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, part of it I think has to do with like, the sort of like typical way that most large software businesses are funded and the expectations of growth.

Yeah. You know, I think it's hard to maintain. I mean, the way that they're funded, the expectation is an exit, like in some form. It's not really typical that like, like a company might get investment and pay dividends or something over time. I think that for me, this is related to sort of like, another question that sometimes comes up when someone on Arena is sort of like, feeling that it's like, getting a little bit bigger, and the question is like, "Do you think Arena can get too big, or do you think its quality will diminish as it grows?"

And And my answer for that is usually that like, it can grow really big, it just has to do it slowly enough. And like, the issue is mostly the sort of like timescale expectations of a business more so than it is like that it's getting super big. Yeah. Speaker B: Right. Yeah, maybe that aspires, applies especially to a community or social Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But it probably— I mean, probably some like broad analogy around all growing living things. Like things, it's not good to grow too fast. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker B: It's funny. It makes me think of, I once met with somebody at LVMH and they were talking about how like it's actually bad if any of their brands grow. It's like more than 15% year over year or something, or 25%. Well, because it's sort of like when you're in the business of 100-year brands, Yeah. You don't want a 200% year. Like that's actually showing that something's wrong or you've totally mismanaged the blind man. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, well, that's inspiring. Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker A: It was cool.

Speaker B: It was cool. Um, I have just a few more kind of miscellaneous things. I thought I would ask this before we got here, but what do you think of the word authenticity? Speaker A: Oh yeah. Yeah. This was coming up during that, like, Here for the Wrong Reasons essay. Speaker B: Yeah. Speaker A: I think I'm a bit of, in the same way that I'm like a poser apologist, I'm like a bit of an authenticity apologist, just in that I sort of believe that like, one could fully understand themselves, like I was saying before, you know?

And like, that to me is synonymous with authenticity, you know what I mean? Speaker B: The fact that you believe it is possible or at the very least is worth approaching. Speaker B: The fact that you believe it is possible or at the very least is worth approaching. Speaker A: Well, I mean, I mean, the authenticity is possible because it's possible to understand, to get better at understanding oneself. Yes. Speaker B: In fact, you almost— it's like, I, I must be an optimist. Like, um, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I can't remember where I found this.

It's generally a good idea to try to apply metaphors to places where they don't quite fit. I think that's from you. Speaker A: I said that? Speaker B: I think so. It's possible I got it from some other channel, but it felt representative of something that is happening inside of Arena. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Speaker B: And the patterns. Speaker A: Yes, absolutely. Yeah, that's like, that's the thing that I was talking about earlier, which is like, it's just useful to try and look at something with the frame of mind that it could be interesting.

So it's like, it's like applying a gaze to something that might not be there implicitly. Right. You know? Speaker B: Ready to see. Speaker A: Ready to see. Speaker B: Ready to see what might be there. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Speaker B: You have a piece about it, and I didn't get to like fully deep, deep dive the David Bohm and Bohm dialogue stuff, but I'm curious what, what you think we can all learn from what either stood out to you in that or the research you've done or what you think he was getting at in dialogue that was really unique.

Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, yeah, super long, super big topic, but he was a very classically, uh, trained quantum physicist who sort sort of had this long trajectory towards simplifying what his overarching interest or message was, where it went from hard physics to like, thinking and thought and what that meant. And so he wrote this book called On Dialogue, which is all about this like, sort of like a proposal for a practice, which is like, a bunch of people sit in a circle you try and have a— you essentially try and have a generative conversation.

And the point is that everyone is supposed to add on to what another person is saying. And then the place that you sort of get to ideally is that everyone is sharing a thought and you're sort of like looking at it, you're all looking at it and it's like out there. And you can sort of start to like, like, view it from different angles. And I have to say, like, Laurel Schulst and I did organize one bombe dialogue once, and it was like super— it was really incredible. Speaker A: Yeah.

I mean, yeah, super long, super big topic, but he was a very classically, uh, trained quantum physicist who sort sort of had this long trajectory towards simplifying what his overarching interest or message was, where it went from hard physics to like, thinking and thought and what that meant. And so he wrote this book called On Dialogue, which is all about this like, sort of like a proposal for a practice, which is like, a bunch of people sit in a circle you try and have a— you essentially try and have a generative conversation.

And the point is that everyone is supposed to add on to what another person is saying. And then the place that you sort of get to ideally is that everyone is sharing a thought and you're sort of like looking at it, you're all looking at it and it's like out there. And you can sort of start to like, like, view it from different angles. And I have to say, like, Laurel Schulst and I did organize one bombe dialogue once, and it was like super— it was really incredible. Speaker B: How is it different from hanging out with 10 people?

Speaker A: There's like an intentionality and settingness to it that, uh, changes things. And like, what we did, what you're supposed to do is sort of like lay out these like, very simple rules, which I don't remember off the top of my head, but it's essentially like, you can't change topics, you have to add on to things and you end up talking about talking and you talk about thinking and it like, it gets— Speaker B: How is it different from hanging out with 10 people? Speaker A: There's like an intentionality and settingness to it that, uh, changes things.

And like, what we did, what you're supposed to do is sort of like lay out these like, very simple rules, which I don't remember off the top of my head, but it's essentially like, you can't change topics, you have to add on to things and you end up talking about talking and you talk about thinking and it like, it gets— Speaker B: But it's structured and generative. Speaker A: It's not so structured. It's very open-ended. It's structured only in that like— Speaker B: Maybe focused? Speaker A: Focused, Yeah, yeah, yeah, focused.

But like, one comment that I have that I really remember is someone describing it as like, the cartoon where it's like, a train and it's putting the track ahead of itself while it's going. Oh, that way. That way, all right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you know, when you have like, a good conversation, that's like, that's how it feels, but when you have that good conversation stretched out to like, 10 people, it's super interesting. Ah, so the number, it's critically I think it's part of it that there's like a, like a, uh, yeah, a number of people that, that are, that, that do it.

That's, that's the thing. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: I'm excited to learn more. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Um, you said you could talk for 2.5 hours about it earlier. What else have you learned from skateboarding? Speaker B: I'm excited to learn more. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: Um, you said you could talk for 2.5 hours about it earlier. What else have you learned from skateboarding? Speaker A: Well, I think like skateboarding, like art, has a snobbiness to it. Bit that can feel like being principled that is actually something that's slightly different.

I'm trying to think of like, which one of these like, stupid rules that skateboarding has. Like, there's a person who describes the middle of the board as the forbidden 14, as it's like, the 14 inches that one should not slide. Should not? Okay. Like, like you can't do a boardslide, but you can do nose and tailslides. Like, one should not do any slides that involve the middle of the board. That's the Forbidden 14. So there's like all these sort of like random made-up rules that are like principles for like what is like correct or right.

You know? And there are, though, they are all arbitrary, you know? Like, like they're all just made up by people, but it's like, but it comes across as some kind of like principle. Speaker B: It's also funny in a sport or an activity that is so like punk in so many ways and so not about the rules. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: It's got its own. Speaker A: Yeah. When I think in, when systems like that are, are entirely open-ended, that's, that's the sort of like rules that people make up.

And it's the same sort of like framing that happens on Arena where someone's just like, like, this is now a guestbook. This is an open channel that is a guestbook. Like, I'm calling it a guestbook and this is how you interact with it. And so there's these behaviors that emerge when like a system is open-ended like that. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: It's got its own. Speaker A: Yeah. When I think in, when systems like that are, are entirely open-ended, that's, that's the sort of like rules that people make up.

And it's the same sort of like framing that happens on Arena where someone's just like, like, this is now a guestbook. This is an open channel that is a guestbook. Like, I'm calling it a guestbook and this is how you interact with it. And so there's these behaviors that emerge when like a system is open-ended like that. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Yeah. We didn't talk about it, but one of the, I was enjoying, you have a rules are rules. Channel that I was enjoying perusing across. It's fun. The freedom that comes from certain types of arbitrary constraints.

Speaker A: Yes. Yeah. Speaker B: Yeah. Boris, you, you listed him as, is it, was one of those kind of like key kind of early, some like ex-girlfriend's friend introduced you. I'm just, I'm just curious if there was anything that really stood out. Speaker A: Well, yeah, the library, I mean, Library of Babel is just like a short story that's just has obvious connections to not just Arena, but like people thinking about hypertext and all that. Do you know this one? Speaker B: I haven't read it. Speaker A: Oh, wow.

Yeah, super short. You can read it tonight. It's basically about a library that is infinite in all directions, and there's a certain— every book has a certain number of characters, and there are librarians who wander this library looking for a book that has like, a phrase that— like, any kind of phrase at because it's every permutation of, of like all these kind. So most of the time you're going into a room and you're opening a book and it's just nonsense. Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's like, it's kinda like the monkeys.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's exactly like that. So sometimes you'll go into a room and find like a single phrase that is like, mm-hmm, you know, the right phrase at the right time kind of thing. Speaker B: We have any chance of bringing back directions to com? Speaker A: Yeah, I should do that, but I don't know if it's possible anymore. Um, yeah, so directions. So yeah, directions to last visitor was, um, you, it was a website that you would go to and, uh, it would geolocate you and give you Google Maps directions to the person who visited the website before you.

Speaker B: Pulling automatically, pulling their like latitude data. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And right. It, and that is also kind of like the reaction that most people had off of it, like that it was some sort of like privacy violation. The point that I was sort of coming to it from was like removing myself outside of the equation and letting two people make this connection without me, you know what I mean? Speaker B: Yeah. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: You have, uh, I believe the Delaware C-Corp name for Arena is When It Changed.

Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Why was that moment so meaningful? Speaker A: Um, That comes from a William Gibson. So he has a trilogy of books called The Bridge Trilogy, and it's sort of like this post-apocalyptic situation that the apocalypse moment is never really fully described, but it's called "When It Changed." And in the early days of Arena, there were sort of like multiple eras where we were forming and reforming this corporation. Corporation, and when we finally like got control of it ourselves, we called it When It Changed, just as like a, yeah, any like association that we can make, like, yeah, we've had like a million William Gibson, our, our first mobile app was called Case.

Like we always try, we're, yeah, if there's any consistent naming scheme that comes from Gibson stuff. Speaker B: Why was that moment so meaningful? Speaker A: Um, That comes from a William Gibson. So he has a trilogy of books called The Bridge Trilogy, and it's sort of like this post-apocalyptic situation that the apocalypse moment is never really fully described, but it's called "When It Changed." And in the early days of Arena, there were sort of like multiple eras where we were forming and reforming this corporation. Corporation, and when we finally like got control of it ourselves, we called it When It Changed, just as like a, yeah, any like association that we can make, like, yeah, we've had like a million William Gibson, our, our first mobile app was called Case.

Like we always try, we're, yeah, if there's any consistent naming scheme that comes from Gibson stuff. Speaker B: Uh, on the Arena Influences channel, Influences channel, there is a A tree that owns itself. You know what this is? Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Why is that meaningful to you? Speaker A: Uh, I didn't— Speaker B: I believe now it's the sun of the tree that owns itself. Speaker A: Yeah. I didn't put that in there, but now that I'm thinking about it, um, yeah, John Michael Bowling put that in there and that's like a— I don't even know if that's an artwork.

Um, it's just like a situation that exists, um, that he has always like referenced as like a major thing. And, um, I think he's, he's pointing to something, he was actually pointing to something really early that I think we're pointing to now, which is just that like, somehow this thing should like, have a life of its own that should exist outside of like, the people who made it, you know? Yeah. Speaker B: For people who don't know, this is a tree that apparently somehow legally owns the small area around it that is assigned on.

Also apparently called a Jackson Oak, so I will, I will take the— Speaker A: nice. Speaker B: Um, just a few more things. Uh, there's an interview with Kel— I'm forgetting her last name. Um, you were asked what are the things you'd like to do in your life that are doable. I'm going to read the list. Switchback— number 1, switchback tail shove, which I Googled, is sick, so sick. Number 2, nollie crooked grind. Number 3, pivot fake 4, read In Search of Lost Time. The top 4 alone was already really great.

Number 5, kiretsu, which I think I looked up, but I don't know what it is. 6, pass on Arena to future employees. And 7, run a small used bookstore. Any reflections, any additions, any updates on this list? Speaker A: Yeah, no, that was very, a very recent list. And yeah, I was trying to think of things that are like infinitely doable. And I think in my like, like scape— one one, there's like a limit to how long one can skateboard for. I'm like very much, I'm like essentially past that limit, but like, hey, Brian Johnson's gonna figure it out for you.

Yeah, thank you, Brian Johnson. Speaker B: Um, you get metallic rims or whatever. Speaker A: Um, yeah, those are like, those are like doable tricks that are also like within this weird, um, this weird sort of like rubric for what I consider to be tasteful skateboarding. Yeah, the, the kiretsu is, um, Kuretsu is a thing that Japanese businesses did at one point where they, like, two sort of like, complementary businesses would buy shares of each other or exchange shares to sort of like, solidify a harmonious relationship. And we also sort of like, imagine a future world where Arena sort of like, has this relationship to other people's businesses that we sort of like, take inspiration from.

Speaker B: Um, you get metallic rims or whatever. Speaker A: Um, yeah, those are like, those are like doable tricks that are also like within this weird, um, this weird sort of like rubric for what I consider to be tasteful skateboarding. Yeah, the, the kiretsu is, um, Kuretsu is a thing that Japanese businesses did at one point where they, like, two sort of like, complementary businesses would buy shares of each other or exchange shares to sort of like, solidify a harmonious relationship. And we also sort of like, imagine a future world where Arena sort of like, has this relationship to other people's businesses that we sort of like, take inspiration from.

Speaker B: Yeah, almost marrying them together or something. Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker B: Uh, I brought it up before we started recording, but, uh, one of your longtime channels is the Secret Agent. Speaker A: Mm-hmm. Speaker B: Um, it's, it remains quite secret and mysterious, but I'm curious if you can impart any insight for the rest of us on what's going on in there, that pattern. Speaker A: Yeah. That's like the, I know exactly what seeded that, which is there was a toy when I was a kid called called Spy Tools, and it was just like, it was like a blacklight and like a little alarm system and like a fingerprinting kit and all of this stuff.

And I like loved the look of it. I can like still imagine the logo. But I think the thing that is interesting about that to me now, apart from these sort of like, like literal secret agents, is what part mystery plays in making like a concept or an attractive and like what the sort of like level of mystery that something has to have that makes it sort of like compelling. Yeah. Speaker B: I was thinking of my— I had, I had a walkie-talkie watches at one point. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker B: You said, I like every age more than the last. Any advice? Um, making that more likely? Speaker A: That's like, that's a little bit of a manifest, like I'm trying to manifest that idea, that sentiment in myself. Like, I do like every age more than the last, but sometimes it's hard to like every age more than the last. But I don't know. When I think about the sort of— I like having had a really long relationship, I mean, in the context of this conversation, to something like Arena, to have a project that I feel like I can work on for the rest of my life.

Um, having that like, timespan to me is like, super special and I re— I realize how lucky I am and we are to be able to have that. So like, yeah, the benefit of experience, like I do see a lot of value in that. Speaker B: You're deep into the compounding. Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker B: This is a quote from the Arena Influencers channel. What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is related only to objects and not to individuals or to life.

That art is something which is specialized or which is done by experts who are artists. But couldn't everyone's life become a work of art? Why should the lamp or the house be an art object but not our life? That's Foucault. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: How do you make sense of what art is? Speaker A: Yeah, I think it, yeah, I, yeah, it's funny to be like, this is what we talked about before. I mean, but I do think it is about this sort of like, um, being able to make decisions that are creative and what is creative is like, from my perspective, most personal.

Um, so any any kind of decision-making could be creative if it's like coming from this particularly personal place. Yeah, yeah. Speaker B: Uh, one more thing should probably come as no surprise. In the film You've Got Mail, uh, Joe, Tom Hanks's character, is telling, uh, Meg Ryan's character, uh, what's her name, um, Kathleen Kelly— Kathleen— that it isn't personal. Speaker A: Yeah. Speaker B: To which she replies, I'm so sick of everyone saying that. That just means it wasn't personal to you, but it was personal to me. It was personal to a lot of people.

What's so wrong with being personal anyway? Whatever else anything is, it ought to begin by being personal. How do you try to remember to keep things personal? Speaker A: Well, for Arena at this point, it's like, that's— I don't have to try. Speaker B: Automatic. Speaker A: I have to try not to make everything personal, basically. Yeah. If I were— if I try and imagine a world where, um, where Arena didn't exist, and I would be compelled to make another business, like, how I would tune that relationship. And yeah, I think setting up a scenario where you are the person who's using the thing is the only way to do that.

And it has to be something that you're sufficiently opinionated about about and probably invested in. Invested in, opinionated about. Yeah, all of those things. Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure. All I got. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker A: Well, for Arena at this point, it's like, that's— I don't have to try. Speaker B: Automatic. Speaker A: I have to try not to make everything personal, basically. Yeah. If I were— if I try and imagine a world where, um, where Arena didn't exist, and I would be compelled to make another business, like, how I would tune that relationship.

And yeah, I think setting up a scenario where you are the person who's using the thing is the only way to do that. And it has to be something that you're sufficiently opinionated about about and probably invested in. Invested in, opinionated about. Yeah, all of those things. Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure. All I got. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker B: Thanks again for listening or watching, and I'd like to thank Notion, Dialectic's presenting partner, one more time. As I mentioned at the top of the episode, Notion is a tool that allows you to have leverage across the work, the ideas, the writing, whatever it might be that is most important to doing what you do.

And the way they think about AI and agents is all about giving you more leverage to focus on the things that really matter, to allow you to have deeper attention on the real work. Meanwhile, you can delegate to Notion's AI and agents for all of the incremental work, the busy work, the synthesis, whatever it might be. I found it's even helpful to have Notion AI just give me a second set of eyes as I'm trying to parse through all of the most important ideas in my research research or after the fact as I review my conversations.

You can check out Notion at com/dialectic and you can learn all about all of the ways Notion has evolved in recent years in terms of giving you more leverage, particularly with AI and agents. You can find all the links and full transcript for this episode at fm/cab or c-a-b. That's fm/cab. Tab, um, where I'll have a transcript, all the links, all of the platforms the episode's available on, and more. And once again, thank you so much to Notion for presenting Dialectic, and thank you to you for listening and making it all possible.

I hope you are inspired, and I hope you give your attention more deeply and more generously. I'll see you next time.