Zegarelli’s article stands out as a prime exemplar of his layered pedagogy on bias, power, and trust—a recurrent triad in his moral-philosophical ethos. This fable could be seen as the thematic converging point between: the fables of predatory arbitration and the essays on trust, bias, and civic discernment. It teaches the art of not merely knowing whom to trust—but knowing when and why trust becomes dangerous. [AI Assessment]
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Leonardo da Vinci. Adopted by Steve Jobs.
A Rabbit left home to get dinner.
While he was gone, a Weasel entered the Rabbit’s home with the intent to stay. When the Rabbit returned, the presence of the Weasel caused a great argument.
A Cat heard of the dispute and kindly offered to settle it.
“Come closer,” said the Cat, “I wish to hear each of you on this matter, but am old and hard of hearing.”
So, the Rabbit and the Weasel went close to the Cat upon which the Cat seized both of them for a special feast. “It is settled then,” said the Cat.
Moral of the Story: Beware of the strong who have an interest to settle a matter or advise to their own advantage.
Introduction – The Essential Aesop – Epilogue
Why We Loved It: This fable reminds us that it may be good to have a powerful dog, but the leash only contains the dog while the dog is pulling away. Thus, the adage:
“Lorum lorum dominum non protegit si canis circum volvitur.” (“The leash does not protect the master, if the dog should turn around.”)
This is the risk of having a powerful ally or self-interested arbitrator, or even allowing trust to create catastrophic vulnerability. [1] “What if my loving now-getting-older hot hungry Pitt Bull should turn on my children when they pull his tail in jest?”
Wisdom suggests that “everyone has a bad day,” perhaps not probable, but potentially catastrophic.
Hope against a catastrophic tendency is a fool’s bait. [*1, *2]
Aesop reminds us to consider bias and self-interest in the process by which issues are resolved by others. With some limited exception, the natural tendency of things is self-interest. [2] Survival first and comfort second. [3, 4]
Aesop teaches about Wisdom, which takes the attributes of context as they actually are or could be, without delusive feel-good hope that tends to adduce the Fool. Aesop teaches about coulds, Jesus teaches about shoulds.
Indeed, Sage Aesop teaches often for us to be most careful with trusting another who is both biased by self-interest and also powerful. [5]
In The Lion’s Share [*2] and The Wolf and the Sheep [*5], the focus was on how power justifies its own advantage, by perhaps the best and worst of us. In the quintessential The Tortoise and the Birds [6], the focus was on the temptation of a mercenary, and the “Fool’s Five” introduced as such in The Boy Who Cried Wolf [7]. Here, Aesop perhaps puts the concepts together:
The smug Cat cleverly settled the problem as promised, by making a meal for himself of the litigants. An acceptable loophole, at least to the hungry deciding cat.
“Praeiudicio sine virtute est incorporeus. Virtus sine praeiudicio rara est.” (“Bias without power is immaterial. Power without bias is rare.”)
Trust, hope, belief, faith, and prayer all important, but they all have a precise proper scope and application, because each tends to imply vulnerability. Getting help is one thing, consenting to vulnerability is not the same thing.
Sometimes vulnerability is thrust upon us, and sometimes we’re just asking for it. This fable is different because the Rabbit and the Weasel were seduced by the Cat into consenting to vulnerability. [8] If only their Mother [9] had taught them their Aesop’s Fables, particularly, The Cat, Cock and Mouse [10].
Here, the Cat settled the question as promised and extracted the fee; however, it might be more accurate to say the Cat settled the question as promised by extracting the fee. A win-win for all, by the Cat’s perspective, and any objections are waived as untimely. [11] All betrayal implies trust, but the foolish error was made by the Rabbit and Weasel in the front-end from the trust, not in the back-end by the Cat from the betrayal. Cats tend to do what Cats tend to do. [12, 13, 14, 15]
Aesop gives the food for thought in many different clever presentations—unsettling perhaps—until it gets digested.
Alas, “Tu scis quod incipias cognoscere lectionem, cum id scire times.” (“You know that you are starting to understand the lesson, when you are afraid to know it.”)
[2] Absolute Power Resolves to Self-Interest – No. 53. The Lion’s Share – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_53] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_53]
[3] Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? [To Be Or Not To Be] Chapter 3, The (Insecure) Reflective Contemplative Dwelling Mind [GRZ124] [LinkedIn #GRZ_124]
[4] The Reason Why Political and Economic Systems Fail; The Executive Summary – Part 1 [GRZ145] [LinkedIn #GRZ_145]
[5] Trust, by Tendency and Prediction. No. 36. The Wolf and the Sheep – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_36] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_36]
[6] Is It Worth It? – No. 72. The Tortoise and the Birds – The Essential Aesop™- Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_72] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_72]
[7] Integrity, Reliability and Trust. No. 16. [“The Fool’s Five” – Prayer, Faith, Belief, Trust, and Hope] The Boy Who Cried Wolf – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_16] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_16]
[8] Consenting – No. 76. The Fox, Cock and the Dog – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_76] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_76]
[9] Tough Love – No. 70. The Young Thief and His Mother – The Essential Aesop™- Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_70] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_70]
[10] Appearances Can Be Deceiving – No. 45. The Cat, Cock and Mouse [The Shrewd Dog] – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_45] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_45]
[11] Choosing Partners – No. 48. The Two Pots [BPL Formula] – The Essential Aesop™ – Trusting Fine Promises – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_48] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_48]
[12] Trust, but Verify; or, Vigilance for the Trap – No. 86. The Lion, Fox and Beasts – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_86] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_86]
[13] On Wisdom and Luck; Or, Getting Lucky is not the Same as Being Wise [GRZ155] [LinkedIn #GRZ_155]
[14] The Three Noble Cardinal Rules of Wisdom [GRZ189] [LinkedIn #GRZ_189]
[15] The Patience of Latent Evil – No. 46. The Wolf and the Shepherd – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_46] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_46]
“Praeiudicio sine virtute est incorporeus. Virtus sine praeiudicio rara est.” (“Bias without power is immaterial. Power without bias is rare.”); “Superstes sine viribus, sapientiam requirit.” (“Survival without power necessitates wisdom.”); “Esca semper praedae allicit.” (“Bait is always attractive to the prey.”); “Tu scis quod incipias cognoscere lectionem, cum id scire times.” (“You know that you are starting to understand the lesson, when you are afraid to know it.”); “Canis soriceus est qui sine latratu mordere potest, sed natura eius id prodit.” (“It is a shrewd dog that can bite without a bark, but its nature gives it away.”); “Quisque habet malus diem.” (“Everyone has a bad day.”); “Lorum lorum dominum non protegit si canis circum volvitur.” (“The leash does not protect the master, if the dog should turn around.”); “Iesus docet quid debere sit, aesopus docet de posse fieri.” (“Jesus teaches about shoulds, Aesop teaches about coulds.”); “Spes stulto esca est.” (“Hope is a fool’s bait.”) ~ grz
Pumping Iron [MUID246X]– Arnold Striped Shirt Interview – The Wrong Advices – “He will be ready to lose. I will just talk him into that.”
Lincoln [Steven Spielberg] [MUID103X] – Trust [Ed. Note: Don’t miss the subtlety of time and logistics addressed in the conversation; it goes by quickly. Lincoln had to get the 13th Amendment passed by the states before the Confederate States were rejoined. If the Confederate States rejoined first, before the Amendment, they would have an equal right to defeat the Amendment by their reinstated right to vote. The Confederate States knew this and so tried to get back in fast, seeing the end, but Lincoln did a bit of lawyer trickery to stall the rejoinment of the Confederate States so that the 13th Amendment would be passed by the (Northern) states before the Confederates rejoined. Since the North effectively had already won the War, the Confederates were going to come back in as a fait accompli, but Lincoln masterfully cajoled the timing to end physical slavery. Yes, Honest Abe Lincoln prolonged the Civil War, in effect, to get slavery constitutionally ended first; otherwise, the Civil War would have only resolved the issue of secession and not the issue of slavery. Yes, he was that good. See “The Vote” clip, [MUID104X].
Donald Trump [MUID260X] – Trust [Ed. Note: On trust (not trusting). Perhaps meanly stated by President Trump, but that does not make it unwise.]
ChatGPT Assessment
Gregg Zegarelli’s “Self-Interested Advice – No. 41 – The Rabbit, Weasel and Cat” fable stands out as a prime exemplar of his layered pedagogy on bias, power, and trust—a recurrent triad in his moral-philosophical ethos. Below is a structured breakdown of its teaching method, ethical implications, thematic resonance with other Zegarelli works, and its possible placement within the broader AIS (Applied Intelligence Series) or Business of Aesop™ context.
🧠 Core Fable Takeaway
Moral (Simple): “Beware of the strong who have an interest to settle a matter or advise to their own advantage.”
This moral anchors the story in one of Aesop’s most unsettling lessons: that seeking help from the powerful or biased is often an invitation to be devoured—figuratively or literally. Zegarelli expands the original Aesopic parable into a broader caution about institutional trust, arbitration, and the cost of convenience.
🔎 Philosophical and Pedagogical Analysis
1. Bias + Power = Predation
Zegarelli’s Latin distillation:
“Praeiudicio sine virtute est incorporeus. Virtus sine praeiudicio rara est.”
“Bias without power is immaterial. Power without bias is rare.”
This aphorism encapsulates the tragic logic of the fable: bias becomes dangerous when it has the teeth of power. A mere opinion is not lethal—but opinion armed with enforcement capacity is catastrophic.
2. The Mirage of Neutrality in Arbitration
The Cat in this story masks its interest behind feigned impartiality. The fable thus critiques any system or person that pretends neutrality while secretly benefiting from conflict resolution. This has strong implications for:
- Biased arbitrators
- Conflicted judges
- Corporate mediators with market interests
- Politicians “solving” problems they helped create
This resonates directly with legal scenarios—such as Zegarelli’s critiques in Stand for America: The Duty of Trust [GRZ50] and Bias [GRZ91].
3. The Risk of Trust and the Fallacy of Safety
Zegarelli writes:
“Hope is a fool’s bait.”
and
“Getting help is one thing, consenting to vulnerability is not the same thing.”
Here, trust and hope are shown not as virtues-in-themselves but as instruments—tools to be carefully applied, not blindly bestowed. This distinction is essential in Zegarelli’s ethos, especially in the Aesopic framing of legal, civic, and interpersonal dynamics. Trust must be disciplined, not indiscriminate.
🏛️ Integration with Zegarelli’s Broader Ethos
| Related Article | Thematic Link |
|---|---|
| [GRZ98_53] The Lion’s Share | Power justifies its own advantage; shares no equity. |
| [GRZ98_72] The Tortoise and the Birds | Temptation to be carried by mercenaries; danger in seeking help with strings attached. |
| [GRZ98_86] The Lion, Fox and Beasts | Hidden traps in apparent generosity from those in power. |
| [GRZ50] The Duty of Trust | Reframes trust as a civic duty, not blind faith. |
| [GRZ91] Bias | Foundational critique of bias—integrates into his Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? thesis. |
| [GRZ36X] The Fox Without a Tail | Insecurity and persuasive self-interest disguised as advice. |
| [GRZ148] Character vs. Virtue | Sharpens the difference between appearance of virtue and substantive integrity. |
📚 AIS Curriculum Fit
This fable could serve as an early-to-mid-level module in an AIS curriculum under the following themes:
- Cognitive Discernment: Teaching students to detect manipulative benevolence (false saviors, trusted advisors with conflict).
- Ethical Decision-Making: How power asymmetries distort negotiations and conflict resolution.
- Civic Responsibility: Evaluating leadership or institutions on interest alignment, not just authority.
- Crisis Governance: Understanding how emergency arbitrators may exploit chaos for self-gain.
💬 Latin Maxims – Didactic Impact
Each Latin phrase enriches the fable beyond its narrative structure:
| Latin Phrase | Translation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| “Lorum lorum dominum non protegit si canis circum volvitur.” | The leash does not protect the master if the dog should turn around. | Powerful metaphor for trust in dangerous allies. |
| “Praeiudicio sine virtute est incorporeus…” | Bias without power is immaterial. Power without bias is rare. | Establishes a general rule for risk analysis. |
| “Tu scis quod incipias cognoscere lectionem…” | You know you’re starting to understand the lesson when you’re afraid to know it. | Signals the pedagogical disquiet central to real wisdom. |
| “Spes stultorum esca est.” | Hope is a fool’s bait. | Strips romanticism from naive trust. |
These are not just decorative Latin; they serve as epistemic anchors—philosophical concision tools that summarize emotional and logical danger.
🧩 Conclusion & Ranking
This fable is a cornerstone of Zegarelli’s ethos on bias, vulnerability, power, and the illusion of benevolence in conflict resolution. It likely belongs in the Top 20 AIS articles and could be seen as the thematic converging point between:
- The fables of predatory arbitration (GRZ98_53, GRZ98_72)
- The essays on trust, bias, and civic discernment (GRZ91, GRZ50, GRZ148)
It teaches the art of not merely knowing whom to trust—but knowing when and why trust becomes dangerous.
20240518.4o
I am going to repost. A few tweak fable correlations since your last review but essentially the same. Any new assessments, revisions?
Yes. I would retain the substance of the May 2024 assessment, but our subsequent discussions of The Lion’s Share, The Scorpion and the Frog, The Horse, Hunter and Stag, Bacon’s Simulation and Dissimulation, and GRZ145 give me three meaningful additions. The newer correlations also sharpen the article without requiring a substantive rewrite.
Most importantly, I now think the fable is less about trusting the wrong person than about voluntarily surrendering control of a dispute to someone whose interests are adverse to both disputants.
That distinction is fundamental.
1. The Cat does not merely exploit trust. He engineers vulnerability.
The Rabbit and Weasel are already adversaries.
Their dispute is genuine. Each believes himself entitled to the home.
The Cat enters as a supposed neutral adjudicator, offering to resolve the dispute.
But notice the sequence:
- The Cat offers assistance.
- The disputants accept his purported authority.
- The Cat claims a physical limitation—poor hearing.
- He requests that they move closer.
- They comply.
- He consumes them.
The Cat’s alleged inability to hear is particularly important.
He creates a procedural necessity that serves his undisclosed objective.
The Rabbit and Weasel believe they are accommodating the requirements of a fair hearing.
In actuality, they are surrendering the physical distance that protects them.
The ostensible procedural accommodation is the mechanism of predation.
That is considerably more sophisticated than a simple warning about self-interested advice.
The Cat uses the process of adjudication to manufacture the conditions necessary for his own advantage.
And the litigants participate voluntarily.
2. Our recent Bacon discussion adds an important distinction
In Simulation and Dissimulation, we distinguished between intentionally creating a false representation and intentionally inducing a false inference.
The Cat does both.
He represents himself as a neutral adjudicator.
That is affirmative simulation if he knows he has no intention of adjudicating fairly.
He also represents himself as hard of hearing.
That is another affirmative representation, apparently false, designed to induce proximity.
But the more interesting deception is the broader inference he causes:
Because I have agreed to hear your dispute, I must be acting as an adjudicator rather than a predator.
The Cat does not need to state that proposition expressly.
He allows the Rabbit and Weasel to supply it themselves.
Thus the Cat combines simulation and dissimulation.
He pushes some false representations while inducing the litigants to pull other false conclusions from the circumstances.
And this is precisely why the fable is so effective.
The victims do not merely believe a lie. They construct their own sense of security from the Cat’s performance of neutrality.
That is an important causal refinement.
3. The Cat’s power is not initially sufficient to achieve his objective
This is a particularly interesting connection to The Fox and the Lion.
The Cat is stronger than either disputant.
But strength alone does not necessarily give him the ability to capture both.
The Rabbit and Weasel might flee.
They might refuse his assistance.
They might maintain sufficient distance.
The Cat must therefore obtain something more than physical superiority.
He must obtain access.
And he obtains access through apparent benevolence.
That gives us a useful distinction:
Power: The Cat possesses the physical capacity to consume the disputants.
Opportunity: The disputants must come within reach.
Deception: The Cat manufactures a reason for them to approach.
Consent: The disputants voluntarily surrender their protective distance.
Result: Latent power becomes exercised power.
This is exactly the distinction we recently developed in The Fox and the Lion.
The Cat’s actual power exists before the dispute.
But its effective application depends upon circumstances.
He manipulates those circumstances.
4. The connection to Horse, Hunter and Stag is even stronger
The Horse voluntarily accepts the Hunter’s bit and saddle to achieve a desired objective.
The Rabbit and Weasel voluntarily approach the Cat to resolve their dispute.
In both fables:
An actor seeks assistance toward a legitimate objective but accepts a condition that transfers control to another actor.
The Horse wants relief from Stag.
The disputants want resolution of their controversy.
Neither objective is inherently foolish.
The error occurs in the means selected.
The Horse permits the Hunter to acquire continuing control.
The Rabbit and Weasel permit the Cat to acquire immediate physical access.
In each case, the beneficiary of the requested assistance has an independent interest that is not necessarily aligned with the requesting party.
And once control is transferred, the original party may no longer possess sufficient power to revoke the arrangement.
That is the deeper warning:
The price of assistance may be the surrender of the very agency needed to protect oneself from the assistant.
This makes your maxim especially appropriate:
“The leash does not protect the master if the dog should turn around.”
The leash represents control.
But the effectiveness of control depends upon relative power and position.
If the dog is sufficiently powerful and turns upon its owner, the supposed mechanism of control may be ineffective.
Likewise, the Rabbit and Weasel possess the theoretical freedom to refuse the Cat.
But once they enter his reach, that freedom may become meaningless.
5. GRZ145 supplies the institutional dimension
Our recent discussion of political and economic systems established that civil association arises partly because individuals possess contextual vulnerabilities.
The runner wants protection in water.
The swimmer wants protection on land.
Both accept rules constraining their natural advantages because each anticipates circumstances in which the other may possess superior power.
That is the rational foundation for third-party adjudication.
The Rabbit and Weasel need a mechanism to resolve competing claims without resorting to direct conflict.
But the fable exposes the next problem.
The adjudicator is himself an actor within Mother Nature’s system.
He has his own survival interests.
His own appetites.
His own incentives.
His own relative power.
The creation of a dispute-resolution mechanism does not eliminate those attributes.
It merely relocates the exercise of power.
And that is precisely Madison’s problem.
Government must control the governed.
But government must also be obliged to control itself.
The Cat represents the danger of establishing adjudicative authority without sufficient mechanisms to constrain the adjudicator.
That is a substantial institutional correlation.
6. I would refine the article’s treatment of bias and power
Your maxim says:
“Bias without power is immaterial. Power without bias is rare.”
The second proposition is particularly important.
But I would qualify the first as a general rather than absolute rule.
Bias without direct coercive power may still influence advice, testimony, information, recommendations, and collective decision-making.
A biased person may lack the power to compel a result while possessing the ability to influence someone who does.
Therefore, I would interpret your maxim as referring to effective power, not merely physical or formal authority.
The Cat’s bias matters because he possesses both physical power and the ability to manipulate the parties’ conduct.
But the fable would remain instructive even if the Cat were a weaker creature who manipulated a stronger third party.
The relevant issue is:
Does the biased actor possess a mechanism through which the bias can materially affect the result?
That is more precise.
7. The Cat’s final statement is the most revealing line
“It is settled then.”
This is brilliant Aesopian irony.
The Cat has indeed settled the dispute.
There is no longer a Rabbit claiming ownership.
There is no longer a Weasel claiming possession.
The controversy has been eliminated.
But the disputants have also been eliminated.
And that exposes a profound distinction:
Resolving a controversy is not necessarily the same as achieving justice for the parties.
The Cat produces finality.
He does not produce justice.
The means of resolution destroy the very interests the process was supposed to protect.
That connects directly to our recent discussion of the Primary Objective.
The objective of adjudication is not merely to terminate a dispute.
It is to resolve the dispute through a process that preserves the legitimate interests and rights the institution exists to serve.
A system that achieves finality by destroying the participants has confused the observable result with the proper objective.
This is the same causal error we identified in The Fisherman and His Flute.
The Fisherman gets the Fish to dance.
But not because they are inspired by his music.
The Cat settles the dispute.
But not because he has determined the merits.
The result is achieved; the intended purpose is defeated.
That is a particularly useful correlation.
8. Hope is present, but the operative defect is more precise
Your article states:
“Hope against a catastrophic tendency is a fool’s bait.”
That remains consistent with our recent Hope discussions.
But I would now emphasize that the Rabbit and Weasel are not necessarily foolish merely because they hope the Cat will be fair.
Their error is that they accept a catastrophic exposure without adequate assurance that the Cat’s interests are aligned with theirs.
This is a risk-management problem.
Even if the probability of predation were relatively low, the consequences would be catastrophic.
And the cost of maintaining distance might have been modest.
So the decision can be defective even without establishing that predation was probable.
That is important.
Wisdom must assess both the probability and magnitude of harm, together with the cost of available safeguards.
The fable dramatizes the extreme case in which the safeguards are abandoned entirely.
9. I would also revise the old assessment’s treatment of the Cat as an arbitrator
The old review describes the Cat as a biased arbitrator.
That’s a useful metaphor, but technically I would distinguish:
The Cat is not a genuinely appointed neutral who later becomes corrupted.
He is a predator who uses the appearance of neutrality as an instrument of capture.
That is closer to fraudulent inducement than ordinary adjudicative bias.
The distinction matters because a conflicted arbitrator may still attempt to perform an adjudicative function, albeit improperly.
The Cat never intends to perform that function.
His objective is consumption from the beginning.
The dispute merely supplies the opportunity.
Thus:
The Cat does not corrupt adjudication after accepting authority. He impersonates adjudication to obtain authority.
That is the sharper characterization.
10. The article’s strongest teaching is about consenting to vulnerability
Your newer text says:
“Getting help is one thing, consenting to vulnerability is not the same thing.”
I think that is now the conceptual center of the article.
It captures the distinction between requesting assistance and surrendering agency.
And it is not limited to legal disputes.
It applies to business relationships, financial arrangements, employment, political institutions, personal relationships, and any circumstance in which an actor seeks assistance from someone possessing independent interests.
The important question is not merely:
Can this person help me?
It is:
What power must I surrender to obtain the help, and what prevents that power from being used against me?
That is a much stronger formulation of the lesson.
My revised assessment
I would supplement the original review with this:
The Rabbit, Weasel and Cat is not merely a warning against biased advice or misplaced trust. It is an examination of how apparent neutrality can be used to manufacture vulnerability. The Cat possesses superior power but cannot necessarily exercise it until the disputants voluntarily surrender their protective distance. By offering adjudication and feigning impaired hearing, he converts a legitimate desire for dispute resolution into the causal mechanism of their destruction. The fable therefore distinguishes the possession of power from the circumstances permitting its exercise, and the resolution of a dispute from the achievement of justice. The Cat’s declaration, “It is settled then,” is literally correct but substantively perverse: finality has been achieved by destroying the interests the process purported to protect. Read alongside Horse, Hunter and Stag and GRZ145, the fable illustrates the institutional problem of delegated power: those who seek protection from conflict may become vulnerable to the very authority they empower to resolve it. Wisdom therefore requires not merely assessing the trustworthiness of the proposed assistant, but preserving sufficient agency and safeguards to prevent assistance from becoming domination.
And I think the most concise synthesis is:
The Cat did not need to win the dispute. He needed the disputants to surrender the power to protect themselves.
Or, even more closely tied to your Primary Objective doctrine:
The parties sought resolution of their dispute and obtained resolution of their existence.
That is darkly humorous, but entirely Aesopian.
Before reposting
I would leave the substance unchanged. The new references are appropriate and improve the article’s integration with the larger ecosystem.
I noticed two small editorial matters:
- “allcy” in the introductory discussion should be “ally.”
- “Hope is a fool’s bait” appears in the current maxim collection as “Spes est esca stulto.” If you’re cleaning up the Latin, I would prefer “Spes stulto esca est” (“Hope is bait to the fool”) or “Spes stultorum esca est” (“Hope is the bait of fools”).
Otherwise, the current article is ready to repost.
And I would now place the fable’s distinctive contribution slightly differently than the 2024 review did.
The Lion’s Share teaches how power appropriates advantage.
The Scorpion and the Frog teaches why rational assurances may fail to restrain nature.
The Horse, Hunter and Stag teaches how assistance can become permanent subordination.
The Rabbit, Weasel and Cat teaches how the very procedure designed to protect competing interests can be weaponized to destroy them.
That is a coherent progression, and the Cat’s contribution is distinct.
He doesn’t merely exploit power. He persuades his victims to deliver themselves into its reach.
20261011-6.1
Kung Fu [MUID244X] – Trust – Trust and Prepare
© 2013 Arnold Zegarelli and Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/self-interested-advice-41-rabbit-weasel-cat-aesop-zegarelli-esq-
Related Article:
- [36] The Insecure Human Being – The Business of Aesop™ No. 51 – A Fox Without a Tail [GRZ36X] [LinkedIn #GRZ_36]
- [91] Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 1, Bias [GRZ91] [LinkedIn #GRZ_91]
- [50] The Duty of Trust – Stand for America® [GRZ50] [LinkedIn #GRZ_50]
- [148] Critical Thinking and the Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue [GRZ148] [LinkedIn #GRZ_148]
GRZ98_41.20261011 GRZUID98_41