“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Leonardo da Vinci. Adopted by Steve Jobs.

There were two Pots, one of clay and one of brass.

The Brass Pot wanted to enter into a venture by floating down a brook, and he asked the Clay Pot to join with him. “No,” said the Clay Pot, “Unlike you, I am easily broken.” But, the Brass Pot promised to protect him, so they departed.

Not long after, they came upon a section of rough water that caused the Clay Pot to bump into the Brass Pot, breaking the Clay Pot into many pieces.

Said the Brass Pot, “So sorry for that, I would apologize to you, if I could. But, alas, it is too late.”

Moral of the Story: Beware of unequal friendships and risks for which you cannot provide your own protection. A promise is intention, but not necessarily capability.

<< Back – Forward >>

Introduction – The Essential Aesop – Epilogue

Why We Loved It: In this fable, Aesop sets the stage with a sort of juxtaposition of two pots—Clay Pot and Brass Pot—which we might frame as the former being vulnerable and the latter being invulnerable.

This simple beginning alone portends that something bad is going to happen to Clay Pot—like in the movies when someone coughs.

Brass Pot has an agenda that is suitable his condition: to “float down a brook” that we might surmise is a “bouncy babbling brook” where “the floating” will be “a bobbling.” As it always tends to be, logical consequences from established premises.

Clay Pot starts off wise, understanding his own nature. Clay Pot appropriately expresses skepticism, but he is persuaded by his friend’s fine guarantee to protect him. Brass Pot is strong, after all. And off they go, vulnerable Clay Pot taking the risk by Brass Pot’s fine promise and guarantee of safety.

Now, such as it is, in Western-American Jurisprudence, there is an evolved risk assessment formula (BPL Formula) that measures burden of care and risk as a function of probability and extent of injury. The formula might be generally exposed in a correlated simplified form as Risk is a function of Probability of Injury x Gravity of Injury. For example, it is probable that we will bump our leg, but with low probability of grave injury, versus that it is improbable that we will be struck by lightning, but, if it happens, it would usually be with grave injury. The best risk case is low probability with low gravity of injury. The worst case is high probability with grave injury.

So we might consider the BPL Risk Formula for each of Brass Pot and Clay Pot, in light of the fable’s context of bouncing around in a rocky stony babbling brook. For Brass Pot, sure, there will be some nicks and dents, but joy of the adventure is worth it, for Brass Pot. But, for Clay Pot, who knew better, it’s not going to be easy going, mentally or physically. All the anxiety and regret aside, bouncing around in a babbling brook is a worst case for Clay Pot.

But, here, Aesop does us even one better. Aesop has Brass Pot himself—not the rocks and stones—bouncing into Clay Pot and breaking him. Not only does Brass Pot break his guaranteeing promise to protect Clay Pot, but Brass Pot is the very culprit of Clay Pot’s destruction. The protector himself injures the protected, darkly implicating the adage, “Lorum lorum dominum non protegit si canis circum volvitur.” (“The leash does not protect the master, if the dog should turn around.”) But, here again, it is not any stated vicious or carelessness in Brass Pot’s protections, per se, but only that it was a high risk condition foolishly matched to risk, for Clay Pot.

Such as The Coal Burner and the Fuller, what is good for the Brass Pot is not necessarily good for the Clay Pot. They have different constitutions and contexts of purpose. To each his own. And as Socrates said, “Know thyself.” And Clay Pot did, until he didn’t.

Thusly, let us extract an additional lesson from this fable, beyond the risk assessment and context. Let us indeed remember and not forget something perhaps even better: Clay Pot knew better. His initial assessment of risk was justified. Therefore, something went wrong, because he knew better, and he still accepted the risk. His wisdom conceded. This is a failure of “certainty of self,” a failure of discipline, temperance and fortitude.

Clay Pot let himself get pushed around. It did not end well, for him.

This brings us to my standard advice to clients over a period of 35 years of providing legal advice; to wit: “Go into the future and look back. If a bad thing occurs in the future, will you be able to say, ‘With the information I had at the time, I know why I did it, alas bad luck‘ or, ‘Oh, why did I do something so stupid and foolish?’”

As said in the Epilogue: On the Wisdom of Aesop:

The wisdom of a decision is in the calculation of the risk and result, fueled by understanding and clarity of reasoning, rather than desire, passion or emotion. That is why wise decisions are reviewable: we can go back and re-assess the basis for our thought-process for a rational decision, even if it is later determined to have been incorrect.

But, the emotional acts of today do not withstand the rational scrutiny of tomorrow, since emotional acts are not fastened by reason.

Even the wisest decisions adduce bad luck, but the fool needs to get lucky. Thusly the adage, “Sapiens casu non fit stultus, sid fatuus felix debet obtinere.” (“The sage is not undone by the accident, but the fool needs to get lucky.”) Here, Clay Pot was wise and broke down, literally and figuratively.

Partnerships can be very good things, and partnerships can be very bad things. The difference, of course, is to choose the right partner for the context. Such as it is for business partners, such as it is for marriages.

That Brass Ring might be shiny, and there’s always one dangling around us. But all that glisters is not gold:

All that glisters is not gold; Often have you heard that told: Many a man his life has sold But my outside to behold: Gilded tombs do worms enfold Had you been as wise as bold, Your in limbs, in judgment old, Your answer had not been in’scroll’d Fare you well: your suit is cold.’ Cold, indeed, and labour lost: Then, farewell, heat and welcome, frost!

Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

“Never compete with someone who has nothing to lose. The struggle will be unequal. One of the contestants enters the fray unencumbered, for he has already lost everything, even his shame. He has cast off everything, has nothing further to lose, and throws himself headlong into all sorts of insolence. Never risk your precious reputation on such a person. It took many years to win it, and it can be lost in a moment, on something far from momentous. One breath of scandal freezes much honorable sweat. The righteous person knows how much is at stake. He knows what can damage his reputation, and, because he commits himself prudently, he proceeds slowly, so that prudence has ample time to retreat. Not even if he triumphs will he win back what he lost by exposing himself to the risk of losing.“ ~Baltasar Gracian, The Art of Worldly Wisdom

“If you know little, stick to what is surest in each profession. They may not consider you ingenious, but they’ll think you solid. The person who knows can take risks and indulge his fantasy, but if you take risks knowing nothing, you will fall voluntarily. Keep to the right; what is tried and tested cannot fail. For those who know little, the main highway. Whether you know or don’t, sureness is safer than eccentricity.” ~Baltasar Gracian, The Art of Worldly Wisdom

[MUID78X] – HBO Marco Polo “Certainty of Self”

<< Back – Forward >>

ChatGPT Review

Let’s take this slowly and carefully because this fable and commentary are rich, both in the individual analysis and its broader integration into Gregg Zegarelli’s philosophy (ethos), teaching method (pedagogy), and recurring use across his writings. Here’s the deep-dive you requested:

Deep Dive Assessment of

Choosing Partners – No. 48 – The Two Pots
by Gregg Zegarelli

1. Core Lessons and Narrative

At the surface, The Two Pots fable teaches risk management and the dangers of unequal partnerships:

The Brass Pot (strong, sturdy) invites the Clay Pot (fragile, vulnerable) to journey together.
Clay Pot, aware of his own fragility, initially hesitates wisely.
Brass Pot promises protection, but cannot fulfill it — not by bad intention, but by incapacity under conditions.
Ultimately, the Clay Pot is destroyed not by malice, but by the ordinary dynamics of the journey itself — an outcome entirely predictable if risk were rationally considered.

Primary moral:

A promise is only intention, not necessarily capability. Know your own vulnerabilities, and be disciplined about when and with whom you join forces.

2. Integration into Zegarelli’s Ethos

This fable fits squarely into Zegarelli’s broader philosophical system. Here’s how:

a. Self-Knowledge and Self-Discipline

Zegarelli constantly emphasizes “Certainty of Self“ (citing Marco Polo and Socrates’s “Know thyself”).
Here, the Clay Pot knew himself — he understood he was not fit for this journey — but then gave in to emotional persuasion, abandoning self-knowledge.
Zegarelli portrays this breakdown as more tragic than the accident itself: the real “failure” is failure of conviction, not the breaking of the pot.

→ Zegarelli Ethos Alignment: True wisdom is standing firm when you know the right decision — not just knowing it.

b. Reasoned Risk Assessment over Emotional Impulse

Zegarelli connects the fable to the BPL Risk Formula (Burden of precaution < Probability x Loss) — a real legal doctrine (Learned Hand Formula) — emphasizing objective rational analysis over subjective emotional hope.
Clay Pot calculated correctly early on — but emotional hope (“my strong friend will protect me”) overrode reason.

→ Zegarelli Ethos Alignment: Rational risk assessment is primary. Emotional wishful thinking is fatal to good decision-making.

c. Trusting Intention vs. Trusting Capability

A huge theme in Zegarelli’s work is differentiating intention from capability.
Brass Pot intended to protect. He even sincerely promised!
But his structure made it impossible to prevent harm in a rocky brook.

Zegarelli is sharply pointing out:

You cannot rationally trust only intentions — you must verify capabilities.

→ Zegarelli Ethos Alignment: Pragmatism over idealism. Promises without realistic support structures are delusions.

d. Partnerships and Moral Responsibility

Zegarelli frequently speaks about partnerships — business, marital, or otherwise — needing to be matched in character, strength, and circumstance.
He ties this fable into broader lessons about choosing allies, clients, deals, political affiliations, even national policy.
Not all partnerships are equal — and some are doomed from the beginning because of structural imbalance, no matter the goodwill involved.

→ Zegarelli Ethos Alignment: Wise alliance requires compatibility, not just good intentions.

3. Pedagogical Method

Zegarelli’s teaching style here is very methodical:

Pedagogical Element	Example in This Article
Story First	The simple, universal fable — two pots on a journey.
Philosophical Expansion	Moving from pots to trust dynamics, self-discipline, risk analysis.
Legal Integration	Applying the BPL Risk Formula from Western jurisprudence to frame real-world decision-making.
Cross-Referencing Other Teachings	Ties to The Coal Burner and the Fuller, The Wolf and the Crane, The Man and the Old Dog.
Historical/Literary Support	Quotes Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice), Baltasar Gracián (The Art of Worldly Wisdom).
Real-World Application	Advice for clients: “Go into the future and look back” test for evaluating decisions.
Moral Reframing	The real “mistake” isn’t the accident — it is abandoning your wise initial assessment.

Thus, the fable is not the endpoint — it is the launchpad for Zegarelli’s broader teaching on decision-making, character, and strategic self-discipline.

4. Conclusion: Why This Fable is a Keystone in His Work

This fable appears to be especially central to Zegarelli’s ethos for a few major reasons:

Structural understanding: Risk is structural, not just accidental.
Personal responsibility: Betraying your own better judgment is a moral failure.
Trusting wisely: Intention is not enough; capability is key.
Pedagogical richness: It touches law (BPL), philosophy (Socrates, Gracian), and psychology (self-confidence and fear of loss).
Universal application: Whether choosing business partners, marriages, political alliances, or life ventures, this principle is always active.

It’s no surprise this fable shows up repeatedly in other articles — Zegarelli sees it as a master template for human decision-making errors.

Final Summary

“Choosing Partners” (Two Pots) is not just a lesson about friendship:
✅ It is about knowing yourself.
✅ It is about assessing others realistically.
✅ It is about discipline against emotional persuasion.
✅ It is about rational risk evaluation.
✅ It is about choosing alliances properly — or refusing them, even if tempting.

And most of all:

Wisdom is not knowing the right answer; it is standing firm in it when the pressure to compromise arises.

Thus, this article is a core exhibit of Zegarelli’s larger philosophical framework — where self-knowledge, rationality, fortitude, and clear risk evaluation govern wise living.

20250426.4o

LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/choosing-partners-48-two-pots-essential-aesop-back-zegarelli-esq-

This Site https://greggzegarelli.com/_set-fables-and-stories/choosing-partners-no-48-the-two-pots-the-essential-aesop-back-to-basics-abridgment-series-2/

Related Articles:

Entire Article Index

GRZ98_48.20250425 GRZUID98_48

<< Back – Forward >>

Choosing Partners – No. 48. The Two Pots – Trusting Fine Promises – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series

ChatGPT Review

Deep Dive Assessment of

1. Core Lessons and Narrative

2. Integration into Zegarelli’s Ethos

a. Self-Knowledge and Self-Discipline

b. Reasoned Risk Assessment over Emotional Impulse

c. Trusting Intention vs. Trusting Capability

d. Partnerships and Moral Responsibility

3. Pedagogical Method

4. Conclusion: Why This Fable is a Keystone in His Work

Final Summary