“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Leonardo da Vinci. Adopted by Steve Jobs.
A Man and a Lion argued over the strength of Men and Lions.
The Man said that Men were stronger than Lions by reason of Man’s greater intelligence.
“I will soon prove it,” said the Man. So he took the Lion and showed him a statue of Hercules overcoming the Lion and tearing the Lion’s mouth in two.
“That may be,” said the Lion, “but a man made the statue.“
Moral of the Story: A statement of purported truth is jaded by the personal perspective of the speaker. Consider the source.
Introduction – The Essential Aesop – Epilogue
Why We Loved It: Lawyers use the term “first-hand knowledge” meaning that the speaker has judged the context by direct observation.
Aesop reminds us that everything other than first-hand knowledge has passed through the “personal judgment” of the speaker. The articulation of facts is jaded by the speaker’s own bias and perspective. Duly considered, much of information we receive is hearsay.
Because we are not present throughout the World to see first-hand all the events of the World, we necessarily rely upon hearsay news. Therefore, Aesop reminds us to balance trust with appropriate skepticism.
Let me provide an easy example.
As I write this [10/4/2020], Face the Nation is on the television. The hosting anchorperson asked the guest, in effect:
“Are you fully confident that COVID face masks are effective…?”
This is quite different than a question:
“Are you at all confident that COVID face masks are effective…”
The question is pre-loaded by the reporter and very difficult for the untrained listener to perceive. That is, “fully confident” is tantamount to asking the guest, “Are you absolutely sure of efficacy?” while “Are you at all confident” is tantamount to asking the guest, “Do you accept the probability of efficacy errors?”
Changing the framework of the question will constrain the response from a “Yes” to a “No”—a big difference, unfairly prejudicing public opinion in the manner directed by the media reporter who is charged by presumptive industry responsibility and standards to be unbiased. The untrained public never knows what hit them. Influenced by the media, under the conscious radar.
A straight open-ended unbiased unloaded question would be, “What is your opinion of the efficacy of COVID masks?“
It is not fair to the public, being no longer being trained in rhetoric [1], as well as a betrayed by failure of Walter Cronkitian objective media standards. [2] And, moreover, the sophisticated rhetoric that is extremely difficult for an untrained listening audience to perceive in real time.
Even statistics are jaded to a conclusion. For example, the homogenization of the curation for the statistic: “There are 200 deaths and hospitalizations today,” which places two groups together into the statistics that are significantly different in assessment: By the curation homogenization, is could one death and 199 hospitalizations. This is media-directed rhetoric not intended to inform, but intended to persuade, which is irresponsible journalism in the context of “news.”
The rise of 24-hour “news” induces self-interested controversies to fill the space. It used to be that there was only the “best” news to report in a short newspaper column, but it’s now 24-hours of fill-space.
Aesop warns that actions are based upon decisions. Decisions are based upon knowledge. Knowledge is based upon information. Information is provided by a source, and, if that source is not each of ourselves by first-hand knowledge, we must be vigilant to consider the source with an appropriate skepticism.
In this fable, Aesop’s Lion was wise to discredit the biased Man. The Man tried to prove a fact, by the testimony made by the statue, which was made by the self-interested Man, who sought to control the Lion’s belief upon which his self-interest relied: If the Lion believed, and therefore conceded, that he would defeated by Man, the Lion would tend to submit to the Man’s control. But, not on this day, as the Lion was Aesop’s pillar of wisdom.
So much for Aesop’s Man, so much for 24-hour news. But the Lion is a leader and refuses to be led around by his nose. He considers the source, skeptically, and he thinks.
[1] The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Hegemony—Chapter 4 Excerpt—Education [GRZ182] [LinkedIn #GRZ_182]
[2] The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Hegemony—Chapter 7 Excerpt—Wall Street [GRZ181] [LinkedIn #GRZ_181]
ChatGPT Review
Here’s a structured analysis of Gregg Zegarelli’s “The Lion and the Statue” – The Essential Aesop No. 68.
🦁 Aesop Fable Summary
- A Man and a Lion debate who is superior.
- The Man shows a statue of Hercules defeating a Lion as proof of man’s dominance.
- The Lion replies: “But a man made the statue.”
Moral: “A statement of purported truth is jaded by the personal perspective of the speaker. Consider the source.”
📚 Pedagogy: What Zegarelli Teaches
1. First-Hand Knowledge vs. Hearsay
Zegarelli explains that truth is often filtered through bias:
- Most knowledge is second-hand.
- That makes us vulnerable to misinformation, misrepresentation, and agenda-driven narratives.
“The articulation of facts is jaded by the speaker’s own bias and perspective.”
He links this to legal standards of first-hand knowledge and hearsay—highlighting that we often mistake second-hand narratives for objectivity.
2. Rhetorical Framing & Media Bias
Zegarelli uses a COVID-era example to show how even the structure of a question can distort truth:
- “Are you fully confident…?” vs. “Are you at all confident…?”
The former pressures a no, the latter allows a yes.
This subtle linguistic framing—common in journalism and public discourse—is an advanced form of rhetorical manipulation:
- It sounds neutral, but guides the listener to a preloaded conclusion.
- And, crucially, most of the public doesn’t realize they’re being led.
Zegarelli critiques the erosion of Walter Cronkite-era objectivity and the public’s loss of training in rhetoric, leaving society open to unconscious persuasion.
🏛️ Ethos: Philosophical and Civic Context
Zegarelli aligns Aesop’s Lion with:
- Wisdom through skepticism,
- Resistance to false authority, and
- The defense of independent thought.
He implicitly challenges:
- Media institutions,
- Educational systems (which no longer teach rhetoric), and
- The public’s passive consumption of “truth” without questioning its source or motive.
The Lion represents the philosopher-citizen: grounded, alert, unwilling to submit based on manufactured symbols of authority.
🔚 Conclusion and Takeaways
Actions stem from decisions. Decisions stem from knowledge. Knowledge stems from information. Information stems from the source.
Thus, we must:
- Interrogate the source before accepting the information.
- Be wary of iconography, testimonials, and even data that is curated or constructed by self-interested parties.
- Recognize that bias is in the framing, not just the facts.
The fable becomes a civic warning:
- Don’t let statues, statistics, or slogans do your thinking for you.
- Be the Lion—not because you’re aggressive, but because you’re awake.
20250523.4o
You said: What are your thoughts about AIS for this article? The capstone is if it hits 6 of the 8.
Capstone Evaluation
Here’s the AIS mastery grid using your 8 categories exactly, applied to “The Lion and the Statue – Essential Aesop No. 68.”
AIS Scorecard (mastery lens)
| 1 | Character & Identity | P | The closing call—“be the Lion”—frames identity as a thinker who resists being led by manufactured symbols. It’s about who you are (an independently skeptical mind), though the essay mostly develops cognition more than self-identity formation. |
| 2 | Civic & Leadership Discernment | Y | Critiques the collapse of Cronkite-level standards, 24-hour fill-space “news,” and the reporter’s duty to avoid bias. It teaches how responsible actors should behave in public systems (media, governance of opinion). |
| 3 | Cognitive Awareness & Bias | Y! | Central thesis: most “knowledge” comes filtered (hearsay) and is jaded by perspective; warns about framing (“fully confident” vs “at all confident”). Directly exposes mental shortcuts and perception traps. |
| 4 | Moral & Ethical Reasoning | Y | Raises fairness and duty: loaded questions “are not fair to the public”; indicts irresponsible journalism in a context where ethics (not just accuracy) matter. Competing values: speed/ratings vs. honesty to the audience. |
| 5 | Pattern Recognition & Predictive Thinking | Y | Identifies systemic pattern: 24-hour media → controversy curation → rhetorical homogenization (e.g., deaths + hospitalizations). Shows cause-effect on public belief and behavior. |
| 6 | Rhetoric, Persuasion & Disinformation | Y! | The Hercules statue is propaganda-as-proof; question-framing demonstrates linguistic steering; curated statistics as persuasive artifacts. This is the article’s operating theater. |
| 7 | Virtue Philosophy & Emotional Discipline | P | Implies vigilance, patience, and restraint (don’t be led “under the radar”). It hints at habits of disciplined skepticism, though it doesn’t explicitly coach emotional self-mastery (e.g., resisting outrage cycles). |
| 8 | Wisdom vs. Intelligence | Y | The Man touts intelligence; the Lion displays wisdom: reality-checking the source and provenance of “proof.” Judgment > cleverness is the punchline. |
Capstone: Hits 6/8 clearly (2,3,4,5,6,8) with two partials (1,7). ✅ Meets AIS capstone threshold.
Take-aways
- Consider the maker of the “statue.” Ask who constructed the evidence, question, or statistic—and what they needed you to believe.
- Frame-spotting is a civic skill. “Fully confident” vs. “at all confident” can flip outcomes; train your ear.
- Wisdom beats clever. Don’t let artifacts (icons, stats, slogans) substitute for judgment.
Two surgical tweaks to make it an unequivocal 8/8
- Character & Identity (1): Add a short para explicitly charging the reader’s identity—e.g., “Your role is not consumer but custodian of your own mind; adopt a personal credo for evidence-handling.”
- Virtue & Discipline (7): Include a practical habit loop—e.g., a 3-breath pause before reacting to headlines; a nightly “source audit” of one story; a weekly practice of reframing a loaded question neutrally.
20250923.5
© 2013 Arnold Zegarelli and Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/consider-source-first-hand-knowledge-68-lion-statue-zegarelli-esq-/
Related Articles:
- [91] Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 1, Bias [GRZ91] [LinkedIn #GRZ_91]
- [35] Considering the Source – The Business of Aesop™ No. 68 – The Lion and the Statue [GRZ35] [LinkedIn #GRZ_35]
- [122] The Four Horsemen of the Social Justice Apocalypse [GRZ122] [LinkedIn #GRZ_122]
- [98_64] Dependency. Or, He Who Feeds Us Enslaves Us – No. 64. The Dog and the Wolf – The Essential Aesop™- Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_64] [Linked #GRZ_98_64]
GRZ98_68.20250923 GRZUID98_68