Nasruddin Walks the Coaction Cardioid as a Triptych of Geopolitical Crises

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 23 Feb 2026

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

The Art of Being Bullied — As Practiced by a Fool in Eight Chambers

Introduction

The “fables” presented below in the form of a triptych have been generated by Claude-4.6 in the light of a previous argument (Visual Articulation in 3D of Heartfelt Concerns — with AI, 2026). The triptych emerged from an exploration of the 8-fold coaction cardioid — derived from the framework of symbiosis, commensalism, parasitism, amensalism, synnecrosis, allopathy, predation, and allotrophy — as elaborated by Edward Haskell in his exploration of the predator-prey dynamic (Full Circle: The Moral Force of Unified Science, 1972), as further developed by Timothy Wilken (The Relationship Continuum, 2002; Synergic Containment of Adversary Events, 2023). It is applied experimentally here to three geopolitical situations that exemplify the dynamics of bullying at the international scale. The triptych may then be understood as a complement to an earlier argument From the Art of War to the Art of Being Bullied? From Playground Bullies to Imperial Powers — and Beyond (2025). The relevance of that framework to “anti-otherness”, exemplified by “anti-semitism”, is also considered.

The Nasruddin figure, featuring as the fool in the triptych below, is drawn from the centuries-old tradition of the wise fool — Mulla Nasruddin of Sufi literature — whose apparent simplicity reveals what sophisticated analysis conceals. The choice is deliberate: the companion document argues that the “psychosocial katas” needed by the bullied cannot be developed through solemn theory alone but require a playful engagement that teaches the hands what the mind is too frightened to think. Nasruddin is the embodiment of this principle. The katas of traditional martial arts have been reframed in institutional terms by Thierry Gaudin ( L’Ecoute des Silences: les institutions contre l’innovation, 1978). An English translation of that 29-fold set was presented separately as The Institutional Katas (2016) in a discussion of Game-playing in Global Governance? (2016) — framed in terms of Engaging an Opposing Ideology via Martial Arts Philosophy (2016).

Each situation in the triptych, as explored below by Nasruddin, represents a structurally distinct failure of dimensional adequacy: a different way in which the reduction of complex relational dynamics to binary (2-fold) framing produces pathology. The clarification of that analytical framework in the exchange with the AI, and the justification for the fable format, is presented separately (Cognitive and Strategic Implications of Numerically Articulated Sets: hearing coherently the diversity of contrasting voices, 2026). This follows earlier explorations of the theme (Representation, Comprehension and Communication of Sets: the Role of Number, 1978; Hearing the Variety of Voices in Climate Change Discourse, 2019).

In addition to the bullying frame, the separate analysis gave progressive focus to the challenging role of any Nasruddin-themed presentation through consideration of sets of traditional fables (Exemplary fables of proportionate response, 2006; Humour and Play-Fullness: Essential integrative processes in governance, religion and transdisciplinarity, 2005; Enrolling Winnie-the-Pooh’s Companions in Climate Change Discourse, 2019).

As previously visualized in 3D, the eight identified chambers of Haskell’s coaction cardioid are designated by the paired signs of two interacting parties:

The triptych’s three situations — Russia-Ukraine, the Gaza-related Board of Peace, and Trumpian geopolitics — are not chosen as the only instances of international bullying, but as three that are currently most dangerous and that exhibit maximally different structural pathologies. The companion document’s exploration of the kendama/bilboquet (cup-and-ball skill toy) as a model for resilience dynamics is carried through all three pieces as a unifying metaphor.

The presentation continues the experiment with AI described in the earlier document, where the interaction with AI is treated as a form of collaborative inquiry rather than authoritative pronouncement. The “questions” that generated these responses are implicit in the framing; the responses have been edited for formatting but not for substance, leaving the characteristic strengths and limitations of AI-generated insight for the reader to navigate.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.