Asymmetric Dialogue in a Period of Asymmetric Warfare?

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 6 Apr 2026

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Engaging across Differences in the Dimensionality of Awareness

Introduction

16 Mar 2026 – The following exploration is effectively an annex to an extensive separate exchange with AI to clarify the nature of “UnChristian”, “UnJewish” and “UnIslamic” from a cybernetic perspective (Unquestionable Reframing of the Unrighteous with AI? 2026). That exchange noted the extent to which each religion had been variously obliged to develop forms of “asymmetric dialogue” in order to survive in different periods of its history — a process especially significant for Judaism.

In the light of the ongoing engagement of US-Israeli forces with Iran, the viability of asymmetric warfare by Iran has been highlighted as a strategic option (Can Iran’s asymmetric warfare hold US-Israeli military power at bay? Al Jazeera, 12 March 2026). Asymmetric warfare (or asymmetric engagement) is a type of war between belligerents whose relative military power, strategy or tactics differ significantly. This type of warfare often involves insurgents, terrorist groups, or resistance militias operating within territory mostly controlled by the superior force

The focus of that strategic concept is clearly on physical warfare. This suggests the question as to the possible nature of “asymmetric dialogue” — namely the memetic analogue of relevance to memetic warfare as variously envisaged (Missiles, Missives, Missions and Memetic Warfare, 2001; Cognitive Ballistics vs. Derivative Correlation in Memetic Warfare, 2009). This could be understood as the navigation of strategic interfaces in multidimensional knowledge space. A valuable articulation is offered by Brian J. Hancock (Memetic Warfare: The Future of War, Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin, 36, 2010, 2) in a special issue on “intelligence in full-spectrum operations”.

Since that time “memetic warfare” can perhaps now be recognized as an aspect of “narrative warfare” (Nika Aleksejeva, Narrative Warfare: How the Kremlin and Russian News Outlets Justified a War of Aggression against Ukraine, Atlantic Council, February 2023; Aleksandr Zarnadze, “Invisible Bullets”: The Power of Narratives in Modern Warfare, Global Policy, 16, 2025, 2; Maria Hirniak, The Battle of Narratives in Modern Conflict, Parley Policy, 16 October 2025; Prakriti N, Beyond Bullets and Bombs: the rise of narrative as a weapon in conflicts, SIGA Centre, 26 June 2025).

“Asymmetric dialogue” could be understood otherwise when the power of dissemination and communicability are distinctive (Ivana Markova and Klaus Foppa, Asymmetries in Dialogue, 1991; Nan Li, et al, Grounded Misunderstandings in Asymmetric Dialogue: a perspectivist annotation scheme for map task, arXiv:2511.03718v1, 25 November 2025; Richard Nordquist, Asymmetry and Communication, ThoughtCo, 12 December 2019; Michael L. Kent and Anne Lane, Two-way Communication, Symmetry, Negative Spaces, and Dialogue, Public Relations Review, 47, 2021, 102014)

As with asymmetric warfare, rather than assuming the two parties are similarly empowered, the focus is on situations where the dialogue capabilities are of a quite different order — however that is to be understood in cognitive terms and style. One extreme example has been exemplified in a fictional account, by the Nobel Laureate Doris Lessing, of a poignant encounter of a “development specialist” from an advanced galactic culture with a leading representative of a “developing” planet:

To say that he understood what went on was true. To say that he did not understand — was true. I would sit and explain, over and over again. He listened, his eyes fixed on my face, his lips moving as he repeated to himself what I was saying. He would nod: yes, he had grasped it. But a few minutes later, when I might be saying something of the same kind, he was uncomfortable, threatened. Why was I saying that? and that? his troubled eyes asked of my face: What did I mean? His questions at such moments were as if I had never taught him anything at all. He was like one drugged or in shock.

Yet it seemed that he did absorb information for sometimes he would talk as if from a basis of shared knowledge: it was as if a part of him knew and remembered all I told him, but other parts had not heard a word. I have never before or since had so strongly that experience of being with a person and knowing that all the time there was certainly a part of that person in contact with you, something real and alive and listening — and yet most of the time what one said did not reach that silent and invisible being, and what he said was not often said by the real part of him. It was as if someone stood there bound and gagged while an inferior impersonator spoke for him. (Re: Colonised Planet 5 – Shikasta, 1979, pp. 56-57).

As is readily recalled, forms of “asymmetric dialogue” are remarkably illustrated in the range of folk tales (Proportionate Response in the Eye of the Beholder, 2006). Those of the Middle East are exemplified by Mullah Nasruddin, as discussed separately with respect to cultivation of the “Art of Being Bullied” in contrast with the usual strategic focus on The Art of War (Nasruddin Walks the Coaction Cardioid as a Triptych of Geopolitical Crises, 2026; From the Art of War to the Art of Being Bullied? 2025). Reference to that example is especially ironic at this time since the tales are most closely associated with the culture of Iran — and presumably contribute to its framing of engagement in asymmetric warfare.

The strategic possibilities of asymmetric dialogue are explored in contrast to separate consideration of the more conventional understanding of the range approaches to dialogue assuming a degree of equivalence between participants (Overview of a variety of approaches to dialogue and conversation, 2021). Especially relevant at this time is the degree to which engagement with AI is necessarily understood to be asymmetrical and can only evolve to being more so. Another aspect of the matter is evident in the development of sonic weapons, acoustic weapons, and the weaponization of sonification, as exemplified by the Havana Syndrome (Richard Stone, Sonic Attack or Mass Paranoia? Science, 20 June 2018).

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.