T22 - Chess As Metaphor - C 6
Yoda From Star Wars
In my mystical journeys throughout our solar systems I come across many games. Chess is one of the more fascinating games because it's so easy to project my illusions onto the board. On Earth, GO is another game of equal complexity which develops one's sense of space (obviously I would like that) and even international politics, as the goal of GO is to surround your opponent's buttons. Can you also see the familial psychological implications of this? Chess simulates warfare and is therefore a good training ground for people interested in the military or corporate strategies. Chess and GO are filled with terminology which is easily adapted for metaphoric use about many topics from simple ones like division, beauty, power, personality, up to and including life and death. Chess is a wonderful source for literary metaphors. When among Chess players, conversations run wild with references to everything under the sun. The number of things that can be expressed through Chess talk is endless. That's why it's popular among people who like to philosophize. What are your experiences with Chess?
In my mystical journeys throughout our solar systems I come across many games. Chess is one of the more fascinating games because it's so easy to project my illusions onto the board. On Earth, GO is another game of equal complexity which develops one's sense of space (obviously I would like that) and even international politics, as the goal of GO is to surround your opponent's buttons. Can you also see the familial psychological implications of this? Chess simulates warfare and is therefore a good training ground for people interested in the military or corporate strategies. Chess and GO are filled with terminology which is easily adapted for metaphoric use about many topics from simple ones like division, beauty, power, personality, up to and including life and death. Chess is a wonderful source for literary metaphors. When among Chess players, conversations run wild with references to everything under the sun. The number of things that can be expressed through Chess talk is endless. That's why it's popular among people who like to philosophize. What are your experiences with Chess?
posted by Russ | 5:03 AM
3 Comments:
Teale-Marie again:
Now, wait a minute–how do you know germs or birds have a reality that people don’t? Is it that you assume they don’t have personalities/egos/identities that render we humans into no-thingness? (I’m not saying I believe they have those traits; I really don’t know because I’ve not yet figured out how to communicate with them on an appropriate level).
“Feelings are the body’s reaction to memories”: I’m intrigued. Could you expand on that? I assume by “feelings” you include physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual sensations–in which case, aren’t feelings the body’s reaction to everything? Or do you reject the terms “physical” etc. because they are illusionary given our no-thingness? And what is causing, or generating, this conversation if all is illusion? How do you define nothing (or no-thing) such that some-thing (e.g., this blog) comes out of it?
It’s semantically impossible to consider whether or not illusions are real. By definition, they are not–so you need another descriptor for what it is you’re questioning. We need a set of assumptions, an anchor, in order to communicate (always). I would propose that Webster’s dictionary and the “fact” that “two plus two equals four” (so far, or as far as we know) are part of that anchor.
I don’t understand how you come to the conclusion that our minds are nothing but memories. Doesn’t that mean that there is only one memory, since our “minds” (we’re getting into semantic difficulties again) our incapable of generating new-ness? And from where did that one memory come? There have been changes on the earth and to its inhabitants over the millennia that cannot be attributed to atmospheric phenomena (whether or not you want to call them “progress”); from where did they come? And if Albert Einstein is a hero of yours....why?
You say we are “merely our nervous system.” (And you must mean only the peripheral nervous system, because the central nervous system also includes the brain.) I think you’re equating humans with lobsters (but perhaps giving the crustaceans more intellectual credit). So, our PNS gives us expectations? And then senses when our expectations go off kilter? (What makes them go off kilter?).
But maybe it’s just me. The mantra of my cultural heritage is “I disagree therefore I am.”
Russ here.
T-M - “...how do you know germs or birds have a reality that people don’t? Is it that
you assume they don’t have personalities/egos/identities that render we humans into
no-thingness? (I’m not saying I believe they have those traits; I really don’t know
because I’ve not yet figured out how to communicate with them on an appropriate
level).”
R - I’m not assuming that germs or birds have a reality that people don’t. I think that
they (both) have personalities, egos and identities (individually for birds and en
masse for germs) which are similar to humans because we all live and survive in the
same environment. Therefore they do not have a reality very different from ours.
I’ve read that their respective DNA is not so far removed from our own. I think that
germs and birds are more similar to us than dissimilar and that’s why we can all eat
each other, literally. Sounds farfetched. So here’s a goofy story: some germs,
millions of them, are riding down the street on the wind. The leaders, who are
probably either a committee or a conspiracy, send individual germs into our houses to
reconnoiter and report back about whether they find immune weakened people in one
house or another (they consider houses as minor impediments to their travels and
don’t understand the concept of shelter). One or two report back with positive
findings and the leaders direct the whole group into those houses to have dinner.
End of goofy story. No point being made. Just a quick image/thought.
What do you mean by ‘render we humans into no-thingness?’ Cause us to focus on
our metaphysics or our state of spiritual egolessness?
Let’s see..... This is an attempt at quasi-logic. Maybe it’s just my feelings or
sensings. If we question whether our illusions are real or not, imaginary or not, or
‘real: relating to fixed or immovable things’ (dictionary) or ‘not artificial: genuine,’
how can this reflect on the question ‘do germs or birds have a reality that people
don’t?’ Are birds and germs real to us? Are they not imaginary? Yes. They are
concrete insofar as we can use our senses to perceive them. Are our illusions real,
concrete, not artificial? Insofar as illusions are mental or occur in our minds they are
real because they OCCUR, they have activity, action. By definition they are unreal,
false appearances, whether provable as with the illusion of an oasis or
artistic/metaphoric as in imaginary beliefs, artifice, the artificial. So illusions, germs
and birds are real and similar insofar as they share the reality of ACTUALLY
OCCURRING as well as being perceived by us. They are also unreal as they are all
image/thoughts which are held temporarily in our minds as concepts or symbols. We
all choose from the worldwide database of thoughts, ideas, concepts, our own
personal panorama of picturesque elements which we call our identities, cultural or
individual. One person’s idea of something worth dying for can be another person’s
chimera. Bottom line as far as humans are concerned and are the centers of their
own thoughts (egos) germs and birds do share the realities of people insofar as
people perceive them as both ideas and as separate creatures (individuals). They
also have their own realities, separate from us as we can not really understand them
because we can not communicate with them and share a common group of thoughts
(so we think) and this creates our illusion that they are different from us. We can not
know whether or not THEY perceive themselves to have realities that people don’t.
We live together in the same world and can not share an understanding, yet. Maybe
there’s hope for the future, at least for birds. I’m an animal lover and have
compassion and sympathy and sometimes empathy for animals, including humans. I
hate to eat hamburgers but sometimes do because I’m a greedy, gluttonous,
spiritually loathsome fuck. I would rather eat humans but it’s illegal. I would gladly
substitute the meat from deceased humans who died naturally for the meat from
murdered bovines. God made us do it therefore God is evil. Just kidding. God is
merely psychotic. There. I’ve said it. Now I’ve probably lost some friends. Darn.
My quasi-logic is a little convoluted. My beliefs are delusions and I see the world as
never ending conflict. My attitudes need adjusting. Maybe my karma is rotten
because it’s so difficult to overcome my pessimism. Maybe it’s the sign of the times
but throughout history it’s always been the sign of the times so nothing seems to
change. I need to change internally. I could use another enlightenment or two. It’s
cyclical. Now I see it, now I don’t (because I drift away from it). What’s IT?
Reality. Seeing through one’s self. Giving up choosing, making distinctions.
***
T-M - “Feelings are the body’s reaction to memories”: I’m intrigued. Could you
expand on that? I assume by “feelings” you include physical, psychological,
emotional, spiritual sensations–in which case, aren’t feelings the body’s reaction to
everything? Or do you reject the terms “physical” etc. because they are illusionary
given our no-thingness? And what is causing, or generating, this conversation if all is
illusion? How do you define nothing (or no-thing) such that some-thing (e.g., this
blog) comes out of it?
R - Yes, feelings are the body’s reaction to everything and everything is memories.
Does a tree falling in the forest make any noise if no one is there to hear it? The
answer for us, egos, is no. Nothing exists, no one exists outside of our perceptions
and then our memories. Before you finish reading this sentence your memory is
being used first to remember the words and then to remember the meanings of the
words, even the little scratchy black markings on the white background which are the
symbols for the letters which make up the words which make up the concepts that
are built up upon each other over the years, each year leading to more advanced and
refined concepts; all this is your memory in action. If you minutely examine or
analyze your thoughts by tracing their structures backwards until you get to the
chicken scratch that we call letters you’ll see that you can’t understand anything
without using your power of memory. Without it you can understand nothing (in one
way this might be good because knowing nothing, no-thing, is a form of
enlightenment if understood well). You can not understand anything or feel anything.
What could you feel if you looked at (perceived) something, an event, a piquant
moment in a relationship, a slap in the face if you couldn’t remember what it was that
you were SUPPOSED TO feel, were trained to feel by all your life’s programming
and experiences and other feelings? You wouldn’t feel anything. You would have no
reaction. You would have no ego. No sense of self. No identity. You might be a
naturally happy person or sad but you wouldn’t know it without remembering what it
was to be so.
I don’t reject anything because it’s illusory because I can’t reject almost everything
and leave myself with nothing (unless it’s no-thing, meditation, the absence of myself,
my ego, my individuality, etc...). To be alive is to live in illusions of all kinds. If
you’re lucky you can identify many of them and take them into account when you
make decisions. Of course since we can’t really identify all of our illusions, when we
make decisions they are always based on some degree of misconception. That’s why
we ALWAYS end up with less-than-perfect resolutions.
What is generating this conversation is our egos, our selves, our learnings and
desires, our identities and all the things we believe, which are mostly make-believe,
through the mediums of our bodies’ minds (nervous systems) and larynxes and vocal
cords. Throw in some spirit (energy). Some people would also throw in something
they call soul. These elements are what we call ‘us.’ Are they imaginary or genuine?
They’re imaginary because they’re constantly in flux down to the micro micro second,
even into the levels that physicists are now calling the quantum field where quanta,
little packets of pure energy, are said to be popping into and out of existence at the
smallest scales. If everything is changing then nothing is fixed (real, by definition).
Some people may think that God is ever stable and unchanging but humans’ concepts
of God are constantly changing, too, just over longer time periods than our lifetimes.
What people have done is re-define the imaginary and our worlds of illusions as real,
a kind of revisionist worldly attitude which says that things that are not, are.
Religions use these types of psychological revisionism all the time to re-define what
they want people to believe, die for and more important, to give them their money
for. You have to admire the super-acute psychology at work. It’s immaculately
conceived!
T-M - “How do you define nothing (or no-thing) such that some-thing (e.g., this
blog) comes out of it?”
R - This blog is an illusion, a toy, a mental exercise or even entertainment for the
mind. The ending of the book, “Portrait.....” reveals this when Gableplunk says “My
mind is my best toy.”
T-M - “It’s semantically impossible to consider whether or not illusions are real. By
definition, they are not–so you need another descriptor for what it is you’re
questioning. We need a set of assumptions, an anchor, in order to communicate
(always). I would propose that Webster’s dictionary and the “fact” that “two plus
two equals four” (so far, or as far as we know) are part of that anchor.”
Semantics - of or relating to meaning in language.
R - Why? Oh, I see. One ought not use a word itself in its definition when defining
a word or a concept itself when defining a concept. So if the meaning of ‘illusion’ is a
mistaken idea or misconception or a misleading visual image and the meaning of
‘real’ is: not imaginary, or relating to fixed or immovable things or not artificial:
genuine, we can’t use the definitions of the two separate words to relate to or reflect
on each other and say illusions are not real because..... why? Semantics: of or
relating to meaning in language. Is this some kind of rule in logic? It seems to me
that semantics is all we have short of Faith. Without semantics we have nothing, no
civilization. Semantics is what eventually took humans to the moon. Semantics seem
to be at once a burden and a glory. The tools of our minds are semantics. What
good is a tool if we use it to negate its use? Or are you pointing out that language
and meaning are illusions? I wouldn’t disagree with that but I’d still have to use the
illusions of language to communicate otherwise stay silent and we wouldn’t have a
conversation. We wouldn’t be able to use our ‘toys.’ Sages and gurus recommend
silence and that’s why they live in the forest with little contact with other human
beings. We could do that, too, and be right on the money but I’ve always been
favorably impressed with enlightened beings who choose to leave their enlightened
states to communicate with other people. There was this book, “The Razor’s Edge,”
by Sommerset Maughm whose main character more or less did that. Buddha too.
Two plus two don’t always equal four and most other sets of assumptions turn out to
be other than what they claim. I had a mathematics Professor in college who showed
us a little amusement that mathematicians found funny: he proved to the class that
two plus two equaled five. He did it by substituting one type of mathematics for
another and used yet again some other switch, all perfectly acceptable within the
‘rules’ of higher mathematics (obviously I don’t remember the details). This made a
big impression on me at the time. It showed me that ANY system of thought,
ESPECIALLY one thought to be utterly true, could be shaped any way that there
was prevailing agreement or good senses of humor. Of course there are also
advertising people who can twist statistics until your head flies off. For me this
became my first insight into Philosophy and it later proved to be entirely correct as I
discovered philosophy after philosophy that had at its root wild or ridiculous
assumptions. So there are no anchors except illusions. Peoples’ needs for anchors
are one of the motivations behind their choosing lives filled with illusions and
delusions. In this sense semantics are illusions, too, but we need to use them in
order to refrain from being isolated and to express our humanity in ways that lie
beneath (or above) our illusions: the basics, like our needs for shelter, food,
communication and closeness with other people.
T-M - “I don’t understand how you come to the conclusion that our minds are
nothing but memories. Doesn’t that mean that there is only one memory, since our
“minds” (we’re getting into semantic difficulties again) are incapable of generating
new-ness? And from where did that one memory come? There have been changes on
the earth and to its inhabitants over the millennia that cannot be attributed to
atmospheric phenomena (whether or not you want to call them “progress”); from
where did they come? And if Albert Einstein is a hero of yours....why?”
R - I don’t remember if I said exactly that our minds are NOTHING BUT memories.
Let’s see if I can defend that. What the heck DID I say? Let me go back.
I said, “I think that ONE idea of what or who we think we are is that our
individuality, personality and identity is composed of memories. You can verify this
for yourself with some in-depth thinking. Memories are notoriously inaccurate,
incomplete and even non-existent for experiences we know we've had. Our memories
are illusions. Who we are is illusion(s). If this is all we are then we don't really exist.
If we are also spirit or soul as many people like to believe, we know of these other
states or elements of our beings only through our memories of what we've been told
or, if we're a practiced spiritual person, through our intuitive sensations.”
So, I’m not concluding that our minds are nothing but memories, I’m saying that we
perceive our own identities through the medium of our memories. And since
memories are incomplete and inaccurate, illusions or mistaken ideas or
misconceptions, our perceptions of our identities are unreal, illusions.
This consideration of memory as a cause of our illusions is ONE of many. There are
others from many other disciplines. Can you think of any that you’ve come across
(lack of newness)? Or do you have a ‘lightbulb effect’ going on in your mind right
now which is part of a sudden and seemingly new thought occurring?
I like your idea that we are incapable of newness. I think that’s true. Most of the
ideas that all of us talk about in the present are repeats of ideas from the past with
minor twists due to changing times and technology. Artists are ‘creative’ but they
don’t actually create anything that’s new. They just refine, juxtapose and re-scramble
old ideas. I think that it would take a leap in evolution, if you believe in evolution -
conclusions are still out on that - for really new ideas to come about because then we
would be a new species. Until then this is why history repeats because we are mostly
incapable of newness. Yes there have been changes to the earth physically and this
has caused some inhabitants to change or adapt to those changes and this has
brought about new ideas along the way so perhaps we could refine this idea of lack of
capability for newness to: people have newness imposed on them by external forces
and it’s during these times that new ideas may form. So people are reactionary and
not really creative. I think that biologists might support this.
Albert Einstein is a hero of mine because he did things that I couldn’t do. If you can
do things that I can’t do you will be a hero of mine, too. I see heroic characteristics
in many people at times. I often find things to admire in lots of people even at the
same time that I may detest them as individuals. Albert Einstein was an awful father,
abandoning his only daughter in early childhood to adoption. She was never heard
from again. No one knows what happened to her. So on one hand he’s a hero to me
because of his great contributions and at the same time he’s detestable. I’m like that
to myself. I’m my own hero at times and at other times I detest myself. I think most
people are like that because we all have so many conflicting characteristics.
T-M - “You say we are “merely our nervous system.” (And you must mean only the
peripheral nervous system, because the central nervous system also includes the
brain.) I think you’re equating humans with lobsters (but perhaps giving the
crustaceans more intellectual credit). So, our PNS gives us expectations? And then
senses when our expectations go off kilter? (What makes them go off kilter?).”
R - No I mean the entirety of all our nervous systems including the brain which is a
highly dense grouping of nerves suspended in soft tissue which physically supports
the nerves and nourishes them. Lobsters? Funny! Yes. Not too far removed. I
think that WE have more intellectual credits although I’ll bet that there’s someone,
somewhere who would make the case for equality.
Illusions, delusions, schmillusions. It’s not illusions that screw up your life. It’s
expectations. Keep your expectations in perspective and life flows smoothly. Knock
them a little out of kilter and life can turn hellish.
Expectations: prospects of good or bad fortune. Prospect: outlook, a mental vision
of things to come, something that is awaited: possibility. A mental vision is an image
or imagination. A possibility is something that may or may not occur or, a guess, a
fantasy, make-believe. If it’s based on statistics then there is a probability that
something may or may not occur. Anticipation: to forsee or look forward to. Our
nervous systems give us patterned chemical-electrical signals similar to computer
signals which at the board level, the electrical level, are rapidly changing voltages.
The keyword is ‘patterned.’ These patterned nervous system signals which recur are
actually symbols in themselves. The patterns can be interpreted by other areas of the
nervous system which ‘see’ them or receive them. As you and I interpret speech our
nervous systems interpret these signal patterns. So our nervous systems are
continually generating symbols and interpreting them. Interpretation: to explain the
meaning of; to translate; to understand according to individual belief, judgement or
interest; to represent artistically. Whenever the process of interpretation takes place
whether it’s in our minds while we’re, say, conversing, or reading, or at the level of
our nervous systems, we’re making judgements and translations (conversions from
one thing or concept or signal to another) to come to understandings. We’re
creating approximations. Like memories these are sometimes vague, incomplete and
inaccurate, filled with misconceptions: illusions. This process is ‘off kilter’ to begin
with. Life is like living in a dream where everything is vague and inaccurate and
difficult (and artistic) to evaluate and interpret. How does our nervous system sense
that the process and its conclusions are off kilter? This I can’t answer for sure
because I’m not a biologist however I suspect that what goes on are comparisons,
between previously occurring patterns and the interpretations of those patterns with
patterns and their interpretations which are going on right now. The nervous system
registers the results of past patterns somewhere in memory (memory again), makes a
quantitative or qualitative comparison with a similar pattern/interpretation going on
now and ‘concludes’ (registers another signal somewhere) that the most recent
pattern/interpretation measures up to or fails to measure up to previous ones (this is
called comparing experiences) and generates another signal or group of signals which
register (judge) that there is a possibility (expectation) that such and such outcome
will be the same as or resemble a previous outcome during the same or similar (value
judgement) experience, sense input or thought/ feeling. We may feel a ‘mental
tingle, a sensation or a signal of some kind when this occurs which we further
interpret that we are examining this process, this possibility (expectation). This
alerts us to be aware of it and to place it in a good perspective with all the other past
and present signals and memories of signals that we’ve had and are having right now.
You can extrapolate this to the degree of complexity that you can perceive is the
extent of the sum of nerves and their possible combinations in your nervous system,
clearly not an entity that we can contain in our intellects. How do you comprehend
infinity unless you ARE infinity (reversed semantics?)?
If we’re off kilter to begin with then we’re never on kilter and there’s no such thing as
kilter considerations because we never have the equilibrium which we might call kilter
at all. So we live our lives as though in a dream and run rampant with illusions of all
types at all levels. We’re NOT who we think we are. And we’re NOT who we think
we’re not. So who are we? After years of careful considerations that’s up to you, the
individual, the knowledge seeker, the seeker of essence, to decide.
This is a very minutely analyzed physical approach but we’re talking about small
things like nerves. It can also be viewed metaphorically. Think of a few other things
in life that this kind of thinking can represent or be applied to.
T-M - “The mantra of my cultural heritage is “I disagree therefore I am.”
R - To what culture do you belong? Does this refer to rebelliousness or knowledge
seeking or scepticism or puzzlement or..... what? Personally I’m not seeking
disagreement although it happens..... I’m seeking understanding of why people work
like they do. What’s your path?
Sonny from Edmonton, Canada
A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word for one idea or thing is used in place of another to suggest a likeness between them. One dictionary gives as an example, ‘as in “the ship plows the sea”’. What a crappy example! What words in
this metaphor are the substitutes and what are the likenesses? Gotta be a better example than this.
Okay. Speaking about chess, Max says “Laugh, for now you're free. Play the game and surrender your freedom.” --- The metaphor here is the ‘game’, a metaphor for life which Gableplunk can use to learn that he must become more involved with life, give
up his freedom which he so cherishes for the structures imposed when being involved.
And “but I also detect a certain unwillingness to be original. You must respond to me. You can't play in your own little world. In chess there are no automatic moves.” --- Here the metaphor is ‘chess,’ again for life, which is infinitely creative and demands that people be equally creative to avoid, perhaps, the drudgery and boredom that come with cruising on automatic and being repetitive. Life demands that people not be isolated and that they be responsive to its needs for creativity.
And “Added development's always beneficial. It compresses your opponent and offers you greater freedom to seize positional advantage; however, remember that development must be harmonious.” --- The metaphor here is ‘development,’ for the psychological and spiritual development of character that Gableplunk needs to learn. Metaphorically Max recommends additional character development for Gableplunk because it offers advantages in life. Max is a warrior type and he sees advantage in the form of winning against an opponent. Further on in the book Gableplunk will see other kinds of advantages for his own development. Max astutely advises that development must be harmonious, perhaps with a sense of perspective of all the forces that go into the development of a person’s character.
And “Don't confuse the machine with art," Max answered. "It's exactly these fine tolerances, this delicate precision that creates strength and beauty of line. At its best in a moment of perfect clarity it becomes mystical, perhaps for a few moments, divine.” --- The metaphor, which is in this case a thought, two sentences, expresses that chess, having the characteristics of both machines and art, is like the mystical sensation of feeling at one with the divine.
And Gableplunk said, “How can beauty exist on half the board? It isn't beautiful to see another crumble."
..."This is the ever-present bloom and decay of life," Max said. "We must accept it. In the wake of beauty lies degeneration and death. When Black is strengthened, White's weakened. If this weakness isn't repaired, the forces of despair enter under the name of your opponent's beauty and creation. Our sight often depends on which side we're on, yet if we can see and accept both we find the ultimate beauty there."
..."Death?" Gableplunk asked.
..."Life!" Max roared. "To live is everything! To accept mediocrity is ..... mediocre!"
..."Max! Come back to the world! We're playing chess, not at being gods!"
..."Yes! It's true! but don't let the woodenness of the pieces fool you! They're the gods and they watch us as we mistakenly manipulate them. They laugh at our inept fumbling!” --- More metaphors for our feelings and thoughts about life: strength,
beauty, creativity, destruction, sight, meaning understanding, and, again, the divine.
And “Gableplunk continued, "Chess is a balancing of forces."
..."You won't win or determine the course of events by meekly balancing forces."
..."Winning and losing come by themselves," Gableplunk said.
..."So I've heard, but if winning is illusion, so, too, is losing, and since we've choice- or would you disagree?- we must choose winning!"
..."Winning and losing are momentary; the middle way, the way of meditation, of choiceless awareness, is a way of life!"
..."Ah! It's true; however, you fail to see we all have our values!”
--- These are philosophic and spiritual metaphors which address choice, aggression, illusion, spirituality and the awareness of the value and worthiness of different viewpoints.
These metaphors are far more clear to me than the example given in the dictionary. Good stuff this tension between Max and Gableplunk. Very thoughtful and educational.
Post a Comment
<< Home