Life In 19x19

I have a quote of the day thingy, and this is from today:

A chess genius is a human being who focuses vast, little-understood mental gifts and labors on an ultimately trivial human enterprise.
- George Steiner

I think we can sub in "go" in that quote . Of course, I'm not conceding that either chess or go is trivial--at least not in every sense of the word.

EDIT: fixed embarrassing typo ("god")

That's pretty conceited. It assumes that there are some human enterprises that are not trivial.

mw42 wrote:That's pretty conceited. It assumes that there are some human enterprises that are not trivial.

You don't think there are?

I like Kawabata's quotation of Sanjugo Naoki: "If one chooses to look upon Go as valueless, then absolutely valueless it is; and if one chooses to look upon it as a thing of value, then a thing of absolute value it is."

hoshizora wrote:I like Kawabata's quotation of Sanjuugo Naoki: "If one chooses to look upon Go as valueless, then absolutely valueless it is; and if one chooses to look upon it as a thing of value, then a thing of absolute value it is."

That's a nice quote -- is there a reference (e.g. book name, etc.) ?

Let's just assume that he meant trivial as in trivium. Learning grammar, logic, and rhetoric isn't useful in the way that learning to navigate a ship and survey farmland is useful - that is, none of the three are part of a vocational-technical education. But they're still some of the most fascinating activities that human beings engage in.

EdLee wrote:

hoshizora wrote:I like Kawabata's quotation of Sanjugo Naoki: "If one chooses to look upon Go as valueless, then absolutely valueless it is; and if one chooses to look upon it as a thing of value, then a thing of absolute value it is."

That's a nice quote -- is there a reference (e.g. book name, etc.) ?

It's in Kawabata's "Meijin" (Master of Go) - when I read those lines I had to write them down. Because it's a fictionalisation of real events I don't know weather Naoki actually said/wrote it though...

It's Chapter 26 of Master of Go.

Naoki Sanjugo was an interesting chap. Although famous as a novelist he was a go nut, and so has his place in the story. He began a habit of using his age as his name and changing his name every year. He started with 31. At the time of the Shusai-Karigane game in 1926, which he covered, he was still not well established and was calling himself 35 (Sanjugo). By 1927 he was established and he then stuck with that. I’m tempted to speculate that he may have done this because coverage of this game gave him name recognition he didn’t want to lose.

Despite his odd naming habit, he's most famous in the go world for daring to criticise Kitani for playing with a style of brute force.

John Fairbairn wrote:... He began a habit of using his age as his name and changing his name every year. He started with 31. At the time of the Shusai-Karigane game in 1926, which he covered, he was still not well established and was calling himself 35 (Sanjugo)...

Is this a picture of him?

Don't forget the word "ultimately" Since, ultimately, the sun will vaporize the Earth, you might say that Go (as well as almost any other human activity) is ultimately trivial. The most common meaning of trivial, of course, is "of no importance". So it really depends on what is considered important. Go and chess are not useless. Both have proved fruitful testing grounds for artificial intelligence programming and for understanding how the human brain works. And don't forget the artistic aspect. I think we all appreciate the beauty of a well-played game. But whether any of that is not trivial is, I suppose, a philosophical question which, as such, has no definitive answer.

hoshizora wrote:It's in Kawabata's "Meijin" (Master of Go)

John Fairbairn wrote:It's Chapter 26 of Master of Go.

Thank you. It's been 9 years since I read it; time to revisit.

From the evolutionary perspective, the ultimate purpose of most behaviors of non-human animals is survival and reproduction. Certainly human intelligence and consciousness, as a mechanism of controlling behavior, evolved for the same purpose. I think what George Steiner means by "trivial" is that being good at chess does not affect your or anybody else's chances of survival or reproduction - at least, that's the only way I can make sense of that quote. I wonder if he thinks music and the arts are trivial enterprises.

palapiku wrote: the only way I can make sense of that quote

We need to get you imagination exercises.

palapiku wrote: I wonder if he thinks music and the arts are trivial enterprises.

I doubt it, unless this is a different George Steiner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Steiner.

Critics, particularly of a chosen field, tend to view their field as the 'highest art' and look down upon other fields.

For instance, Roger Ebert famously said...

Roger Ebert wrote:I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

Painting with a broad brush, he indicts video gaming of being an empty venture. So too will there be ever those who point to go, swordsmanship, and even literary and artistic ventures as being empty and ultimately 'trivial'.

The truth of the matter is that value is what you make of it. Go is a study of patterns, logic, and game theory. These things can be applied outside of Go, as much as swordsmanship is a study of movement, reaction, and planning, and can be applied outside the movements you make with a sword.

I would argue that any venture which does not actively put food on your table is only of the worth that you assign it.

If tomorrow, leaping out of airplanes became the most important thing in the world to me, then I would likely defend the art of parachuting as vehemently as I defend go and video gaming, and swinging a stick and pretending it's a sword.

But is there a value for these things beyond what I assign? They do not contribute to my being fed, nor my financial stability (in fact, my financial stability is often threatened by my hobbies), but I find they have a mental value, that nothing else can replace, an emotional centering, and an emotional release.

Thus, I'll keep doing what I enjoy, and ignore quotes like Mr. Steiner's and Mr. Ebert's, who have been fortunate enough to incorporate ultimately trivial pursuits into the pursuit of getting food.

CSamurai wrote:I would argue that any venture which does not actively put food on your table is only of the worth that you assign it.

What makes food (or your table for that matter) an exception?