John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
Now, it so happened that this concept he needed a word for might be slightly different that what the japanese pros/literature think of as "aji". And so John, always the conservative in such things, has an issue with that. Probably rightly so.
I don't think that this quite captures the real point at issue, which is not really about aji (and even less about RJ and JF). The deeper point is methodology of teaching, and since a certain controversial method pervades RJ's books, I think that qualifies, pace daal, as a vaguely related random point.
We have had many discussions about the pros and cons of the so-called oriental way of teaching (which RJ rubbishes as mystification but which I respect) and the western way (which RJ espouses, and which I also respect but only with a healthy dose of scepticism).
One of the foundations of my belief is mathematician Alfred Korzybski's treatment of General Semantics which he called, I think, the Structural Differential. I am a DDK in this area and only know Korzybski's work a little because he is the only westerner I've come across who makes sense of things like Lao Zi's "The Dao that can be spoken is not the true Dao; the name that can be named is not the true name" (and likewise Confucius's Rectification Names and Zen in general).
We appear to have a few people currently on this forum who do know about philosophy and related matters, so I may be able to nudge them into putting me straight (in layman's terms, please!), but for me the key point is as follows.
The universe is all-ecompassing reality (and by extension the go board is all-encompassing reality as regards go).
When we experience reality we can only know a tiny fragment of the whole. Well, that's also true, I think, of how most of us feel about a go position.
We are already one remove from reality. But if we then give our experience a label (a name such as 'aji' or a symbol) to help us deal with it, we are moving yet another level from reality.
A major point made by Korbzybski is that if we then make a statement about our label, which is at level L, we are
not making it at the same level, but at level L+1. In other words, we are moving further away from reality each time with each level of abstraction. This means that if you use a label (level L), define it (L+1), expand it as a concept (L+2) and then try to do things like create a way of counting it (L+3), you are going a long, long way from a universe of which you had only a sliver of experience to start with. I believe Korzybski called this "insanity" and that he recommended that the ideal situation was when a teacher could point and stay silent (and the pupil understands and also stays silent, of course). Which is essentially the oriental way of teaching go, which may seem mystifying to some, but we know it works.
I believe RJ accepts it works; he just believes his way is faster and more widely applicable, but we await the proof of that. His books are the first step in his proof, I suppose. As I said, I respect that approach, but only with very quizzical eyebrows.
I honestly don't expect to be disabused but one pertinent question that I can't answer is whether it really matters if we move away from Reality with increasing levels of abstraction. Could it even be advantageous? I am a "conservative" in the sense that I am a sceptic. Being a sceptic, I simply believe it is better if the levels of abstraction are reduced. One way of reducing levels of abstraction is to accept fuzzy assessments and fuzzy definitions. Since I believe that humans are actually biologically designed to operate this way, I am a great fan of that approach, though I do also believe that fuzziness should not mean a random mish-mash - there should be a clear focus, or directionality, in the thought and only the edges should be fuzzy. (I believe that is supported by the theory of evolution.)
It is my view that the orientals have already achieved an acceptable level of fuzziness for aji and thickness and several other terms, and that we have to hesitate before we plunge into another level of abstraction.
Computer chess may seem to make the case for refining many abstraction levels down to numbers, but I have bought a lot of chess books recently related to this issue, and I have seen no cases of computer chess theory throwing up anything applicable to an average human's way of playing chess. In fact I'd regard ultra-deep tactics and endgame tables as essentially not applicable even to pro chess players.
So where chess leads, go will follow, with knobs on.
Very interesting, and certainly thought-provoking. I can't really claim to understand all that, except that it seems to me that if we drive the premise to its logical conclusion, then language should not even exist. Or maybe the answer to every question is "everything" (or maybe "32" or whatever the number in Hitchhiker was.) Or at least - definitions are bad, and the more strict they are the badder. If it makes sense.
Personally, I think that universe, Go - pretty much everything non-trivial - can be approached from various angles, each approach allowing the researcher to uncover certain specific, possibly distinct features of the whole. I am also a sceptic, in the sense that I do not believe any particular approach can claim to be generally superior, not unless there is some uncontroversial proof.
Ultimately, concepts which we use to try to understand and describe the universe are by definition more abstract that the universe itself. And, per definition, our brains are designed to deal with and handle such abstraction. I am with you in that I cannot really say if increasing the degree of that abstraction has positive or negative implications. I suspect its like a hammer - a tool, and as long as you use it wisely, larger degree of abstraction can be used to build tremendous things. If used badly, a hammer can lead to disaster.
But back to Go.
We have had people in Asia applying a certain approach to uncovering the secrets of Go for centuries. For that, they had felt it convenient to define certain terms and concepts - not really that much to further the research or knowledge per se, but I think to simply be able to easier communicate those concepts to each other. Many of these concepts are vague - not because they really needed to be vague, but possibly just the opposite - there was no need for them to be precise, vagueness was sufficient for the purpose they were used.
Then, one pretty summer day, along the line of time, one Robert Jasiek was born. Some more years passed, and he got interested in Go. Then even later he felt the need to define some of the terms more precisely, and maybe redefine some, or even come up with new terms. And he does it not just for the sake of conversation over the cup of sake, but to actually allow him to further his research and ideas. It so happens that some of the terms he uses clash slightly with how some of the terms were used historically. This might be unfortunate, or meaningless, I don't know. But in my eyes, those terms have different purpose, so while I am not sure if it is good or bad, I am inclined to let it slide. Again - the sceptic in me says - give him some leeway, and see what happens. He might hang himself. But then - he might come with something new, an angle which shows us features of the universe/Go which we have not seen before. If the price is some terms which were treated pretty vaguely to begin with, I'd say the price was worth it.
Bottom line - its his hammer, lets see if he uses it wisely.