<SBC> I think a cautious skepticism to many things is actually quite good. Not to much in life is certain, and it's always good to have a high standard of authenticity in one's beliefs.

I was deeply saddened by the news of Iris Chang's death. She was such a crusader and heroine to so many. Her work forced her to confront such a dark side of human nature that I have to wonder if it didn't take a toll on her. The world is a better place for Iris Chang having lived. My heart goes out to her family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_C...

I've long pondered what I consider to be the two most "evil" qualities a human being can possess: cruelty (enjoyment of the sufferings of others) and callousness (indifference to the sufferings of others). I have noted that two of the most exalted human emotions stand opposite to these. I have given them the names "the passion of compassion" (which is the opposite of cruelty), and "the dispassion of compassion" (which is the opposite of callousness).

Perhaps I am naive, but what keeps me going in the face of the almost unimaginable sufferings of this world is the hope that one day Wisdom and Compassion will triumph over cruelty, callousness, and ignorance. Is it certain that this will happen? I don't know. But I am committed to do whatever is in my power to promote that triumph. And whether this triumph will ever occur globally and permanently, I know I can exert an influence to see that it occurs right here, right now.

My feeling is that the best way to honor those who have suffered unkindness and injustice in the past is to do our best to oppose unkindness and injustice in the present and future. If there is a way to bring peace to those who have died in any of history's holocausts, I have to think this is the way to do it.

<what keeps me going in the face of the almost unimaginable sufferings of this world is the hope that one day Wisdom and Compassion will triumph over cruelty, callousness, and ignorance. Is it certain that this will happen?>

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...

The problem is, when repeated under standard laboratory conditions, these experiments (of questionable design to start with) have never been replicable, one of the standard tests of a scientific conclusion.

You may be thinking of other tests, but I'd say there's a good chance these are the "experiments" you've got in mind.

Again, we do wish to distinguish *sentience* from the ability to feel pain. Mere sentience *does*, in my view, confer a certain moral standing on the sentient one, but it must be balanced along with the "bigger picture".

One theory as to why plants never evolved the ability to feel pain is that pain is often a "flight trigger", and plants simply can't run away. (Did *you* just think of Monty Python's battle-cry, "Run away, run away!!") For us mobile living creatures, however, pain serves a distinct purpose (however unpleasant it may be).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...

More on Sisyphus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

(I was amused by one of the reviews of "The Myth of Sisyphus" at Amazon.com: "It is to my great misfortune that, as I am only twelve, I lack the ability to really appreciate the sheer beauty with which Camus writes. While intellectually stimulating, the true joy to be found in this work lies in Camus' prose. Unlike most philosopher/novelists, Camus' writing is not muddied and heavy, but rather it is light and clear and conducts the reader over the page rather than dragging him. Camus' style is an expression of his thought and his philosophy: it is pure and exuberant and wonderful. He proposes a life worth living despite all, and because of the precision, clarity, and beauty of his prose we can see this for the truly wonderful and simple thing it is...."

Ah, the tragedy of being twelve... )

<as I am only twelve>

That's almost scary.

<The Myth of Sisyphus> I'm familiar with the mythology as well as it's existential application, though I never read that book by Camus (I did read l'Etranger - in French class - but since my knowledge of French leaves a lot to be desired, so does my understanding of "The Stranger").

I find Bob Dylan easier to follow:

"and the only thing she knew how to do was to keep on keeping on..." (Tangled up in Blue)

It strikes me I can't loose this. Either I get a (still) valid argument, or I will remove a old false fact from my memory.

Regarding ethics I would really like to take the discussion further (Backster or not) on how it should apply to the different groups of life (plants, animals, humans, etc.), but I will not. I am too terrified of the moderator on chessgames.com! :)

<as I am only twelve>

In my experience, Chessplayers as a group (with the possible exception of some professional players) tend to be people of very broad interests. I know of few groups of people who are better-read on so many topics, or who have thought as deeply about such a wide range of things as Chessplayers.

At Chessgames.com, we find people with this more expansive conception of what the message boards might be, as well as people who would prefer to hold very closely to the "Chess only" model. My feeling is that both groups have a legitimate point of view.

And I think we strike a pretty good balance of both on most of these boards.

Thanks for your thoughts, and welcome.

<What's wrong with you guys? This is a CHESS site>

oops!

It would be best to read the letter in its entirety at this link:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/morph...

But if you don't wish to, here's a portion of the purported letter:

"...We are all following with intense anxiety the fortunes of the tremendous conflict now raging beyond the Atlantic [the American Civil War], for upon the issue depends our all in life. Under such circumstances you will readily understand that I should feel little disposed to engage in the objectless strife of the chess board. Besides, you will remember that as far back as two years ago I stated to you in New York my firm determination to abandon chess altogether. I am more strongly confirmed than ever in the belief that the time devoted to chess is literally frittered away. It is, to be sure, a most exhilarating sport, but it is only a sport; and it is not to be wondered at that such as have been passionately addicted to the charming pastime should one day ask themselves whether sober reason does not advise its utter dereliction. I have, for my own part, resolved not to be moved from my purpose of not engaging in chess hereafter. The few games that I have played here have been altogether private and SANS FACON...."

I certainly appreciate Mr. Morphy's thoughts, if indeed they are correctly represented here. As someone who plays Chess nearly every day of my life (at the very least, against Fritz or Chessmaster while on my exercise bicycle, but often against human opponents as well), I have often asked myself if my time could be spent better in other ways. And I do think the time spent playing Chess is time well-spent for me (especially if I'm exercising while doing it!) But for Paul Morphy it may have been one of those things that just had to be put away altogether.

It's an interesting question, why Morphy left the game, and I suspect the mystery of the ultimate reason will persist.

This letter was a reply to Fiske who had transmitted to Morphy (who was in Paris) a request from the Vienna Chess Club for Morphy to visit them.

I think there is a misconception at play here. I can't see any other conclusion other than that Morphy's "firm determination to abandon chess altogether" didn't refer to chess itself but more specifically to competitive chess.

Why do I say that?
Because Morphy didn't give up chess and he didn't give up public chess - he only, in fact, gave up competitive chess.

I've seen it written so many places that Morphy gave up chess with the exception of that with de Maurian, at knight odds, until 1869 when he quit altogether. And this seems entirely wrong.

A letter to the Hartford Times of 1873 has Morphy beating "in two hours and three-quarters sixteen of the most accomplished players in New Orleans." and a letter to the Turf, Field and Farm of 1876: "He gives the odds of Knight to our strongest players, and is seldom beaten - perhaps never when he cares to win." Judge L.L. Labatt wrote how Morphy (this is sometime after 1868) would follow chess by reading the scores from the current crop of players, analyzing the games on the spot. Unfortunately, the only scores that exist from his later life are those against de Maurian whom he played up to 1879, I think, by de Maurian's own admission.

That's hardly someone who "abandonned" chess altogether.

<Actually, <SBC>, the cheese element is being developed in recent messages on the Alexandra Kosteniuk bulletin board! >

Wasn't that written by the same guy that wrote "Of Mice and Muenster"?

<SBC: ...I can't see any other conclusion other than that Morphy's "firm determination to abandon chess altogether" didn't refer to chess itself but more specifically to competitive chess....>

I had noticed the seeming contradiction you refer to, and I came to a similiar conclusion. Morphy's remark that, "I am more strongly confirmed than ever in the belief that the time devoted to chess is literally frittered away" might, under this conception, be a reference to the really substantial amount of time needed to play Chess against the strongest players.

Conversely, enjoying Chess as a "charming pastime" (though without passionate addiction!) would not necessarily fall under the same critique.

I think your interpretation is correct here, and I shall continue to "bicycle with Caissa" for my daily exercise routine!

<Wasn't that written by the same guy that wrote "Of Mice and Muenster"?>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCHQ

(It's been so long, though, that I camembert which message board I posted it on!)

However, firther research shows that the revisionistic wikipedia got it backwards.

Government Code and Cipher School was just the cover name while the Golf, Cheese, and Chess Society was the actual reason for Bletchley Park.