Halacha and Chess

‘Halacha’ is ‘the way’ of Judaism, based on millenia old oral tradition, translated into many forms:  stories, law, traditions, values, arguments, responsa, and a general ‘language game’ or ‘way of life’

More narrowly conceived, it refers to ‘piskei halacha’ – the end of halacha – or its practical ramifications as expressed in various law codes such as Mishneh Torah, Shulchan Aruch and Mishna Berura.  It is the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ of a life that attempts to be lived in the presence of G-d.  It is the rules ones abides by when trying to be part of the game.

Some people – left and right religiously – often talk about a halachic framework: 

Those on the right often use it to forbid. Flexibility is only allowed within ‘the framework’ of halacha.  There is  a sausage machine out of which comes ‘the rules’ [as they currently are] and such a framework will produce rules that are good to follow. Codification is not an output of history, question and response, debate or a way of living; but its input.  It is not just the rules that are prescriptive (with the codification describing those prescriptions as they stand) but the codification is itself prescriptive.

Those on the left believe there are values which ones seeks to achieve, but as one is a religious Jew, one [is limited to?][aided by?] doing it within the framework. There are no fixed boundaries and no sausage machine.  Rather as a ‘framework’; it provide a general way a Jew does things. Rather than forbidding, one navigates the form and technicalities of the game to do something new.

I find this way of talking about things odd though – talking about the game from the outside-in.  It is as if I was a ‘right wing’ chess player I were to unprompted say:

• “I am going to moving my bishop and I am doing so within the framework of the game of chess”  [Well, duh, we are in the middle of a chess game, so “I am moving the bishop” will suffice were it be necessary to comment at all]
• “By applying the rules in the rulebook to the pieces on the board, I should move my bishop diagonally – that is a good move.” [No doubt I am following the rules of chess, but that doesn’t require any view of its necessity or extrinsic goodness of the move considered outside of what I am trying to achieve in so moving]

Or, if I were a ‘left-wing’ chess player:

• “Check-mating the opponent is a good thing to do but because I’m bought into the rules of chess, I’m limited to achieving that through traditional chess moves, such as the diagonal bishop-move” [Do you think the end-state of chess is completely stateable outside the rules of chess, which are just aids or impediments to that goal?  I’d probably think you weren’t actually that interested in chess itself] 
•  “The framework of chess has had different rules for bishops that have changed over time – so I’m going to play a move codified in 13th century Italy” [Quite possibly that is within the framework of chess, but you if you moved your piece in that way, you may find yourself playing a different game to your opponent]

It is not that either is wrong – just weird.

From the outside one might want to write a philosophy of chess, a love poem to chess, a history of chess, a political analysis of chess within authoritarian regimes.  A meta-chess analysis if you will.  All useful endeavours.

However, if someone challenges you to a game of chess, you may not want to play a game within the framework of chess, you may just want to play chess.

Theodicy and the ‘Above Average Effect’

I have had occasion to think on the ‘problem of evil’ recently as there have been circumstances that are genuinely distressing for me and my family – albeit on a personal rather than global level.

I have thought about protesting in serious complaint (and have done so mildly) about ‘why bad things happen to good people’. 

On reflection though, my overriding thought when people talk about bad things happening to good people: the goodness of the people is rather overstated in this equation.  Yes, the bad things are bad, and the people are not people one ought judge as bad.  But – speaking for myself – my righteousness is rather limited.

One of the classic things you learn at the beginning of a psychology degree is around the ‘Above Average Effect’ (or Illusory Superiority).  If peoples’ self assessments were to be believed on things they or others value, most people would be ‘above average’.
For example, as this article explains

Since psychological studies first began, people have given themselves top marks for most positive traits. While most people do well at assessing others, they are wildly positive about their own abilities…

In studies, most people overestimate their IQ. For instance, in a classic 1977 study, 94 percent of professors rated themselves above average relative to their peers. …

Drivers consistently rate themselves as better than average — even when a test of their hazard perception reveals them to be below par

This is no less true in the moral world.  Forget the fact that on the theological plane: who could meet up the infinite demands of an infinite being?  On a bog standard ethical plane – charity, for instance – we are just not as good as we think ourselves to be.

Bad things are bad – and the problem is a real one - but the problem would be better stated as “Why do bad things happen to average people?”

Credo 6

It is absolutely imperative to acknowledge one's ignorance: both what one does not know and one cannot know

The ill effects of Brexit… and why it should happen

The pound has tanked since the Brexit vote, which is irksome for those looking to go on foreign holidays, but overall people haven’t felt too many ill effects.  The FTSE (mainly on the back of listed foreign companies benefitting from the fall in the pound) has gone up.

That said, it is a little irksome – my word of the day – when pro-Brexit politicians and newspapers point to this to show that ‘Project Fear’ was misguided, and that Brexit wasn’t as bad as people feared.  The key point, however, is that: Brexit hasn’t happened yet. 

All that has happened is a vote on Brexit – and everyone (including the Market) realises that there is no point panicking yet for something that is so far away in the future.  However, the view that overall Brexit will be bad for the economy is as strong as ever.

I am no fan of European institution, but I voted to Remain, and if I had the chance to do so again, would vote in the same way.

That said the Democratic will of the people decided otherwise.  The manoeuvres of Labour politicians, and various pressure and lobby groups (and ex-prime ministers) is very disturbing – or at least irksome.  Democracy isn’t democracy if those at the top can just overturn a vote if they don’t like the outcome.

Equally, the view that we were ‘lied’ to – or that new information has come to light -is irrelevant.  It was clear at the time that the claims were lies – and it was pointed out by the Remain campaign.  There isn’t really any new information that people were not being told.

Of course, democracy requires an element of trust in the electorate, and their collective rationality or sense.  It means you buy into the fact that a few people cannot – in a paternalistic fashion – know ‘what is best’ for people – against their explicitly stated point of view.  Sometimes that trust isn’t founded or rewarded.

However, in the long run, playing fast and loose with democracy will be more than irksome.

Credo 5

There is no 'real me' or 'true self'.  The statements may have rhetorical force and metaphorical uses, but do not denote a true state of affairs

Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Indifferences and Ambivalences: Nuclear Weapons

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  … It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong… See full intro here

This one - Nuclear Weapons - was a toss up between a like and an ambivalence - which I suppose must, therefore, make it an ambivalence.

Let's start with a clear thing that I agree with:  There is absolutely no situation in which I would press the nuclear button.  None. Whatsoever.  Causing the loss of so many lives, taking the innocent along with the guilty, is unthinkable.

Let us also all be absolutely scared of the prospect of Donald Trump having his finger on that button!  Not to mention, Iran! Or, North Korea! It would be much

This brings me on to one of the reasons for ambivalence. One of Jeremy Corbyn's main focus areas in this regard is not Iran or North Korea.  As part of the campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the Middle East, his main target is, of course, Israel.  The fact that his main interest lies with Britain and Israel - countries who are least likely to use it.

This in turn leads to another ambivalence.  While people that might actually use it, have it:  the illusion that a Western Power might use I on them, acts as a deterrent.  However, Jeremy Corbyn is (and I am) much to honest to foster such an illusion - because an illusion is all it is.  Even in the event of an evil attack by such a country, there would be zero benefit in retaliating with nuclear weapons.

What is more, it is an extremely expensive illusion which could be spend on better things.  It would be much better if the illusion could be the whole hog - we pretend to have the weapon, which we pretend to spend a ludicrous amount of money, which we pretend we might actually use - but which doesn't in fact exist.

Credo 4

Taken as a whole some religions are better than others and some lifestyles are better than others (more moral, more truthful, more consistent, more achievable)

Taken individually some beliefs are true and some are false; some actions are right and others can be wrong.

The Time to do Good, and its Limit

One thing that I have already started with my son - and he is only two - is to ask him each day:

• How have you helped someone today?
• What did you learn?

This relates to the view I have had that beyond all specific beliefs, one should have two main drives: to learn more, and to do more good.

This served me well when I was, for example, at university and had the free time to focus on this.

Considering this now as an adult, with a wife and child, there is also the case of how I balance 'doing good' and 'learning' with other responsibilities that would take me away from such things, and take precious valuable time.

Let's say I was successful - even in the slightest - on my above two stated aims, but did that to the neglect of doing any ironing or household chores.  I may be a 'saint' or 'sage' in one respect, but also a bad (or at least selfish) person.  That said: if I was completely bogged down in paid work, chores and a modicum of leisure time; I would not be able to raise my life above the mundane.

Yes, I need to learn and do good.  And, whether I achieve it or not, I know its rough contours.  The more pressing concern is life's balance.  Not just work-life balance, but work-life-meaning-duty balance.  And above that, the overarching concept in our lives: time.

Credo 3

There are a plurality values - all worth pursuing - but also can lead to contradictory conclusions in a real life situation. 

[Corollary: Doing 'good' isn't {just} about 'doing the right thing' but about the judgement, weighing and prioritising values in that particular situation]

Back in the Dark Ages

For about a week so far, our broadband from BT has been intermittent at best... often going many hours without working. 

Add this to the fact that the internet is our only access to television currently. This is, at lease in part, a conscious decision - so that we only watch the things that we actually want to, rather than aimlessly flicking through channels and complaining that "there is nothing on".  This has, in the large, been positive: saving lots of time and making us a bit more productive.

Add this to the fact that it is a Sunday - with the inevitable "Sunday feeling"

All of this should equal a great positive.  The ability to read the things that I don't normally have the chance to read; actually speak to my wife about meaningful things; have the opportunity to reflect on my achievements and weaknesses ahead of Yom Kippur.

What it actually equals though is boredom, lethargy, aimlessness; and a great wonder about how people survived before internet.  I pray, this year, for a bit more drive

Credo 2

Giving 'charity' is an obligation and should be regular; not just something to be done when the fancy takes you

Credo 1

People should not be shielded (especially at university) from views they disagree with or find uncomfortable.

[Corollary: Banning and No-Platforming speakers, and 'safe spaces', should be rare, at most]

The Real Me

Be yourself; that’s what everyone says
Don’t play a role; don’t try to impress
Be yourself; let your emotions show
The real you is beautiful

Well, if anyone knows who the real me is,
Don’t keep it to yourself; share it please
There is no man in my head that is trying to get out
There is no one single thing that I’m all about

There is no unified me across situations or time
Not reducible to material matter, or substance sublime
There are ideals, which at certain times, I strive
But why should this ideal be rei-ified?

Is what I am, how I act?
Does it matter if I’m quiet or loud and brash
When I’m childish or wise beyond my years
When I’m happy and smiling or close to tears

Is one more me than the other?
Is one genuine and one a cover?

Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Indifferences and Ambivalences: Asceticism

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  … It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong… See full intro here

One dislike is Jeremy Corbyn’s asceticism, and coming with that as a bedfellow is obsession . 

See Jeremy Corbyn Story on BBC Website.

a man who is known for his austere, almost ascetic, approach to life...

He reportedly split up with his second wife Claudia after she insisted on sending their son Ben ...to Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, in Barnet, instead of an Islington comprehensive....

Chapman says she married Corbyn for his "honesty" and "principles" but she soon grew weary of his intense focus on politics.

"Politics became our life. He was out most evenings because when we weren't at meetings he would go to the Labour headquarters, and do photocopying

But fun was in short supply at home, recalls Chapman, who remains in touch with Corbyn and backed his leadership bid.

During their five years together he never once took her dinner, she told The Mail, preferring instead to "grab a can of beans and eat it straight from the can" to save time.

I have not great love for material or expensive things.  I don't like to splash the cash.  I feel very bad claiming even legitimate expenses at work (taxis etc).  I don't have a great drive or ambition to climb the greasy pole.

Yet, extreme asceticism will often signify an imbalance, or of being psychologically unhealthy: 

• Following one extreme - even if that extreme is one that results in staying away from bad or unnecessary things - can lead to the negation of good things that could be concentrated on (e.g. ascetics bean eating at the expense of attention to your family). 
• It can lead to a lack of compromise -  compromise that leads to a negation of one's saintliness and yet necessary for getting on in the world (cf. breaking up with your wife about your childs' school)
• It will often come from a place of obsession (cf. out every night at Labour Headquarters) 
• At the very least, it leads to a certain element of being unrelatable.  Asceticism is, at its core, a manifestation of not being like everyone else, not being quite of the world.  Can one who is an ascetic empathise with the priorities and concerns of everyone else, and vice versa? (cf. Corbyn's favourite biscuit)

As I say, asceticism isn't wrong in it itself, but can be both symptomatic of, and a precursor to, obsession.  To repeat, I think obsession is wrong even if that obsession is about a good thing. 

For an observant Jew, studying Torah is one of the highest ideals and one that one should dedicate a good proportion of time to.  Once, however, a rabbi I very much respect told of someone who never got a haircut because he didn't want to lose any opportunity to study.  I said it was obsessive and he said: "But is that a bad thing if what he is obsessive about is Torah?" Well, yes, yes it is. 

Equally charity (cf. Peter Singer).  Giving away too much money if it leave you yourself poor, or if you devote more to other people than your own family, it is a bad thing.

Asceticism and Obsession are characteristic of extremists (e.g. religious extremists).  The following of one ideal, one purpose, one goal, one value (at the expense of all others) will at least lead you to having very strange bedfellows; and justifying things which in any other situation one would reject so long as it furthers your goal.  There is a certain level of judgement and sense that is gained from diversity (of people, experience, interests, obstacles) that is absent from people that focus on just 'important' things whilst being generally switched off.

Of course, the above are all the lifestyle choices of somebody which I have no right to criticise on their own terms.  No-one should eat fancy dinners on my say so.  Yet, these items come into play if they start to effect other people - as in the case of politics.

Just as I have no interest in Israeli ultra-orthodox, chareidi, religious judgements from people that know a lot of religious source material but not about peoples' actual religious practice; politicians who do not share the moral sense, or priorities, of the country is not someone I want as a leader.

Rambam/Maimonides contrasts the saint (chassid) and the wise man (chacham).  The saint stays away from evil influences; and if the evil is one extreme they will go to the other extreme to avoid the merest hint of them.  The wise man on the other hand always takes the middle path: He chooses not to do that which is detrimental but does so from a normal context, in amongst the real world.  It might occasionally be necessary to be a saint, but for him, the wise man is far superior. 

Dislocated

Dislocated, disjointed, an act of teruf
Thrown in a pit, below eye level, handled rough
Cut off from my forbears, disconnected narrative
Willful forgetting, past events not substantive

Solipsistic universe, me myself and I
Eternal chasm between world and mind
Acts of conquest, physical, intellectual
Reach no-mans’ land, turn back now

Man with many homes, at home in none
Amongst the holy, the holy shunned
Constant diaspora, age of anxiety
Full of petrol but running on empty

Physical-spiritual, dichotomy manufactured
A personal unity, holistic nature fractured
From communal striving to personal war
All are, forever, Tinok Shenishba