Though the piece tries to make the most important implication of Go is an answer to nihilism, But I don't see that argument as unique to Go. It is basically that rules make parameters on the chaos of reality, giving us a framework for interaction. Without that framework we are left in a nihilistic situation:
When two people confront each other across a Go board, they could do virtually anything—throw the stones at each other, carve their initials in the board, etc. Why play Go? The broader question is, why do anything at all?To answer that we need to know what kind of beings we are: impermanent and interconnected. And the stones in Go serve the purpose of showing representing this truth:
A stone’s real significance lies in its potentiality for interaction with other stones. It can surround territory or disrupt the ability of stones of the other color to do so, and even capture those stones . . . the significance of any stone or group of stones is subject to the possibility of radical change. A stone or group of stones that is important at one point can become dispensable as a result of later developments . . . The significance of the vulnerability of the stones accustoms the players to the reality of impermanence, and again this is found to be not a dreadful situation, but one that greatly enriches the experience of playing.We are impermanent beings who can only cobble together temporary, contextual truths (much harder to have Truths). So why not play a game that mirrors that reality? Throw in some aspects of harmony and interconnections, and adjust the handicaps of the game so that you are only winning 50-60% of the time, and you have an enjoyable game that becomes more of an enjoyable art.
The article is worth the read (and reread).
