I certainly do, but at the same time I also think that this is a case of Apophenia, the
tendency to perceive art of perceiving meaningful patterns within random data
By this I mean: If you are seeking meaningful metaphors on life, you’ll probably show a tendency to find such metaphors wherever you look, and the closer you look at something, the more you may find.
So, for some people Go has become a tool for improving themselves, while for others it becomes a tool for competition against others, for others again a tool for mathematical insight, for even others a challenge for their programming skills … (and I think most of us are “mixed calculations”).
But IMO what I said above about Apophenia doesn’t invalidate the value of Go for self-improvement … because of the many possibilities in Go it may really be an ideal tool for this, it’s not accidental that there’s a lot of philosophy around Go … see also:
So … I think it’s all about how you look at things, about attitude
Reminds me of a person who once was my “guru” (don’t ask who, he was a “no-name guru”), and I wondered …
- … whether I was perhaps “only” projecting all my wishes for answers onto him, or …
- … whether he perhaps was “only” an ideal screen for such projections …
Maybe it was both? And the “guru” phenomenon is defined by the interaction between us two?
Like … he also told me, “the student is the teacher’s teacher” … and my experience formed my belief that there is no such person like “a guru”, that there can only be my or your or maybe your AND my guru, because it is a phenomenon that happens between two people. If somebody is my guru, I may not generalise him to be a guru because other people may not experience the same interaction with her or him.
I think it’s all about what we make of it, how we look at it.
(I edited a bit here and there, jumping back and forth, so pls forgive any inconsistency)