Mahjong Cash : Real or Mistaken Translation?
al
Is all that "Cash" in Mahjong for real, or is it Mistaken Translation?
First, why we call them Cash?
There are reasons. (1) A coin [one coin] described in Andrew Lo's
Manual of Leaves, as this: "a cash is circular with the hole square".
(2) Pan Zhiheng, the unofficial historian had recorded it and (3) the
people in Kunshan [China] called it so. Then (4) Andrew Lo translated
from Chinese to English and (5) other historians believed it and
extrapolated it from Matiao game to mahjong. That is how people come
to know mahjong as a game of cash or money-based, as far as I know.
There is one problem. Lo's translation was based on Pan Zhiheng's
unofficial history of matiao as Pan had heard it from people of
Kunshan. Those people learned their matiao game by word of mouth.
Kunshan "model" of matiao terms could not be simply accepted without
questions when typically so many dialects of Chinese anywhere. For
example, even the name of the game (matiao) has different versions.
I have doubts about the whole idea of a cash base history for the game
mahjong and its supposed "important progenitor" matiao, and I have
reasons for my doubts.
Question (1), why did the "money" denominations in those days go from
1 to 9, then 1000 to 9000 (or 100 to 900 as modified) , next 10000 to
90000; then 100000 to 900000, ending in ten thousand myriads, which
is 10000 x 10000 or one-hundred million?
Does that sound like real cash to you? It sounds an alarm to me.
Chinese people including the game designer either didn't know how to
count cash or those were not cash. That is why I have doubts.
Question (2), how could "Zero Cash" and "Half-Cash" rank higher than 2
and more cash? Half-Cash was called "fruits". Did it look like fruit
or did it look like cash? No one can claim to have seen a picture of
it.
Question (3), "Broken Cash" or "half Cash" were called "guests with
missing teeth". Why would any Chinese host call a guest just a big
mouth? There was more than just teeth missing..
Question (4), when zero-cash ranks "supreme"; when broken-cash looks
like a big mouth with "missing teeth" or like fruit or "guo"; when
cash quantities range from one to a hundred million, could all that
nonsense have come from mistaken homonyms of local dialects and
ignorance of their origin, and that the symbols were for something
else other than cash? What if that round thing with a square hole was
not cash money, but a symbol for Heaven and Earth?
Final question (5) is this. With the description for one-cash on page
89 of The-Playing-Card, Volume 31 Number 2, reads as follows, "one-
Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate)", then "one-cash"
is the yin-yang symbol or taiji diagram and is NOT cash. If so, matiao
is in fact related to mahjong because matiao like mahjong utilized
symbols (circles and lines) of taiji and I-Ching. (Cash and Strings of
Cash were mistaken terms.)
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Final question (5) is this. With the description for one-cash on page
> 89 of The-Playing-Card, Volume 31 Number 2, reads as follows, "one-
> Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate)", then "one-cash"
> is the yin-yang symbol or taiji diagram and is NOT cash. If so, matiao
> is in fact related to mahjong because matiao like mahjong utilized
> symbols (circles and lines) of taiji and I-Ching. (Cash and Strings of
> Cash were mistaken terms.)
Allan,
I think that a circular object (possibly representing heaven and yang)
with a square hole (possibly representing earth and yin) could
represent both a coin and 'Heaven & Earth' (and taiji).
For MJ I also find it interesting that the player's directions (E S W
N) seem to represent Heaven (as discussed on another thread) while the
square table that the game is typically played on could represent
Earth.
Dan
al
> On Oct 18, 12:59 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Never Asked Questions (NAQ) #3 10/14/2007
> > [snip]
> > Final question (5) is this. With the description for one-cash on page
> > 89 of The-Playing-Card, Volume 31 Number 2, reads as follows, "one-
> > Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate)", then "one-cash"
> > is the yin-yang symbol or taiji diagram and is NOT cash. If so, matiao
> > is in fact related to mahjong because matiao like mahjong utilized
> > symbols (circles and lines) of taiji and I-Ching. (Cash and Strings of
> > Cash were mistaken terms.)
>
> Allan,
>
> I think that a circular object (possibly representing heaven and yang)
> with a square hole (possibly representing earth and yin) could
> represent both a coin and 'Heaven & Earth' (and taiji).
Dan, are you saying that the symbol could represent both due to the
circular circumference and the square center?
The "one-cash" specifically was described as a taiji diagram
(definitely yin and yang symbol and not a coin.
The translation reads as follows:
2 Cash. Like a Waist drum.
3 Cash. Like the shape of the qian trigram.
4 Cash. Like interlocking rings.
The description of 1-Cash to 9-Cash is referenced to the taiji diagram
in 1-Cash, by my reading. The taiji diagram is that black-and-white
circle, with two dots like eyes, that symbolizes the interplay of yin
and yang (female and male). These taiji diagrams by implication, were
on the matiao cards of 1-Cash to 9-Cash. Is that how you would
interpret page 89 of The-Playing-Card, Vol. 31 No.2?
> [..]
>
> Dan
Give some thought to the idea of Zero Cash and the description of
Broken Cash. Can you make sense out of them?
Cheers...
al
>
> > Never Asked Questions (NAQ) #3 10/14/2007
> > [snip]
> > Final question (5) is this. With the description for one-cash on page
> > 89 of The-Playing-Card, Volume 31 Number 2, reads as follows, "one-
> > Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate)", then "one-cash"
> > is the yin-yang symbol or taiji diagram and is NOT cash. If so, matiao
> > is in fact related to mahjong because matiao like mahjong utilized
> > symbols (circles and lines) of taiji and I-Ching. (Cash and Strings of
> > Cash were mistaken terms.)
>
> Allan,
>
> I think that a circular object (possibly representing heaven and yang)
> with a square hole (possibly representing earth and yin) could
> represent both a coin and 'Heaven & Earth' (and taiji).
>
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Dan, are you saying that the symbol could represent both due to the
> circular circumference and the square center?
Yes, I think you understand what I was pointing out. If two different
objects share common symbolism, then it is not unreasonable to
substitute one for the other. Similarly, the two objects can both be
present as when the double happiness character (marriage; union of
two) is present on a two-card, an eight-sided (symbolizing the bagua)
rather than round object is on an eight-card, etc.
My understanding is that a cash coin can represent heaven and earth
due to the symbolism of the circle which can represent heaven (yang,
male, etc.) and the square which can represent earth (yin, female,
etc.). The taiji diagram also, of course, represents yin and yang (and
the dynamics of their interaction). The one of any suit is often
represented by something different than depicted on 2-9, and it would
not surprise me to have the taiji diagram substituted for a one-cash.
> The "one-cash" specifically was described as a taiji diagram
> (definitely yin and yang symbol and not a coin.
> The translation reads as follows:
> 2 Cash. Like a Waist drum.
> 3 Cash. Like the shape of the qian trigram.
> 4 Cash. Like interlocking rings.
> The description of 1-Cash to 9-Cash is referenced to the taiji diagram
> in 1-Cash, by my reading. The taiji diagram is that black-and-white
> circle, with two dots like eyes, that symbolizes the interplay of yin
> and yang (female and male). These taiji diagrams by implication, were
> on the matiao cards of 1-Cash to 9-Cash. Is that how you would
> interpret page 89 of The-Playing-Card, Vol. 31 No.2?
I do not have that article of the Playing Card to look at so it is
difficult for me to analyze what was said there. But if it is trying
to explain the additional symbolism often found on cards, then my
initial thoughts from your above descriptions would be as follows:
#2 I may not understand. If a 'waist-drum' means that it is shaped
with large ends but with a narrowed middle then that shape could
indicate that the ends are viewed as being substantial (yang) with the
middle being insubstantial (yin) thus reflecting the yin square hole
in middle of a coin.
#3 may makes sense since a line through the top and bottom thirds of
the coin would be unbroken (could be drawn from one edge to the other)
whereas a line through the middle would be broken by the square hole
in the coin, thus resulting in a trigram with a solid (yang) line at
the bottom, a broken (yin) line in the middle, and a solid (yang) line
at the top. But my understanding is that this would then represent the
trigram li/fire not qian as you have stated (so perhaps I am not
properly understanding this point?).
#4 seems to be referring to the symbolic representation of the two
interlocked coins often depicted on artwork. If so then it would seem,
to my understanding, to be a better symbolic substitution of the two-
cash. The symbol that I am referring to is sometimes found above shop
doors as a charm meant to bring wealth to the store. You probably know
what I am referring to, but if not, bats are often depicted as holding
either a single coin or this double coin in their mouth.
> Give some thought to the idea of Zero Cash and the description of
> Broken Cash. Can you make sense out of them?
I am not familiar with zero cash or broken cash. Is broken cash like a
coin cut into equal halves?
Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Question (3), "Broken Cash" or "half Cash" were called "guests with
> missing teeth". Why would any Chinese host call a guest just a big
> mouth? There was more than just teeth missing..
Allan,
I think that broken cash (half cash) was probably called 'guests with
missing teeth' simply due to its appearance. A circle divided in half,
and orientated such that the flat side is up, would look like a
cartoon rendering of a smiling mouth. A coin, divided in half, would
have a notch in that 'flat' side due to the presence of the square
hole in the center of the whole coin, and would thus look like a smile
with a gap in the upper surface (i.e., missing teeth).
Dan
mstanwick
Hello Allan.
> Never Asked Questions (NAQ) #3 10/14/2007
You need to qualify this. NAQBA = Never Asked Questions By Allan.
Don't assume they have never been asked. For your information, I have
pondered all of them in the past. This betrays your lack of knowledge
about what others have done and discussed.
> Is all that "Cash" in Mahjong for real, or is it Mistaken Translation?
>
> First, why we call them Cash?
>
> There are reasons. (1) A coin [one coin] described in Andrew Lo's
> Manual of Leaves, as this: "a cash is circular with the hole square".
> (2) Pan Zhiheng, the unofficial historian had recorded it and (3) the
> people in Kunshan [China] called it so. Then (4) Andrew Lo translated
> from Chinese to English and (5) other historians believed it and
> extrapolated it from Matiao game to mahjong. That is how people come
> to know mahjong as a game of cash or money-based, as far as I know.
Now, with reference to "a cash is circular with the hole square", your
1 - 4 are ok. I have seen images or photographs of a Ming and Qing
Dynasty Chinese coins - described as 'cash' in Numismatics texts - and
they are round and have a square hole in the middle. I do not need
Lo's articles to 'believe' it.
I know of no one who has extrapolated the square holed round coin, per
se, to Maque. The issue about maque is the three suits, whose insignia
are explained by the hypothesis that they are derived from earlier
suit insignia of similar 3-suited pasteboard card games. These in turn
are explained by the hypothesis that there was an evolution from four
suited card packs with the same insignia to 3-suited packs. This is a
very simplified description of the process of course.
> There is one problem. Lo's translation was based on Pan Zhiheng's
> unofficial history of matiao as Pan had heard it from people of
> Kunshan. Those people learned their matiao game by word of mouth.
> Kunshan "model" of matiao terms could not be simply accepted without
> questions when typically so many dialects of Chinese anywhere. For
> example, even the name of the game (matiao) has different versions.
You have left out Lo's translations of the Ming Dynasty Scholar Lu
Rong and the Qing Dynasty's Feng Menglong. They both also describe
four suited packs with money derived insignia on the four suits.
You have raised this 'word of mouth' objection before but given no
credible evidence for it. The different name example is specious
because it does not address the issue of a cash derivation for the
suit insignia. All three Historians make reference to money when
describing the suit insignia and names. All three over various
periods. Perhaps the knowledge was passed on orally. Fine, but you had
better provide credible material evidence that the knowledge or
information was corrupted beyond recognition from its original source.
> I have doubts about the whole idea of a cash base history for the game
> mahjong and its supposed "important progenitor" matiao, and I have
> reasons for my doubts.
It is not an important progenitor. The four to three suit evolution
is, plus the suit insignia family to which ma diao belongs, is.
> Question (1), why did the "money" denominations in those days go from
> 1 to 9, then 1000 to 9000 (or 100 to 900 as modified) , next 10000 to
> 90000; then 100000 to 900000, ending in ten thousand myriads, which
> is 10000 x 10000 or one-hundred million?
>
> Does that sound like real cash to you? It sounds an alarm to me.
> Chinese people including the game designer either didn't know how to
> count cash or those were not cash. That is why I have doubts.
Real cash? Do you mean real cash denominations? No. But I am not
claiming that the four suits or three suits insignia *represent actual
denominations* of money. That is your assumption. You are confusing
money insignia values of the suits with actual money values.
The suit insignia are *based on various denominations of ancient
Chinese currency*. Round cash coins is one, strings of cash is another
for example.
> Question (2), how could "Zero Cash" and "Half-Cash" rank higher than 2
> and more cash? Half-Cash was called "fruits". Did it look like fruit
> or did it look like cash? No one can claim to have seen a picture of
> it.
1stly, you are confusing a card's insignia value with a card's rank.
You assume that the insignia's value determines the card's rank. Not
so. In the deck described, the cash suit is reversed in *order of
strength* or rank. It is not reversed in order of insignia value,
clearly.
2ndly, Pan describes why the half cash is *called* the guest 'with
missing teeth' and incompleteness is represented by imagery of plums
remaining above a well. The rest of the *suit* is called guo. Please
read the descriptions on page 87 carefully.
> Question (3), "Broken Cash" or "half Cash" were called "guests with
> missing teeth". Why would any Chinese host call a guest just a big
> mouth? There was more than just teeth missing.
This betrays your misunderstanding of Pan's descriptions IMO (In My
Opinion). Please reread page 87, where he talks about representing
'incompleteness' through imagery.
> Question (4), when zero-cash ranks "supreme"; when broken-cash looks
> like a big mouth with "missing teeth" or like fruit or "guo"; when
> cash quantities range from one to a hundred million, could all that
> nonsense have come from mistaken homonyms of local dialects and
> ignorance of their origin, and that the symbols were for something
> else other than cash? What if that round thing with a square hole was
> not cash money, but a symbol for Heaven and Earth?
Another false dichotomy fallacy. As Dan has pointed out, it could be
both. In fact, Numismatics texts on ancient Chinese Monetary systems
suggest that the shape was struck by the 1st Emperor who was a
believer in the alchemists of the time who held such shapes for heaven
and earth from concepts in ancient cosmology.
> Final question (5) is this. With the description for one-cash on page
> 89 of The-Playing-Card, Volume 31 Number 2, reads as follows, "one-
> Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate)", then "one-cash"
> is the yin-yang symbol or taiji diagram and is NOT cash. If so, matiao
> is in fact related to mahjong because matiao like mahjong utilized
> symbols (circles and lines) of taiji and I-Ching. (Cash and Strings of
> Cash were mistaken terms.)
The symbol is found on the 1 cash in other card packs, of the 19th
century. It is on the 1 cash only and my understanding of Pan is that
is what he is also describing - it is possibly *on* the 1 cash, it is
not the 1 cash.
Please notice how his descriptions are written (I take Lo to be
accurate here). Describing the 'strings' he says, for example, "8
strings. The string doubled and then quadrupled." "6 strings. Like six
rivers twice round".
Now notice the words "The string..." and "Like a...". One says 'what
it is', and the other 'what it is like'.
Hence the other references to trigrams are what the cash insignia
arrangements are shaped like. That is why he uses the words "Like the
shape of...".
Allan, please note that you have good reasons for doubt only when you
have credible material evidence to the contrary. ^_^
To be honest, I am surprised that you have misread, to me at least,
what Pan described. The fact that you are using false dilemmas/
dichotomies is worrying. These go like 'Either science can explain how
she was cured or it was a miracle. Science can't explain it so it must
be a miracle.' It suggests to me that you have not presented
alternative options for us to consider and choose.
Cheers
al
> On Oct 18, 12:59 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Never Asked Questions (NAQ) #3 10/14/2007
> > [snip]
> > Question (3), "Broken Cash" or "half Cash" were called "guests with
> > missing teeth". Why would any Chinese host call a guest just a big
> > mouth? There was more than just teeth missing..
>
> Allan,
>
> I think that broken cash (half cash) was probably called 'guests with
> missing teeth' simply due to its appearance.
I agree it was "simply due to appearance".
You have the disadvantage of not able to read the article in The-
Playing-Card by Lo. I can understand your reply.
A circle divided in half,
> and orientated such that the flat side is up, would look like a
> cartoon rendering of a smiling mouth.
For your info, the translation is unclear. You would and I had
interpreted Lo's "broken Cash" = "Half Cash". But it is not so. Broken
is not same as half.
Read this quote. "Half Cash. Half flower, half fruit. Sometimes called
'sprig of flowers', or guest with missing teeth'. By the way, it's not
'tooth'.
A coin, divided in half, would
> have a notch in that 'flat' side due to the presence of the square
> hole in the center of the whole coin, and would thus look like a smile
> with a gap in the upper surface (i.e., missing teeth).
>
I think that meant 'no teeth', not just missing a tooth like a notch.
You do not have the complete picture.
> Dan
al
> On Oct 18, 5:59 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Hello Allan.
> >
> > Never Asked Questions (NAQ) #3 10/14/2007
> Don't assume they have never been asked. For your information, I have
> pondered all of them in the past. This betrays your lack of knowledge
> about what others have done and discussed.
Michael, you might have pondered. I have no doubt. But did you ask
those 5 questions I raised? I did not recall reading them.
>
> > Is all that "Cash" in Mahjong for real, or is it Mistaken Translation?
>
> > First, why we call them Cash?
>
> > There are reasons. (1) A coin [one coin] described in Andrew Lo's
> > Manual of Leaves, as this: "a cash is circular with the hole square".
> > (2) Pan Zhiheng, the unofficial historian had recorded it and (3) the
> > people in Kunshan [China] called it so. Then (4) Andrew Lo translated
> > from Chinese to English and (5) other historians believed it and
> > extrapolated it from Matiao game to mahjong. That is how people come
> > to know mahjong as a game of cash or money-based, as far as I know.
>
> Now, with reference to "a cash is circular with the hole square", your
> 1 - 4 are ok. I have seen images or photographs of a Ming and Qing
> Dynasty Chinese coins - described as 'cash' in Numismatics texts - and
> they are round and have a square hole in the middle. I do not need
> Lo's articles to 'believe' it.
>
I brought along a string of 9 of those coins when I left China. That
was a parting gift from my loved one.So it was a symbol of good
fortune in every way. No argument about the coin's existence. But it
is the wide range of application the coins have that Orientals can
appreciate. Coins have symbolic meanings.
Furthermore, money coins are defined by more than just 'round and
square' shapes. The important details include 4 Chinese words adjacent
to each side of the square.
Jumping to money-conclusion from the "circle-square' was a mistake.
> I know of no one who has extrapolated the square holed round coin, per
> se, to Maque.
The extrapolation was on the ''wan'. Ten-thousand-anything was taken
for ten thousand coins (from Matiao to mahjong.
The issue about maque is the three suits, whose insignia
> are explained by the hypothesis that they are derived from earlier
> suit insignia of similar 3-suited pasteboard card games. These in turn
> are explained by the hypothesis that there was an evolution from four
> suited card packs with the same insignia to 3-suited packs.
Hypothesis on hypothesis is weak at best. Neither hypothesis has been
proven. Interpretation of circles and strings is in doubt.The symbols
I dispute.
This is a
> very simplified description of the process of course.
>
Over-simplified, in my estimation...
> > There is one problem. Lo's translation was based on Pan Zhiheng's
> > unofficial history of matiao as Pan had heard it from people of
> > Kunshan. Those people learned their matiao game by word of mouth.
> > Kunshan "model" of matiao terms could not be simply accepted without
> > questions when typically so many dialects of Chinese anywhere. For
> > example, even the name of the game (matiao) has different versions.
>
> You have left out Lo's translations of the Ming Dynasty Scholar Lu
> Rong and the Qing Dynasty's Feng Menglong. They both also describe
> four suited packs with money derived insignia on the four suits.
>
Feng and Rong got their material the same from people who heard it
from their ancestors. (There were no books and the original version
was long gone.)
> You have raised this 'word of mouth' objection before but given no
> credible evidence for it. The different name example is specious
Here is one good credible evidence here in Matio. Read it on page 87of
Lo's paper. "A sprig of flower is one when the flowers not turned into
fruit. Thus from 1 to 9 they are all called fruits (GUO). Their names
coming from sprig of flowers, although 'cash' was the original
meaning."
The mistake is in the word "GUO" for fruit.
The proper intended meaning was 'gua' as in 'bagua', the 8-trigram.
Now you see how this gua relates to taiji in the same suit. And do you
see how GUO, fruit is meaningless in terms of suitability with taiji
in 1-Cash?
It was all because gua sounds like guo and the error is simply due to
'word of mouth'.
> because it does not address the issue of a cash derivation for the
> suit insignia. All three Historians make reference to money when
> describing the suit insignia and names. All three over various
> periods. Perhaps the knowledge was passed on orally. Fine, but you had
> better provide credible material evidence that the knowledge or
> information was corrupted beyond recognition from its original source.
I gave one good example above. You can go back to the author of that
paper and check my interpretation. You may be able to reach him for
comment.
As for the other 2 suits, I would say when money is the problem,
everything in the family is affected. The circles are not coins; they
are coined only because they are round. They are symbols (King Wen
circles) and the 'suo' is not string which derived from association
with coins. Strings are lines. Look in a dictionary and you will find
'suo' (string) associates with LINE.
What lines? they are yin and yang lines in the trigrams. Heaven is 3
solid lines one above another, and Earth is 3 broken lines one above
another. They refer to taiji and I-Ching (mistakenly shown in 1-Cash).
These yin and yang lines interact and produce myriads of things in the
universe.
That is what the 3 suits of mahjong are all about. Myriads of
things...
Only when you see the suits as a unified system will you truly
appreciate the mahjong game. The pattern 2-3-3-3-3 represent yin and
yang plus 4 trigrams.
>
> > I have doubts about the whole idea of a cash base history for the game
> > mahjong and its supposed "important progenitor" matiao, and I have
> > reasons for my doubts.
>
> It is not an important progenitor. The four to three suit evolution
> is, plus the suit insignia family to which ma diao belongs, is.
>
No proof of that really. Only the arithmetics worked somewhat that
way.
> > Question (1), why did the "money" denominations in those days go from
> > 1 to 9, then 1000 to 9000 (or 100 to 900 as modified) , next 10000 to
> > 90000; then 100000 to 900000, ending in ten thousand myriads, which
> > is 10000 x 10000 or one-hundred million?
>
> > Does that sound like real cash to you? It sounds an alarm to me.
> > Chinese people including the game designer either didn't know how to
> > count cash or those were not cash. That is why I have doubts.
>
> Real cash? Do you mean real cash denominations? No. But I am not
> claiming that the four suits or three suits insignia *represent actual
> denominations* of money.
But why not, when you call something as such?
That is your assumption. You are confusing
> money insignia values of the suits with actual money values.
>
Not confusing, Michael. I should expect it to be so. For what good
reason that I shouldn't?
> The suit insignia are *based on various denominations of ancient
> Chinese currency*. Round cash coins is one, strings of cash is another
> for example.
>
So you mean they didn't really relate? Why would people chose that
kind of arrangement? No better way than that? The Chinese came up with
a binary system 3000 years ago. That surprised the German in 1700 when
he discovered it. Amazing.
> > Question (2), how could "Zero Cash" and "Half-Cash" rank higher than 2
> > and more cash? Half-Cash was called "fruits". Did it look like fruit
> > or did it look like cash? No one can claim to have seen a picture of
> > it.
>
> 1stly, you are confusing a card's insignia value with a card's rank.
> You assume that the insignia's value determines the card's rank. Not
> so. In the deck described, the cash suit is reversed in *order of
> strength* or rank. It is not reversed in order of insignia value,
> clearly.
>
I am not confused by that. The Zero Cash is NO cash or. "Void of One
Cash".
Ranking is more like a mistaken notion. The "Void" refers to the taiji
"emptiness" in the ultimate beginning of the universe. The very very
earliest beginning had to be "nothing". That is the void.
> 2ndly, Pan describes why the half cash is *called* the guest 'with
> missing teeth' and incompleteness is represented by imagery of plums
> remaining above a well. The rest of the *suit* is called guo. Please
> read the descriptions on page 87 carefully.
>
I read it more than once. I suggest you to review it.
The "broken coin" was not "half coin either. Again that is due to word
of mouth learning and translation error.
The broken coin was the picture of the bagua, an octagon of the early
version by Fu Zi. Visualize 8 trigrams arranged as an 8-sided figure,
you can see a big mouth with thick lips and no teeth. It also looks
like a sprig of flower. And the pronunciation of guo and gua is close
enough to mislead common folks.
> > Question (3), "Broken Cash" or "half Cash" were called "guests with
> > missing teeth". Why would any Chinese host call a guest just a big
> > mouth? There was more than just teeth missing.
>
> This betrays your misunderstanding of Pan's descriptions IMO (In My
> Opinion). Please reread page 87, where he talks about representing
> 'incompleteness' through imagery.
>
Pan was just another player living in those days. He did not know more
about I-Ching or taiji than I do . He repeated what he heard. Lo
repeated for us and most people took it as given. I questioned.
> > Question (4), when zero-cash ranks "supreme"; when broken-cash looks
> > like a big mouth with "missing teeth" or like fruit or "guo"; when
> > cash quantities range from one to a hundred million, could all that
> > nonsense have come from mistaken homonyms of local dialects and
> > ignorance of their origin, and that the symbols were for something
> > else other than cash? What if that round thing with a square hole was
> > not cash money, but a symbol for Heaven and Earth?
>
> Another false dichotomy fallacy. As Dan has pointed out, it could be
> both. In fact, Numismatics texts on ancient Chinese Monetary systems
> suggest that the shape was struck by the 1st Emperor who was a
> believer in the alchemists of the time who held such shapes for heaven
> and earth from concepts in ancient cosmology.
>
It may be both (coin or symbol for heaven & earth), but i don't think
it is in any one of the cards. The Cash cards have "fruits" GUOs.
> > Final question (5) is this. With the description for one-cash on page
> > 89 of The-Playing-Card, Volume 31 Number 2, reads as follows, "one-
> > Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate)", then "one-cash"
> > is the yin-yang symbol or taiji diagram and is NOT cash. If so, matiao
> > is in fact related to mahjong because matiao like mahjong utilized
> > symbols (King Wen circles and Y-Y lines) of taiji and I-Ching. (Cash and Strings of
> > Cash were mistaken terms.)
>
> The symbol is found on the 1 cash in other card packs, of the 19th
> century. It is on the 1 cash only and my understanding of Pan is that
> is what he is also describing - it is possibly *on* the 1 cash, it is
> not the 1 cash.
>
Not sure what you tried to say here, Michael.
[..]
>
> Allan, please note that you have good reasons for doubt only when you
> have credible material evidence to the contrary. ^_^
>
I have given you plenty, if you only take a fresh look from a
different perspective and allow a slight possibility that you and
others might have missed something.
In my view, you have missed the forest for he trees.
> To be honest, I am surprised that you have misread, to me at least,
> what Pan described. The fact that you are using false dilemmas/
> dichotomies is worrying. These go like 'Either science can explain how
> she was cured or it was a miracle. Science can't explain it so it must
> be a miracle.' It suggests to me that you have not presented
> alternative options for us to consider and choose.
>
That sounds like good logic and humbling, but so far all those big
words can not explain the structure and core idea of mahjong design. I
can show the 2-3-3-3-3 pattern which is the heart and soul of mahjong
using I-Ching.
> Cheers
Cheers...
mstanwick
> On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
Hello Allan. This will be my last post for a while, on this topic.
> > > Never Asked Questions (NAQ) #3 10/14/2007
> > Don't assume they have never been asked. For your information, I have
> > pondered all of them in the past. This betrays your lack of knowledge
> > about what others have done and discussed.
>
> Michael, you might have pondered. I have no doubt. But did you ask
> those 5 questions I raised? I did not recall reading them.
Then, Allan, you must be more specific. Just putting NAQ doesn't give
me any idea in what context you are saying your questions were not
asked. Just because you have not read any questions like yours does
not mean they have not been asked. You should have first asked whether
anybody has already asked them or similar questions - and not only on
this group.
In the context of your other posts, it is clear to me that the NAQ's
are part of your campaign to establish your case that there has been -
and is - an acceptance of certain ideas without critical analysis etc.
by all members of this group. NAQ - never asked - because, according
to you, those who have accepted certain ideas failed to ask these
questions and therefore, by implication, have accepted the ideas
without critical analysis. You are suggesting this of everyone.
I don't mind in the least that you seek to find out whether there have
been any questions or discussions on these points but there seems to
me to be an implicit accusation in the NAQ title. If there is an
accusation, then it means you have assumed something about somebody,
without any evidence. Are you making such an accusation of all members
of this group??
[snip]
> Jumping to money-conclusion from the "circle-square' was a mistake.
Why? Who was "jumping to money-conclusion". I find your lack of
material evidence to back up your statements does not help at all.
> The extrapolation was on the ''wan'. Ten-thousand-anything was taken
> for ten thousand coins (from Matiao to mahjong.
Who are you claiming made the so-called 'extrapolation'? Please give
me your documentary evidence that in the case for the 'wan' suit,
'wan' meant ten thousand anything and not money as was documented by
Pan and others.
> > The issue about maque is the three suits, whose insignia
> > are explained by the hypothesis that they are derived from earlier
> > suit insignia of similar 3-suited pasteboard card games. These in turn
> > are explained by the hypothesis that there was an evolution from four
> > suited card packs with the same insignia to 3-suited packs.
>
> Hypothesis on hypothesis is weak at best. Neither hypothesis has been
> proven. Interpretation of circles and strings is in doubt. The symbols
> I dispute.
What do you mean by "Hypothesis *on* hypothesis is weak at best"?
Please explain what you mean by "on" and why the "on" is 'weak at
best'.
The content of your answer suggests to me that you are not familiar
with the role of hypotheses and how they are arrived at and how they
are applied to data. I can only ask if you could check out the subject
of hypotheses before you make unsubstantiated statements about
weakness and proof. Your doubt and dispute of the data is fine. Just
substantiate it with directly applicable evidence from documentary
sources relevant to each topic.
> > This is a very simplified description of the process of course.
> Over-simplified, in my estimation...
... Did you not understand my summation then?
[snip]
> Feng and Rong got their material the same from people who heard it
> from their ancestors. (There were no books and the original version
> was long gone.)
Three scholars from different times heard information which they
recorded. Are you claiming this information was wrong in all places
where they acquired it? Widespread misinformation over time? What
basis in fact that this occurred have you got? You are making another
assertion about corrupted information but have not given us one shread
of evidence that this has happened to what Pan et al., recorded.
> > You have raised this 'word of mouth' objection before but given no
> > credible evidence for it. The different name example is specious
>
> [1]Here is one good credible evidence here in Matio. Read it on page 87of
> Lo's paper. "A sprig of flower is one when the flowers not turned into
> fruit. Thus from 1 to 9 they are all called fruits (GUO). Their names
> coming from sprig of flowers, although 'cash' was the original
> meaning."
> [2]The mistake is in the word "GUO" for fruit.
> The proper intended meaning was 'gua' as in 'bagua', the 8-trigram.
> [3]Now you see how this gua relates to taiji in the same suit. And do you
> see how GUO, fruit is meaningless in terms of suitability with taiji
> in 1-Cash?
> [4]It was all because gua sounds like guo and the error is simply due to
> 'word of mouth'.
(I put numbers against your points for clarity).
All of your argument boils down to the one premise you left out -
that;
(1) Suit X represents? concepts from the I Ching. Then we have;
(2) There is the taiji symbol on the # 1 of this suit.
(3) The rest of the suit is called guo, fruits.
(4) There was word of mouth transmission of information about the card
packs.
(5) Because of (1) and (2) this form of transmission has corrupted the
meaning of the information.
(6) Because of (5) this name guo should properly be gua, as in bagua,
the 8 trigrams from the I-Ching
Apart from the fact that your argument assumes the very thing it is
trying to prove - the (1), you are also assuming (5).
You have to assume (1) first, otherwise why assume (5)? But you
haven't given any evidence to suggest we should assume (1) and (5).
These are pivotal to your argument and just cannot be blithely assumed
or asserted without direct evidence.
But hang on. This information in Lo's article that you are using, is
misinformation. It has been corrupted. It cannot be trusted or used.
Not unless you cherry-pick the bits you want to use or decide are
corrupted. So how do you decide which bits are corrupted? How do you
decide which bits are ok to use?
> I gave one good example above. You can go back to the author of that
> paper and check my interpretation. You may be able to reach him for
> comment.
Why should we think guo is gua? What is there that should make us
think guo should be gua?
> As for the other 2 suits, I
[snipped because my reply would be the same]
> > It is not an important progenitor. The four to three suit evolution
> > is, plus the suit insignia family to which ma diao belongs, is.
>
> No proof of that really. Only the arithmetics worked somewhat that
> way.
Yes Allan, there is proof of that really. Please read Lo's
translations of Pan Zhiheng's 'Sequel to a Manual of Leaves' Parts 1
and 2. There are accounts of using the four suited pack and discarding
the topmost suit to create a three-suited deck for games such as
'Drawing Six Cards' and 'Competing with the Tiger', for example. There
are also accounts of how the extra card 'Thousand Myriad' found in the
three suited games, is retained from the topmost suit.
> > That is your assumption. You are confusing money insignia values of the suits with actual money values.
> Not confusing, Michael. I should expect it to be so.
> For what good reason that I shouldn't?
Because you are basing your card suits on denominations of money. They
do not need to replicate exactly actual monetary values. They are
about manufacturing tricks etc. Provided the cards give a ranking and
value system that is adequate for the games types the packs are used
for. Why money or cash was used as the basis for suit insignia I do
not know.
> > The suit insignia are *based on various denominations of ancient
> > Chinese currency*. Round cash coins is one, strings of cash is another
> > for example.
>
> So you mean they didn't really relate? Why would people chose that
> kind of arrangement? No better way than that?
That is a hypothesis extracted and supported by the documentary
evidence we have. Some of the money insignia values do relate to
actual money values.
Allan, your questions are serving as rhetorical devices. Can you ask
questions that are capable of being answered.
> > 1stly, you are confusing a card's insignia value with a card's rank.
> > You assume that the insignia's value determines the card's rank. Not
> > so. In the deck described, the cash suit is reversed in *order of
> > strength* or rank. It is not reversed in order of insignia value,
> > clearly.
>
> I am not confused by that. The Zero Cash is NO cash or. "Void of One
> Cash".
> Ranking is more like a mistaken notion. The "Void" refers to the taiji
> "emptiness" in the ultimate beginning of the universe. The very very
> earliest beginning had to be "nothing". That is the void.
You asked "how could "Zero Cash" and "Half-Cash" rank higher than 2
and more cash?" did you not? The ranking is NOT more like a mistaken
notion. The entire suit is reversed in ranking or strength. Pan and
others clearly state that the suit is reversed in order of strength.
The 'strength' of a card is different to its monetary insignia value.
Usually the two coincide, but not necessarily so.
> The "broken coin" was not "half coin either. Again that is due to word
> of mouth learning and translation error.
> The broken coin was the picture of the bagua, an octagon of the early
> version by Fu Zi. Visualize 8 trigrams arranged as an 8-sided figure,
> you can see a big mouth with thick lips and no teeth. It also looks
> like a sprig of flower. And the pronunciation of guo and gua is close
> enough to mislead common folks.
I am not ignoring anything you are saying Allan, but I am asking you
put up some evidence to actually show me what you are claiming was the
case. Your account reads as a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions
again. There is no hint that you are presenting it as a hypothesis.
There is no hint of what the factual premises are and what the
assumptions are.
> Pan was just another player living in those days. He did not know more
> about I-Ching or taiji than I do . He repeated what he heard. Lo
> repeated for us and most people took it as given. I questioned.
No. Your description of Pan does you a disservice Allan. Further, how
do you know he did not know more about the I-Ching or taiji than you
do? How do you know his descriptions are false or corrupted?
> It may be both (coin or symbol for heaven & earth), but i don't think
> it is in any one of the cards. The Cash cards have "fruits" GUOs.
Wrong. Please note that Pan says they are all *called* fruits, for the
reasons he gives. The cash cards do not *have* fruits. They *may* do,
but Pan does not say so.
> > The symbol is found on the 1 cash in other card packs, of the 19th
> > century. It is on the 1 cash only and my understanding of Pan is that
> > is what he is also describing - it is possibly *on* the 1 cash, it is
> > not the 1 cash.
>
> Not sure what you tried to say here, Michael.
The Yin/yang symbol is on the card called 'one cash'. The card is not
called 'taijin'. The symbol appears on the 'one cash' card. The cards
I have seen have the taijin symbol as very small. I have seen one pack
with the taijin symbol inside all the round coins of the cash suit. I
think it was a relatively recent pack. It is not uncommon to find the
insignia replaced in various suits with other symbols or insignia.
> I have given you plenty, if you only take a fresh look from a
> different perspective and allow a slight possibility that you and
> others might have missed something.
Believe me, I wouldn't be responding to you if I did not take your
views seriously, and the manner in which they are expressed. I have
looked at everything from what you have said many times and do not
consider there is evidence that I have missed or misunderstood
anything. But there is a huge gulf between your ideas and the support
they need - especially when you are asserting them without any hint
that they contain assumptions.
> In my view, you have missed the forest for the trees.
That may be the case. But at this point I am only concerned with the
trees. Nothing in the trees has allowed me to think there is a forest
as yet. Perhaps something will turn up to support your notions.
> > To be honest, I am surprised that you have misread, to me at least,
> > what Pan described. The fact that you are using false dilemmas/
> > dichotomies is worrying. These go like 'Either science can explain how
> > she was cured or it was a miracle. Science can't explain it so it must
> > be a miracle.' It suggests to me that you have not presented
> > alternative options for us to consider and choose.
>
> That sounds like good logic and humbling, but so far all those big
> words can not explain the structure and core idea of mahjong design.
Thank you for the compliment ^_^
But you have misread my words also!! Those 'big words' are not even
attempting to explain "the structure and core idea of mahjong design".
What they are really saying is that you cannot explain it by using a
little faulty reasoning reading more into the Pan's account that what
the text actually says.
I think you ideas are interesting, as I have repeatedly said, and if
there is some good hard documentary evidence showing them in action in
card games then I will be happy to accept them.
Cheers
Michael
al
>
> > Never Asked Questions (NAQ) #3 10/14/2007
> > [snip]
> Allan,
> [..]
> For MJ I also find it interesting that the player's directions (E S W
> N) seem to represent Heaven (as discussed on another thread) while the
> square table that the game is typically played on could represent
> Earth.
>
earth symbol is a big stretch of imagination.
> Dan
Tom Sloper
> In the context of your other posts, it is clear to me that the NAQ's
> are part of your campaign to establish your case that there has been -
> and is - an acceptance of certain ideas without critical analysis etc.
> by all members of this group. NAQ - never asked - because, according
> to you, those who have accepted certain ideas failed to ask these
> questions and therefore, by implication, have accepted the ideas
> without critical analysis. You are suggesting this of everyone.
>
> I don't mind in the least that you seek to find out whether there have
> been any questions or discussions on these points but there seems to
> me to be an implicit accusation in the NAQ title. If there is an
> accusation, then it means you have assumed something about somebody,
> without any evidence.
Hear, hear.
Tom
al
> On Oct 18, 4:09 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Dan, are you saying that the symbol could represent both due to the
> > circular circumference and the square center?
>
> Yes, I think you understand what I was pointing out.
No, I was not sure even though I thought that was what you meant,,
because that cannot be.
Two different symbols represent the same thing in the same pack of
cards? I can not believe you are actually suggesting that.
+++++++++
If two different
> objects share common symbolism, then it is not unreasonable to
> substitute one for the other.
But for what reason? It is unreasonable to mix them in the pack of
cards. Have you seen that done in other games?
+++++++++++
Similarly, the two objects can both be
> present as when the double happiness character (marriage; union of
> two) is present on a two-card, an eight-sided (symbolizing the bagua)
> rather than round object is on an eight-card, etc.
>
I am not sure what you described for two-card and eight-card above. If
I understand you, the difference is on the background and in different
packs. The double-happiness symbol is the same one. That symbol can be
on a flag hanging high or on a table laying flat. One symbol wherever
it is.
> My understanding is that a cash coin can represent heaven and earth
The coin represents heaven and earth? In what way? I mean how does it
do that? Do you recall? Where have they been used to represent heaven
and earth? I can not think of any.
> due to the symbolism of the circle which can represent heaven (yang,
> male, etc.) and the square which can represent earth (yin, female,
> etc.).
Circle does not represent heaven (and yang, male etc.) at the same
time. Neither does the square for earth (yin, female etc.)
Having coins and taiji symbols in the same card pack is like mixing
heaven, yang with male symbolism and mixing earth, yin with female
symbolism. Why would anybody complicate a game design?
+++++++++++
The taiji diagram also, of course, represents yin and yang (and
> the dynamics of their interaction). The one of any suit is often
> represented by something different than depicted on 2-9, and it would
> not surprise me to have the taiji diagram substituted for a one-cash.
>
I don't know how often the one of any suit is represented by something
different from 2-9. There would have to be good reason for that.
> > The "one-cash" specifically was described as a taiji diagram
> > (definitely yin and yang symbol and not a coin.
The Yin-Yang taiji symbol is very different in meaning from Heaven and
Earth, to my understanding. Yin and Yang can not be used
interchangeably with Earth and Heaven. There are subtle and
significant differences in context.
> > [..]
> > The description of 1-Cash to 9-Cash is referenced to the taiji diagram
> > in 1-Cash, by my reading. The taiji diagram is that black-and-white
> > circle, with two dots like eyes, that symbolizes the interplay of yin
> > and yang (female and male). These taiji diagrams by implication, were
> > on the matiao cards of 1-Cash to 9-Cash. Is that how you would
> > interpret page 89 of The-Playing-Card, Vol. 31 No.2?
>
++++++++
> I do not have that article of the Playing Card to look at so it is
> difficult for me to analyze what was said there. But if it is trying
> to explain the additional symbolism often found on cards, then my
> initial thoughts from your above descriptions would be as follows:
>
> #2 I may not understand. If a 'waist-drum' means that it is shaped
> with large ends but with a narrowed middle then that shape could
> indicate that the ends are viewed as being substantial (yang) with the
> middle being insubstantial (yin) thus reflecting the yin square hole
> in middle of a coin.
>
No, Dan. The coin (circle-square) did not appear on any card in the
description.
+++++++
> #3 may makes sense since a line through the top and bottom thirds of
> the coin would be unbroken (could be drawn from one edge to the other)
> whereas a line through the middle would be broken by the square hole
> in the coin, thus resulting in a trigram with a solid (yang) line at
> the bottom, a broken (yin) line in the middle, and a solid (yang) line
> at the top. But my understanding is that this would then represent the
> trigram li/fire not qian as you have stated (so perhaps I am not
> properly understanding this point?).
>
The 3-Cash is "qian (creative) trigram" shown with 3 solid lines by
Lo.
. No details.
> [..]
> > Give some thought to the idea of Zero Cash and the description of
> > Broken Cash. Can you make sense out of them?
>
> I am not familiar with zero cash or broken cash. Is broken cash like a
> coin cut into equal halves?
>
Broken-Cash description is poor; Half-Cash is even worse.
Imagine Cash as wWhole Cash. Broken Cash is cut-up but not broken. How
is it cut-up? cut 8 chunks off a whole coin and get an octagon. 8
little pieces broken off from a whole coin and that gives you a Broken
Cash 8-sided Coin.
A Broken Cash was called a 'guo' (fruit in Lo;s translation. But that
8-sided broken coin was bagua or 8 'gua'. Gua was mistaken for guo as
the two were close to be homonyms.
Half-Cash was is a misnomer back then. That "half" was a definitive
term and certainly misled everybody. It could be half if, only if the
8 cuts were calculated and cut exactly.
Don't forget, Dan, there was no solid coin. The 8-sided octagon was a
bagua drawing that looks like a big mouth with missing teeth as it was
called.
One more inexplicable rule, so to speak, "Zero Cash" is Supreme,
highest ranking than any other Cash. In other words, in trick-taking
play, Zero Cash takes 9 Cash. What kind of Cash other than phony Cash
like that?
Cash was a wrong label given to the symbols taken from word-of-mouth
communication and missing original text.
> Dan
+++++++++++
Cheers...
Edwin Phua
> On Oct 19, 9:11 am, pa...@email.unc.edu wrote:
> > My understanding is that a cash coin can represent heaven and earth
>
> The coin represents heaven and earth? In what way? I mean how does it
> do that? Do you recall? Where have they been used to represent heaven
> and earth? I can not think of any.
>
> > due to the symbolism of the circle which can represent heaven (yang,
> > male, etc.) and the square which can represent earth (yin, female,
> > etc.).
>
> Circle does not represent heaven (and yang, male etc.) at the same
> time. Neither does the square for earth (yin, female etc.)
> Having coins and taiji symbols in the same card pack is like mixing
> heaven, yang with male symbolism and mixing earth, yin with female
> symbolism. Why would anybody complicate a game design?
> +++++++++++
S. Williams' Chinese Symbolism and Art Motifs, the author writes
(under the entry Coins) that coins with the square hole are symbolic
of Heaven (believed to be round) and Earth (believed to be square).
Hence, coins are thought to present both Heaven and Earth.
Additionally, Williams mention that these square-holed coins replaced
round-holed coins which came earlier.
Cheers!
Edwin Phua
mstanwick
> Dan wrote earlier that a coin can represent earth and heaven. In C. A.
> S. Williams' Chinese Symbolism and Art Motifs, the author writes
> (under the entry Coins) that coins with the square hole are symbolic
> of Heaven (believed to be round) and Earth (believed to be square).
> Hence, coins are thought to present both Heaven and Earth.
> Additionally, Williams mention that these square-holed coins replaced
> round-holed coins which came earlier.
Williams latter point is correct. The round holed round coins were
called 'ring coins' and were part of other types of money - 'knife
money' and 'spade money'. But why was the round hole replaced with a
square one?
Various ideas have been put forward but most do not stand up to
analysis. Peng Xinwei, in his two volume 'A Monetary History of
China', says that the First Emperor's monetary reform was responsible
for the reform in the shape of money. Peng speculates that the First
Emperor adopted the "square-holed round coin for symbolic reasons. The
outer roundness and the inner squareness symbolized the round Heaven
and the square Earth. This is how things were viewed by ancient
cosmology, and the First Emperor was a great believer in the
alchemists who held such concepts".
But this is also clouded by the fact that there are square holed coins
- the 'one knife', the 'ming knife' and the 'ming four' - prior to the
First Emperor's monetary reform. The 'ming knife' coin was probably
minted 1st and the square holed coin - the 'ming four' - may have been
the very first transformation of the 'ming knife' coin into a square
holed coin and so the 'ming four' coin was probably experimental in
nature. But it was then transformed from a square holed 'ming four'
coin into the 'ming knife' square holed coin.
These cast doubt on the First Emperor creating the 1st square holed
coins.
So, in a sense, we are back to 'square one'! ^_^
Cheers
al
> On Oct 21, 5:42?pm, Edwin Phua <fant...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>
> > Dan wrote earlier that a coin can represent earth and heaven. In C. A.
> > S. Williams' Chinese Symbolism and Art Motifs, the author writes
> > (under the entry Coins) that coins with the square hole are symbolic
> > of Heaven (believed to be round) and Earth (believed to be square).
>
> Williams latter point is correct. The round holed round coins were
> called 'ring coins' and were part of other types of money - 'knife
> money' and 'spade money'. But why was the round hole replaced with a
> square one?
>
++++++++++
> Various ideas have been put forward but most do not stand up to
> analysis. Peng Xinwei, in his two volume 'A Monetary History of
> China', says that the First Emperor's monetary reform was responsible
> for the reform in the shape of money. Peng speculates that the First
>
NOTHING IS ADDED TO THE QUESTION ON MAHJONG CASH OR NON-CASH.
WITH YOUR WEALTH OF MONEY KNOWLEDGE, START A NEW THREAD.
+++++++++
> But this is also clouded by the fact that there are square holed coins
> - the 'one knife', the 'ming knife' and the 'ming four' - prior to the
>
NON OF THE VARIETY PRESENT IN MAHJONG OR MAHTIAO. WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE
HERE?
+++++++++++++
> These cast doubt on the First Emperor creating the 1st square holed
> coins.
>
> So, in a sense, we are back to 'square one'! ^_^
>
THE QUESTION IS STILL "MAHJONG CASH: IS IT REAL OR MISTAKEN
TRANSLATION"?
FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH, AND IN SEARCH OF HISTORIC KNOWLEDGE, WE
SHOULD CONSULT THE TRANSLATOR'S OPINION AND ASK HOW HE CAME ABOUT
WITH THOSE TERMS AND WHAT PICTURES OR DRAWINGS HE SAW.
> Cheers
Since you know how to switch the thread, you must know how to switch
it back.
I have more to say on the mahjong cash question and I have no more to
say about "square hole"
al
wrote:
Hello, Tom,
Michael indicated he will quit on this discussion topic for a while.
You seem to be in agreement with all he has said in his last post.
Do you want to carry on the discussion for him? I don't want waste my
pitch until I know the designated hitter.
al
> On Oct 20, 3:01 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Allan. This will be my last post for a while, on this topic.
>
> > > > Never Asked Questions (NAQ) #3 10/14/2007
> > > Don't assume they have never been asked. For your information, I have
> > > pondered all of them in the past. This betrays your lack of knowledge
> > > about what others have done and discussed.
>
> > Michael, you might have pondered. I have no doubt. But did you ask
> > those 5 questions I raised? I did not recall reading them.
>
> Then, Allan, you must be more specific. Just putting NAQ doesn't give
> me any idea in what context you are saying your questions were not
> asked. Just because you have not read any questions like yours does
> not mean they have not been asked. You should have first asked whether
> anybody has already asked them or similar questions - and not only on
> this group.
>
+++++++++++
> In the context of your other posts, it is clear to me that the NAQ's
> are part of your campaign to establish your case that there has been -
> and is - an acceptance of certain ideas without critical analysis etc.
For a research group, the quest for truth should never cease. Grouping
a few related questions together should be encouraged, if they are
enlightening in terms of getting to the true origin of mahjong. Why
this defensive attitude, Michael?
Considering multiple questions enable us to look it the subject's
different aspects at the same time can present a better picture.
> by all members of this group. NAQ - never asked - because, according
> to you, those who have accepted certain ideas failed to ask these
> questions and therefore, by implication, have accepted the ideas
> without critical analysis. You are suggesting this of everyone.
>
NAQ means most of all I never asked (until now).
+++++++++++
> I don't mind in the least that you seek to find out whether there have
> been any questions or discussions on these points but there seems to
> me to be an implicit accusation in the NAQ title.
[..]
>
Accusation of what?
+++++++++++
> [snip]
>
> > Jumping to money-conclusion from the "circle-square' was a mistake.
>
> Why? Who was "jumping to money-conclusion". I find your lack of
> material evidence to back up your statements does not help at all.
>
Why? Mahjong's moneys suits were supposed to come from matiao.
Matio's Cash, so-called, were yin-yang diagram (1-Cash), Bagua trigram
(Broken Cash), and Zero Cash(Supreme Ultimate). Where is the Cash in
matiao? Here is material evidence showing the lack of evidence of cash
in matiao.
Whoever accepted Cash as cash from matiao to mahjong obviously did not
consider Cash was just a translation from a recording via word of
mouth. Some people did not have the benefit of reading the paper on
matiao by Lo.
If I hadn't read Lo's paper, I would have accepted the notion just
like the others whoever they are. (my thanks to you, of course.)
++++++++++++
> > The extrapolation was on the ''wan'. Ten-thousand-anything was taken
> > for ten thousand coins (from Matiao to mahjong.
>
> Who are you claiming made the so-called 'extrapolation'? Please give
> me your documentary evidence that in the case for the 'wan' suit,
> 'wan' meant ten thousand anything and not money as was documented by
> Pan and others.
>
Do you want evidence for the first part or is there a second part?
+++++++++++
> > > The issue about maque is the three suits, whose insignia
> > > are explained by the hypothesis that they are derived from earlier
> > > suit insignia of similar 3-suited pasteboard card games. These in turn
> > > are explained by the hypothesis that there was an evolution from four
> > > suited card packs with the same insignia to 3-suited packs.
>
> > Hypothesis on hypothesis is weak at best. Neither hypothesis has been
> > proven. Interpretation of circles and strings is in doubt. The symbols
> > I dispute.
>
> What do you mean by "Hypothesis *on* hypothesis is weak at best"?
> Please explain what you mean by "on" and why the "on" is 'weak at
> best'.
>
One hypot was on the 3 suits' symbols derivation and another hypot on
the 4 to 3 suit reduction. That is what I meant.
+++++++++++++
> The content of your answer suggests to me that you are not familiar
> with the role of hypotheses and how they are arrived at and how they
> are applied to data. I can only ask if you could check out the subject
> of hypotheses before you make unsubstantiated statements about
> weakness and proof. Your doubt and dispute of the data is fine. Just
> substantiate it with directly applicable evidence from documentary
> sources relevant to each topic.
>
The weakness of your hypots is that it can not give a coherent
explanation for the symbols nor the game-play. By your hypots, the
game was copied from here and there without rhyme or reason. For
example, why is it trick-forming instead of trick-taking? And why is
this unique feature not a copy from another game?
Why the pattern is 2-3-3-3-3? Why a pair is a must for a winning hand?
Which other game is like it? (It is not rummy. Don't go there).
Michael, I have itemized the evidence of so-called Cash in matiao
which is supposed to be an important progenitor of mahjong. They are
yin-yang symbol and trigrams with reference to taiji (in writing) by
Lo's translation. Look at the evidence provided.
Remove the coin-patches from your eyes. You can make your hypot. sound
good, but it will not pass the test of reasonable coherence.
+++++++
> > > This is a very simplified description of the process of course.
> > Over-simplified, in my estimation...
>
> ... Did you not understand my summation then?
What summation?
>
> [snip]
>
> > Feng and Rong got their material the same from people who heard it
> > from their ancestors. (There were no books and the original version
> > was long gone.)
>
> Three scholars from different times heard information which they
> recorded. Are you claiming this information was wrong in all places
> where they acquired it?
YES, as fas as the notion of CASH is concerned with reference to
matiao.
>Widespread misinformation over time?
YES.
>What
> basis in fact that this occurred have you got?
THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PRINTED MATERIAL AND PEOPLE DID NOT AND
COULD NOT READ. THAT WAS THE CASE FOR HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
You are making another
> assertion about corrupted information but have not given us one shread
> of evidence that this has happened to what Pan et al., recorded.
>
THAT WAS JUST PART OF HISTORY.
> > > You have raised this 'word of mouth' objection before but given no
> > > credible evidence for it. The different name example is specious
>
NOT SPECIOUS (WHATEVER IT MEANS).
> > [1]Here is one good credible evidence here in Matio. Read it on page 87of
> > Lo's paper. "A sprig of flower is one when the flowers not turned into
> > fruit. Thus from 1 to 9 they are all called fruits (GUO). Their names
> > coming from sprig of flowers, although 'cash' was the original
> > meaning."
> > [2]The mistake is in the word "GUO" for fruit.
> > The proper intended meaning was 'gua' as in 'bagua', the 8-trigram.
> > [3]Now you see how this gua relates to taiji in the same suit. And do you
> > see how GUO, fruit is meaningless in terms of suitability with taiji
> > in 1-Cash?
> > [4]It was all because gua sounds like guo and the error is simply due to
> > 'word of mouth'.
> [..]
> Apart from the fact that your argument assumes the very thing it is
> trying to prove - the (1), you are also assuming (5).
> You have to assume (1) first, otherwise why assume (5)? But you
> haven't given any evidence to suggest we should assume (1) and (5).
> These are pivotal to your argument and just cannot be blithely assumed
> or asserted without direct evidence.
MICHAEL, YOU ARE TOO SKILLFUL AT TWISTING THINGS AROUND IN ARGUMENTS.
>
> But hang on. This information in Lo's article that you are using, is
> misinformation. It has been corrupted. It cannot be trusted or used.
> Not unless you cherry-pick the bits you want to use or decide are
> corrupted. So how do you decide which bits are corrupted? How do you
> decide which bits are ok to use?
>
YOU ARE SKILLFUL WITH WORDS TOO. i HAVE SAID AND i WILL SAY AGAIN. THE
CASH NOTION WAS A MISTAKE.
i DON'T CHERRY-PICK ANYTHING FOR MY USE.
LO TOOK IT WORD FOR WORD FROM THE KUNSHAN VERSION.
YOU CAN CHECK WITH HIM TO SEE IF I AM RIGHT.
FURTHERMORE, THIS IS THE REAL THING THAT SUPPORTS THE CLAIM THAT
MATIAO IS AN IMPORTANT PROGENITOR OF MAJONG, DESPITE OF ALL
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN SYMBOLS AND GAME-PLAY.
> > I gave one good example above. You can go back to the author of that
> > paper and check my interpretation. You may be able to reach him for
> > comment.
>
> Why should we think guo is gua? What is there that should make us
> think guo should be gua?
>
THEY SOUND ROUGHLY THE SAME. HAVE YOU NOT HEARD OF THE MANY NAMES OF
MAHJONG? SECONDLY, IT WAS IGNORANCE. WHO KNEW i-cHING TRIGRAMS IN
OLDEN DAYS?
There was a description given the picture as a big month (of a
"guest") with missing teeth. That is a bagua diagram!! I am sure you
have seen one.
> >[..]
> [..]
[Reference to Matio and mahjong:]
> > > It is not an important progenitor. The four to three suit evolution
> > > is, plus the suit insignia family to which ma diao belongs, is.
>
AS I MENTIONED ABOVE, THERE MAY BE A LINK THROUGH THE i=CHING.
That's all for now.
A closing thought: I-Ching can explain 2-3-3-3-3 and each hand is a
continual process of changes (draw-and -discard) in order to achieve
that unique pattern. The 2 = yin and yang. The 3's are trigrams. What
can the Cash-Based hypot. explain?
al
wrote:
>
> > In the context of your other posts, it is clear to me that the NAQ's
> > are part of your campaign to establish your case that there has been -
> > and is - an acceptance of certain ideas without critical analysis etc.
> > by all members of this group. NAQ - never asked - because, according
> > to you, those who have accepted certain ideas failed to ask these
> > questions and therefore, by implication, have accepted the ideas
> > without critical analysis. You are suggesting this of everyone.
>
I have asked 3 key questions so far.
(1) 0n mahjong principles and rules. (2) 0n matiao and mahjong
relation and (3) on Cash-based hypothesis.
Tell me, Tom, how was any of the above questions asked?
Matiao being such an "important progenitor" of mahjong, I wonder how
many in the group had read Andrew Lo's paper on Matiao.
> > I don't mind in the least that you seek to find out whether there have
> > been any questions or discussions on these points but there seems to
> > me to be an implicit accusation in the NAQ title. If there is an
> > accusation, then it means you have assumed something about somebody,
> > without any evidence.
>
It's not an accusation. It is a way for me to gage the strength of a
hypothesis before I would accept it.
After my own study of Lo's paper on Matio, I concluded the "money-
based" hypothesis for mahjong is unacceptable. That is my personal
opinion.
Without analyzing Lo's translation in detail and without a basic
understanding of I-Ching (Book of Changes), I would not have come to a
conclusion as I did.
And as a result of my inquiry, I have gained a greater appreciation
for the game.
> Hear, hear.
> Tom
pa...@email.unc.edu
> A closing thought: I-Ching can explain 2-3-3-3-3 and each hand is a
> continual process of changes (draw-and -discard) in order to achieve
> that unique pattern. The 2 = yin and yang. The 3's are trigrams.
Allan,
You seem to be stating that the pair of identical tiles (eyes) in MJ
is somehow supposed to equate with the concept (yin/yang) which
represents opposites? I don't understand.
Which combinations of MJ tiles represent which trigrams, and what does
a four of a kind represent? Again, I do not understand. And what would
four sets of trigrams represent in relation to the Yijing (not a
hexagram since they are only composed of two trigrams)?
Dan
al
> On Oct 21, 9:38 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > A closing thought: I-Ching can explain 2-3-3-3-3 and each hand is a
> > continual process of changes (draw-and -discard) in order to achieve
> > that unique pattern. The 2 = yin and yang. The 3's are trigrams.
>
> Allan,
>
> You seem to be stating that the pair of identical tiles (eyes) in MJ
> is somehow supposed to equate with the concept (yin/yang) which
> represents opposites? I don't understand.
>
a pair and being most visible. Similar to a round symbol referred to
as a familiar coin.
People name unfamiliar objects using familiar names.
A good example is this device called a mouse or 'graphic user
interface' etc. Can you imagine the names that might be there if GUI
was not written in full initially?
Yin and yang go in pair. No shadow without light and vise versa. They
represent togetherness. The early version of mahjong were called Hu
pai. Hu means "and" or "together". The word was derived from "rice and
mouth", having a meal or eating together.
Why a pair is "opposites"? One thing Yin and Yang are relative
states.
Best if I quote this passage from a reference you directed me to
study.
"Each line in every Yi Jing hexagram may be either yin or yang in
nature: the "0" and "1" of the binary system. In the Yi Jing, a
solid , unbroken line( __ ) is the symbol for yang....a line with a
break in the middle ( - - )is the symbol for yin...These twu forces
are called taiji: the great extreme, often pictured as halves of a
circle, a backward S-curve gracefully bisecting it, a dot of one
within the other showing that each creates its opposite..."
I also quote. "Nothing is absolutely yin or yang...what is yang in
relation to one thing will be yin in relation to another and
everything has its complementary yin and yang aspect."
Did that answer your question, Dan?
> Which combinations of MJ tiles represent which trigrams, and what does
> a four of a kind represent? Again, I do not understand. And what would
> four sets of trigrams represent in relation to the Yijing (not a
> hexagram since they are only composed of two trigrams)?
The term "kan" was used in Mo Hu Pai.
"kan" is the trigram for WATER. The flowing nature of water
corresponds with the flowing sequence of 3 cards. With 60 cards in Mo
Hu Pai, only runs or "kans" were possible. Then came Peng Hu Pai with
120 some cards, adding 3 and 4 of a kind to game-play.
>
Four trigrams could be any 4 of the 8 trigrams. The 8-trigram is the
Bagua representing in an octagon formation, clockwise, from the top,
Heaven, Wind, Water, Mountain, Earth, Thunder, Fire and Lake (Fu Xi
version for each trigram).
Since your 4 trigrams can be different in each hand, they represent
different "gua" (meaning picture, not 'fruit').
Let us see if this much make sense first. Then we will try to go on to
the nest step. You can appreciate a game can not represent the classic
Book of Changes in specific details in every aspect.
The general idea is the lines in suo suit are yin-yang lines (not
strings of cash). The interactions of these Yin-yang lines create
thousands and thousands of things and everything in the universe
changes according to hexagrams in the circles. The suit of concentrics
are symbols of King Wen circles (revised from Fu Xi's Bagua octagon
configuration).
Remember there can not be yin without yang? That gave difficulty in
showing LINE-1 or 1-suo. The solution for that yin-yang pairing
problem was a separate different symbol, for example, the sparrow, a
symbol of community and togetherness.
I don't have the author's manuscript to prove the original idea. But
it makes better sense to me than any amount of Cash.
>
> Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
I am well aware of the relativistic nature of the duality concept of
Yin/Yang. I just do not see what quality you could use for identical
tiles in order to call one yin or yang relative to the other. Just
having a concept illustrating duality (=2) for yin and yang, and some
pair (=2) of identical tiles that can not be assigned specifically to
yin or yang relative to each other, does not make a correlation
between them. All they seem to share is the number 2!
Likewise, without demonstrating that any tiles can be assigned
specifically to yin or yang when formed into melds (here you seem to
be ignoring the possibility of four-of-a-kind meld in order to keep
the number at 3), you do not demonstrate that they have any
relationship to the trigrams other than that trigrams, by definition,
also relate to the number 3!
I'm sorry, but to me your analysis is seriously lacking.
Dan
al
> Allan,
>
> I am well aware of the relativistic nature of the duality concept of
> Yin/Yang.
I am not sure what you meant by being "well aware of the relativistic
nature of the duality concept of yin/yang."
Explain it to me so we know what each other is talking about.
+++++++++++
I just do not see what quality you could use for identical
> tiles in order to call one yin or yang relative to the other.
I am not sure what you meant by "quality" for identical tiles.
How else to represent a pair?
The characteristic of yin/yang is that it can be yin or yang. When one
is yin, the other is yang.
The quality is conceptual even though the pair is physically identical
in tiles.
Is that the answer you are looking for?
I guess questions like this was never raised when the "Cash-Based"
hypot. was so much easier to understand. There was nothing to explain.
++++++++++++++++
Just
> having a concept illustrating duality (=2) for yin and yang, and some
> pair (=2) of identical tiles that can not be assigned specifically to
> yin or yang relative to each other, does not make a correlation
> between them. All they seem to share is the number 2!
You already told me you are well aware of the "duality" characteristic
of yin/yang. I won't tell you to study it.
>
> Likewise, without demonstrating that any tiles can be assigned
> specifically to yin or yang when formed into melds
++++++++
Why assign it specifically to a fixed state, when the nature of the
beast is in flux? What does duality mean to you? To me any tile can be
yin or yang depending on its complementary partner. This point was
repeated in my quotes.
++++++++++
(here you seem to
> be ignoring the possibility of four-of-a-kind meld in order to keep
> the number at 3),
"Four-of-a-kind meld" came after 3-of-a-kind and was not at the game's
inception. But what is your question on it? If you grasp the central
concept at the beginning, you can easily see 4-of-a-kind is a special
3-of-a-kind which has reached its stable state. It can change no more.
If 5-5-5 is in your hand, any one of the 5 can meld with 3 and 4 or 6
and 7. And if 5-5-5 are on the table, they can become 5-5-5-5 if you
have no use in your hand for the fourth 5.
The whole game is centered on the concept of changes. You pick up 13
cards and all you try to do is change them into a pattern, 2-3-3-3-3.
That is what differentiate mahjong from the rest of all games, trick-
forming and not trick-taking.
The 3's are of particular significance. They are trigrams of 3 lines .
Eight of these trigrams derived from a pair of yin/yang lines with
another yin/yang line in combination and permutation (by 2 to the
power 3).
Hence the pattern of a winning hand, 2-3-3-3-3.
+++++++++++++++
you do not demonstrate that they have any
> relationship to the trigrams other than that trigrams, by definition,
> also relate to the number 3!
>
I am not sure what you tried to say here, Dan.
Each trigram is the result of 2 yin/yang lines plus another yin/yang
line and represent a different symbol, like heaven, earth, water and
fire etc. I gave some details already.
> I'm sorry, but to me your analysis is seriously lacking.
>
+++++++
Well, Dan, I have to say your understanding of my basic concept is
lacking too.
> Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
I think that I understand that you are trying to relate the game of MJ
to the concepts in the Yijing. I have studied the Yijing since the
early to mid 1970s, and while I have never approached a scholarly
level of study, I believe that I have a reasonably good understanding
of the underlying concepts (wuji, taiji, yinyang, wanwu, bagua,
wuxing, broken lines, solid lines, changing lines, heaven/man/earth,
trigrams, hexagrams, change, Lo river diagram, etc., etc., etc.). It's
just that your analysis and presentation so far do not convince me to
spend much time or effort on this line of inquiry.
RELATIVISTIC means that the objects being compared can have their
associated yin/yang (a DUALISTIC concept since only two values are
being considered) meanings change depending on what QUALITY (or
characteristic, or value, etc.) is being examined. The QUALITY can be
any DUALISTIC concept: female/male, down/up, shady/sunny, cold/hot,
inside/outside, dark/light, passive/active, 0/1, short/tall, etc.,
etc., etc. This duality is not represented by an identical pair, but
by a complementary pair whose differences can be compared to each
other (assigning one to yang relative to the other which would then be
considered yin). The complementary partners, in terms of the yin/yang
concept, are not an identical pair!
An example: Though your two legs are fairly similar, the dominant leg
(the one that you most frequently move first when deciding to walk
from a stationary, feet parallel position) could be called yang
(active) relative to the other leg (passive). But this relationship
could change. If you were to move your right leg forward with the toe
lightly touching the ground, then in terms of the forward/backward
duality, the forward leg could be considered yang relative to the leg
in back. In terms of the solid/empty duality, the forward leg could be
empty and yin relative to the back leg. In terms of work (active/
passive duality), the back leg is tensed while supporting the weight
of the body and could be considered yang relative to the front leg.
etc., etc. etc.
Dan
al
> tiles in order to call one yin or yang relative to the other.
Flux is word that describes the quality of iyn and yang.
"The ancient Chinese further believed the cosmos was in a perpetual
state of flux, motion, and change, and that it was the endless flowing
of primal forces of yin and yang into and out of each other created
the dynamics of life." [The I-Ching Book, page 14 by Chris Marshall]
> just having a concept illustrating duality (=2) for yin and yang, and some
> pair (=2) of identical tiles that can not be assigned specifically to
> yin or yang relative to each other, does not make a correlation
> between them. All they seem to share is the number 2!
If you ponder further on the word "flux", you will see that
specificity is an impossibility.
"All they seem to show is the number 2 !"
That is the beauty of it in simplicity. Yin and yang create the
universe.
"From the basic pattern [taiji] two important points emerge about the
nature of Tao. The first is...that everything is transforming itself.
The second is that opposites in the world are complementary.
How else would you show the yin/yang concept?
Or put it this way, what do you think the significance of "2" in the
game?
>
> Likewise, without demonstrating that any tiles can be assigned
> specifically to yin or yang when formed into melds (here you seem to
> be ignoring the possibility of four-of-a-kind meld in order to keep
> the number at 3), you do not demonstrate that they have any
> relationship to the trigrams other than that trigrams, by definition,
> also relate to the number 3!
>
You do need to a review of your material if you still insist on
specific separate identification for yin and yang. You missed an
important point in Chinese philosophy.
> I'm sorry, but to me your analysis is seriously lacking.
>
I showed the coincident parallelism between I-Ching and mahjong. The
patterns, the rules and the principles. Most people do not appreciate
now. How could people in olden day China (most could not read or
write) to understand symbols and idea then. No wonder they called the
bagua "a sprig of flower" and a big mouth with "missing teeth". "Cash"
was the familiar thing they knew.
> Dan
Julian Bradfield
(Thank you for taking note of our comments about posting style.
Your recent posts are much easier to follow!)
> The term "kan" was used in Mo Hu Pai.
> "kan" is the trigram for WATER. The flowing nature of water
> corresponds with the flowing sequence of 3 cards. With 60 cards in Mo
> Hu Pai, only runs or "kans" were possible. Then came Peng Hu Pai with
> 120 some cards, adding 3 and 4 of a kind to game-play.
>>
> Four trigrams could be any 4 of the 8 trigrams. The 8-trigram is the
> Bagua representing in an octagon formation, clockwise, from the top,
> Heaven, Wind, Water, Mountain, Earth, Thunder, Fire and Lake (Fu Xi
> version for each trigram).
>
> Since your 4 trigrams can be different in each hand, they represent
> different "gua" (meaning picture, not 'fruit').
>
> Let us see if this much make sense first. Then we will try to go on to
Nope, makes no sense at all to me.
A trigram is effectively a three-bit binary number.
There are 8 different trigrams.
The 3s in mah-jong are three cards, either a sequence or 3 of a kind.
There are 55 different 3s in mah-jong.
How do you connect 8 to 55?
> Remember there can not be yin without yang? That gave difficulty in
> showing LINE-1 or 1-suo. The solution for that yin-yang pairing
> problem was a separate different symbol, for example, the sparrow, a
> symbol of community and togetherness.
What's the pairing in the 3-suo ?
al
> Allan,
>
> I think that I understand that you are trying to relate the game of MJ
> to the concepts in the Yijing.
Dan, you are right. That is what I try to do.
> I have studied the Yijing since the
> early to mid 1970s,
If you can remember this much of what you studied since the 1970's,
you probably passed beyond the scholarly level.
I have to admit I am surprised that you did not show appreciation for
the "flux" nature of yin/yang.
Furthermore, by the taiji symbol which shows yin and yang flow into
and out of each other. That mean the forces are together as one. No
yin without yang and no yang without yin. Did you forget this key
concept or you missed it when you were doing your study?
Yin and yang exist only when they both are present. That is
fundamental.
(It was on that basis I gave my reason for the need to substitute 1-
sou because I consider or interpret the suit of sou as LINEs of yin
and yang. Since neither yin nor yang can exist alone, we can not use
two lines to represent one-sou. (Let me know if you heard of a better
explanation)
Your objection was having a pair without gender identification. In
accordance with taiji concept, each tile in a pair of the (2-3-3-3-3)
pattern is bi-sexual so to speak.
> and while I have never approached a scholarly
> level of study, I believe that I have a reasonably good understanding
> of the underlying concepts (wuji, taiji, yinyang, wanwu, bagua,
> wuxing, broken lines, solid lines, changing lines, heaven/man/earth,
> trigrams, hexagrams, change, Lo river diagram, etc., etc., etc.). It's
> just that your analysis and presentation so far do not convince me to
> spend much time or effort on this line of inquiry.
>
By the sound of it, you know more than I do about taiji, I-Ching etc.
What I find strange though, is the ready offer of explanation or
justification for the terms and symbols in Matiao, a game on which a
paper you had not read.
In addition, "CASH" explains nothing about the mahjong game, it
structure or rules.
I pointed out a number of items in parallel between I-Ching and
mahjong. You picked one item (which you actually lack a thorough
understanding of) and concluded that is your analysis. It's obvious
you have not looked at the other points.
> RELATIVISTIC means that the objects being compared can have their
> associated yin/yang (a DUALISTIC concept since only two values are
> being considered) meanings change depending on what QUALITY (or
> characteristic, or value, etc.) is being examined. The QUALITY can be
> any DUALISTIC concept: female/male, down/up, shady/sunny, cold/hot,
> inside/outside, dark/light, passive/active, 0/1, short/tall, etc.,
> etc., etc. This duality is not represented by an identical pair, but
> by a complementary pair whose differences can be compared to each
> other (assigning one to yang relative to the other which would then be
> considered yin). The complementary partners, in terms of the yin/yang
> concept, are not an identical pair!
>
You missed only one little item, Dan.
That is one can not exist without the other.
You are talking as though they are separate things.
> An example: Though your two legs are fairly similar, the dominant leg
> (the one that you most frequently move first when deciding to walk
> from a stationary, feet parallel position) could be called yang
> (active) relative to the other leg (passive). But this relationship
> could change. If you were to move your right leg forward with the toe
> lightly touching the ground, then in terms of the forward/backward
> duality, the forward leg could be considered yang relative to the leg
> in back. In terms of the solid/empty duality, the forward leg could be
> empty and yin relative to the back leg. In terms of work (active/
> passive duality), the back leg is tensed while supporting the weight
> of the body and could be considered yang relative to the front leg.
> etc., etc. etc.
>
Precisely what I said above. You are looking at yin and yang as
separate entities. You do need a review of the concept. No shadow
without light...
They do not compare with left and right legs.
> Dan
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>[..]
>
> > The term "kan" was used in Mo Hu Pai.
> > "kan" is the trigram for WATER. The flowing nature of water
> > corresponds with the flowing sequence of 3 cards. With 60 cards in Mo
> > Hu Pai, only runs or "kans" were possible. Then came Peng Hu Pai with
> > 120 some cards, adding 3 and 4 of a kind to game-play.
>
> > Four trigrams could be any 4 of the 8 trigrams. The 8-trigram is the
> > Bagua representing in an octagon formation, clockwise, from the top,
> > Heaven, Wind, Water, Mountain, Earth, Thunder, Fire and Lake (Fu Xi
> > version for each trigram).
>
> > Since your 4 trigrams can be different in each hand, they represent
> > different "gua" (meaning picture, not 'fruit').
>
> > Let us see if this much make sense first. Then we will try to go on to
>
> Nope, makes no sense at all to me.
I am not sure exactly which point makes no sense at all to you.
Let me try again.
> A trigram is effectively a three-bit binary number.
That is how we know it now. It was a picture of 3 lines then.
> There are 8 different trigrams.
Yes. 8 different trigrams configured from 2 different lines.
> The 3s in mah-jong are three cards, either a sequence or 3 of a kind.
> There are 55 different 3s in mah-jong.
>
> How do you connect 8 to 55?
I think I see what you are asking. You expect a corresponding trigram
for each possible 3-card trick in mahjong. And I guess you were
thinking also as though 'unless one trigram for each mahjong trick of
3, then it does not make sense at all'.
>
Good question...
First, how did you get 55 of three's? With a base 2 ? Or what is your
generating base?
Second, the 8 trigrams are from the base of 2, like "yes' and 'no'.
Third, 3 of a kind was inconceivable at Mo He time, when only 2 of
each card were used or 60 in total.
Last, but not least, the concept of CHANGE was part of and central to
the game design. The possibility of 2-3-3 (and 2-3-3-3-3 later) was in
each hand. So, two or four 3's of whatever possible number of
combinations are in every hand, depending mostly on random chance.
Luck gives a player the chance for different 3's initially, then skill
and more luck will help a player along via draws and discards.
2-3-3-3-3 is objective of the game.
The potential for all possible combination of 3's are there. Does that
make sense now?
I will follow up on your next question.
> >[snip]
[..]>
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>
> > The term "kan" was used in Mo Hu Pai.
> > "kan" is the trigram for WATER. The flowing nature of water
> > corresponds with the flowing sequence of 3 cards. With 60 cards in Mo
> > Hu Pai, only runs or "kans" were possible. Then came Peng Hu Pai with
> > 120 some cards, adding 3 and 4 of a kind to game-play.
>
cards than a set of today. For one thing, it did not have the peng (3
of a kind) initially.
A complete hand could have been 2-3-3, (a pair and 2 trigrams.
With 8 trigrams in total from base (2). There was enough for 4 players
at 2 each.
> > Four trigrams could be any 4 of the 8 trigrams. The 8-trigram is the
> > Bagua representing in an octagon formation, clockwise, from the top,
> > Heaven, Wind, Water, Mountain, Earth, Thunder, Fire and Lake (Fu Xi
> > version for each trigram).
>
> > Since your 4 trigrams can be different in each hand, they represent
> > different "gua" (meaning picture, not 'fruit').
>
> > Let us see if this much make sense first. Then we will try to go on to
>
> Nope, makes no sense at all to me.
> A trigram is effectively a three-bit binary number.
> There are 8 different trigrams.
> The 3s in mah-jong are three cards, either a sequence or 3 of a kind.
> There are 55 different 3s in mah-jong.
>
As reiterated above, 3-of-a-kind was non-existent at the time of
inception. There were only a max. of 2 cards of each kind.
> How do you connect 8 to 55?
There are more runs possible in 3 suits. How that was considered, I
don't know. Any mathematician wans to offers an idea or an
explanation?
Without the 3-of-a-kinds (toak for short), would it be 12 or 21
possible runs from 3 suits? But it won't be 55, will it?
>
> > Remember there can not be yin without yang? That gave difficulty in
> > showing LINE-1 or 1-suo. The solution for that yin-yang pairing
> > problem was a separate different symbol, for example, the sparrow, a
> > symbol of community and togetherness.
>
> What's the pairing in the 3-suo ?
Good question...My answer would be a conjecture (a word I learned
recently).
Let me refer you to Lo's paper in The-Playing-Card, Vol. 31 Number 2.
For 3-soc (Strings), "pin" shown as 3 squares, the Chinese character
that could be meaning ranking or just things for eating (i.e. food
stuff). For the 5-soc though, it has foot-note #13 that says "For an
explanation of trigrams, see Cary F. Barnes . Trans., Hellmut Wilhelm,
The I Ching or Book of Changes...1984".
The 5-soc had a trigram for mountain, one solid line on top of two
broken lines.
If you have doubts about trigram association with cards, this may be a
useful answer. You will see more trigrams ifor Matiao in the same
document.
Your question on "pairing" for 3-soc means exactly what? All lines of
yin and yang should be in even numbers? Clarify it so I can try my
best without waste our time.
Cheers...
pa...@email.unc.edu
Yes, the taiji diagram (in whatever version it is drawn) illustrates
the flux relationship between the yin and yang forces - yet, if you do
not have the two different forces, then you also do not have the taiji
diagram. If one looks, for example, at what was probably the
inspiration for the concept, a mountain with sun shining on it, you
can not have a sunny side without also having a shady side - yet one
can know whether they are on either the shady side or the sunny side.
Flux indicates the changing nature of the interacting forces, but you
still do have two different forces (not an identical pair).
The lines in the trigrams and hexagrams are likewise distinctly either
yin or yang. Flux (change) can be indicated by a changing yin line
(yin about to change to yang) or a changing yang line (yang about to
change to yin), but they are still identified as one or the other (not
both). Also, change can be indicated by the relative position of the
line in the trigram or hexagram, with the older lines about to exit
from the top, and the youngest lines having entered from the bottom.
Again, this can indicate the changing nature of the trigrams and
hexagrams, but in the given pictured representation of the trigram or
hexagram, each line is identified as either yin or yang (qualified as
being younger or older, about to change, etc.), not both yin and yang
simultaneously.
The bagua represents the relationships (flux if you prefer) between
the eight trigrams (with the different arrangements illustrating
different relationships), but it is composed of eight distinct,
identifiable trigrams. Likewise the 64 hexagrams illustrate change,
but are composed of distinct hexagrams. Advanced analysis can
incorporate such things as 'nuclear' hexagrams that further elaborate
on the relationships between the hexagrams, but each hexagram is still
distinct from the others.
Dan
al
Whatever you say, Dan.
With your advanced knowledge of whatever, you can rationalize
anything.
I can not say I understand what you try to do or say now. I don't feel
like reading it a second time.
After all we only try to understand and figure out what, if the
Chinese scholars had done to a game thousands years ago; applied an
ancient simplistic concept of creation to a pastime thing. And here
you expect exact minute details from symbolism. Be sensible, Man...
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>[..]
> > Remember there can not be yin without yang? That gave difficulty in
> > showing LINE-1 or 1-suo. The solution for that yin-yang pairing
> > problem was a separate different symbol, for example, the sparrow, a
> > symbol of community and togetherness.
>
> What's the pairing in the 3-suo ?
I have not seen any explanation for the configuration of 3-soc. My
conjecture is this.
In trigram formations, there are yin (split lines) and there are yang
(straight lines).
Then there are "old" and "young" yin/yang lines. [The Living I-Ching,
by Deng Ming-Dao]
"The philosophical basis of the CHANGES begins with the limitlessness
[void or emptiness] which is our origin."
"The first movement out of limitlessness is into yin and yang, the
world of opposites: light and dark, male and female... and so on. They
are symbolized as straight line, yang and a split line, yin. These
opposites are not static; their balance is in constant flux."
I REPEAT. "THESE OPPOSITES ARE NOT SYATIC; THEIR BALANCE IS IN
CONSTANT FLUX."
This is interesting and it may be the answer to your question on 3-
soc, an odd number of lines. Again I quote from Deng.
"The four possible pairings of these lines represent the initial
interaction of yin and yang."
They are "Old Yang, Young Yin, Young Yang and Old Yin".
So my conjecture is that the odd pairings could be a yin/yang state of
flux, when Old and Young yin/yang were shown undergoing changes.
For any odd pairing among multiple lines, either a Young-y/y is
emerging or an Old-y/y being in exit. However, a Young-y/y or an Old-y/
y cannot come into being by itself as the case of 1-soc. But who
knows?
The 5-soc is associated with a trigram and a footnote by Lo for
Matiao. Review Lo's translation in The Playing Card.
Let's hear what makes more sense to you.
al
>
>
> Hello Allan.
>
> > Never Asked Questions (NAQ) #3 10/14/2007
>
> Don't assume they have never been asked. For your information, I have
> pondered all of them in the past.
Then you should have some ready answers for the questions. Right?
>
> > Is all that "Cash" in Mahjong for real, or is it Mistaken Translation?
>
> > First, why we call them Cash?
>
> > There are reasons. (1) A coin [one coin] described in Andrew Lo's
> > Manual of Leaves, as this: "a cash is circular with the hole square".
Did you notice that so-called "cash" was absence from the Matiao suit?
Take a reading again on Mataio. Zero Cash" did not have a square hole.
"Broken Cash" did not have a square hole. The other Cash had "sprigs
of flower" or GUO's. (Those "fruits" did not have square holes.)
That Cash description of Lo's applied to somewhere else.
> >[..]
>
> Now, with reference to "a cash is circular with the hole square", your
> 1 - 4 are ok. I have seen images or photographs of a Ming and Qing
> Dynasty Chinese coins - described as 'cash' in Numismatics texts - and
> they are round and have a square hole in the middle. I do not need
> Lo's articles to 'believe' it.
>
You missed my point, Michel, the difference of opinion is about the
coin or how an actual old coin looked like (I told you I carried a
chain of them when I emigrate from China). My point was that those
coins did not appear anywhere in mataio description by Lo. Since we
are using Lo and his mataio translation as reference document. You do
need to check Lo's article.
> I know of no one who has extrapolated the square holed round coin, per
> se, to Maque. [//]
>
The extrapolation was for the "wan" (ten-thousand) because it was the
exact written Chinese character appeared in other card set. We had
long discussion and disagreement on the multiple meaning in different
context and application of that word.
I did not know how and why it (the term :wan") came about, until I
learned about I-Ching and taiji. Ten-thousand was a figure of speech
for very large numbers of "things" from the interaction of yin and
yang. Check it out.
> > There is one problem. Lo's translation was based on Pan Zhiheng's
> > unofficial history of matiao as Pan had heard it from people of
> > Kunshan. [..] For
> > example, even the name of the game (matiao) has different versions.
>
Should that not be a warning to historians and scholars or students
like me?
The people who played the game and told Pan about the game did NOT
know for sure the name of the game itself. Think about that.
> You have left out Lo's translations of the Ming Dynasty Scholar Lu
> Rong and the Qing Dynasty's Feng Menglong. They both also describe
> four suited packs with money derived insignia on the four suits.
>
We have heard of the expression "blind follow the blind". I am half-
blind, but I am following...
> You have raised this 'word of mouth' objection before but given no
> credible evidence for it. [..][..]. three Historians make reference to money when
> describing the suit insignia and names. All three over various
> periods. Perhaps the knowledge was passed on orally. Fine, but you had
> better provide credible material evidence that the knowledge or
> information was corrupted beyond recognition from its original source.
>
What do you think I gave you for the names of Mataio, ma daio and the
two Chinese names were entirely different (while both are just as
meaningless). If one historian misinterpreted something, the next one
will tend to repeat. It's easy to cite a reference to another
historian. Repeating mistaken notions in science or philosophy is not
new.
> > I have doubts about the whole idea of a cash base history for the game
> > mahjong and its supposed "important progenitor" matiao, and I have
> > reasons for my doubts.
>
> It is not an important progenitor. The four to three suit evolution
> is, plus the suit insignia family to which ma diao belongs, is.
>
For one thing, the insignia are miles apart. The simplicity of mahjong
insignia is no comparison to anything. More importantly, no one has
seen the real matiao set. Somebody saw 3 cards in a 1933 book. Andrew
Lo gave a description very much different (with Zero Cash, Half Cash,
Broken Cash and [big mouth] like guests with missing teeth.
Why should it be a "progenitor at all? The game ply is entirely
different!
3-card runs and trick-forming vs. 4-card trick-taking. Different rules
and different principles!
> > [..] [..]
>[..]
> [..]
> 2ndly, Pan describes why the half cash is *called* the guest 'with
> missing teeth' and incompleteness is represented by imagery of plums
> remaining above a well. The rest of the *suit* is called guo. Please
> read the descriptions on page 87 carefully.
>
Michael, you missed this picture completely.
Go to any book that shows you a bagua (octagonal configuration of the
8 trigrams). Pan's mouth is 3 lines thick. the mouth is deep as that
octagonal well, but no teeth.
BTW, here is another glaring error from word-of-mouth communication:
gua taken for guo.
> > [..]
> This betrays your misunderstanding of Pan's descriptions IMO (In My
> Opinion). Please reread page 87, where he talks about representing
> 'incompleteness' through imagery.
>
Pan betrayed his lack of understanding of the symbols. He took the
words of those people who did not know any better.
> > Question (4), when zero-cash ranks "supreme"; when broken-cash looks
> > like a big mouth with "missing teeth" or like fruit or "guo"; when
> > cash quantities range from one to a hundred million, could all that
> > nonsense have come from mistaken homonyms of local dialects and
> > ignorance of their origin, and that the symbols were for something
> > else other than cash? What if that round thing with a square hole was
> > not cash money, but a symbol for Heaven and Earth?
>
> Another false dichotomy fallacy.
These are big words. I am not sure wht they mean.
> As Dan has pointed out, it could be
> both.
You have both accepted that all Cash related insignia in mataio.
>In fact, Numismatics texts on ancient Chinese Monetary systems
> suggest that the shape was struck by the 1st Emperor who was a
> believer in the alchemists of the time who held such shapes for heaven
> and earth from concepts in ancient cosmology.
>
The fact is that none of the "Cash" in Mataio had a coin with a square
hole. Whatever numismatics info is irrelevant to this discussion. It
only clouds the issue.
> > Final question (5) is this. With the description for one-cash on page
> > 89 of The-Playing-Card, Volume 31 Number 2, reads as follows, "one-
> > Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate)", then "one-cash"
> > is the yin-yang symbol or taiji diagram and is NOT cash. If so, matiao
> > is in fact related to mahjong because matiao like mahjong utilized
> > symbols (circles and lines) of taiji and I-Ching. (Cash and Strings of
> > Cash were mistaken terms.)
>
> The symbol is found on the 1 cash in other card packs, of the 19th
> century. It is on the 1 cash only and my understanding of Pan is that
> is what he is also describing - it is possibly *on* the 1 cash, it is
> not the 1 cash.
>
Any evidence of that other 19th century card pack?
Pan said "it is possibly *on* the 1-cash; it is not the 1-cash." You
mean the taiji symbol was [printed] *on* the 1-cash (possibly), but
Pan said it was not 1-cash. Why he should say that, I wonder. You
think the symbol might have been just stuck on that particular deck of
cards?
And you believe what Pan had said, I presume, as you did not object.
> Please notice how his descriptions are written (I take Lo to be
> accurate here). Describing the 'strings' he says, for example, "8
> strings. The string doubled and then quadrupled." "6 strings. Like six
> rivers twice round".
>
> Now notice the words "The string..." and "Like a...". One says 'what
> it is', and the other 'what it is like'.
>
> Hence the other references to trigrams are what the cash insignia
> arrangements are shaped like. That is why he uses the words "Like the
> shape of...".
>
Michael, you hit the nail on its head. "like" [this] and
"like" [that], When "A" is "like" "B", "A" is not "B". Please note
this. "Like" does not equal to "is".
That was the mistake people in China made when they were presented
with those symbols. The round things looked "like" cash. So they
called them cash. The LINEs look like strings, so they called them
strings. They knew what the word "wan" commonly means. They called it
"wan".
Now you can see how a mistake can be made and carried on?
We have modern day situation identical to that. When the first GUI
device came on the market, not many people heard of Graphic User
Interface device. Maker of GUI device knew better than to call it
that.So now we all know it as a mouse.
My point and my conclusion is a "mouse" is not a mouse ; same as
"cash" is NOT cash in mhjong.
Furthermore, a "cookie" or cake is called as such, it only looks LIKE
one. So goes for "Container" and other variation of names.
> Allan, please note that you have good reasons for doubt only when you
> have credible material evidence to the contrary. ^_^
>
I have given you plenty to go on, Michel.
> To be honest, I am surprised that you have misread, to me at least,
> what Pan described. The fact that you are using false dilemmas/
> dichotomies is worrying. These go like 'Either science can explain how
> she was cured or it was a miracle. Science can't explain it so it must
> be a miracle.' It suggests to me that you have not presented
> alternative options for us to consider and choose.
>
No, Sir. Michael, those are just big words. Look at my simple
illustrations. Mistakes have made in mahjong history. You should
correct them.
> Cheers
al
>
> [..]
>
> My understanding is that a cash coin can represent heaven and earth
> male, etc.) and the square which can represent earth (yin, female,
> the dynamics of their interaction). The one of any suit is often
> represented by something different than depicted on 2-9,
Dan, you said "often". In a scale of 1 to 9, how often would you rate
that?
>and it would
> not surprise me to have the taiji diagram substituted for a one-cash.
>
In that suit, 2 to 9 were "mouths with missing teeth", they were Bagua
diagrams. So the taiji diagram relates to Bagua diagrams.
Cash designation was a preconceived notion by your subconscious
assumption.
You and many others (historians, researchers, members in our group and
many regular players included) assume the term Cash is the correct
term, while some people call it cookie, container cake and whatever
else.
> > The "one-cash" specifically was described as a taiji diagram
> > (definitely yin and yang symbol and not a coin.
> > [..]
> > The description of 1-Cash to 9-Cash is referenced to the taiji diagram
> > in 1-Cash, by my reading. The taiji diagram is that black-and-white
> > circle, with two dots like eyes, that symbolizes the interplay of yin
> > and yang (female and male). These taiji diagrams by implication, were
> > on the matiao cards of 1-Cash to 9-Cash. Is that how you would
> > interpret page 89 of The-Playing-Card, Vol. 31 No.2?
>
Here is the answer you wanted to hear.
THE PAIR OF IDENTICAL CARDS OR TILES ARE "EYES".
THE EYES LIKE DOTS IN THE YIN / YANG TAIJI SYMBOL.
All mahjong players know how essential "eyes" are in the game. it
finally makes sense to call them EYES!
++++++++++
> I do not have that article of the Playing Card to look at so it is
> difficult for me to analyze what was said there.[..]
> [..]
READ THE ARTICLE FIRST.
>
> Dan
Cheers...
Allan
d_...@my-deja.com
> Now you can see how a mistake can be made and carried on?
>
> We have modern day situation identical to that. When the first GUI
> device came on the market, not many people heard of Graphic User
> Interface device. Maker of GUI device knew better than to call it
> that.So now we all know it as a mouse.
>
> My point and my conclusion is a "mouse" is not a mouse ; same as
> "cash" is NOT cash in mhjong.
Alan, please do not get carried away with things do you not fully
understand (such as the history of the computer mouse and the GUI
interface). The "mouse" has been called a "mouse" from the very
beginning by its inventer, so don't claim this is a "mistake" that was
carried on by people who do not know. At least do some research
before you post so you don't sound like a fool and discredit all the
rest of your post (which may be 100% correct for all I know).
al
> On Oct 26, 10:34 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Now you can see how a mistake can be made and carried on?
>
> > We have modern day situation identical to that. When the first GUI
> > device came on the market, not many people heard of Graphic User
> > Interface device. Maker of GUI device knew better than to call it
> > that.So now we all know it as a mouse.
GUI device maker did not call it a Graphic User Interface. I said
that.
Is that correct or not?
They named it a mouse. We now know the device as a mouse. I also said.
Is that correct or not?
>
> > My point and my conclusion is a "mouse" is not a mouse ; same as
> > "cash" is NOT cash in mhjong.
>
I further said: "a mouse is not a mouse", (i.e. a computer mouse is
not an animal mouse).
Is that correct or not?
> Alan, please do not get carried away with things do you not fully
> understand (such as the history of the computer mouse and the GUI
> interface). The "mouse" has been called a "mouse" from the very
> beginning by its inventer, so don't claim this is a "mistake" that was
> carried on by people who do not know.
Dan, is it not obvious that the (computer) mouse is not a house-mouse?
One mouse was "purposely mistaken" with a name of a familiar object, a
tiny animal mouse because of its body shape, long tail and movement, I
suppose).
I compared the situations where 'Mouse is not mouse' with 'Cash is not
cash'.
Who called it first is irrelevant to the discussion question, unless
the purpose of your point is an attempt to discredit the rest of my
post. Readers know better, I think.
>At least do some research
> before you post so you don't sound like a fool and discredit all the
> rest of your post (which may be 100% correct for all I know).
Did I sound like a fool, Dan? Being a fool once a while is not so bad.
A fool can ask questions others stay away for fear of being foolish. I
even asked somebody to change a discussion post-title back after it
was switched for no reason. How foolish can one get?
However, what I said is still true, allow me to claim that foolishly.
That is:
MOUSE IS NOT A MOUSE JUST AS CASH IS NO CASH.
Julian Bradfield
>> The 3s in mah-jong are three cards, either a sequence or 3 of a kind.
>> There are 55 different 3s in mah-jong.
>>
>> How do you connect 8 to 55?
>
> I think I see what you are asking. You expect a corresponding trigram
> for each possible 3-card trick in mahjong. And I guess you were
> thinking also as though 'unless one trigram for each mahjong trick of
> 3, then it does not make sense at all'.
>>
> Good question...
> First, how did you get 55 of three's? With a base 2 ? Or what is your
> generating base?
I think 55 is right. 7x3 chows, 9x3 + 4 + 3 pungs.
> Second, the 8 trigrams are from the base of 2, like "yes' and 'no'.
> Third, 3 of a kind was inconceivable at Mo He time, when only 2 of
> each card were used or 60 in total.
So how did 3 come into existence?
> 2-3-3-3-3 is objective of the game.
We know that. The question is, why?
The obvious answer is that if you have 4 of each card, sets of 4
are too hard to get, and sets of 2 are too easy. Why 2-3-3-3-3 and
not, say, just 3-3-3-3 or 3-3-3-3-3 ? I don't know, but I'm sure you
could explain either of those just as easily as you could explain what
we have.
Julian Bradfield
>> > Remember there can not be yin without yang? That gave difficulty in
>> > showing LINE-1 or 1-suo. The solution for that yin-yang pairing
>> > problem was a separate different symbol, for example, the sparrow, a
>> > symbol of community and togetherness.
>>
>> What's the pairing in the 3-suo ?
>
[...]
> Your question on "pairing" for 3-soc means exactly what? All lines of
> yin and yang should be in even numbers? Clarify it so I can try my
> best without waste our time.
My question on "pairing" for 3-soc means whatever your statement about
"pairing" for 1-suo means. If there is no difficulty in 3, why should
there be a difficulty in 1 ?
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> > Remember there can not be yin without yang? That gave difficulty in
> >> > showing LINE-1 or 1-suo. The solution for that yin-yang pairing
>
> >> What's the pairing in the 3-suo ?
>
> [...]
>
> > Your question on "pairing" for 3-soc means exactly what? All lines of
> > yin and yang should be in even numbers? Clarify it so I can try my
> > best without waste our time.
>
> My question on "pairing" for 3-soc means whatever your statement about
> "pairing" for 1-suo means. If there is no difficulty in 3, why should
> there be a difficulty in 1 ?
My answer would be essentially the same as what I had explained about
the flux nature of yin and yang in another post. You might have missed
it or I should do a better job in presenting my answer.
Meanwhile lLet's give others a chance to add their knowledge to the
discussion before I repeat myself.
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> The 3s in mah-jong are three cards, either a sequence or 3 of a kind.
> >> There are 55 different 3s in mah-jong.
>
There were only 2 of each card. Only runs of 3, like 2-3-4, 4-5-6. The
term was "kan".
> >> How do you connect 8 to 55?
>
Not a problem; no need, as explained above.
> > I think I see what you are asking. You expect a corresponding trigram
> > for each possible 3-card trick in mahjong. And I guess you were
> > thinking also as though 'unless one trigram for each mahjong trick of
> > 3, then it does not make sense at all'.
>
Not a requirement.
[..]
>
> I think 55 is right. 7x3 chows, 9x3 + 4 + 3 pungs.
>
For the early original design, the pattern was 2-3-3 or 2-3-3-3 Nobody
knows for sure. Members of this group may have knowledge to add here.
A clearer picture should emerge.
> > Second, the 8 trigrams are from the base of 2, like "yes' and 'no'.
> > Third, 3 of a kind was inconceivable at Mo He time, when only 2 of
> > each card were used or 60 in total.
>
> So how did 3 come into existence?
>
3-of-a -kind? It was made possible when the number of cards doubled in
Peng Hu Pai. How and why? I let somebody else give their contribution
to the topic. I do not have an answer for that. All I can say is that
it was not there initially.
> > 2-3-3-3-3 is objective of the game.
>
This applies to today's game, not the original design.
> We know that. The question is, why?
>
My simple answer is that it started with 2-3-3 and extended to
2-3-3-3-3 when the number of tiles allowed.
Metaphorically the 2-3-3 pattern was based on a concept of CHANGES.
>From the great ultimate of limitlessness, out came yin and yang. Out
of the interactions of yin and yang there were trigrams.
Yin and yang in the Book of Changes were represented by 2 lines. Their
interaction in trigrams was represented by 3 LINES.
The game of mahjong is a process of continual CHANGE as effected by
the rules of "draw and discard". Trick-forming is making changes step
by step with the cards you have on hand (unlike trick-taking in other
games). The 2 (yin and yang) interact with a third line (yin or yang)
and produce trigrams, which are representative formations of 3 lines.
You know all that. I am sure.
So in a nutshell, the original pattern of mahjong in 2-3-3 or 2-3-3-3
was, as I see it, designed with the I-Ching and taiji concepts of
CHANGES, metaphorically.
The pair of eyes (2 cards) represent the 2 round dots in the yin/yang
symbol. Each of the 3's is a trigram resulted from the interaction of
the 2.
Changes take place throughout the game to form runs of 3's. Later
changes and additions continued and consistent with the concept of
constant change, for examples, the seasons, the winds and literally
and figuratively, "ten thousand things" in the universe.
> The obvious answer is that if you have 4 of each card, sets of 4
> are too hard to get, and sets of 2 are too easy. Why 2-3-3-3-3 and
> not, say, just 3-3-3-3 or 3-3-3-3-3 ? I don't know, but I'm sure you
> could explain either of those just as easily as you could explain what
> we have.
You mixed up with the time frame here. I refer you back to ancient
time when 4 of a kind was non-existent. Your focus is on playing
feasibility based on math. and without reference or relation to
philosophical concept. This was a scholars' game. It was more than
likely to have a scholarly theme to it. (But, who knows for sure?)
d_...@my-deja.com
> On Oct 27, 11:58 am, d_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 10:34 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Now you can see how a mistake can be made and carried on?
>
> > > We have modern day situation identical to that. When the first
> > > GUI device came on the market, not many people heard of
> > > Graphic User Interface device. Maker of GUI device knew better
> > > than to call it that.So now we all know it as a mouse.
>
> GUI device maker did not call it a Graphic User Interface. I said
> that.
> Is that correct or not?
> They named it a mouse. We now know the device as a mouse. I also
> said.
> Is that correct or not?
Wrong on both counts. The GUI was called GUI by its inventers.
The mouse was always called a mouse by its inventer (a mouse is NOT
the same as GUI, just so you know). Calling a computer mouse a
"mouse" was not a "mistake" as you said, it was called a mouse by
its inventer deliberately. Don't try to argue a topic you know
nothing about. Stick to Mahjong if that is your area of expertise.
al
If you say so, Dan. It was not the important point of our mahjong
discussion. The point I made is this.
People sometimes give names of old familiar things to new unfamiliar
things. That, as I tried to show, has been done through the ages.
A modern day example is the case where a mouse (for the computer) is
not a real mouse (animal). An old example is the case where cash
(mahjong symbol) is not real cash (money).
The modern day day case has its history of development which you know
all details, whereas the ancient mahjong case dose not have accurate
records.
That is all I have to say.
Ordinarily, it is no big deal. A child calls something new with a same
name of something he just learned. However in the case of mahjong,
the symbol has important relevance to the game's origin.
>Don't try to argue a topic you know
> nothing about. Stick to Mahjong if that is your area of expertise.
I do not argue about topic I know nothing about, but I will tell you
if I do know something about a topic under discussion. I am just a guy
who is unafraid of being a fool once a while and ask simple basic
questions.
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> > Remember there can not be yin without yang? That gave difficulty in
> >> > showing LINE-1 or 1-suo. The solution for that yin-yang pairing
> >> > problem was a separate different symbol, for example, the sparrow, a
> >> > symbol of community and togetherness.
>
> >> What's the pairing in the 3-suo ?
>
looked at it again. So you did not get what I tried to say. Let me try
again.
When a yin line ( - - ), A, and a yang line ( _ ), B, being in non-
static state but in constant flux, they interact and create
intermediate stages called Young-yin or Yong-yang from Old-yin and Old-
yang.(i.e. young A, young B from old A ,old B.)
In a 3-soc, it is conceivable that an old pair interact and a young
line is in transit. Young lines are shown as ( -x- ) and ( -o- ),
(solid line through a zero), or ( -6- ) and ( -9 - ). According the
Book of Changes, that transient state is the flux nature of things.
This hypothetical explanation is a conjecture of course.
In the case of 1-soc, the situation is different. Not even a young
line is possible when there is no old lines to interact with each
other nor a single old line existed by itself.
> [...]
> [..]
>
> My question on "pairing" for 3-soc means whatever your statement about
> "pairing" for 1-suo means. If there is no difficulty in 3, why should
> there be a difficulty in 1 ?
There are (assuming 2 ) old lines present in 3-soc. The third is a
young one in transit as yin and yang are in constant flux. What is
shown is a snap picture so to speak. No one knows the whole story.
> [...]
>
> > [..]
d_...@my-deja.com
> If you say so, Dan. It was not the important point of our mahjong
> discussion. The point I made is this.
> People sometimes give names of old familiar things to new
> unfamiliar things. That, as I tried to show, has been done
> through the ages. A modern day example is the case where a mouse
> (for the computer) is not a real mouse (animal). An old example
> is the case where cash (mahjong symbol) is not real cash (money).
>
> The modern day day case has its history of development which you
> know all details, whereas the ancient mahjong case dose not have
> accurate records.
Al, I gave you a chance to admit you were wrong about the computer
mouse and GUI, but yet you persist in arguing about it even though
you know nothing about the subject. It is OK to ask questions
when you don't know, but at least admit that you didn't know and
others are much more willing to help you.
By arguing this seemingly unrelated subject, you have shown that
your interest is not in the truth, but in arguing. You didn't ask
a question about the computer mouse, but spoke as if you knew the
truth. If in the modern day case of the computer mouse, in which
we have all the history available to us, you failed to do your
research and speak with intelligence, how can we trust your
propositions about mahjong, in which we don't have a complete
history? Now you have just discredit all you have said about the
development of mahjong (at least to me).
al
> On Oct 28, 3:16 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > If you say so, Dan. It was not the important point of our mahjong
> > discussion. The point I made is this.
> > People sometimes give names of old familiar things to new
> > unfamiliar things. That, as I tried to show, has been done
> > through the ages. A modern day example is the case where a mouse
> > (for the computer) is not a real mouse (animal). An old example
> > is the case where cash (mahjong symbol) is not real cash (money).
>
What did I claim to know that I didn't know?
Here is what Wikipedia says.
"The graphical user interface, or "GUI" (IPA: / u i /), is a computer
interface that uses graphic icons and controls in addition to text.
The user of the computer utilizes a pointing device, like a mouse, to
manipulate these icons and controls. This is considerably different
from the command line interface (CLI) in which the user types a series
of text commands to the computer."
I did not need to know more than that for mahjong discussion. Any more
material brought into the picture will (1) either to impress the
readers or (2) to intimidate the readers besides (3) confuses the
readers.
I admit I don't know much about computer although I have used a few of
them over the years, and I have a library of books which are mostly
outdated. But for the mouse, I need no more than that.
Namely, the "mouse" is not a mouse that runs around in an old house.
> > The modern day day case has its history of development which you
> > know all details, whereas the ancient mahjong case dose not have
> > accurate records.
>
> Al, I gave you a chance to admit you were wrong about the computer
> mouse and GUI, but yet you persist in arguing about it even though
> you know nothing about the subject.
I just know what Wikipedia showed me in the quote above. How much do
you think I need to know? The more important thing is how to use even
just a little knowledge.
Again I did not claim to know a lot and I did not need a lot for the
discussion at hand. My point was, as an example, the computer mouse is
not a mouse and similarly, mahjong cash is not cash.
+++++++++++
It is OK to ask questions
> when you don't know, but at least admit that you didn't know and
> others are much more willing to help you.
>
Thank you for all your help.
> By arguing this seemingly unrelated subject, you have shown that
> your interest is not in the truth, but in arguing.
What is eating you, Dan?
I said "If you say so, Dan" in my reply. Was that an argument I chose?
> You didn't ask
> a question about the computer mouse, but spoke as if you knew the
> truth. If in the modern day case of the computer mouse, in which
> we have all the history available to us, you failed to do your
> research and speak with intelligence, how can we trust your
> propositions about mahjong, in which we don't have a complete
> history? Now you have just discredit all you have said about the
> development of mahjong (at least to me).
Dan, why did I need to ask a minor point when I have on-line reference
like a quotation below? And I didn't know you are an expert in that
field, otherwise I might have given you a chance to show off. It does
not cost anything.
"The graphical user interface, or "GUI" (IPA: / u i /), is a computer
interface that uses graphic icons and controls in addition to text.
The user of the computer utilizes a pointing device, like a mouse, to
manipulate these icons and controls. This is considerably different
from the command line interface (CLI) in which the user types a series
of text commands to the computer."
Here is what you declared, Dan. Because I did not post a question to
find out all about the history of GUI and mouse for the computer
before I made reference to the mouse, and I have said, "the mouse is
not a mouse; similar to mahjong cash not cash", now Dan has
discredited all of what I have said about mahjong game development.
Sounds loud and clear. I won't count on you then. If an idea is any
good, it can go without you; if it's no good, you can not make it
better anyway.
I had doubts about your words, too, when you tried so hard defending
the CASH symbols in Mataio without having read the description in Lo's
paper. However, you do have a wide range of knowledge. Who does not
have personal opinions?
Edwin Phua
Firstly, I must say that Al seems to be arguing with the misidentified
person, D. D is not Dan (Pasek), as far as I know. I hope Dan is not
too discomfited by the 'accusations' from Al.
Secondly, what little information that Al put up with regards to
Wikipedia's writeup on GUI (the ecact entry is "History of the
graphical user interface", and not "Graphical user interface" itself)
is rather telling. It shows that Al did not read carefully the
arguments put forth by D, because he misread/misinterpreted the
Wikipedia writeup; moreover, he did not read the most relevant entry
on GUI itself.
What D is trying to say is correct. The GUI is not a computer mouse.
Even the little bit that Al put up in his defence shows his
misunderstanding of the written material. What is a "command line
interface" then? The keyboard?
However wrong the details of the example/analogy may be, Al's basic
point does merit some consideration, to some extent. Indeed, the cash
suits in mahjong may not actually be cash, but items that do look like
cash, and thus named accordingly, as a sort of correspondences.
However, this then begs the question: what are the actual underlying
objects that were symbolized into the cash suits? What are the
relationships between these three disparate 'original' suits, if they
were indeed present? At least, the cash suits are related, and easier
to accept that these suits were preserved from some source because
such a claim is more parsimonious, without much evidence to the
contrary.
As for the argument on Yijing (I-Ching, Book of Changes), I am
unconvinced. Which game is about non-change? What is the point of a
game that does not change? Also, I am sure there are many, many games
out there that have a draw and discard mechanism. Does it mean that
all these games have the I-Ching as a basis? It could also be highly
possible that games were invented without such a consideration of the
I-Ching (consider games of non-Chinese origin!). I feel such a claim
is inherently difficult to support.
Cheers!
Edwin Phua
al
> On Oct 29, 3:26 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 28, 12:07 pm, d_...@my-deja.com wrote:> On Oct 28, 3:16 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Firstly, I must say that Al seems to be arguing with the misidentified
> person, D. D is not Dan (Pasek), as far as I know. I hope Dan is not
> too discomfited by the 'accusations' from Al.
>
Thank you for telling me early.
>
> What D is trying to say is correct. The GUI is not a computer mouse.
> Even the little bit that Al put up in his defence shows his
> misunderstanding of the written material. What is a "command line
> interface" then? The keyboard?
>
I remember "command line interface". I had to type in "copy", "Erase"
and "save" when I first use the computer.
Do I understand that the progression is from CLI, mouse then GUI?
> However wrong the details of the example/analogy may be, Al's basic
> point does merit some consideration, to some extent
This is the first I heard somebody says that.
++++++++++++++
. Indeed, the cash
> suits in mahjong may not actually be cash, but items that do look like
> cash, and thus named accordingly, as a sort of correspondences.
> However, this then begs the question: what are the actual underlying
> objects that were symbolized into the cash suits?
There has been reference to various disputed sources. The current
reference source under discussion is the mataio description translated
by Andrew Lo in the The-Playing-Card, Vol.31. Number 2.
> What are the
> relationships between these three disparate 'original' suits, if they
> were indeed present?
You will have to read Lo's paper yourself. You could get an idea from
reading a few of the posts here. I thought you would have read "1-
Cash" is the taiji symbol and "broken Cash" is a"sprig of flower" like
"a guest with missing teeth" (a big mouth, no teeth)....interesting
read!
At least, the cash suits are related, and easier
> to accept that these suits were preserved from some source because
> such a claim is more parsimonious, without much evidence to the
> contrary.
>
That is why so many people accepted the "money-base" (which you read
everywhere) for so long.
Sure...but that does not mean you are getting at the true story. And I
thought we are interested in research.
(I wonder what Deja did to advance the research work in mahjong. I
will ask.)
> As for the argument on Yijing (I-Ching, Book of Changes), I am
> unconvinced. Which game is about non-change? What is the point of a
> game that does not change?
I have not played bridge for so long I can hardly remember. I thought
each player starts with 13 cards and only one will play after bidding,
with whatever cards in hand. Is it not a non-change game?
> Also, I am sure there are many, many games
> out there that have a draw and discard mechanism.
In which time period these games exist is one question.
> Does it mean that
> all these games have the I-Ching as a basis?
Not just draw and discard...and that is never a claim.
You know there is more to the I-Ching hypothesis, right?
What about the 2-3-3 or a pair of "eyes" along with runs of 3-card
melds?
Have you seen another game with that formation and non-aggression
nature (I mean trick-forming instead of trick-taking)?
There is "ten thousand things" to say about this, figuratively
speaking, of course.
> it could also be highly
> possible that games were invented without such a consideration of the
> I-Ching (consider games of non-Chinese origin!).
> is inherently difficult to support.
>
Sure. I never thought of the I-Ching connection until recently. But it
is also highly unlikely or impossible to find another game invented
anywhere ever, like the Chinese mahjong. The game itself and its
connection with I-Ching can be unique.
Again, sure...it is very difficult to get support. First, the concepts
are abstract. And how many people want to try understanding I-Ching?
The Book of Changes is too philosophical for anybody. But it makes
most sense for the game-play and symbols for the unique mahjong.
> Cheers!
> Edwin Phua
+++++++++++
Thanks again.
AL
Edwin Phua
> On Oct 29, 6:09 am, Edwin Phua <fant...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:> On Oct 29, 3:26 am, al
> > Even the little bit that Al put up in his defence shows his
> > misunderstanding of the written material. What is a "command line
> > interface" then? The keyboard?
>
> I remember "command line interface". I had to type in "copy", "Erase"
> and "save" when I first use the computer.
> Do I understand that the progression is from CLI, mouse then GUI?
A (computer) mouse is merely a tool in manipulating the GUI, just as a
keyboard is used to input commands for a CLI.
> At least, the cash suits are related, and easier> to accept that these suits were preserved from some source because
> > such a claim is more parsimonious, without much evidence to the
> > contrary.
>
> That is why so many people accepted the "money-base" (which you read
> everywhere) for so long.
> Sure...but that does not mean you are getting at the true story. And I
> thought we are interested in research.
> (I wonder what Deja did to advance the research work in mahjong. I
> will ask.)
Unfortunately, scholarly research (especially science!) prefers to
take the 'easy' way out, that is, using parsimony. The simpler the
explanation, the better, unless the evidence is contrary. It is not
that people are intellectually lazy and just accept whatever claims
are more numerous (old wives' tales, urban legends, popular
misconceptions/myths?)! If this is so, I am sure the good people here
on this newsgroup would insist that mahjong is a millenia-old game
(but then, you probably agree) as so popularly advertised in the past
(and even till now, as seen on some websites). But this is not the
case. Based on known facts, evidence, writings, it is known that the
development of mahjong happened somewhen in the 18th century.
> > As for the argument on Yijing (I-Ching, Book of Changes), I am
> > unconvinced. Which game is about non-change? What is the point of a
> > game that does not change?
>
> I have not played bridge for so long I can hardly remember. I thought
> each player starts with 13 cards and only one will play after bidding,
> with whatever cards in hand. Is it not a non-change game?
No, there is bidding, which can results in diferrent contracts, in
different leads, and in different tricks being taken. How unchanging
is that? That's what I mean. All games show change: it is not unique
to mahjong that there is change of any sort. Either you are too vague
about the process or nature of change in mahjong, or this is a
baseless claim.
> > Also, I am sure there are many, many games
> > out there that have a draw and discard mechanism.
>
> In which time period these games exist is one question.
Are you implying/claiming that games invented after mahjong have
mahjong or the I-Ching as the source of inspiration?
> > Does it mean that
> > all these games have the I-Ching as a basis?
>
> Not just draw and discard...and that is never a claim.
> You know there is more to the I-Ching hypothesis, right?
> What about the 2-3-3 or a pair of "eyes" along with runs of 3-card
> melds?
The numbers 2 and 3 are hardly special, considering these are small
integers that are non-divisible, and many games utilise small units of
2 and 3 as well. For example, gin rummy utilises units of 3 and 4
(somewhat like mahjong), and has a draw and discard mechanism. Besides
2 and 3, what really links the I-Ching to mahjong? There are no direct
links (trigram to particular sequence or combination?). Why is the
combination 2-3-3 or 2-3-3-3? Why not more sets of 3 or more pairs in
the hand?
It is difficult to directly link the I-Ching to mahjong, and any
connections seem tenuous, since there isn't really much consistency
throughout the game, implying such connections may be coincidental
rather than deliberate.
I also agree with Dan's response about the pair. It does not show yin-
yang (which are states in opposition and complementation, and are NOT
identical).
> Have you seen another game with that formation and non-aggression
> nature (I mean trick-forming instead of trick-taking)?
I had been intending to comment on this use of 'trick'.
There is no such thing as trick-forming. The definition of a trick
from Wikipedia:
All trick-taking games use the concept of a trick. During each trick,
every player puts one card from his or her hand into play. Once each
player has played a card to the trick, they are turned face down and
removed from play...
Essentially, a trick is a round of play when each player shows a card.
The trick is taken by the winner. Hence, in bridge and most card games
utilising a standard 52-card deck, there are only 13 tricks in a
complete game. In mahjong, the term 'trick' has not been used, until
you. Usually, the term preferred is 'set'.
Well, I can point to all the gin and rummy games that are not trick-
taking (non-aggressive). As for the number of sets and numbers in a
set, sure, mahjong is unique, but is this direct proof that the I-
Ching is involved in the creation of this game?
Al, you can post as much as you want, but are you convincing anyone?
Perhaps you can consider trying to publish your ideas in some
scholarly journal. That way, you can appeal to authority (i.e. your
published self) when arguing with the posters in this newsgroup, and
your ideas may thus be more convincing.
Cheers!
Edwin Phua
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Whatever you say, Dan.
> With your advanced knowledge of whatever, you can rationalize
> anything.
>
> I can not say I understand what you try to do or say now. I don't feel
> like reading it a second time.
>
> After all we only try to understand and figure out what, if the
> Chinese scholars had done to a game thousands years ago; applied an
> ancient simplistic concept of creation to a pastime thing. And here
> you expect exact minute details from symbolism. Be sensible, Man...
Allan, I am not obligated to share my understanding and knowledge with
you. In response to earlier posts you indicated that I did not
understand the concepts, but when I elaborated on my understanding,
you then state that I have 'advanced knowledge' that I can use to
'rationalize anything.' If you respond so dismissively, then my
inclination is to disengage. I tend to be patient, give others the
benefit of doubt, try to be helpful, etc., but I will not continue
replying to you if I do not see a change in your behavior in your
dealings with members in this group.
The word 'rationalize' that you used implies that you feel that I am
manipulating my statements for some reason, presumably so that I can
manufacture a false argument in order to win some competition or
argument with you. It comes just short of calling me a liar (or
fabricator), and I will not continue freely giving you my
understandings and knowledge when I receive this abuse in return! As
far as I am concerned, there is no competition on this newsgroup.
There can be differing opinions, viewpoints, understanding, etc., but
I do not think that anyone is trying to put-one-over on anyone else
merely in order to win some argument.
I wish you the best in thinking about and researching concepts that
may underlie MJ, but I will not reply to you unless I agree with some
point that you make and thus feel that it merits further research. At
present, it seems to me that you are really only interested in
comments from individuals supporting your ideas. Negative feedback
should also be valued as it can help one's research in positive ways!
At present I have no supporting ideas to contribute concerning your
Yijing (I-Ching) presentation.
Dan
Cofa Tsui
news:1193681016.2...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
[...]
As
> far as I am concerned, there is no competition on this newsgroup.
> There can be differing opinions, viewpoints, understanding, etc., but
> I do not think that anyone is trying to put-one-over on anyone else
> merely in order to win some argument.
Very well said about this group, Dan! Let's all keep it this way!
Cheers!
--
Cofa Tsui
International Mahjong[r] Infoweb
www.iMahjong.com
al
> On Oct 29, 11:35 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Oct 29, 6:09 am, Edwin Phua <fant...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:> On Oct 29, 3:26 am, al
> > > What D is trying to say is correct.
> > > [..]
> [..]
>
> Unfortunately, scholarly research (especially science!) prefers to
> take the 'easy' way out, that is, using parsimony. [..] [..]
> But this is not the
> case. Based on known facts, evidence, writings, it is known that the
> development of mahjong happened somewhen in the 18th century.
>
I do not accept that hypothesis. This is however a different topic.
+++++++++++
> > > As for the argument on Yijing (I-Ching, Book of Changes), I am
> > > unconvinced. Which game is about non-change? What is the point of a
> > > game that does not change?
>
> > I have not played bridge for so long I can hardly remember. I thought
> > each player starts with 13 cards and only one will play after bidding,
> > with whatever cards in hand. Is it not a non-change game?
>
> No, there is bidding, which can results in diferrent contracts, in
> different leads, and in different tricks being taken. How unchanging
> is that? That's what I mean. All games show change: it is not unique
> to mahjong that there is change of any sort. Either you are too vague
> about the process or nature of change in mahjong, or this is a
> baseless claim.
>
I mean changing the composition of each sub-set of 3's while
maintaining a constant total of 13 (generally).
+++++++++++
> > > Also, I am sure there are many, many games
> > > out there that have a draw and discard mechanism.
>
> > In which time period these games exist is one question.
>
> Are you implying/claiming that games invented after mahjong have
> mahjong or the I-Ching as the source of inspiration?
>
No. I am not going that far. But I would never believe or have any
doubt that mahjong is NOT from rummy.
I posted a comparison between mahjong and rummy just recently. Rummy
has no "eyes" and rummy runs can be 3 to 8 cards in sequence.
Different counting as well...4 suits of cards with totally different
symbols. It's far from mahjong.
> > > Does it mean that
> > > all these games have the I-Ching as a basis?
>
Who knows that is or not? I-Ching was not understood by evrrybody
(even now).
Mahjong was supposed to be a game for scholars or royalty. It was
probably invented by scholars. People could copy bits and pieces here
and there, now and then; they could have given names to symbols or
change the names according to their own interpretation of what the
symbols looked like. They did not have to know the background history.
> > Not just draw and discard...and that is never a claim.
> > You know there is more to the I-Ching hypothesis, right?
> > What about the 2-3-3 or a pair of "eyes" along with runs of 3-card
> > melds?
>
> The numbers 2 and 3 are hardly special, considering these are small
> integers that are non-divisible, and many games utilise small units of
> 2 and 3 as well. For example, gin rummy utilises units of 3 and 4
> (somewhat like mahjong), and has a draw and discard mechanism.
I disagree with you here. 2 and 3 are very special in I-Ching and in
mahjong. 2 and 3 are very significant digits in mahjong,
correspondingly.
2 (yin and yang) come from "Limitlessness" when the universe begins.
The 2 interact beget young yin and young yang.
Young yin, young yang plus old yin and old yang (all 4) interact with
yin/young beget 8 trigrams, the bagua. ( I assume you know all about
bagua here.)
The 3's are trigrams produced by the 2 yin/yang. (2 interact with 2 to
the power of 3).
You sald many games utilizes small units like 2 and 3. I don't know
what you had in mind. I know rummy should not be one of them. It is
not like mahjong. Rummy has no pair like '2'. Its runs is not limited
to 3. Mahjong runs can not exceed 3. Cards dealt is not always 13 like
in MJ...in a word, very different.
+++++++++++++
>Besides
> 2 and 3, what really links the I-Ching to mahjong? There are no direct
> links (trigram to particular sequence or combination?). Why is the
> combination 2-3-3 or 2-3-3-3? Why not more sets of 3 or more pairs in
> the hand?
>
First why more pairs? I just explained the universe was created by
only one pair of yin and yang. Why do we need more than one pair in a
hand? Metaphorically, that one pair create each hand.
More 3's would be feasible if we have more cards or tiles. That is a
limitation from the size of the MJ set and the table.
> It is difficult to directly link the I-Ching to mahjong, and any
> connections seem tenuous, since there isn't really much consistency
> throughout the game, implying such connections may be coincidental
> rather than deliberate.
>
I think otherwise; the game like mahjong with symbols and game-play as
such was deliberate rather than accidental or coincidental.
There are "principles in the rules" to be appreciated yet.
There is a "dead wall" , forbidden Extreme where the Primal Birthing
Place is.
Extra points in counting for hooking the Eye.
Cyclical changes of nature and "ten thousand things".
Not just changes, but cyclical changes in the universe (Heaven, Earth
and Man in between...)
In addition, there is the "ten thousand things" in I-Ching.
Doubling the score in counting each additional faan( i.e. 2 x)
+++++++++++
> I also agree with Dan's response about the pair. It does not show yin-
> yang (which are states in opposition and complementation, and are NOT
> identical).
>
Philosophically they are indistinguishable. In trigram formations,
there are yin (split lines) and there are yang (straight lines). Then
there are "old" and "young" yin/yang lines. [The Living I-Ching, [by
Deng Ming-Dao] "The philosophical basis of the CHANGES begins with the
limitlessness [void or emptiness] which is our origin." "The first
movement out of limitlessness is into yin and yang, the world of
opposites: light and dark, male and female... and so on. They are
symbolized as straight line, yang and a split line, yin. These
opposites are not static; their balance is in constant flux."
I REPEAT. "THESE OPPOSITES ARE NOT STATIC; THEIR BALANCE IS IN
CONSTANT FLUX."
So, it is consistent with the yin/yang concept which most people (even
you) have missed. Mr. and Mrs. "Y" are constantly interchanging.
Besides, any pair can be the "eyes" of taiji symbol. Are you
suggesting that two of each set of 4 cards should be assigned as male
and the other 2 as female in order to satisfy the condition? Can you
tell the difference between the front-views of any two naked eye-
balls?
++++++++++++++
> > Have you seen another game with that formation and non-aggression
> > nature (I mean trick-forming instead of trick-taking)?
>
> I had been intending to comment on this use of 'trick'.
>
> There is no such thing as trick-forming. The definition of a trick
> from Wikipedia:
>
Okay.
> [..]
> the term preferred is 'set'.
>
I just acquired the "trick" term recently. Thanks for clearing it up
for me. I have used sub-set for that.
> Well, I can point to all the gin and rummy games that are not trick-
> taking (non-aggressive). As for the number of sets and numbers in a
> set, sure, mahjong is unique, but is this direct proof that the I-
> Ching is involved in the creation of this game?
>
That depends on you. And it depends on your knowledge of and
appreciation for I-ching philosophy.
To me, although the concept was simplistic, but this was the creation
theory of opposites which is not that far from the negative electrons
and positive protons idea. The interaction of (+) and (-) in chemistry
resulting in "ten thousand" compounds of things. (Somebody probably
would jump on this. I admit first I know only very little about
chemistry.)
Keep in mind that this was thousands of years ago!!
Expecting exactitude now is over-demanding. And when I see how so many
of you accepted the money-base with so little knowledge of its
reference source, I find it amazing.
> Al, you can post as much as you want, but are you convincing anyone?
> Perhaps you can consider trying to publish your ideas in some
> scholarly journal. That way, you can appeal to authority (i.e. your
> published self) when arguing with the posters in this newsgroup, and
> your ideas may thus be more convincing.
>
I have learned from many of the members in this group. Like Dan said,
opposing opinions help. Even insulting remarks have their use. They
inspired me. It's good that we can exchange ideas this way nowadays.
Galileo had to suffer in his days for his wacky idea!
++++++++
> Cheers!
> Edwin Phua
+++++++++++++
Cheers...AL
mstanwick
> On Oct 21, 3:27 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Williams latter point is correct. The round holed round coins were
> > called 'ring coins' and were part of other types of money - 'knife
> > money' and 'spade money'. But why was the round hole replaced with a
> > square one?
>
> WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION TOPIC?
It goes to the question of intent. From evidence of early coins and
where they were found, the inference is that they were initially round
with a round hole, and subsequently round with a square hole.
Since the roundness and squareness properties of the same coin have
been given as a possible symbolism for Heaven and Earth, then the
intent of whoever changed the shape might have a bearing on whether
there was any possible Heaven/Earth symbolism actually designed into
the shape of the square-holed round coin at its creation.
You asked (Oct. 21) "The coin represents heaven and earth? In what
way? I mean how does it do that? Do you recall? Where have they been
used to represent heaven
and earth? I can not think of any."
By replying to this subject of coins, their shape and the relevance to
Heaven and Earth symbolism, you allowed any of us to comment on your
reply. Since your reply, quoted above, does not mention maque 'cash'
in its meaning and intent, but nevertheless has an indirect relevance
to maque 'cash' symbols, a reply in the same thread was appropriate
(obviously) - but under a new subheading, to show that this was a
tangential subject to the main thrust of the discussion.
> NOTHING IS ADDED TO THE QUESTION ON MAHJONG CASH OR NON-
> CASH.
See above.
> WITH YOUR WEALTH OF MONEY KNOWLEDGE, START A NEW THREAD.
No.
> NON OF THE VARIETY PRESENT IN MAHJONG OR MAHTIAO. WHAT IS
> YOUR PURPOSE HERE?
See above.
> AS I SAID, CASH WAS A MISNOMER FROM THE START.
An unsupported assertion masquerading as certainty (due to the lack of
the word 'possibly' before the phrase 'a misnomer from the start').
[snip]
> FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH, AND IN SEARCH OF HISTORIC
> KNOWLEDGE, WE SHOULD CONSULT THE TRANSLATOR'S OPINION AND
> ASK HOW HE CAME ABOUT WITH THOSE TERMS AND WHAT PICTURES
> OR DRAWINGS HE SAW.
I have spoken with the translator. He confirms that the layout - the
shape of the arrangement -of the 'Strings' (of Cash) and the
individual 'Cash' on each card ( in the 'String' (suo) suit and the
'Cash' (wen qian) suit), are described by using objects with similar
shapes, or arrangements of things within them. These objects do not
appear on any card. They are merely devices for telling the reader how
the 'Strings' and 'Cash' are arranged on each card where they appear.
I did not ask about whether there were any pictures of cards in Pan's
manual since Pan gives such a detailed description. If there were any
drawings then there would be no need of any descripton.
> Since you know how to switch the thread, you must know how to switch
> it back.
Yes, I do.
Regards
al
> On Oct 29, 12:53 pm, Edwin Phua <fant...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 11:35 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Oct 29, 6:09 am, Edwin Phua <fant...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:> On Oct 29, 3:26 am, al
> [..]
> >
>
> > Al, you can post as much as you want, but are you convincing anyone?
Does not seem like it.
> > Perhaps you can consider trying to publish your ideas in some
> > scholarly journal.
Which one? How do I do that?
> >That way, you can appeal to authority (i.e. your
> > published self)
I am not sure what you mean by this.
You mean that is why hardly anybody question the published authors?
> > when arguing with the posters in this newsgroup, and
> > your ideas may thus be more convincing.
It has helped a lot.
>
> ++++++++>
Cheers!
> > Edwin Phua
>
> +++++++++++++
Cheers...al
P.S. I wrote this is in my post. I am still not sure where I went
wrong.
"We have modern day situation identical to that. When the first GUI
device came on the market, not many people heard of Graphic User
Interface device. Maker of GUI device knew better than to call it
that".So now we all know it as a mouse."
Is the mouse not a GUI device?
al
> On Oct 21, 8:36 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 21, 3:27 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
Hello, Michael, I will follow up with your post details later.
> > FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH, AND IN SEARCH OF HISTORIC
> > KNOWLEDGE, WE SHOULD CONSULT THE TRANSLATOR'S OPINION AND
> > ASK HOW HE CAME ABOUT WITH THOSE TERMS AND WHAT PICTURES
> > OR DRAWINGS HE SAW.
>
> I have spoken with the translator. He confirms that the layout - the
> shape of the arrangement -of the 'Strings' (of Cash) and the
> individual 'Cash' on each card ( in the 'String' (suo) suit and the
> 'Cash' (wen qian) suit), are described by using objects with similar
> shapes, or arrangements of things within them. These objects do not
> appear on any card. They are merely devices for telling the reader how
> the 'Strings' and 'Cash' are arranged on each card where they appear.
>
Good work...I have a question or two later.
> I did not ask about whether there were any pictures of cards in Pan's
> manual since Pan gives such a detailed description. If there were any
> drawings then there would be no need of any descripton.
>
Now that the translator is available for consultation. Let us take the
opportunity to ask him about the Cash (Zero Cash, Half Cash and One
Cash et.). Or what is the picture of a "guest with missing teeth". I
think some group members may also be interested to know as I do. Was
it gua or guo?
> > [..]
> [..]
> Regards
Cheers....
mstanwick
> > > FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH, AND IN SEARCH OF HISTORIC
> > > KNOWLEDGE, WE SHOULD CONSULT THE TRANSLATOR'S OPINION AND
> > > ASK HOW HE CAME ABOUT WITH THOSE TERMS AND WHAT PICTURES
> > > OR DRAWINGS HE SAW.
>
> > I have spoken with the translator. He confirms that the layout - the
> > shape of the arrangement -of the 'Strings' (of Cash) and the
> > individual 'Cash' on each card ( in the 'String' (suo) suit and the
> > 'Cash' (wen qian) suit), are described by using objects with similar
> > shapes, or arrangements of things within them. These objects do not
> > appear on any card. They are merely devices for telling the reader how
> > the 'Strings' and 'Cash' are arranged on each card where they appear.
>
> Good work...I have a question or two later.
> Now that the translator is available for consultation. Let us take the
> opportunity to ask him about the Cash (Zero Cash, Half Cash and One
> Cash et.). Or what is the picture of a "guest with missing teeth". I
> think some group members may also be interested to know as I do. Was
> it gua or guo?
He (Lo) is not available for consultation. He spoke with me in a
personal capacity. I acted on your suggestion in a bid to provide some
relevant information about one of your central premises. I am
certainly not your conduit in lieu of your own lack of resources. You
can do your own 'leg work' from now on.
Regards
mstanwick
[snip]
> Matio's Cash, so-called, were yin-yang diagram (1-Cash),
The translation does not say this.
> Bagua trigram (Broken Cash),
The translation does not describe this.
> and Zero Cash(Supreme Ultimate).
Correct. But for the rest of the Group who do not have Lo's
translation, quote the entire description of 'Zero Cash', not
selective parts of it so they can place your quote in context.
> Where is the Cash in
> matiao? Here is material evidence showing the lack of evidence of cash
> in matiao.
Quote the entire descriptions from Lo's translations to back up your
claim and not selective quotations, so the group may evaluate your
claim about the entire game with all the evidence to hand.
> Whoever accepted Cash as cash from matiao to mahjong obviously did not
> consider Cash was just a translation from a recording via word of
> mouth.
Give evidence to justify your use of the word "just".
> > Please give
> > me your documentary evidence that in the case for the 'wan' suit,
> > 'wan' meant ten thousand anything ...
>
> Do you want evidence for the first part or is there a second part?
Just for the above (cut for your convenience).
> The weakness of your hypots is that it cannot give a coherent
> explanation for the symbols nor the game-play.
Wrong. The hypothesis is about the derivation of the suit's insignia,
not the game-play.
Explain or give an example to show its incoherence to back up your
claim.
> By your hypots, the game was copied from here and there without rhyme or reason.
Wrong. Not my hypothesis.
> For example, why is it trick-forming instead of trick-taking? And why is
> this unique feature not a copy from another game?
Since these are examples of the above and since the above is not my
claim, I see no reason to answer these questions, nor the rest below.
> Michael, I have itemized the evidence of so-called Cash in matiao
> which is supposed to be an important progenitor of mahjong. They are
> yin-yang symbol and trigrams with reference to taiji (in writing) by
> Lo's translation. Look at the evidence provided.
Selectively misquoting is not evidence. Further, since Pan's account
is, according to your standards, mere hearsay and therefore
unreliable, your use of material from his account is therefore based
on unreliable testimony that renders your accounts and discussions and
claims unreliable.
> [snip] the test of reasonable coherence.
What is that?
> >Widespread misinformation over time?
> YES.
> >What basis in fact that this occurred have you got?
>
> THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PRINTED MATERIAL
Just because no printed materials have been found does not mean that
none existed. All your statement shows us is our own ignorance in this
matter at this time. It doesn't provide a reason for accepting your
claim to widespread misinformation over time.
> AND PEOPLE DID
> NOT AND COULD NOT READ. THAT WAS THE CASE FOR HUNDREDS AND
> THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
Madiao was played by the educated elite according to Lo. This was not
a game of the illiterate classes. The argument could therefore be made
that the information was passed on through the educated classes.
> > Apart from the fact that your argument assumes the very thing it is
> > trying to prove - the (1), you are also assuming (5).
> > You have to assume (1) first, otherwise why assume (5)? But you
> > haven't given any evidence to suggest we should assume (1) and (5).
> > These are pivotal to your argument and just cannot be blithely assumed
> > or asserted without direct evidence.
> MICHAEL, YOU ARE TOO SKILLFUL AT TWISTING THINGS AROUND IN ARGUMENTS.
Answer my objections to your claim, otherwise cease your insinuations.
> > But hang on. This information in Lo's article that you are using, is
> > misinformation. It has been corrupted. It cannot be trusted or used.
> > Not unless you cherry-pick the bits you want to use or decide are
> > corrupted. So how do you decide which bits are corrupted? How do you
> > decide which bits are ok to use?
>
> YOU ARE SKILLFUL WITH WORDS TOO. I HAVE SAID AND I WILL SAY AGAIN. THE CASH NOTION WAS A MISTAKE.
Provide a rebuttal of my argument above, or cease this insinuation.
Endlessly repeating your claim will not make it acceptable.
> I DON'T CHERRY-PICK ANYTHING FOR MY USE.
Yes you do. By taking descriptions out of context rather than giving
the entire description. By not placing that descrption within the
overall description in which it appears.
> LO TOOK IT WORD FOR WORD FROM THE KUNSHAN VERSION.
> YOU CAN CHECK WITH HIM TO SEE IF I AM RIGHT.
Same reply as above. It was hearsay by your reckoning. It was
corrupted by ignorant people down through the ages. Therefore, why are
you using it to substantiate your claims?
Regards
mstanwick
> > Don't assume they have never been asked. For your information, I have
> > pondered all of them in the past.
> Then you should have some ready answers for the questions. Right?
Wrong. Don't assume there are answers and don't assume are are not
answers.
[snip]
> You missed my point, Michel, the difference of opinion is about the
> coin or how an actual old coin looked like (I told you I carried a
> chain of them when I emigrate from China). My point was that those
> coins did not appear anywhere in mataio description by Lo.[snip]
Yes they do. Pages 87, 88 and 89.
> [snip] Ten-thousand was a figure of speech
> for very large numbers of "things" from the interaction of yin and
> yang. Check it out.
No. I am aware of it. You read Pan agai and stop making unwarranted
assumptions and conclusions from Pan's description. Further, if Pan is
unreliable and the result of hearsay etc as you claim, then stop
referring to Pan for support.
> We have heard of the expression "blind follow the blind". I am half-
> blind, but I am following...
Precisely my point. You want to use Pan for support of your
assertions. But you also want to discredit Pan (using baseless
reasons). If you want Pan's support then you must acknowledge Pan's
description as valid (until some contradictory evidence comes to light
that throws doubt upon some aspect of what he described).
> What do you think I gave you for the names of Mataio, ma daio and the
> two Chinese names were entirely different (while both are just as
> meaningless).
They do not prove anything. All they show is your lack of knowledge on
the matter. Reread Lo's accounts for the meanings of those names in
the context of playing the game.
> If one historian misinterpreted something, the next one
> will tend to repeat. It's easy to cite a reference to another
> historian. Repeating mistaken notions in science or philosophy is not
> new.
Stop these baseless accusations. Possible errors do not imply actual
errors.
> For one thing, the insignia are miles apart.
The suit insignia *family*. Reread what I wrote.
> The fact is that none of the "Cash" in Mataio had a coin with a square
> hole. [snip]
Wrong. Reread Pan's account where it is derscribed as such.
> Any evidence of that other 19th century card pack?
Illustrated in Gernot Prunner's catalogue. Readily available to buy
from Bookfinder.com.
> And you believe what Pan had said, I presume, as you did not object.
I accept what Pan said until I have credible evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, my acceptance is not equal to certainty.
> Michael, you hit the nail on its head. "like" [this] and
> "like" [that], When "A" is "like" "B", "A" is not "B". Please note
> this. "Like" does not equal to "is".
Precisely. "3 Cash [A]. Like the shape of the qian (Creative) trigram
[B] ..."
> That was the mistake people in China made when they were presented
> with those symbols. The round things looked "like" cash.
Wrong. That is not what I said. That is not what Pan and others
described.
> Now you can see how a mistake can be made and carried on?
By you repeating your original error.
Regards
mstanwick
[snip]
> Let me refer you to Lo's paper in The-Playing-Card, Vol. 31 Number 2.
> For 3-soc (Strings), "pin" shown as 3 squares, the Chinese character
> that could be meaning ranking or just things for eating (i.e. food
> stuff).
Refer yourself back to the article and quote exactly what Pan says.
"3 Strings. Like the character pin ..." [the diagram for pin is of
three little squares in a triangular formation].
In other words, according to Lo, the three strings are in a triangular
formation -
I
I I
exactly like the formation seen on the # 3 Strings of Cash ( # 3
'Bamboo') in a maque set.
> The 5-soc had a trigram for mountain, one solid line on top of two
> broken lines.
Wrong. The 5 Suo, or 5 Strings, says "5 Strings. Like the shape of gen
(keeping still) trigram ..." the diagram is thus;
_____
__ __
__ __
In other words, according to Lo, the five strings are arranged thus;
I
I I
I I
> If you have doubts about trigram association with cards, this may be a
> useful answer. You will see more trigrams for Matiao in the same
> document.
No, you will certainly not.
You will see more trigrams used as devices to describe the layout of
the strings and the cash coins, for each card.
Regards
al
> On Oct 30, 4:49?pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH, AND IN SEARCH OF HISTORIC
> > > > KNOWLEDGE, WE SHOULD CONSULT THE TRANSLATOR'S OPINION AND
> > > > ASK HOW HE CAME ABOUT WITH THOSE TERMS AND WHAT PICTURES
> > > > OR DRAWINGS HE SAW.
>
You forget that, Michel. You didn't ask Lo for a picture.
> > > I have spoken with the translator. He confirms that the layout - the
> > > shape of the arrangement -of the 'Strings' (of Cash) and the
> > > individual 'Cash' on each card ( in the 'String' (suo) suit and the
> > > 'Cash' (wen qian) suit), are described by using objects with similar
> > > shapes, or arrangements of things within them.
",,,,described by useing objects of similar shapes, or arrangement of
things within them.]
If Lo had given a single picture, we could have eliminated the need
for thousands of words.
In the except above, does it mean "[Cash was] described by using
objects of similar shapes, or arrangement of things within them? And
what "things" are these, things like cash? What was the substitutes
for cash? trigram lines like strings?
What you got from the translator as above does not clarify the
questions.
> > > These objects do not
> > > appear on any card. They are merely devices for telling the reader how
> > > the 'Strings' and 'Cash' are arranged on each card where they appear.
>
"These objects do not appear on any card". Then what did appear on
those cards? No picture or drawing at all?
I can't help but wonder why would Pan or any translator use trigrams
from the Book of Changes to describe something of similar arrangement.
I mean how many readers he thought would be knowledgeable of Chinese
Classic? I have to say something does not make sense to me.
> > Good work...I have a question or two later.
> > Now that the translator is available for consultation. Let us take the
> > opportunity to ask him about the Cash (Zero Cash, Half Cash and One
> > Cash et.). Or what is the picture of a "guest with missing teeth". I
This is the more important part of the question under discussion,
Michael.
The question is Cash or 'NOT Cash', so to speak (not strings).
These terms and their descriptions are in doubt. You missed the
opportunity to question Lo. You don't think he would be so helpful as
to at least provide some clarification on Half-CASH?
> > think some group members may also be interested to know as I do. Was
> > it gua or guo?
>
That is another good question. Fruit and cash is related only by its
price. But gua is unrelated at all to cash, except to trigrams.
> He (Lo) is not available for consultation. He spoke with me in a
> personal capacity. I acted on your suggestion in a bid to provide some
> relevant information about one of your central premises. I am
> certainly not your conduit in lieu of your own lack of resources. You
> can do your own 'leg work' from now on.
>
Tell Lo what questions are under discussion. Invite his post input. We
are all in the interest of knowledge and history. His help will be
appreciated.
> Regards
Cheers.....al
"
mstanwick
> Pity...A picture is as good as or better than a thousand words.
> You forget that, Michel. You didn't ask Lo for a picture.
I didn't forget to ask anything. My reading of Pan's descriptions
informs me that there were no pictures. Pan says, for the suo suit
"There are illustrations, resembling cash strings with cash drawings
and square holes." The fact that he is stating in words that there are
illustrations informs me that if there were pictures there would be no
need to describe them.
If you disagree with my assessment then you can try and ask Lo
yourself by writing to him via the London School of Oriental and
African Studies. But he is a professional scholar and is very busy.
> ",,,,described by useing objects of similar shapes, or arrangement of
> things within them.]
>
> If Lo had given a single picture, we could have eliminated the need
> for thousands of words.
Andrew Lo is a reputable scholar. I have no doubt in his integrity and
honesty nor in his ability to read ancient Chinese nor in his ability
to translate it into English nor to understand what he was reading. I
take him at his word.
If you don't like thousands of words then my suggestion is deal with
it and go and do your own work and gather your own information.
> In the except above, does it mean "[Cash was] described by using
> objects of similar shapes, or arrangement of things within them?
The arrangement of each of the cash representations and strings
representations on each card were in the positions suggested by
whatever object Pan referred to.
> And what "things" are these, things like cash?
Whatever Pan used.
> What was the substitutes for cash? trigram lines like strings?
See above.
> What you got from the translator as above does not clarify the questions.
Yes it does. I obviously have not explained it in a manner you can
understand.
> "These objects do not appear on any card". Then what did appear on
> those cards? No picture or drawing at all?
I am only going to ask you this once more. Reread page 89. Read the
Ist sentence for "String (suo)...".
The lack of actual pictorial representations of how each of the 'cash'
coins were portrayed does not negate the fact that whatever
representations were used, they were meant to represent or make
reference to 'cash' according to Pan.
> I can't help but wonder why would Pan or any translator use trigrams
> from the Book of Changes to describe something of similar arrangement.
> I mean how many readers he thought would be knowledgeable of Chinese
> Classic? I have to say something does not make sense to me.
Pan used the trigrams, not the translator. The manuals and other books
he wrote on Chinese cultural activities were aimed, judging from those
activities, at the educated elite and scholarly classes etc. Lo also
mentions that ma diao jiao etc was a game played by the educated
elite.
> This is the more important part of the question under discussion,
> Michael.
> The question is Cash or 'NOT Cash', so to speak (not strings).
> These terms and their descriptions are in doubt. You missed the
> opportunity to question Lo. You don't think he would be so helpful as
> to at least provide some clarification on Half-CASH?
It is your doubt, not mine. And your doubt is now highly questionable
to the point where your lack of evidential support for your doubt does
not entitle me to answer more of your questions.
Further, I didn't miss the opportunity to question him. His reply -
which you do appear to understand - applies to all of Pan's similar
descriptions. You do understand because you said above " I can't help
but wonder why would Pan or any translator use trigrams from the Book
of Changes to describe something of similar arrangement."
> > > think some group members may also be interested to know as I do. Was
> > > it gua or guo?
>
> That is another good question.
No it isn't. It is whatever Pan described and he described guo.
> Tell Lo what questions are under discussion. Invite his post input. We
> are all in the interest of knowledge and history. His help will be
> appreciated.
Reread what I said. He is a very busy professional scholar and it
would be improper for me to act as your conduit, in lieu of you doing
it yourself. If you want more information from him then you can
contact him yourself and hope he replies.
Regards
al
> On Oct 31, 9:19?pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Pity...A picture is as good as or better than a thousand words.
> > You forget that, Michel. You didn't ask Lo for a picture.
>
> I didn't forget to ask anything. My reading of Pan's descriptions
> informs me that there were no pictures. Pan says, for the suo suit
> "There are illustrations, resembling cash strings with cash drawings
> and square holes." The fact that he is stating in words that there are
> illustrations informs me that if there were pictures there would be no
> need to describe them.
The red light shines on the word, "resembling cash strings". By the
way, this sound like a simple question, but why did they (whoever)
have to use a string to symbolize a hundred cash or a thousand cash?
There were words for "hundred" and "thousand" in Chinese characters,
just as simple as the "ten thousand".
This should bring a string of questions. Why did they not use a simple
word in place of a complicated String drawing? Perhaps the simple
answer is that it was NOT string of cash. Give that some thought. This
could be a significant factor.
> [..]
>
> > If Lo had given a single picture, we could have eliminated the need
> > for thousands of words.
>
> Andrew Lo is a reputable scholar. I have no doubt in his integrity and
> honesty nor in his ability to read ancient Chinese nor in his ability
> to translate it into English nor to understand what he was reading. I
> take him at his word.
>
Reputation, integrity, ability, insight and experience are all
admirable qualities of respected scholars. I am not saying mistakes
made although mistakes are afflictions not immune to any one.
Readers' literal interpretation of the word-to-word translation is at
fault.
Put it simple as I did in another post. Cash is not cash just as mouse
is not mouse.
> If you don't like thousands of words then my suggestion is deal with
> it and go and do your own work and gather your own information.
>
> > In the except above, does it mean "[Cash was] described by using
> > objects of similar shapes, or arrangement of things within them?
>
> The arrangement of each of the cash representations and strings
> representations on each card were in the positions suggested by
> whatever object Pan referred to.
>
> > And what "things" are these, things like cash?
>
> Whatever Pan used.
>
> > What was the substitutes for cash? trigram lines like strings?
>
> See above.
>
Those are not good answers to the questions. I know you could do much
better than that, Michael.
> > What you got from the translator as above does not clarify the questions.
>
> Yes it does. I obviously have not explained it in a manner you can
> understand.
>
You missed the important questions on CASH, Before questions on Cash
is cleared up, Strings of Cash is just as muddy.
> > "These objects do not appear on any card". Then what did appear on
> > those cards? No picture or drawing at all?
>
> I am only going to ask you this once more. Reread page 89. Read the
> Ist sentence for "String (suo)...".
>
You need to re-read more than once, Michael. First subjectively and
then objectively.
> The lack of actual pictorial representations of how each of the 'cash'
> coins were portrayed does not negate the fact that whatever
> representations were used, they were meant to represent or make
> reference to 'cash' according to Pan.
>
But could it not be "portrayed" simpler?
> > I can't help but wonder why would Pan or any translator use trigrams
> > from the Book of Changes to describe something of similar arrangement.
> > I mean how many readers he thought would be knowledgeable of Chinese
> > Classic? I have to say something does not make sense to me.
>
> Pan used the trigrams, not the translator. The manuals and other books
> he wrote on Chinese cultural activities were aimed, judging from those
> activities, at the educated elite and scholarly classes etc. Lo also
> mentions that ma diao jiao etc was a game played by the educated
> elite.
>
Again, Michael, you hit another nail on its head. Mahjong and "ma diao
jian" were games for the "educated elite and scholarly classes etc."
Those people appreciate and philosophy and they occupied their time
with philosophical thinking. Cash and money were far away from a
scholar's mind. It might even be considered beneath their status to
talk about money. (Part of culture...)
Zero-Cash and Half-Cash and 1-Cash (taiji sign) and all the "
fruits" [like big mouths with missing teeth) were I-Ching symbols.
Why would Pan or anybody describe Cash with those words otherwise?
> > This is the more important part of the question under discussion,
> > Michael.
> > The question is Cash or 'NOT Cash', so to speak (not strings).
> > These terms and their descriptions are in doubt. You missed the
> > opportunity to question Lo. You don't think he would be so helpful as
> > to at least provide some clarification on Half-CASH?
>
> It is your doubt, not mine. And your doubt is now highly questionable
> to the point where your lack of evidential support for your doubt does
> not entitle me to answer more of your questions.
>
Where is your objectivity? Just think about it. Why Zero-Cash, Half-
Cash and Fruit-Cash? What in the world could that kind of Cash be
other than NOT REAL CASH?
> Further, I didn't miss the opportunity to question him. His reply -
> which you do appear to understand - applies to all of Pan's similar
> descriptions. You do understand because you said above " I can't help
> but wonder why would Pan or any translator use trigrams from the Book
> of Changes to describe something of similar arrangement."
>
I don't follow your argument here, Michael. If you just explain
directly your views on the questions about Zero-Cash, Half-Cash and
fruit-Cash, then I and others may understand.
If you depend on Pan's description totally without question, then it's
like a case where "the blind follows the blind".
Now let me try again to make my point clear. Why would Pan use I-Ching
symbols which few people understood in olden time China to description
something as simple as cash money? I can not understand that. Do you,
really?
> > > > think some group members may also be interested to know as I do. Was
> > > > it gua or guo?
>
> > That is another good question.
>
> No it isn't. It is whatever Pan described and he described guo.
>
I dare say gua is not guo (fruit).
> > Tell Lo what questions are under discussion. Invite his post input. We
> > are all in the interest of knowledge and history. His help will be
> > appreciated.
>
Just let him know a discussion is going on. You have a direct line to
him.
> [..]
>
> Regards
++++++++
Cheers.......al
Julian Bradfield
al <al...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Now let me try again to make my point clear. Why would Pan use I-Ching
>symbols which few people understood in olden time China to description
>something as simple as cash money? I can not understand that. Do you,
>really?
I don't understand your comment. Why do you say that few people
understood I-Ching in olden time China, when it has been pervasiave
throughout much of China's history? And even required knowledge for
the civil service exams?
al
> In article <1193919456.555161.76...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
>
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Now let me try again to make my point clear. Why would Pan use I-Ching
> >symbols which few people understood in olden time China to description
> >something as simple as cash money? I can not understand that. Do you,
> >really?
>
> I don't understand your comment. Why do you say that few people
> understood I-Ching in olden time China, when it has been pervasiave
> throughout much of China's history? And even required knowledge for
> the civil service exams?
Then let me explain why I made such comment. I did not understand why
Pan used I-Ching symbols which were understood by few people in olden
day China. Chinese society has had many layers. Required knowledge for
civil service exams did not mean so pervasive as from top to bottom.
Civil service was among the top tier of social standing, as I recall.
(My history knowledge is limited.)
However, by inference, it may be said that the game like matiao or ma
diao was designed initially for people in the upper crust of Chinese
society in the old days. Look at the rules of game play. And there
were supposed to be principles in those rules.
That in turn may implicate that Cash was a new term given by the lower
class when the game was finally filtered down (so cash was not cash).
I believe that.
Cheers.....al
mstanwick
> why did they (whoever)
> have to use a string to symbolize a hundred cash or a thousand cash?
A convention copied from paper money? I am incapable of knowing their
intent.
> This should bring a string of questions. Why did they not use a simple
> word in place of a complicated String drawing?
See above (2nd sentence).
> I am not saying mistakes [were] made
Good.
> although mistakes are afflictions not immune to any one.
You can only claim to know by having evidence that shows it.
> Readers' literal interpretation of the word-to-word translation is at
> fault.
Wrong. Your evidence suggesting any 'fault' is completely inadequate.
> Those are not good answers to the questions. I know you could do much
> better than that, Michael.
No. I am not spoon-feeding you any more knowledge (that comes from
hard graft). The answers gave you the information you requested.
> You missed the important questions on CASH, Before questions on Cash
> is cleared up, Strings of Cash is just as muddy.
The translator commented about the decriptions of both cash and
strings of cash. The situation is reasonably clear.
> But could it not be "portrayed" simpler?
A subjective requirement from you is irrelevant without any evidence
at all of the manufacturer's intent.
> Cash and money were far away from a scholar's mind.
Cash and money were not far away from anybody's mind. The numismatics
texts of Peng Xinwei highlight the extensive interest and management
of money by the educated classes (tables of finances and trade and the
amount coins and silver and gold cast, were meticulously made) - as
well as the merchants and ordinary people.
> Where is your objectivity?
Ask a pertinent question. Not an impertinant one.
>If you just explain
> directly your views on the questions about Zero-Cash, Half-Cash and
> fruit-Cash, then I and others may understand.
No. Already repeatedly done in the past.
> If you depend on Pan's description totally without question, then it's
> like a case where "the blind follows the blind".
The 1st part is wrong so the 2nd part is wrong.
> > No it isn't. It is whatever Pan described and he described guo.
>
> I dare say gua is not guo (fruit).
Does Pan say gua?
> Just let him know a discussion is going on. You have a direct line to him.
No.
If you are not a published researcher and you want information from
him, you go through proper channels.
Regards
al
> On Oct 29, 11:35 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Oct 29, 6:09 am, Edwin Phua <fant...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:> On Oct 29, 3:26 am, al
> [..]
Just a quick note...
I sent a reply to you, but it went to my own post. Didn't see so well.
> Unfortunately, scholarly research (especially science!) prefers to
> take the 'easy' way out, that is, using parsimony. The simpler the
> explanation, the better, unless the evidence is contrary. It is not
> that people are intellectually lazy and just accept whatever claims
> are more numerous [..]
>
I think I see why the preference for "parsimony". It is simpler to
cite somebody else. If any dispute or question comes up, refer to that
other guy who said it or wrote it.
> > > As for the argument on Yijing (I-Ching, Book of Changes), I am
> > > unconvinced. Which game is about non-change? What is the point of a
> > > game that does not change?
>
It is not "changes" vs. "non-change". I have listed specific changes
that refer to the sub-sets for pattern as objective. Changing a sub-
set of 2-3-6 in a suit to 2-3-4 as a run for example by substituting 6
by the 4. Similarly making 7-8 to a complete sequence of 7-8-9.
> > I have not played bridge for so long I can hardly remember. I thought
> > each player starts with 13 cards and only one will play after bidding,
> > with whatever cards in hand. Is it not a non-change game?
>
> No, there is bidding, which can results in diferrent contracts, in
> different leads, and in different tricks being taken. How unchanging
> is that? That's what I mean. All games show change: it is not unique
> to mahjong that there is change of any sort. Either you are too vague
> about the process or nature of change in mahjong, or this is a
> baseless claim.
>
The changes in mahjong are different. I did not detail them because I
assume readers knew what I meant.
> > > [..]
>
> > [..]
> [..]
> > >
> [..][..]
>
> Al, you can post as much as you want, but are you convincing anyone?
No one told me. But...
> Perhaps you can consider trying to publish your ideas in some
> scholarly journal.[..]
How do you do that? Which one?
> Cheers!
> Edwin Phua
Cheers.....al
al
>
> > On Oct 21, 3:27 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH, AND IN SEARCH OF HISTORIC
> > KNOWLEDGE, WE SHOULD CONSULT THE TRANSLATOR'S OPINION AND
> > ASK HOW HE CAME ABOUT WITH THOSE TERMS AND WHAT PICTURES
> > OR DRAWINGS HE SAW.
>
> I have spoken with the translator. He confirms that the layout - the
> shape of the arrangement -of the 'Strings' (of Cash) and the
> individual 'Cash' on each card ( in the 'String' (suo) suit and the
> 'Cash' (wen qian) suit), are described by using objects with similar
> shapes, or arrangements of things within them. These objects do not
> appear on any card. They are merely devices for telling the reader how
> the 'Strings' and 'Cash' are arranged on each card where they appear.
>
symbols fro I-Ching, first by Pan then translated more or less word
for word by Lo.
That means if Pan was incorrect, Lo would have had the exact word for
word translation. Correct?
> I did not ask about whether there were any pictures of cards in Pan's
> manual since Pan gives such a detailed description. If there were any
> drawings then there would be no need of any descripton.
>
So that is your deduction.
By the way, do you know the connection between the modern version of
madaio or mataio and the old version described in Lo's paper? I wonder
how those pictures were "reconstructed". I can check with Tom if you
don't have the answer.
[..]
>
> Regards
Thanks.
mstanwick
> On Oct 29, 12:53 pm, Edwin Phua <fant...@pacific.net.sg> wrote
> > Unfortunately, scholarly research (especially science!) prefers to
> > take the 'easy' way out, that is, using parsimony. The simpler the
> > explanation, the better, unless the evidence is contrary. It is not
> > that people are intellectually lazy and just accept whatever claims
> > are more numerous [..]
>
> I think I see why the preference for "parsimony". It is simpler to
> cite somebody else. If any dispute or question comes up, refer to that
> other guy who said it or wrote it.
Wrong. This is such a blatant equivocal use of the word 'simpler'.
Reread what was said.
Parsimony is also called 'Occam's Razor'. It is also called the
Principle of Simplicity. The reason is that hypotheses often make
assumptions about certain things existing, in order to explain some
phenomenon.
When choosing between two or more rival hypotheses (rivals because
they are considered equivalent in content and quality) the simpler one
- the one that makes the fewest assumptions - is the better one.
The reason is that assumptions, by their very nature, have the
potential for being incorrect (depending on how much evidence they
have supporting them etc). Thus, the more assumptions an hypothesis
contains, the more ways the hypothesis has for going wrong or being
incorrect.
Therefore, the hypothesis that contains the fewest assumptions is the
more simpler - the more parsimonious, and hence is the best of the
available hypotheses.
There are other criteria for hypothesis selection - such as scope,
fruitfulness, testability and conservatism. All should be used.
Regards
mstanwick
> So the strings of cash and wans of cash were described with trigram
> symbols fro I-Ching, first by Pan then translated more or less word
> for word by Lo.
Wrong. The layout of the Strings of Cash and Cash were described using
various shaped objects, some of which were from the I Ching.
> That means if Pan was incorrect, Lo would have had the exact word for
> word translation. Correct?
Or, that means if Pan was correct, Lo would have had the exact word
for word translation.
> So that is your deduction.
Correct.
> By the way, do you know the connection between the modern version of
> madaio or mataio and the old version described in Lo's paper? I wonder
> how those pictures were "reconstructed". I can check with Tom if you
> don't have the answer.
Go ahead.
al
> On Oct 22, 1:38 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Matio's Cash, so-called, were yin-yang diagram (1-Cash),
>
> The translation does not say this.
>
This is what the translation says on page 89 of Lo's paper in The
Playing Card, vol 31, number 2. And I quote:
"1 Cash. Like the diagram of taiji (grang ultimate)." Word for word,
taken from about 2/3 down the page.
> > Bagua trigram (Broken Cash),
>
> The translation does not describe this.
>
On the top line of page 87, this is what I read. "The cash suit starts
from Zero Cash, Broken Cask [Half Cash], to 9 cash."
Then on page 89, it reads: "Zero is taken to be supreme. This is
reversing the hierarchy. Half Cash. Half flower, half fruit. Sometimes
called 'sprig of flower', or the 'guest with missing teeth'.
1-Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate).
If you know the 8-trigram, Ba-Gua, well enough, that is what the
description was for. The guest with missing teeth is a picture of a
big mouth with lips 3 lines thick (as thick as a trigram) shaped as an
octagon by 8 trigrams.
With a bit of imagination, the octagon of lines can look like a 'sprig
of flower'.
My translation is a meaningful one and to me, more accurate.
> > and Zero Cash (Supreme Ultimate).
>
> Correct. But for the rest of the Group who do not have Lo's
> translation, quote the entire description of 'Zero Cash', not
> selective parts of it so they can place your quote in context.
>
You can add whatever you think is missing for Zero Cash. (To me, it's
the cash money that was missing).
I thought the rest of the group have all acquainted or studied in
depth the history paper that is such a significant reference for the
Cash Concept. They at least believed in it and told me in no uncertain
term. I don't know how they could come to so strong a conviction
without reading and re-reading Lo's paper.
> > Where is the Cash in
> > matiao? Here is material evidence showing the lack of evidence of cash
> > in matiao.
>
> Quote the entire descriptions from Lo's translations to back up your
> claim and not selective quotations, so the group may evaluate your
> claim about the entire game with all the evidence to hand.
>
They have to read pages 87, 88 and 89 of Lo's paper if they want to
know for sure.
Somebody may want to offer web space and show the 3 pages with
permission.
> > Whoever accepted Cash as cash from matiao to mahjong obviously did not
> > consider Cash was just a translation from a recording via word of
> > mouth.
>
> Give evidence to justify your use of the word "just".
>
Ma diao or mataio? Ba-gua or ba-guo? "[mouth] of guest with missing
teeth, this came from some one's big mouth.
> > > Please give
> > > me your documentary evidence that in the case for the 'wan' suit,
> > > 'wan' meant ten thousand anything ...
>
Read any book on I-Ching. If you cannot find that "ten thousand
things" then tell me. That's part of the creation concept.
> > [..]
> [..]
>
Enough for this post.
> [..]
> Regards
++++++++
Cheers......al
al
> >[..]
I did not finish my reply.
> > The weakness of your hypots is that it cannot give a coherent
> > explanation for the symbols nor the game-play.
>
> Wrong. The hypothesis is about the derivation of the suit's insignia,
> not the game-play.
That is my point. Derivation for reason which should show up
somewhere.
> Explain or give an example to show its incoherence to back up your
> claim.
>
Take a game like Monopoly, for example. Its insignia derived somehow,
but the insignia correspond with its theme and play such as getting
rich by acquiring real estates in the forms buildings and material
things.
What does your CASH have to do with the 14 cards (a pair with 4
triplets)? What are the principles in the rules of play?
If the game-play did come from somewhere, why did the game itself take
on the insignia of that other game?
> > By your hypots, the game was copied from here and there without rhyme or reason.
>
> Wrong. Not my hypothesis.
>
I mean whatever cash hypot you are defending.
> > For example, why is it trick-forming instead of trick-taking? And why is
> > this unique feature not a copy from another game?
>
> Since these are examples of the above and since the above is not my
> claim, I see no reason to answer these questions, nor the rest below.
>
I merely try to show that mahjong is a different breed of game.
Pattern formation is the object of the game. That involves continual
changes of cards through draws and discards.
Changes also reflect in the instrument of play. There are Seasons and
Winds and 'Ten tThousand' other things in the universe.
The strings are lines that form trigrams from yin and yang and
hexagrams in I-Ching, representing creation and changes of everything
in the universe.
Look in a dictionary, you may fine string is a line. I found it in
mine.
The concentric circles are not cash coin although they look like it.
They are King Wen circles revised from octagonal ba-gua (8-trigram).
An I-Ching book will show you the details from the Ultimate Center,
first yin-yang, their 4 bi-grams, the old 8-trigram then a space ring,
King Wen's new 8-trigrams, then the 64 hexagrams.
> > Michael, I have itemized the evidence of so-called Cash in matiao
> > which is supposed to be an important progenitor of mahjong. They are
> > yin-yang symbol and trigrams with reference to taiji (in writing) by
> > Lo's translation. Look at the evidence provided.
>
> Selectively misquoting is not evidence. Further, since Pan's account
> is, according to your standards, mere hearsay and therefore
> unreliable, your use of material from his account is therefore based
> on unreliable testimony that renders your accounts and discussions and
> claims unreliable.
>
Remember I said you were skillful in arguing. You came through again.
"Selectively quoting is not evidence." Then how did your cash become
such strong evidence when "string" of cash looks like salami sausage?
Mismatching is no evidence either. You selected the cash only.
Besides, I have not said mahjong comes from maaio. I only showed that
I-Ching symbols did appear in mataio. The appearance of taiji as well
as the use of ba-gua and trigrams in descriptions of the cards were
evidence. No denying of that, Michael.
> > [snip] the test of reasonable coherence.
>
> What is that?
>
I can appreciate the fact that you don't know what that is. You never
consider it in the Cash hypot.
I have repeated in a few posts already.
[..]
>
> Madiao was played by the educated elite according to Lo. This was not
> a game of the illiterate classes. The argument could therefore be made
> that the information was passed on through the educated classes.
>
Julian mentioned that recently as well. The propagation of knowledge
was a slow process. The educated elite and the illiterate didn't mix
as you can imagine. That was one objection I raised about the age of
mahjong. It had to take centuries to reach the commoners who spoke to
historians from the West.
The Chinese educated elite would have enjoyed a game with a
philosophical theme such as I-Ching (Book of Changes) than a game of
mundane money.
> > > [..]
> [..]
> > [..]
>
> Regards
+++++++++++
Cheers....al
mstanwick
> > > Matio's Cash, so-called, were yin-yang diagram (1-Cash),
>
> > The translation does not say this.
>
> Strange that you would say that, Michael.
> This is what the translation says on page 89 of Lo's paper in The
> Playing Card, vol 31, number 2. And I quote:
> "1 Cash. Like the diagram of taiji (grang ultimate)." Word for word,
> taken from about 2/3 down the page.
Your own rendition is wrong. You forgot the word "like".
You said (Oct 22) "Matio's Cash, so-called, were yin-yang diagram (1-
Cash), Bagua trigram (Broken Cash), and Zero Cash(Supreme Ultimate)."
In Lo's translation, Pan used the word "like" in his description. He
did not use your word "were". You should have said "were like" to be
more accurate.
> If you know the 8-trigram, Ba-Gua, well enough, that is what the
> description was for. The guest with missing teeth is a picture of a
> big mouth with lips 3 lines thick (as thick as a trigram) shaped as an
> octagon by 8 trigrams.
> With a bit of imagination, the octagon of lines can look like a 'sprig
> of flower'.
No. That is not what the translation says. That is your
interpretation.
See above regarding your "were" and Pan's "like". The former denotes
identicalness. The latter denotes similarity.
> > Quote the entire descriptions from Lo's translations to back up your
> > claim and not selective quotations, so the group may evaluate your
> > claim about the entire game with all the evidence to hand.
>
> They have to read pages 87, 88 and 89 of Lo's paper if they want to
> know for sure.
> Somebody may want to offer web space and show the 3 pages with
> permission.
No. It is your job is to select and quote relevant passages, then give
your analysis and argue how each passage supports your view.
> Ma diao or mataio? Ba-gua or ba-guo? "[mouth] of guest with missing
> teeth, this came from some one's big mouth.
Irrelevant to my question.
> > > > Please give
> > > > me your documentary evidence that in the case for the 'wan' suit,
> > > > 'wan' meant ten thousand anything ...
> Read any book on I-Ching. If you cannot find that "ten thousand
> things" then tell me. That's part of the creation concept.
Wrong. I shall make my request clearer. Does the I Ching say that the
'wan suit' specifically means ten thousand things? Does the I Ching
mantion the 'wan suit' at all?
Regards
pa...@email.unc.edu
has been difficult for me to follow this thread. Is the following
correct?
"Zero cash" is describing a card similar to what is depicted here (on
Andy's Playing Cards site; labeled "1, 4, 6 and 9 of Wen (coins)") on
the card farthest to the left (the 1): http://www.geocities.com/a_pollett/CHINA1C.JPG
Here the bottom half of the card depicts a lozenge shaped item, above
which is the interlocking coins symbol, above that is the taiji
diagram (supreme ultimate), and above that is a line of half circles.
Is this what is being discussed?
"Half cash" or "broken cash" is describing symbols such as are
depicted on 6 Wen (third card from the left) in the same picture (and
less clearly on other cards depicted, like on the 9)? Here the
depictions are along the edges of the card and appear to show only
halves of coins. Is this what is being discussed?
Dan
mstanwick
> That is my point. Derivation for reason which should show up
> somewhere.
Explain what you mean please.
> What does your CASH have to do with the 14 cards (a pair with 4
> triplets)?
Your questions are unclear to me. However, the various values of cash
provide a value system within each suit and a ranking system as well.
Each denomination of cah provides a suit ranking and value sytem as
well.
> What are the principles in the rules of play?
Unanswerable unless you provide a clear meaning for ''principles''.
> If the game-play did come from somewhere, why did the game itself take
> on the insignia of that other game?
No evidence of intent is available.
> > > By your hypots, the game was copied from here and there without rhyme or reason.
>
> > Wrong. Not my hypothesis.
>
> I mean whatever cash hypot you are defending.
Wrong. Not in the Money Derivation Hypothesis.
> > > For example, why is it trick-forming instead of trick-taking? And why is
> > > this unique feature not a copy from another game?
> > Since these are examples of the above and since the above is not my
> > claim, I see no reason to answer these questions, nor the rest below.
>
> I merely try to show that mahjong is a different breed of game.
No. You go beyond what the evidence allows.
> Pattern formation is the object of the game. That involves continual
> changes of cards through draws and discards.
> Look in a dictionary, you may fine string is a line. I found it in
> mine.
Good. Now find that meaning in another text that specifically deals
with money-suited card games, then you have some supporting evidence.
> The concentric circles are not cash coin although they look like it.
> They are King Wen circles revised from octagonal ba-gua (8-trigram).
> An I-Ching book will show you the details from the Ultimate Center,
> first yin-yang, their 4 bi-grams, the old 8-trigram then a space ring,
> King Wen's new 8-trigrams, then the 64 hexagrams.
For the last time, this may *probably* be true, or it may not. The
amount of evidence you have given puts it on the lower end of the
probability scale.
> > Selectively misquoting is not evidence. Further, since Pan's account
> > is, according to your standards, mere hearsay and therefore
> > unreliable, your use of material from his account is therefore based
> > on unreliable testimony that renders your accounts and discussions and
> > claims unreliable.
>
> Remember I said you were skillful in arguing. You came through again.
Wrong. The "skillful in arguing" is not the distortive sort you are
trying to accuse me of.
> "Selectively quoting is not evidence." Then how did your cash become
> such strong evidence when "string" of cash looks like salami sausage?
I said "selectively misquoting" (I take account of your poor
eyesight). If Pan mentions 'salami sausage' then please point me to
where it is so described.
> Mismatching is no evidence either. You selected the cash only.
What does that mean?
Now, this is the second or third time you have not answered my point
above. I shall repeat it.
"since Pan's account is, according to your standards, mere hearsay and
therefore unreliable, your use of material from his account is
therefore based on unreliable testimony that renders your accounts and
discussions and claims unreliable."
In case you forgot, answer that point.
> The appearance of taiji as well
> as the use of ba-gua and trigrams in descriptions of the cards were
> evidence.
Evidence for what claim. State the claim fully that they are evidence
for.
> > > [snip] the test of reasonable coherence.
>
> > What is that?
>
> I can appreciate the fact that you don't know what that is. You never
> consider it in the Cash hypot.
Wrong. I don't know what your name "reasonable coherence" means.
Explain it to me.
Because I do not know what that name means does not mean I do not know
what it is referring to. I may know it by another name.
> I have repeated in a few posts already.
When you make such a claim like that then tell us where you have
repeated it and where it is explained.
> > Madiao was played by the educated elite according to Lo. This was not
> > a game of the illiterate classes. The argument could therefore be made
> > that the information was passed on through the educated classes.
>
> Julian mentioned that recently as well. The propagation of knowledge
> was a slow process. The educated elite and the illiterate didn't mix
> as you can imagine.
Assuming that to be the case, that is no reason not to suppose that
the card games did not mix between the classes.
> That was one objection I raised about the age of
> mahjong. It had to take centuries to reach the commoners who spoke to
> historians from the West.
Those westerners also mixed in educated circles.
> The Chinese educated elite would have enjoyed a game with a
> philosophical theme such as I-Ching (Book of Changes) than a game of
> mundane money.
Perhaps. But provide evidence suggesting that contention, especially
since it is part of your main argument.
Regards
mstanwick
Dan, the link is down it seems. When I can access it I will let you
know.
pa...@email.unc.edu
The link above (http://www.geocities.com/a_pollett/CHINA1C.JPG ) was
to the image location. Perhaps that does not work for everyone. The
following link is to the page that it is displayed on:
http://www.geocities.com/a_pollett/cards8.htm
You will need to scroll down ~3/4 of the page (under the heading "Dong
Guan Cards") to see the specific image that I was referring to.
Dan
mstanwick
> "Zero cash" is describing a card similar to what is depicted here (on
> Andy's Playing Cards site; labeled "1, 4, 6 and 9 of Wen (coins)") on
> the card farthest to the left [snip]
> Here the bottom half of the card depicts a lozenge shaped item, above
> which is the interlocking coins symbol, above that is the taiji
> diagram (supreme ultimate), and above that is a line of half circles.
> Is this what is being discussed?
That card (with the taiji symbol on it) is the 'One Cash'. 'Zero
Cash', in fact, is shown as a card in the extra cards group. It is
called xiao hong (red flower) and shows a man with short crooked legs
- probably Wang Ying from the Water Margin novel (although Pan
describes this card as showing a man with short legs and black boots).
Pan says sometimes this card is called 'Short Legged Tiger', which,
according to Lo, is a nickname for Wang Ying.
You can see similar cards in a pack shown in Culin's article at
http://www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/Archives/Culin/Majong1924/index.html
> "Half cash" or "broken cash" is describing symbols such as are
> depicted on 6 Wen (third card from the left) in the same picture (and
> less clearly on other cards depicted, like on the 9)? Here the
> depictions are along the edges of the card and appear to show only
> halves of coins. Is this what is being discussed?
Not exactly. What this web site is showing are cards from a Tung Kuan
P'ai deck of three suited money cards. (see Culin's article)
I refer you to the three picture groups on Pollet's site - the four
suo's (2, 3, 7, 9 strings), the three extra cards (Da Hong, Ba Shu,
Xiao Hong) and the four 'Cash' (coins) cards ( 1, 4, 6, 9 coins).
The Tung Kuan P'ai suits have the following ranking;
The Cash ranking (strongest to weakest) is as follows;
Xiao Hong = zero cash (it has two red stamps on it)
Ba Shu = half cash
One coin = one cash (the one with the taiji symbol)
two coins = two cash
etc
Thus, this suit is reversed in ranking, relative to the other suits
and the values of the 'Cash' cards.
The Strings (suo) ranking (strongest to weakest) is as follows;
9 strings (with one red stamp)
8 strings
7 strings
etc
The Myriads (wan) suit ranking (strongest to weakest) is as follows;
Da Hong (old thousand) (it has three red stamps on it)
9 myriads
8 myriads
etc
In the game of K'anhu as described by Culin, the purpose of the red
stamps is to show the 'head' cards that head each suit. When forming
('tricks') (melds of similar cards of the same strength) these red
stamps become clear as they form a trick of three cards = 'Old
Thousand'(da hong), ' 9 Strings' and 'Zero Cash (xiao hong or red
flower)'.
The next 'trick' of three cards = 9 myriads, 8 strings, half cash (ba
shu or white flower)
These two 'tricks' are part of a special group of triplets in K'anhu
known as 'eyes', according to Culin, and a winning hand must contain
at least one of them.
The late playing card researcher, John Berry, wrote a detailed account
of this pack of cards as it relates to K'anhu. I have drawn some of
this information from his article. It appears after Lo's article in
The Playing -card Vol.31, No. 5. 2003.
I hope this helps?
The problem is that Pan uses the word 'like'. So we do not know how
similar the taiji symbol in his description is like the taiji symbol
on the 'one cash' card shown on Pollets site and in Culin's article.
My own opinion is that it is probably a very close likeness.
Regards
mstanwick
the same as I have described.
al
> On Nov 2, 12:47?am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Matio's Cash, so-called, were yin-yang diagram (1-Cash),
>
> > > The translation does not say this.
>
> > Strange that you would say that, Michael.
> > This is what the translation says on page 89 of Lo's paper in The
> > Playing Card, vol 31, number 2. And I quote:
> > "1 Cash. Like the diagram of taiji (grang ultimate)." Word for word,
> > taken from about 2/3 down the page.
>
> Your own rendition is wrong. You forgot the word "like".
>
> You said (Oct 22) "Matio's Cash, so-called, were yin-yang diagram (1-
> Cash), Bagua trigram (Broken Cash), and Zero Cash(Supreme Ultimate)."
>
> In Lo's translation, Pan used the word "like" in his description. He
> did not use your word "were". You should have said "were like" to be
> more accurate.
>
Whatever, Michael, the interpretation of the translation is that
Broken Cash was described as the ba-gua, which looks like a big mouth
with missing teeth. Just visualize an octagon with a parameter 3 lines
thick.(BTW, Half-Cash is misleading translation.)
> > If you know the 8-trigram, Ba-Gua, well enough, that is what the
> > description was for. The guest with missing teeth is a picture of a
> > big mouth with lips 3 lines thick (as thick as a trigram) shaped as an
> > octagon by 8 trigrams.
> > With a bit of imagination, the octagon of lines can look like a 'sprig
> > of flower'.
>
> No. That is not what the translation says. That is your
> interpretation.
> See above regarding your "were" and Pan's "like". The former denotes
> identicalness. The latter denotes similarity.
>
That is how you have to read translation of Chinese language by
Chinese people, Michael.
So now it's your interpretation vs. mine. Leave it at that or give
your rendition.
> > > Quote the entire descriptions from Lo's translations to back up your
> > > claim and not selective quotations, so the group may evaluate your
> > > claim about the entire game with all the evidence to hand.
>
I forgot to mention an important aspect of the game design unique in
mhjong. In my view, it is the cyclical changes in the universe as
reflected or played out in the round after round, from the East wind
to South and West, then North; also the Seasons change
correspondingly. The cycle repeats. No other game goes like a clock
like that. Is there?
I don't think "money makes the world go round" applies here.
> > [..]
> [..]
> > > > > Please give
> > > > > me your documentary evidence that in the case for the 'wan' suit,
> > > > > 'wan' meant ten thousand anything ...
> > Read any book on I-Ching. If you cannot find that "ten thousand
> > things" then tell me. That's part of the creation concept.
>
> Wrong. I shall make my request clearer. Does the I Ching say that the
> 'wan suit' specifically means ten thousand things? Does the I Ching
> mantion the 'wan suit' at all?
>
No. Of course I-Ching did not give special mention to a game long
before the game ever created, especially as ''wan' was never a 'suit'
in the Book.) But you read any author on I-Ching or tai-chi, you will
see what I mean. 'Wan' is unrelated to cash specifically. I am sure.
And I am willing to bet; you will find wan refers to ten-thousand
things.
I have a small indoor plant that lives almost forever in a glass
bottle. It's called "Ten-thousand-year-green". But it is a just
simple "evergreen". My point is that ten-thousand can be used as a
figure of speech, not always a numeric denomination.
> Regards
++++++++++++
Cheers.....al
mstanwick
> > > > > Matio's Cash, so-called, were yin-yang diagram (1-Cash),
> > > > The translation does not say this.
> You have to interpret the translation.
Wrong. Quote the relevant passages from the translation then argue how
that passage supports your statement above.
> > In Lo's translation, Pan used the word "like" in his description. He
> > did not use your word "were". You should have said "were like" to be
> > more accurate.
> Whatever, Michael, the interpretation of the translation is that...[snip] [etc]
Wrong. If you are going to put forward an intepretation of a certain
text, you quote the relevant text and then explain to us how the words
and phrases in the quoted text give you the meaning that is in your
interpretation.
> > No. That is not what the translation says. That is your
> > interpretation.
> > See above regarding your "were" and Pan's "like". The former denotes
> > identicalness. The latter denotes similarity.
>
> That is how you have to read translation of Chinese language by
> Chinese people, Michael.
> So now it's your interpretation vs. mine. Leave it at that or give
> your rendition.
No. Quote the relevant text from the translation and explain to us how
the words in the text mean what you think they mean. If you can argue
successfully, for example, that "like" does not denote similarity but
identicalness, then you might have a case.
Further, the false dichotomy of 'your interpretation vs. my
interpretation' is wrong. It is your reasons and my reasons that are
the issue here. The inferences in our arguments and not the
conclusions/interpretations that are the issue.
> > > > Quote the entire descriptions from Lo's translations to back up your
> > > > claim and not selective quotations, so the group may evaluate your
> > > > claim about the entire game with all the evidence to hand.
> I don't think "money makes the world go round" applies here.
Irrelevant. This does not answer the above.
> No. Of course I-Ching did not give special mention to a game long
> before the game ever created, especially as ''wan' was never a 'suit'
> in the Book.) But you read any author on I-Ching or tai-chi, you will
> see what I mean. 'Wan' is unrelated to cash specifically. I am sure.
> And I am willing to bet; you will find wan refers to ten-thousand
> things.
No disagreement. As far as I am aware, no one has claimed that in the
context of the I-Ching etc, 'wan' is specifically related to 'cash'.
But in the money derivation hypothesis and in the context of playing
cards packs of four and three suits, 'wan' is related to 'cash',
specifically.
> My point is that ten-thousand can be used as a
> figure of speech, not always a numeric denomination.
Again, no disagreement. But in the context of playing card packs of
four and three suits that, from documentary sources, sport money
related suits, it is used for quantities of a denomination of cash.
Regards
al
> On Nov 3, 2:46 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Matio's Cash, so-called, were yin-yang diagram (1-Cash),
> > > > > The translation does not say this.
> > You have to interpret the translation.
>
>
> > > [..]
>
> [..]
>
> > > [..]
>
> > That is how you have to read translation of Chinese language by
> > Chinese people, Michael.
> > So now it's your interpretation vs. mine. Leave it at that or give
> > your rendition.
>
> No. Quote the relevant text from the translation and explain to us how
> the words in the text mean what you think they mean. If you can argue
> successfully, for example, that "like" does not denote similarity but
> identicalness, then you might have a case.
>
There is too much to quote.
> Further, the false dichotomy of 'your interpretation vs. my
> interpretation' is wrong. It is your reasons and my reasons that are
> the issue here. The inferences in our arguments and not the
> conclusions/interpretations that are the issue.
>
Logic is important in arguments. Right assumption is essential to
truth.
I let the interested readers ask me questions if they want. I answer
their specifics by individual post.
Julian had a good question on I-Ching symbols in mahjong. I replied
with what I know.
Dan had a question about the symbols in Andy's mahjong site. I believe
you posted your answer.
> > > > > Quote the entire descriptions from Lo's translations to back up your
> > > > > claim and not selective quotations, so the group may evaluate your
> > > > > claim about the entire game with all the evidence to hand.
My reply is as stated above. Too much text bores some people.
> >[..]
>
>[..]
>
[I erased too much here. you had insisted on my reply to your question
if 'ten-thousand' was specifically referred to mahjong in the Book of
Changes.]
> > No. Of course I-Ching did not give special mention to a game long
> > before the game ever created, especially as ''wan' was never a 'suit'
> > in the Book.) But you read any author on I-Ching or tai-chi, you will
> > see what I mean. 'Wan' is unrelated to cash specifically. I am sure.
> > And I am willing to bet; you will find wan refers to ten-thousand
> > things.
>
> No disagreement. As far as I am aware, no one has claimed that in the
> context of the I-Ching etc, 'wan' is specifically related to 'cash'.
> But in the money derivation hypothesis and in the context of playing
> cards packs of four and three suits, 'wan' is related to 'cash',
> specifically.
>
> > My point is that ten-thousand can be used as a
> > figure of speech, not always a numeric denomination.
>
> Again, no disagreement. But in the context of playing card packs of
> four and three suits that, from documentary sources, sport money
> related suits, it is used for quantities of a denomination of cash.
>
Again and gain, that is only after your acceptance of the mistaken
symbol of circle for cash.
I refer back to a simple comparison, "Mouse is no mouse; Cash is no
cash".
> Regards
+++++++++
Cheers.....al
mstanwick
> > No. Quote the relevant text from the translation and explain to us how
> > the words in the text mean what you think they mean. If you can argue
> > successfully, for example, that "like" does not denote similarity but
> > identicalness, then you might have a case.
>
> Readers will have to read the 3 pages of Lo's paper.
> There is too much to quote.
No. I said "If you are going to put forward an intepretation of a
certain
text, you quote the relevant text and then explain to us how the
words
and phrases in the quoted text give you the meaning that is in your
interpretation."
You were not commenting on all of the text. You were commenting on
part of the text. You therefore quote those relevant parts of the
text.
> > > > > > Quote the entire descriptions from Lo's translations to back up your
> > > > > > claim and not selective quotations, so the group may evaluate your
> > > > > > claim about the entire game with all the evidence to hand.
>
> My reply is as stated above. Too much text bores some people.
Wrong. That is not for you to decide. You have the obligation to back
up your claims by commenting on the relevant pieces of the text in
question.
> > Again, no disagreement. But in the context of playing card packs of
> > four and three suits that, from documentary sources, sport money
> > related suits, it is used for quantities of a denomination of cash.
>
> Again and gain, that is only after your acceptance of the mistaken
> symbol of circle for cash.
Wrong. You have not established beyond reasonable doubt that the
notion is mistaken. You have not established beyond reasonable doubt
that the documentary evidence is mistaken.
> I refer back to a simple comparison, "Mouse is no mouse; Cash is no
> cash".
Wrong. Repeating this over and over again without any credible
evidence does not make it legitimate.
But you have also argued repeatedly that Pan's accounts are the result
of mere hearsay and word of mouth and therefore are unreliable. But
you have insisted on referring to these accounts when trying to
establish your I-Ching notions.
How do you defend your use of Pan's accounts for your own arguments,
when you have insisted that Pan's accounts are unreliable?
Regards
al
> On Nov 4, 2:00?am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
Here is a solution.
You get Andrew Lo's permission to publish at least page 89 (and
include 87, 88 if possible) in Sloperama, Cofa's or Kwan's site. Then
I will do whatever explanation and interpretation you ask. Mahjong
enthusiasts deserve a chance to appreciate this piece of important
reference.
[..]
> But you have also argued repeatedly that Pan's accounts are the result
> of mere hearsay and word of mouth and therefore are unreliable. But
> you have insisted on referring to these accounts when trying to
> establish your I-Ching notions.
>
> How do you defend your use of Pan's accounts for your own arguments,
> when you have insisted that Pan's accounts are unreliable?
>
I will show you how. You are talking about different things, Michael.
> Regards
++++++++++
Cheers....al
Cofa Tsui
I am not jumping in to the discussions of the subject topic, but I feel the
need to express my support of Michael's suggestion about the manner of a
discussion, which I believe is a standard fair and should be acceptable to
all.
Michael has said:
'> No. I said "If you are going to put forward an intepretation of a
> certain
> text, you quote the relevant text and then explain to us how the
> words
> and phrases in the quoted text give you the meaning that is in your
> interpretation."
>
> You were not commenting on all of the text. You were commenting on
> part of the text. You therefore quote those relevant parts of the
> text.'
And Al has replied:
"> Here is a solution.
> You get Andrew Lo's permission to publish at least page 89 (and
> include 87, 88 if possible) in Sloperama, Cofa's or Kwan's site. Then
> I will do whatever explanation and interpretation you ask. Mahjong
> enthusiasts deserve a chance to appreciate this piece of important
> reference."
In the free world everyone is free to make expression of something. Lo is
free to publish his thoughts. Al is free to object to what Lo has said.
Michael, and perhaps many others in this group, are free to know, and to
argue whether what Lo said is correct or whether Al's objection has its
ground. However, in this chain of action it is, in my opinion that is in
line with Michael's, Al's obligation to bring up his objection in enough
details in the first place, so that everyone can see the whole picture
related to the objection, *without the need to spend any effort* to get to
know the whole picture.
The above is the fundamental of the manner of any discussion. Al having an
objection about Lo's publication is fine. Having Lo, and everyone else other
than Al, to have to get a copy of Lo's publication AND to look into whatever
paragraphs are being objected by Al, is something unimaginable.
These are my opinions. HAVE A GREAT DAY!
--
Cofa Tsui
International Mahjong[r] Infoweb
www.iMahjong.com
mstanwick
>> Here is a solution.
> [..]
Wrong. That is not a solution. That is a diversion. You quote the
pieces of relevant text in full, here on this newsgroup, then discuss
how they support your argument, here, on this newsgroup.
> > How do you defend your use of Pan's accounts for your own arguments,
> > when you have insisted that Pan's accounts are unreliable?
>
> I will show you how. You are talking about different things, Michael.
Wrong. You claim Pan's accounts are unreliable + In the same breath,
you then used Pan's accounts as support for your claims = your claims
are supported by Pan's unreliable testimony.
How is that two different things?
Regards
al
> Gentlemen,
>
> I am not jumping in to the discussions of the subject topic, but I feel the
> need to express my support of Michael's suggestion about the manner of a
> discussion, which I believe is a standard fair and should be acceptable to
> all.
>
is an important topic. I thought somebody may be able to info the
group by letting them read Lo's page which describes the suits in
mataio, an "important progenitor" of mahjong.
>From my discussion with a few people in the group via posts recently,
I noticed some believers of the 'cash-base' hypot have not read the
source-reference. I think they should check it out.
> Michael has said:
> '> No. I said "If you are going to put forward an intepretation of a
> > certain
> > text, you quote the relevant text and then explain to us how the
> > words
> > and phrases in the quoted text give you the meaning that is in your
> > interpretation."
> > You were not commenting on all of the text. You were commenting on
> > part of the text. You therefore quote those relevant parts of the
> > text.'
That sounds bad for me to have all what is accused of or alleged to
be. Read between the lines. There is a hint of personal attack. I
quoted what I thought was necessary to make my point without a burden
to some readers.
Now I don't even know what Michael is talking about or which
particular quote. If he lists the quote(s), I will answer him. Page 89
of Lo's paper has the info.
All this raving sounds like a diversionary tactic.
This quote or that quote just drags the discussion out to a
meaningless end like many other topics. Stick to my simple statement:
Mouse is not mouse and Cash is not cash. It's easy to understand
because it makes sense.
>
> And Al has replied:
> "> Here is a solution.
>
> > You get Andrew Lo's permission to publish at least page 89 (and
> > include 87, 88 if possible) in Sloperama, Cofa's or Kwan's site. Then
> > I will do whatever explanation and interpretation you ask. Mahjong
> > enthusiasts deserve a chance to appreciate this piece of important
> > reference."
>
That is still the best solution. Readers get the full text in one
place for immediate as well as future reference..
> In the free world everyone is free to make expression of something. Lo is
> free to publish his thoughts. Al is free to object to what Lo has said.
In case of confusion caused by Michael's outcry, what do you think I
"object" to Lo? For clarification, my comment was that Lo's
translation was word-to-word from Pan. My criticism of Pan was that
his terminology was from word-of-mouth.
Such characteristics are common in translation and in mahjong and this
case is no exception. What is the fuzz?
[..][..]
> --
> Cofa Tsui
> International Mahjong[r] Infowebwww.iMahjong.com
++++++++++++
Cheers....al
mstanwick
> > Michael has said:
> > '> No. I said "If you are going to put forward an intepretation of a
> > > certain
> > > text, you quote the relevant text and then explain to us how the
> > > words
> > > and phrases in the quoted text give you the meaning that is in your
> > > interpretation."
> > > You were not commenting on all of the text. You were commenting on
> > > part of the text. You therefore quote those relevant parts of the
> > > text.'
>
> That sounds bad for me to have all what is accused of or alleged to
> be. Read between the lines. There is a hint of personal attack.
Wrong. No personal attack was intended nor accidentally intended in
any way shape or form.
> I quoted what I thought was necessary to make my point without a burden
> to some readers.
Wrong. No you didn't. You gave a different rendition of what Pan said
- using "were" instead of "like" for example.
> This quote or that quote just drags the discussion out to a
> meaningless end like many other topics. Stick to my simple statement:
> Mouse is not mouse and Cash is not cash. It's easy to understand
> because it makes sense.
It is an unsupported claim. It is an unargued claim.
> My criticism of Pan was that his terminology was from word-of-mouth.
> Such characteristics are common in translation and in mahjong and this
> case is no exception.
Wrong. Your unsupported criticism sought to make Pan's account
unreliable. Fair enough.
You think Pan is unreliable otherwise you would not be making that
criticism.
You claim Pan's accounts are unreliable and you then used Pan's
accounts as support for your claims (the trigrams etc). Therefore,
your claims are unreliable.
Regards
al
> On Nov 5, 12:33?pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Michael has said:
> > > '> No. I said "If you are going to put forward an intepretation of a
> > > > certain
> > > > text, you quote the relevant text and then explain to us how the
> > > > words
> > > > and phrases in the quoted text give you the meaning that is in your
> > > > interpretation."
> > > > You were not commenting on all of the text. You were commenting on
> > > > part of the text. You therefore quote those relevant parts of the
> > > > text.'
>
considered needed my comments. I don't know what you are talking about
now. So give the post reference or whatever text you want further
comments. I have no hesitation in giving my opinion and critique.
We are in search of knowledge.
> > That sounds bad for me to have all what is accused of or alleged to
> > be. Read between the lines. There is a hint of personal attack.
>
> Wrong. No personal attack was intended nor accidentally intended in
> any way shape or form.
>
It's good to hear you said that, Michael.
We just hold individual strong views. You believe in the 'cash-base'
and I don't. That's all.
> > I quoted what I thought was necessary to make my point without a burden
> > to some readers.
>
> Wrong. No you didn't. You gave a different rendition of what Pan said
> - using "were" instead of "like" for example.
>
Was that the major fault, so to speak? Let me tell you, Michael. The
'string' was not my main target. Your objection to ' were' and 'like'
pertain to the description/translation of the suit of suo. Whether
which is which, 'were' or 'like', the point was clear.There was some
resemblance of whatever symbols in question with respect to trigrams.
You can ignore them on the grounds of semantics if you want. The focus
should be elsewhere.
My main target is the "1-cash" and "half-Cash". Concentrate on the
meaninglessness of the "cash". The "Strings" will unravel themselves.
> > This quote or that quote just drags the discussion out to a
> > meaningless end like many other topics. Stick to my simple statement:
> > Mouse is not mouse and Cash is not cash. It's easy to understand
> > because it makes sense.
>
> It is an unsupported claim. It is an unargued claim.
>
> > My criticism of Pan was that his terminology was from word-of-mouth.
> > Such characteristics are common in translation and in mahjong and this
> > case is no exception.
>
> Wrong. Your unsupported criticism sought to make Pan's account
> unreliable. Fair enough.
>
> You think Pan is unreliable otherwise you would not be making that
> criticism.
>
That is not quite correct. "Unreliable" is your word, not mine.
What I said and meant was that his naming of the suits was based on
word-of-mouth passed on down through generations. I have said that
about Pan and I have said that about Himly, Wilkinson and the rest of
them. Evidence is in the mess of names for any game.
> You claim Pan's accounts are unreliable and you then used Pan's
> accounts as support for your claims (the trigrams etc). Therefore,
> your claims are unreliable.
>
There you go again, resorting to debate tactics. You sense Pan's terms
can be vulnerable and may be indefensible and now you want to destroy
it if you can not use it.
You have to differentiate the word-of-mouth terms as one item separate
from the symbols described by Pan and translated by Lo. Here is how
you have to view them. One is taken from homonyms by sound and the
other is given by word in writing and/or drawings. Homonyms are prone
to give multiple different versions.
Pan's description for "Broken-Cash" showed his lack of I-Ching
knowledge and Lo's literal translation of "half-cash" was inaccurate.
Any one wishes to correct me can go ahead. I just offer what little I
know.
> Regards
+++++++++++
Cheers....al
mstanwick
> I commented on certain portions of the text because they were what I
> considered needed my comments. I don't know what you are talking about
> now.
Then go back and read my posts relevant to this topic.
> We just hold individual strong views. You believe in the 'cash-base'
> and I don't. That's all.
Wrong. Both of the explanations are not equivalent in any meaningful
sense. I do not 'believe'. I have corrected you on this before. Do not
accuse me of this again.
> There was some
> resemblance of whatever symbols in question with respect to trigrams.
Wrong. This is a false and unsupported claim endlessly repeated.
> You can ignore them on the grounds of semantics if you want. The focus
> should be elsewhere.
Wrong. The focus should be precisely here. You cannot make a claim by
distorting the documentary texts the claim is about. Applying
different meanings to words in a text so the meaning of the text then
conforms to your ideas is distortion.
> That is not quite correct. "Unreliable" is your word, not mine.
What is your word?
> There you go again, resorting to debate tactics. You sense Pan's terms
> can be vulnerable and may be indefensible and now you want to destroy
> it if you can not use it.
If you attribute negative motives to me again without any evidence, I
will cease all discussion with you on this topic. One more personal
attack....
> You have to differentiate the word-of-mouth terms
Wrong. 'Word-of-mouth is a baseless assertion.
> Here is how
> you have to view them. One is taken from homonyms
Another baseless assertion.
> Pan's description for "Broken-Cash" showed his lack of I-Ching
> knowledge and Lo's literal translation of "half-cash" was inaccurate.
Another baseless assertion.
Regards
pa...@email.unc.edu
> [snip]
> I hope this helps?
> [Snip]
Thanks Michael,
I didn't know whether Lo's article was referring to a deck similar to
what was shown in the Culin reference. I linked to the other cards
because the 1 cash also depicts the interlocking circles that look to
me like a standard representation of two coins interlocking (not
depicted on the Culin card). I believe that the interlocking circles
had been mentioned by Allan. In any case, Culin's deck is from Canton,
while the one I linked to is from Guangdong Province, so they are
probably related - as indicated by the similarity of the depictions on
the cards (as well as possibly being related to Mahjong which is
thought to have been developed in Ningbo, which is also in Guangdong).
Since Allan had only mentioned 'Zero Cash' and not the extra cards
associated with the other suits, I had not equated it with the 'Red
Flower". I had wondered if 'zero cash' equated with '1 cash' since no
cash coins were pictured on it. Thanks for the clarification.
The Culin article that you linked to mentions a silver ingot as
possibly being represented by the lozenge ('waist-drum'?) shape at the
bottom of the 1 cash card. His illustration is not very convincing as
it shows a domed- or rounded-ended ingot rather than one with pointy
ends as illustrated on the card. I realize that there are numerous
shapes for silver 'sycee', but since they are generally regional, has
anyone searched books on sycee to determine which shapes may have been
used in Guangdong province? Perhaps a better matched shape could be
found. I have seen several 'waisted' type sycee, but none that I have
seen have had pointed ends.
The same site that I linked to for the cards has a comparison chart
for various pai, presumably all derived from money-cards (the
following link is to the image only; it can also be seen on the full
page linked to earlier):
http://www.geocities.com/a_pollett/MSCSUITS.GIF
This comparison seems reasonable to me, and it is interesting to see
that some card decks have the suits represented by characters rather
than representational symbols (e.g., the Hakka and the Vietnamese
cards - note also that the Chinese CaoZhou cards apparently have both
characters and symbols). The characters used on the various sets seem
to support the money derived hypothesis.
Dan
Julian Bradfield
I'm not sure it's all that helpful to lean *too* hard on this one.
I know very little about Classical Chinese, but the little I do know
suggests that it's quite likely that no explicit word "like" or other
simile-indicator appears in the original text, and that Dr Lo has
interpreted the text in the way that makes most sense.
Of course, even if the original text does permit al's interpretation,
given a choice between the judgement of someone who spends his life
reading Classical Chinese and someone who's never read it, I'll take
the former....
al
> mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> writes:
> > On Nov 3, 2:46 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> > > > > Matio's Cash, so-called, were yin-yang diagram (1-Cash),
> >> > > > The translation does not say this.
> >> You have to interpret the translation.
Let's see what Lo's translation says. I quote.
"1-Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate). (from 1 Cash
to 9 Cash, I describe what is depicted.The sizes of the objects are
not in order.)"
This was my interpretation. The i-Cash in mataio was a yin-yang
diagram.
Was taiji a yin-yang diagram or just "like the diagram of the taiji"?
What would be the difference?
>
[Michael:]
> > Wrong. Quote the relevant passages from the translation then argue how
> > that passage supports your statement above.
al:]
The relevant passage is quoted above. What is your argument?
>
[Michael:]
> >> > In Lo's translation, Pan used the word "like" in his description. He
> >> > did not use your word "were". You should have said "were like" to be
> >> > more accurate.
al:]
OK. Re-phrase it. '1-Cash [was] the taiji diagram (grand ultimate) or
"1-Cash "[was] like the taiji diagram (grand ultimate)". What would be
the difference?
>
> >> Whatever, Michael, the interpretation of the translation is that...[snip] [etc]
>
[Michael:]
> > Wrong. If you are going to put forward an intepretation of a certain
> > text, you quote the relevant text and then explain to us how the words
> > and phrases in the quoted text give you the meaning that is in your
> > interpretation.
al:]
It was so obvious I didn't want to insult the intelligence of our
learned readers,
[Michael:]
> >> > No. That is not what the translation says. That is your
> >> > interpretation.
> >> > See above regarding your "were" and Pan's "like". The former denotes
> >> > identicalness. The latter denotes similarity.
al:]
OK. you have a fine point.
However, (1) neither of us know what exactly the author nor the
translator meant to say, like or was like. And (2) the real difference
in meaning is negligible.
What mental image you get from Pan's description and how much it is
different from my interpretation, like?
>
> >> That is how you have to read translation of Chinese language by
> >> Chinese people, Michael.
> >> So now it's your interpretation vs. mine. Leave it at that or give
> >> your rendition.
The small difference does not gain any points in your argument.
>
[Michael:]
> > No. Quote the relevant text from the translation and explain to us how
> > the words in the text mean what you think they mean. If you can argue
> > successfully, for example, that "like" does not denote similarity but
> > identicalness, then you might have a case.
[al:]
I don't need to win the "case".
By the way, do you think that was "like" the exact words of Pan or was
it like the translation of Lo? It is not explicit.
>
Julian:
> I'm not sure it's all that helpful to lean *too* hard on this one.
> I know very little about Classical Chinese, but the little I do know
> suggests that it's quite likely that no explicit word "like" or other
> simile-indicator appears in the original text, and that Dr Lo has
> interpreted the text in the way that makes most sense.
> Of course, even if the original text does permit al's interpretation,
> given a choice between the judgement of someone who spends his life
> reading Classical Chinese and someone who's never read it, I'll take
> the former....
al:]
Good point...in my rudimentary level of common Chinese language usage
in present context, "like" is an expression for indicating something
'quite similar' to another.
It does not matter how hard you lean on it. You guys are missing the
important point. You guys tried so hard to disregard the fact that the
TAIJI diagram was depicted and the GRAND ULTIMATE was noted for the
diagram-like [figure] on the 1-Cash; you wanted to pick on my
translation of it instead.
Well, whether it was the taiji diagram or just like the taiji diagram.
Taiji symbol or its unmistakable likeness was there on the 1-Cash.
That is my interpretation. And that should have been the subject of
discussion, scholarly or otherwise.
Cheers.....al
mstanwick
> mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> writes:
> > the words in the text mean what you think they mean. If you can argue
> > successfully, for example, that "like" does not denote similarity but
> > identicalness, then you might have a case.
>
> I'm not sure it's all that helpful to lean *too* hard on this one.
> I know very little about Classical Chinese, but the little I do know
> suggests that it's quite likely that no explicit word "like" or other
> simile-indicator appears in the original text, and that Dr Lo has
> interpreted the text in the way that makes most sense.
> Of course, even if the original text does permit al's interpretation,
> given a choice between the judgement of someone who spends his life
> reading Classical Chinese and someone who's never read it, I'll take
> the former..
Point noted.
The point I was trying to make is that it is the absence of quotation
of the relevant text plus the absence of a meaningful discussion as to
how his propositions are derived from that text, that is important.
For without showing us his reasoning from the text, how can we weigh
up the validity of what he is proposing.
The point made above is precisely how he should be discussing the
text, after he has quoted it.
I made the point on Nov 2; "The problem is that Pan uses the word
'like'. So we do not know how similar the taiji symbol in his
description is like the taiji symbol
on the 'one cash' card shown on Pollets site and in Culin's article.
My own opinion is that it is probably a very close likeness."
If Lo uses "like" in his translation then, as you point out, I am also
prepared to defer to his judgement as an expert translator, that that
is the way Pan was describing the 1 cash.
But my original point is that if he is going to use texts as support
for his arguments then he must fully quote the relevant (not entire)
text and then justify, through a brief discussion, his interpretation
of the text.
Regards
mstanwick
> The Culin article that you linked to mentions a silver ingot as
> possibly being represented by the lozenge ('waist-drum'?) shape at the
> bottom of the 1 cash card. His illustration is not very convincing as
> it shows a domed- or rounded-ended ingot rather than one with pointy
> ends as illustrated on the card.
Yes. But one is a drawing. There are noticeable similarities of course
as well as differences. My numismatics texts have photos of Qing
silver ingots , but they are either rectangular tablets or boat shaped
ingots. Peng points out that originally, strings of cash were not
carried but worn around the waste - much like an original money belt.
He mentions that the boat shaped small ingots were worn much the same
way - one on each side of the waste.
> have seen several 'waisted' type sycee, but none that I have
> seen have had pointed ends.
Also, one must take into account the stylisation of the cards
insignia.
Why don't you acquire Gernot Prunners catalogue? You can acquire it on
Bookfinder.com. It has Hakka pai plus many sets of money card packs,
literary cards, domino cards. You will be well rewarded.
Regards
mstanwick
> Let's see what Lo's translation says. I quote.
> "1-Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate). (from 1 Cash
> to 9 Cash, I describe what is depicted.The sizes of the objects are
> not in order.)"
>
> This was my interpretation. The i-Cash in mataio was a yin-yang
> diagram.
> Was taiji a yin-yang diagram or just "like the diagram of the taiji"?
> What would be the difference?
Precisely the correct questions. As you pointed out, in the absence of
the cards we cannot say with 100% certainty. Lo's translation and use
of the word 'like' does not mean 100% certainty or identicalness
either (see below). But, looking at other 1 cash cards from Prunner's
catalogue, I think there is evidence that the symbol on the Pan 1
cash card is probably of the taiji - although perhaps not an exact
representation.
> The relevant passage is quoted above. What is your argument?
It should have been done before - the quotation and the discussion
(see below).
> OK. Re-phrase it. '1-Cash [was] the taiji diagram (grand ultimate) or
> "1-Cash "[was] like the taiji diagram (grand ultimate)". What would be
> the difference?
See my discussion above.
> It was so obvious I didn't want to insult the intelligence of our learned readers,
Do not assume.
> OK. you have a fine point.
> However, (1) neither of us know what exactly the author nor the
> translator meant to say, like or was like. And (2) the real difference
> in meaning is negligible.
Not negligible but subtle. It shows a difference (see below). This
exercise illustrates that if you are going to use texts by drawing
conclusions from them, then you quote the text and show us how you
drew the conclusion from it. Do not assume it is obvious.
> What mental image you get from Pan's description and how much it is
> different from my interpretation, like?
>From other playing cards of the cash variety, IMO it might be the
taiji symbol. However, there is a small element of doubt that it may
be, for example, a coin with a bent line through it. It is prudent to
at least state the slight element of doubt due to the wording and in
the absence of Lo's comments and the lack of a picture of a card. (see
below for why the doubt around the word 'like').
> The small difference does not gain any points in your argument.
Stop attributing arguments to me that I have not espoused. Stop
attributing my discussions to a type of contest.
> > > No. Quote the relevant text from the translation and explain to us how
> > > the words in the text mean what you think they mean. If you can argue
> > > successfully, for example, that "like" does not denote similarity but
> > > identicalness, then you might have a case.
> I don't need to win the "case".
Stop framing the discussion in terms of a contest.
> By the way, do you think that was "like" the exact words of Pan or was
> it like the translation of Lo? It is not explicit.
Exactly. This is the type of comment you should be making.
> Good point...in my rudimentary level of common Chinese language usage
> in present context, "like" is an expression for indicating something
> 'quite similar' to another.
Exactly. 'Quite similar'. Not identical.
> It does not matter how hard you lean on it. You guys are missing the
> important point. You guys tried so hard to disregard the fact that the
> TAIJI diagram was depicted and the GRAND ULTIMATE was noted for the
> diagram-like [figure] on the 1-Cash; you wanted to pick on my
> translation of it instead.
Wrong. The point I was trying to make (in my other posts on other
subjects) was that your statement was part of a wider issue regarding
your interpretation of Pan's account, via Lo's translation.
In the same breath you also pressed on about the other cash
descriptions regarding trigrams etc. They all used the word 'like'.
My point was that if you are going to apply an interpretation using a
word such as 'was' or 'are' when the translation says 'like', then you
must quote the relevant text and discuss how and why you chose 'was'
or 'are' instead of 'like', since there is a difference.
> Well, whether it was the taiji diagram or just like the taiji diagram.
> Taiji symbol or its unmistakable likeness was there on the 1-Cash.
> That is my interpretation. And that should have been the subject of
> discussion, scholarly or otherwise.
It was the subject of an assertion, not a discussion. Even though both
probably arrive at the same general conclusion, one has more
significant information in it. This is important because you also made
assertions about the other cash descriptions. They also used the word
'like'. According to Lo the word 'like' denoted a similarity in the
arrangement of the 'cash' coins with the shape of another object,
contrary to your assertions.
Therefore, your non existent discussion should have pointed out that
there is the possibility that the 1 cash was 'like' the taiji symbol
in the same way that 2 cash was 'like' a waist drum. Or, if you didn't
think so, then you should have explained why you didn't think so. That
way we can change our minds, or not, if you make a good case.
Regards
al
> On Nov 5, 10:04?pm, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> writes:
> > > No. Quote the relevant text from the translation and explain to us how
> > > the words in the text mean what you think they mean. If you can argue
> > > successfully, for example, that "like" does not denote similarity but
> > > identicalness, then you might have a case.
>
'like'. The phrase "grand ultimate" was noted in brackets. It was
quoted exactly. Where else would you find this term? 'Grand ultimate'
or 'supreme ultimate' or 'extreme ultimate' only refer to taiji or tai-
chi, as far as I know.
> > I'm not sure it's all that helpful to lean *too* hard on this one.
> > I know very little about Classical Chinese, but the little I do know
> > suggests that it's quite likely that no explicit word "like" or other
> > simile-indicator appears in the original text, and that Dr Lo has
> > interpreted the text in the way that makes most sense.
> > Of course, even if the original text does permit al's interpretation,
> > given a choice between the judgement of someone who spends his life
> > reading Classical Chinese and someone who's never read it, I'll take
> > the former..
>
> Point noted.
>
> The point I was trying to make is that it is the absence of quotation
> of the relevant text plus the absence of a meaningful discussion as to
> how his propositions are derived from that text, that is important.
>
As I said, there was no doubt in my mind, "grand ultimate" was
identified with taiji.
Michael, you have Lo's papers. You could have made a point about my
omission and carried on with the discussion on the significance or
insignificance of the yin/yang symbol on the 1-Cash. You chose to
ignore such an item that was never brought up before. Is this
research?
> For without showing us his reasoning from the text, how can we weigh
> up the validity of what he is proposing.
>
There was no need to think when the words (grand ultimate) and "like"
a taiji symbol were mentioned together.
> The point made above is precisely how he should be discussing the
> text, after he has quoted it.
>
Sure...
> I made the point on Nov 2; "The problem is that Pan uses the word
> 'like'. So we do not know how similar the taiji symbol in his
> description is like the taiji symbol
> on the 'one cash' card shown on Pollets site and in Culin's article.
> My own opinion is that it is probably a very close likeness."
>
The degree of likeness in appearance depends on the artist; the degree
of likeness in concept depends on the readers. The intent was probably
for identical meaning.
> If Lo uses "like" in his translation then, as you point out, I am also
> prepared to defer to his judgement as an expert translator, that that
> is the way Pan was describing the 1 cash.
>
You are wise to go with Lo's judgment, but I question your use of the
term, "expert translator". What do you mean by that?
How do you define the characteristics of an 'expert translator?
> But my original point is that if he is going to use texts as support
> for his arguments then he must fully quote the relevant (not entire)
> text and then justify, through a brief discussion, his interpretation
> of the text.
>
Your original point was frivolous, IMO. There was enough text quoted
to support the taiji diagram with the key words, "grand ultimate".
> Regards
++++++++++
Cheers....al
mstanwick
> Michael, you have Lo's papers. You could have made a point about my
> omission and carried on with the discussion on the significance or
> insignificance of the yin/yang symbol on the 1-Cash.
I did. You go and check.
> You chose to
> ignore such an item that was never brought up before.
I didn't. Go and check.
> There was no need to think when the words (grand ultimate) and "like"
> a taiji symbol were mentioned together.
Yes there was a need, after I had pointed it out and asked you about
it so many times before.
[snipped]
> Your original point was frivolous, IMO. There was enough text quoted
> to support the taiji diagram with the key words, "grand ultimate".
The post above was snipped after I read this comment. This has nothing
whatsoever, in any way, to do with what I was saying. It is clear from
the latter comment that you have completely and utterly failed to
grasp the point I was making.
Your 'frivolous' comment is therefore irrelevant.
As has this discussion become.
Goodbye.
tsloper
>> Your original point was frivolous, IMO.
Actually, it is, rather, Allan's original points that were
"frivolous." Thanks to William Gibson, I just learned a new word:
"apophenia." Wikipedia defines it as follows:
[begin quote]
Apophenia is the experience of seeing patterns or connections in
random or meaningless data. The term was coined in 1958 by Klaus
Conrad, who defined it as the "unmotivated seeing of connections"
accompanied by a "specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness".
"... We (like the experts we study) often see what we expect to see,
we interpret the world through our own personal lens. Thus we are
extraordinarily open to the trap of apophenia."
In statistics, apophenia would be classed as a Type I error (false
positive, false alarm, caused by an excess in sensitivity). Apophenia
is often used as an explanation of some paranormal and religious
claims. It has been suggested that apophenia is a link between
psychosis and creativity.
[end quote]
I think that's really what we're dealing with here. Not serious
discussions about the origins of mahjong, connections of mahjong to
sparrows and the i ching.
Michael replied to Michael:
>Your 'frivolous' comment is therefore irrelevant.
>As has this discussion become.
It was irrelevant a *long* time ago, IMO.
>Goodbye.
Please! As much as I would hate to see the newsgroup go dead, silence
would be better than all this meaningless apophenic noise. Better
that we not respond to Allan unless he starts making real sense.
Tom
mstanwick
> Please! As much as I would hate to see the newsgroup go dead, silence
> would be better than all this meaningless apophenic noise. Better
> that we not respond to Allan unless he starts making real sense.
That is exactly my modus operandi. I do not intend to stop posting,
but will only reply to those posters that I think have the objective
clarifying the thread's subject.
But we must discuss the reasons and evidence in a discussion - even
with those we disagree with. Failure to adhere to that position by the
other party is the point where I jump ship - as has happened recently.
Regards
al
I said it was frivolous to have done all that raving for more text
than what I had quoted and what I added was a few words which left the
meaning of my previous interpretation essentially unchanged. The
revelation and confirmation of a taiji diagram on the 1-Cash, a thing
I saw and you didn't, was neglected, avoided and now there is no
intention or interest to investigate the significance of that. Why go
through the formality in the first place? That was what I meant to
say, but it was probably not the right word. English is not my first
language.
But what was the motive for the insistence of a few more word in a
quote when nothing changed anyway? Something new was discovered and
shown, a diagram of taiji. Lo described it. And you scholars chose to
ignore it and now you want to put the messenger under literal house-
arrest.
And you, Tom, youself could not answer a basic question why matiao was
an "important progenitor" of mahjong. That claim is in your own web
site. You also said the indicia and game-play of one is significantly
different from the other. One is definitely not the other, but one is
still an important progenitor of the other. Where is the evidence and
logical explanation? I remember you said you accepted it but not happy
about it. May be the "grand Ultimate" is the key!
I found an explanation in Lo's paper. It is the taiji diagram, a key
solid piece of evidence for a link between matiao and mahjong. You
read my post of Sept. 27, Origin of Mahjong then you will appreciate
what my mind's eye can see that has escaped you.
I don't know who the author of that part of your history page was. And
I am not sure, like you, what the author intended to say. I did ask
you who arranged the cards in your set of "modern" version of matiao
in a post and got no reply as yet. The reason I raised the question
was because I think there might be cards in the wrong suits. More
importantly, it was the taiji diagram on the middle of one card (5) in
the middle of the middle row (second suit).
Look next to the fish-card. You will see a curtain casting a dark
shadow. You will also see a female name. Indications are that is a
symbol for the bride (yin). The yang card is up in the top-right
corner with a male name on its top portion. I can see a red spot
signifying 'man' (groom). The card below the 2-wan has the double-
happiness sign and a pair of eyes. Those naked eyes may be more than
just eye-balls when they 'meet'. Here is creative thinking for you
(little wacky may be), Chinese symbol for a pair of eyes
metaphorically may mean perhaps nakedness and procreation. (Where is
the evidence? I could hear the shouting in the back of my mind). Well,
this just occurred to me. If anybody has anything to add, positive or
negative, dish it out. I can take it.
One more thing, Tom, while we are on the topic of I-Ching; look at the
bottom row of cards in your modern version of matiao. See how many 3-
line groupings there are? Also see how far apart those lines are? Or
if those were coins, how can coins maintain their space between each
other in a string? To my impaired vision, those look like trigrams and
trigrams refer to I-Ching (Book of Changes).
I suspect the game of mahjong was bastardized even before the time it
was discovered by Westerners. We still don't know when, where and how
it came about. Its history was not recorded by the Chinese authors or
native historians originally and has been since the mid-nineteenth
century transliterated, from mostly word-of-mouth of mostly illiterate
ancestors from generations back, by foreigners who added names and
interpretation of their own. It is just about time to get it right or
closer to the truth.
Talking about 'word-of-mouth' errors and omissions in communication, I
can think of one immediate example. Is it Ma Daio or Matiao? Why did
Feng or whoever changed it? Do you really think either one is a
reliable name? I tell you, Tom. Even Ma-Chiuk , (Sparrow) is
doubtful to me now.
Cheers....al
+++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++
I keep your post intact for future reference. You have added a new
word here.
I talked about the origin of mahjong (different from what you have
heard). You considered my posts on the subject 'apop.' noise and
called for a boycott in discussion with me. I-Ching makes good sense
alright, more than anything else written, but you won't know until you
look at it with open mind. And I warn you though, it threatens to
collapse the 'cash-base.
My simple phrase is 'Mouse is no mouse; Cash is no cash'. Someday it
will make sense to you and other people.
++++++++
Cheers.....al
al
> On Nov 7, 3:02?am, tsloper <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote:
>
> > Please! As much as I would hate to see the newsgroup go dead, silence
> > would be better than all this meaningless apophenic noise. Better
> > that we not respond to Allan unless he starts making real sense.
>
> That is exactly my modus operandi. I do not intend to stop posting,
> but will only reply to those posters that I think have the objective
> clarifying the thread's subject.
>
We were at the verge of clarifying the symbol on the key card in
matiao. That card by Lo's translation and I quoted repeatedly had an
unmistakable diagram of taiji (grand ultimate), described as "1-Cash".
My iobjective was exactly to clarify the thread subject, which was
that matiao had taiji and I-Ching embedded. ( Did you once refer to
that as "internal integrity"?)
But because the taiji diagram displaces the money sign and destroys
the 'cash' derivation hypothesis, some people can not bear to see that
happens. History has had similar cases when changes and/or new ideas
involved. I recall a term used by some one as " culture shock
resistance".
> But we must discuss the reasons and evidence in a discussion - even
> with those we disagree with. Failure to adhere to that position by the
> other party is the point where I jump ship - as has happened recently.
>
Sounds good, Michael, but where is your discussion or clarification on
the taiji diagram? I pointed out many times and you read it in my part
quotes and complete quotes. You have not mentioned the taiji even once
in all your replies, less about clarification. How is it going to
clarify when you and people like Tom just 'pick up their marbles and
go home'?
Before you go, let me give you something to think about. I am saying
this. The likelihood is : Ma is not a horse and ma or mah is not hemp.
Mark my words.
+++++++++
> Regards
++++++++++
Cheers......al