Double Happiness 喜喜 is a pair 又又 like Yin-Yang
al
Following is a quote from May 28, 2008 in reference to the mahjong
pattern 2 +3’s and my suggestion that the ‘2’ correspond with the yin-
yang duo in I-Ching (Book of Changes).
By the way, I also said the 3’s correlate with the trigrams of Bagua;
two trigrams form a hexagram oracle in Chinese divination. Recently I
found all the signs of support in Photo 79, page 55 of Illustrated
Book of Mahjong Museum (1999).
Quote of reader’s comment:
“I also agree with [the] response about the pair. It does not show
yin- yang (which are states in opposition and complementation, and are
NOT identical).” Unquote.
++++++++++++
I thought of a response to the comment the other day when I was
looking at the “modern deck of money cards” in Sloperama FAQ #11
Mahjong History.
What I saw was the double happiness sign, 双 喜, which is standard for
Chinese weddings. It is represented by identical symbols, 喜 and 喜 side
by side like this, 喜喜. Also above and below the double-happiness sign
were two big individual eyes. The eyes looked identical too. One eye
represents one person and the other eye represents another, as though
each eye belongs to one of the happy couple 喜喜 getting married. So,
when it comes to the use of Chinese symbols in language,
simplification is the rule. By the way, we do refer to the pair in a
mahjong winning hand as eyes.
The point here is that gender is not shown in the symbol, 喜喜. Same
happiness sign for bride and groom.
Another example of Chinese symbolic thinking and writing is the word
for twin birth. It is written as 子子 生. We know twins are not always
two boys. The main idea is two births while the female gender is
omitted in the word 子子. The same idea applies to a pair which may be
husband and wife of opposite sex but represented in simplified form as
one pair, 一双. The word 双 is made up of identical entities, 又 and 又.
These typical examples of Chinese etymology indicated clearly that the
emphasis is on the quantitative aspect of a word or a symbol rather
than the qualitative whenever a collective noun of two entities
involved. Such selective representation could have applied logically
to the yin-yang pair as I had suggested. A pair is 2, simple as that.
Therefore a pair of identical tiles in mahjong can represent yin and
yang.
++++++++++
Allan Lee
January 04, 2009
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Double Happiness 喜喜 is a pair 又又 like Yin-Yang
>
> Following is a quote from May 28, 2008 in reference to the mahjong
> pattern 2 +3's and my suggestion that the '2' correspond with the yin-
> yang duo in I-Ching (Book of Changes).
> By the way, I also said the 3's correlate with the trigrams of Bagua;
> two trigrams form a hexagram oracle in Chinese divination. Recently I
> found all the signs of support in Photo 79, page 55 of Illustrated
> Book of Mahjong Museum (1999).
>
> Quote of reader's comment:
> "I also agree with [the] response about the pair. It does not show
> yin- yang (which are states in opposition and complementation, and are
> NOT identical)." Unquote.
> ++++++++++++
>
> These typical examples of Chinese etymology indicated clearly that the
> emphasis is on the quantitative aspect of a word or a symbol rather
> than the qualitative whenever a collective noun of two entities
> involved. Such selective representation could have applied logically
> to the yin-yang pair as I had suggested. A pair is 2, simple as that.
>
> Therefore a pair of identical tiles in mahjong can represent yin and
> yang.
> ++++++++++
> Allan Lee
> January 04, 2009
Al,
For someone like you who is already convinced that the pair in mahjong
represents Yin & Yang, perhaps that explanation is sufficient, but to
me it is not! It just emphasizes that the only thing common between
them is that there are two! If one really wanted to have two tiles
represent Yin + Yang, then having a pair where one was either a 6 or 8
and the other was a 7 or 9 would be convincing to me. For those
unfamiliar with the Yijing, both the yarrow (milfoil) stalk and coin
methods of determining the lines generate numbers from 6 to 9, [6 & 8
representing Yin and 7 & 9 representing Yang, with 6 & 9 representing
their respective changing lines]. But that is not how the eyes (pair)
in mahjong are formed since mahjong uses an identical pair!
In regards to the triplets possibly representing trigrams (and two
trigrams combining to represent hexagrams), again your analysis falls
far short of what would be convincing to me! If the triplets represent
the 8 trigrams, then one might expect there to be only 8 triplets that
score points (or, if they rather represent the 64 hexagrams, then one
might expect there to be 16 triplets that score points since hexagrams
use two trigrams & 2x8=16), with all other combinations only
contributing to going out (mahjong) but not for scoring additional
points. One would also expect there to be an equal probability to
obtain each of these 'trigrams', just like the equal probabilities for
obtaining each of the 8 trigrams in the Yijing. None of these
conditions are met with the known rules for mahjong! Nor is there an
explanation for what four-of-a-kind would represent in the Yijing
hypothesis, nor why they should score points.
One may also expect to be able to assign a trigram specifically to
each scoring combination (e.g., perhaps the 'winds' could correspond
to the trigrams assigned to the corresponding directions in the Bagua
diagram). But I can not see any logical way to specifically assign all
8 (or 16) scoring combinations specifically to the 8 trigrams
(especially if one attempted to maintain equal probabilities for each
- note that if the suit tiles can be used for forming series, then the
probabilities for obtaining three-of-a-kind with those numbers
decrease since some players may hold on to those tiles for differing
purposes, thus affecting the probability that those tiles may be
discarded by players that have drawn them), nor is there any evidence
in any of the known rules that I am familiar with that would suggest
that this was ever done!
If specific trigrams were associated with specific scoring triplets,
and those trigrams could be combined to form hexagrams, then one might
expect special scoring hands could possibly be scored when certain
hexagrams, or combinations of hexagrams, are obtained in a hand. I see
no relation between the special hands that are currently known in
mahjong and possible connections to Yijing hexagrams (or other Yijing
concepts).
Much of the additional information that you have presented as possible
support for your Yijing hypothesis also falls far short of what would
be convincing to me. Symbols on decks of cards, and written
descriptions of these cards, for example, all seem to be inconsistent
with your analysis: While the 3 cash card may have been described by
Pan Zhiheng [translated by Lo] as "like the shape of the qian
(Creative) trigram," to me it is merely a method of describing an
arrangement of three objects on the card, just like the 3 strings card
"like the character pin" describes the arrangement of three objects.
Unless you can explain how the character pin relates specifically to
the Yijing, I do not see how the arrangement indicated by the
description of the qian trigram can be thought of as meaning anything
more significant. Likewise, you have not demonstrated how things like
a 'hairpin', 'bent foot', 'double pearl ring', 'six rivers', etc. etc.
etc. could relate specifically to the Yijing. Until you do, the
isolated Yijing concepts used in the descriptions of the cards, and
cited by you as support for the Yijing hypothesis for mahjong, have no
significant meanings to me. Long ago I had been in contact with you
about Lo's article, and my opinions have not changed since then. You
have not addressed my thoughts concerning the card descriptions (I
think they are simply using descriptions that indicate the arrangement
of objects on the cards rather than any specific significance to the
Yijing), and until you do, I see no reason to think that the
information that you have presented on this forum has any real
meaning.
It seems that you and I have far too different ways of thinking to
allow me to grasp any understanding from your attempts to support the
Yijing hypothesis. While you seem to think that there is a high
correlation between mahjong and the Yijing, to me there is almost
nothing to convince me of the possibility. You numerous repetitions of
information do not make them any more convincing to me and you're
rather unfocused presentation methods make it difficult for me to make
any significant correlation between mahjong and the Yijing.
I do not really intend on continuing a discussion on this topic (it
does not really interest me at this time), but I decided to respond
here since I was the person who initially raised the concern about the
'eyes' in mahjong not representing Yin+Yang due to the pair being
composed of two identical tiles.
Dan
al
Hi, Dan,
"That there are two" and that is what I tried to illustrate with
metaphors and words in the Chinese language.
Double Happiness 喜喜 signals a pair 又又 getting married. My point is
that no distinction made in word construction and that the numerical
value is more important. The examples demonstrated rather well.
++++++++++++++++
If one really wanted to have two tiles
> represent Yin + Yang, then having a pair where one was either a 6 or 8
> and the other was a 7 or 9 would be convincing to me.[..]
>
Your in depth knowledge is beyond game design level. It's unnecessary
and useless for people to play the game. Why waste it?
Only a conceptual metaphor would be sufficient if it was to be part of
a game.
> Much of the additional information that you have presented as possible
> support for your Yijing hypothesis also falls far short of what would
> be convincing to me. [..]
+++++++++++++
Have you seen the additional information in photo 79 on page 55 of
"Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum"?
++++++++++
Until you do, the
> isolated Yijing concepts used in the descriptions of the cards, and
> cited by you as support for the Yijing hypothesis for mahjong, have no
> significant meanings to me.
+++++++++++
You don't expect the use of the whole Book of Changes in a game.
+++++++++
Long ago I had been in contact with you
> about Lo's article, and my opinions have not changed since then. [..]
>
++++++++++
That is okay. Then there is nothing in "Zero Cash" to discuss.
++++++++++++++
> It seems that you and I have far too different ways of thinking to
> allow me to grasp any understanding from your attempts to support the
> Yijing hypothesis. While you seem to think that there is a high
> correlation between mahjong and the Yijing, to me there is almost
> nothing to convince me of the possibility.
++++++++++++
I think there is higher correlation in my hypothesis than any other
hypotheses.
"Almost nothing"? Does that mean there might be something?
+++++++++++
You numerous repetitions of
> information do not make them any more convincing to me and you're
> rather unfocused presentation methods make it difficult for me to make
> any significant correlation between mahjong and the Yijing.
>
Your in-depth knowledge of Yijing may be a mental block. Remember the
wise saying "imagination is more important than knowledge"?
> I do not really intend on continuing a discussion on this topic .(it
> does not really interest me at this time),
+++++++++++++
The feeling is mutual. Let's leave it at that.
++++++++++++++
but I decided to respond
> here since I was the person who initially raised the concern about the
> 'eyes' in mahjong not representing Yin+Yang due to the pair being
> composed of two identical tiles.
>
Now that you mention about "eyes" as composed of identical tiles in
mahjong, but do you know that one eye is NOT exactly the same as the
other?
To those who are still objecting to my suggestion that yin-yang is
represented as a pair in mahjong, I say "open your eyes" to the "big
picture" and close them to minor details.
Look again at my example in the sign of Double Happiness. Gender is
not a question.
++++++++++++++
Cheers....al
msta...@talktalk.net
> +++++++++++++
> Have you seen the additional information in photo 79 on page 55 of
> "Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum"?
> ++++++++++
New readers should be aware that the use of this photo is totally
incorrect in the unsupported, unsubstantiated and undemonstrated
argument of the above poster regarding their ideas on the origin of
the symbols found in the three ma que suits.
To examine the origins of the three suits' names, researchers look for
names of the three suits in dated card packs that preceded the
earliest dated ma que description with names (circa 1870).
The above poster has failed to grasp that "Ming four-suited ma diao
deck" refers to the four-suited ma diao deck as it appeared in dated
literature from the Ming Dynasty(Lu Rong and Pan Zhiheng) and not to
the four suited Ma Diao deck found in dated literature from the Qing
Dynasty(Feng Menglong).
To use three-suited decks in the origin of ma que symbols research,
those decks must be dated and dated prior to the earlest ma que record
- to allow for the probability that the influence was from the card
deck to ma que and not from ma que to the card deck.
From the thread 'mahjong cash: real or mistaken' the above poster
recently added;
"Since there has not been any convincing answer that Cash is real, I
shall conclude it was mistaken interpretation."
This is an example of a fallacy of logic - called the Argument from
Ignorance.
The lack of a convincing answer(evidence) is no reason or excuse to
jump to the irrational conclusion that something is therefore true.
The lack of evidence is not evidence for anything.
This is an expample of the above posters behaviour that is found in
much of their writing on this subject (see below).
"In appearance, Cash has no square hole in the middle, a feature by
definition from Ma Diao. In conceptual frame work, Cash has no
connection with Winds."
This is an example of the tactic of repeating a claim although an
answer has been given to explain the difference. The presence of a
plausible answer is then ignored or denied or forgotten or debased
through distortion and the original unsupported claim is still put
forward as the only explanation.
" Here is more from translation of a card manual, Ma Diao (Ming 4-
suited).
Quotes:
1 Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate).
3 Cash. Like the shape of the GEN (Creative) trigram.
6 Cash. Like the shape of the KUN (Receptive) trigram.
1 String. Like a hairpin.
5 Strings. Like the shape of the GEN (Keeping Still) trigram.
1 Myriad guan: Heaven's Clever Star.
2 Myriad guan: Heven's Heroic Star.
8 Myriad guan: Heaven's Void Star.
9 Myriad guan: Heaven's Retreat Star.
Hundred Myriad guan: Heaven's Criminal Star.
Thousnd Myriad guan: Heaven's Wounded Star.
Ten-thousand Myriad guan: Heaven's Supreme Star.
+++++++++++++
The above examples represent the 4 suits in Ma Diao and serve as the
base of support for the ma que "money-suited" claim. It's said as
documented evidence. "
This is an example of the above posters bias to suit their own agenda
by reposting claims that have already been answered with evidence(see
(3) & (4) below).
It should be noted that the names of the Myriads cards presented
above, are the names of characters from the Water Margin band of
outlaws.
To repeat; the above poster:
(1) ignores or completely forgets to answer the arguments that
were given with documentary evidence or
(2) distorts that evidence by taking it out of context or
(3) when answers about various terms were provided with contextual
evidence, then falls back on the tactic of casting unfounded
aspertions on the translator's expertise while
(4) continuing to blatantly cite or use terms from that very
translation.
The same tactics put forward by the above poster can be found in the
further forum subjects;
Why a Sparrow?
Mahjong and Matiao related? How and Why?
Origin of Mahjong(MJ)/Other Hu Pai Design.
Winds Order.
What is Ma Que/Mahjong?(Was Winds Order).
Origin of Mahjong. Invented or Evolved.
These repeated posts of the above poster are an effort to swamp and
abuse this forum with the above poster's agenda.
Note; It is not the content of the above poster's arguments, but their
behaviours in correspondence on this forum that is at issue.
al
> On Jan 9, 1:22 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > +++++++++++++
> > Have you seen the additional information in photo 79 on page 55 of
> > "Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum"?
Worth seeing...eye-opener for sure.
> > ++++++++++
>
> New readers should be aware that the use of this photo is totally
> incorrect in the unsupported, unsubstantiated and undemonstrated
> argument of the above poster regarding their ideas on the origin of
> the symbols found in the three ma que suits.
>
Why? Is it a fabrication by some one? The wood block was a nice job.
The Museum must still have the evidence. I wonder if any researchers
did check on that.
> To examine the origins of the three suits' names, researchers look for
> names of the three suits in dated card packs that preceded the
> earliest dated ma que description with names (circa 1870).
>
> The above poster has failed to grasp that "Ming four-suited ma diao
> deck" refers to the four-suited ma diao deck as it appeared in dated
> literature from the Ming Dynasty(Lu Rong and Pan Zhiheng) and not to
> the four suited Ma Diao deck found in dated literature from the Qing
> Dynasty(Feng Menglong).
>
Why is that? I wonder. The correct answers can only come one source?
People, who believe that, might not have yet realized that those
historians probably all got their materials for their writing from
word-of-mouth, for the simple reason that instructional manuals did
not exist then.
Dated-when and taken-from-where really do not matter that much. None
of the names is absolute certainty. So why would any researcher place
his blind faith on one and only one deck of 4-suited cards as ultimate
data source?
> To use three-suited decks in the origin of ma que symbols research,
> those decks must be dated and dated prior to the earlest ma que record
> - to allow for the probability that the influence was from the card
> deck to ma que and not from ma que to the card deck.
>
Could "Zero Cash" and "Half Cash" go both ways?
> From the thread 'mahjong cash: real or mistaken' the above poster
> recently added;
>
> "Since there has not been any convincing answer that Cash is real, I
> shall conclude it was mistaken interpretation."
>
> This is an example of a fallacy of logic - called the Argument from
> Ignorance.
>
> The lack of a convincing answer(evidence) is no reason or excuse to
> jump to the irrational conclusion that something is therefore true.
> The lack of evidence is not evidence for anything.
>
> This is an expample of the above posters behaviour that is found in
> much of their writing on this subject (see below).
>
> "In appearance, Cash has no square hole in the middle, a feature by
> definition from Ma Diao. In conceptual frame work, Cash has no
> connection with Winds."
>
> This is an example of the tactic of repeating a claim although an
> answer has been given to explain the difference. The presence of a
> plausible answer is then ignored or denied or forgotten or debased
> through distortion and the original unsupported claim is still put
> forward as the only explanation.
>
Only what is thought as a better explanation is put forward.
But "Zero Cash" is no cash. I will repeat that.
> " Here is more from translation of a card manual, Ma Diao (Ming 4-
> suited).
> Quotes:
> 1 Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate).
> 3 Cash. Like the shape of the GEN (Creative) trigram.
> 6 Cash. Like the shape of the KUN (Receptive) trigram.
>
> 1 String. Like a hairpin.
> 5 Strings. Like the shape of the GEN (Keeping Still) trigram.
>
> 1 Myriad guan: Heaven's Clever Star.
> 2 Myriad guan: Heven's Heroic Star.
> 8 Myriad guan: Heaven's Void Star.
> 9 Myriad guan: Heaven's Retreat Star.
>
> Hundred Myriad guan: Heaven's Criminal Star.
> Thousnd Myriad guan: Heaven's Wounded Star.
> Ten-thousand Myriad guan: Heaven's Supreme Star.
These are exact descriptions from the Ming 4-suited-money-deck
(Researchers' source).
> +++++++++++++
> The above examples represent the 4 suits in Ma Diao and serve as the
> base of support for the ma que "money-suited" claim. It's said as
> documented evidence. "
>
The above statement is a matter of fact.
> This is an example of the above posters bias to suit their own agenda
> by reposting claims that have already been answered with evidence(see
> (3) & (4) below).
>
Not quite.
> It should be noted that the names of the Myriads cards presented
> above, are the names of characters from the Water Margin band of
> outlaws.
>
Here is a question for researchers who studied the Ming money-deck.
Why is it that "Ten-Thousand or Ten-Myriad" Cash-cards all have human
figures associated? Whether they were Water Margin members or not,
assuming Myriad is about cash,why money is substituted by man?
> To repeat; the above poster:
> (1) ignores or completely forgets to answer the arguments that
> were given with documentary evidence or
> (2) distorts that evidence by taking it out of context or
> (3) when answers about various terms were provided with contextual
> evidence, then falls back on the tactic of casting unfounded
> aspertions on the translator's expertise while
> (4) continuing to blatantly cite or use terms from that very
> translation.
>
Itemize what you criticize.
I have no eloquence with big words.
> The same tactics put forward by the above poster can be found in the
> further forum subjects;
> Why a Sparrow?
> Mahjong and Matiao related? How and Why?
> Origin of Mahjong(MJ)/Other Hu Pai Design.
> Winds Order.
> What is Ma Que/Mahjong?(Was Winds Order).
> Origin of Mahjong. Invented or Evolved.
>
> These repeated posts of the above poster are an effort to swamp and
> abuse this forum with the above poster's agenda.
>
There are interesting points of view in all the above posts. They are
getting even better.
> Note; It is not the content of the above poster's arguments, but their
> behaviours in correspondence on this forum that is at issue.
++++++++++
I try to answer questions asked and response to critics who have
taught me good lessons.
What is research? To me, it is search and search again and again. The
path of searching for answers is full of mistakes. Our knowledge
includes the mistakes made on the way of learning.
The origin of mahjong is not yet finalized. Narrow the search to one
deck of cards is narrow-minded. Attacking others and other sources is
"something else".
++++++++++++++
This is a mahjong forum. Let's talk mahjong.
Now a word about "eyes" as composed of identical tiles in mahjong.
One human eye is NOT exactly the same as the other. Possibly, one eye
from Yin and one eye from Yang are represented in mahjong?
To those who might object to the idea that yin-yang could be
represented as a pair of eyes in mahjong, I say "open your eyes" to
the "big picture" and close them to minor details.
Look again at my example in the sign of Double Happiness. My post
explained it too.
+++++++++
The game of chess is a simulation of war strategy and battle combat.
It has a theme.
Mahjong, as I see it, could be a simulation of changes in life and
nature. It too has a theme, I think. But it is NOT about Cash or
money.
+++++++
My case is building. Some people dislike it.
+++++++
Allan Lee
Julian Bradfield
> What is research? To me, it is search and search again and again. The
> path of searching for answers is full of mistakes. Our knowledge
> includes the mistakes made on the way of learning.
Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between "research" (the
activity) and the *presentation* of research.
Those of us who are researchers by profession usually try to make our
mistakes in private. Once we've eliminated all the mistakes we can
identify, we spend (usually rather a lot of) effort on writing a
coherent presentation of the results of our research activity, in the
form of an article or lecture. Usually, the process of writing a
coherent presentation reveals yet further mistakes that we have to
deal with - and occasionally, we discover that our whole programme is
fundamentally flawed.
Only then do we consume other researchers' time by sending the article
for consideration by a journal or conference, or by putting it up on
the Web.
If you were to adopt this model, then rather than having a long
conversation with yourself, and with the ghosts of previous threads,
in public on this newsgroup, you would do it in private; and then,
when you had run out of things to argue with yourself about, you would
write an article presenting your theory, with its supporting evidence
and reasoning, and post that article here.
al
>
> > +++++++++++++
> > Have you seen the additional information in photo 79 on page 55 of
> > "Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum"?
It's a must-see item. See it for yourself.
> > ++++++++++
>
> New readers should be aware that the use of this photo is totally
> incorrect in the unsupported, unsubstantiated and undemonstrated
> argument of the above poster regarding their ideas on the origin of
> the symbols found in the three ma que suits.
>
The assumption is that new readers are incapable of judging the
material for themselves.
The fact that the 3-suited card deck does appear in the Illustrated
Book of the Mahjong Museum [of Japan] indicates such a deck existed at
one time. Any researcher would jump on the lead, I would think.
> To examine the origins of the three suits' names, researchers look for
> names of the three suits in dated card packs that preceded the
> earliest dated ma que description with names (circa 1870).
>
Not sure what this means...and what is the logic?
> The above poster has failed to grasp that "Ming four-suited ma diao
> deck" refers to the four-suited ma diao deck as it appeared in dated.
The earth was the center of the universe for a long time. That theory
was also dated. So, we have "dated" errors in history. Mahjong history
could be in error too.
> literature from the Ming Dynasty(Lu Rong and Pan Zhiheng) and not to
> the four suited Ma Diao deck found in dated literature from the Qing
> Dynasty(Feng Menglong).
>
Well, these guys didn't even get the name of the game straight. To me,
they are not the ultimate authority. The game existed before any of
them came on scene. Nobody knows how long ago and nobody knew what the
symbols were, besides a taiji diagram was on one card for sure. Taiji
diagram represents the yin-yang concept of course.
By the way, there was never any pictures shown for any of the cards in
the Ming deck.
As it has been said before, "dated" does not mean definitive. Mistakes
made in the past were all dated.
> To use three-suited decks in the origin of ma que symbols research,
> those decks must be dated and dated prior to the earlest ma que record
> - to allow for the probability that the influence was from the card
> deck to ma que and not from ma que to the card deck.
>
For any one who is really interested in further research for the
origin of mahjong, the natural reaction would be, as I expect, to look
for a possible matching date for the deck of 3-suited cards in a
respectable publication.
Strange response...
>[..]
> " Here is more from translation of a card manual, Ma Diao (Ming 4-
> suited).
> Quotes:
> 1 Cash. Like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate).
> 3 Cash. Like the shape of the GEN (Creative) trigram.
> 6 Cash. Like the shape of the KUN (Receptive) trigram.
>
> 1 String. Like a hairpin.
> 5 Strings. Like the shape of the GEN (Keeping Still) trigram.
>
> 1 Myriad guan: Heaven's Clever Star.
> 2 Myriad guan: Heven's Heroic Star.
> 8 Myriad guan: Heaven's Void Star.
> 9 Myriad guan: Heaven's Retreat Star.
>
> Hundred Myriad guan: Heaven's Criminal Star.
> Thousnd Myriad guan: Heaven's Wounded Star.
> Ten-thousand Myriad guan: Heaven's Supreme Star.
> +++++++++++++
> The above examples represent the 4 suits in Ma Diao and serve as the
> base of support for the ma que "money-suited" claim. It's said as
> documented evidence. "
>
Compare the 4 suits of Cash (Zero to 9), Cash (Strings), Cash
(myriads) and Cash (Stars) with the 3 suits in Photo 79 on page 55 of
the Illustrated Book.
>[..]
> These repeated posts of the above poster are an effort to swamp and
> abuse this forum with the above poster's agenda.
>
I just learned what the fish symbol mean. Also I realized the double-
happiness sign is equivalent to a pair of eyes. They are all symbols
representing yin and yang. They tie in with the taiji diagram found in
the Ming 4-suited deck and the taiji diagram in the "modern money-
suited" cards. Why do they appear there? Must be a reason...
By the way, I make my posts brief.
> Note; It is not the content of the above poster's arguments, but their
> behaviours in correspondence on this forum that is at issue.
Ask Galileo if it was because of the content in his theory for the
treatment he received.
+++++++++++++
al
Now you tell me.
1. I did not know that is how posts should be done.
2. I have seen posts with brief question and answers.
3. I have learned a lot from raising questions and getting
criticized.
4. I looked back now and then on topics of discussion. I hardly saw
anything like what you said a post should be.
5. Point out a paper in this group as an example for me. I want to
see if I can learn something from it.
Thanks...
msta...@talktalk.net
It is important to point out, for those not familiar with the above
posters behaviour, that the behaviours above are commonly found
throughout their postings in the threads listed in a previous post on
this subject.
These behaviours consist of misreading what was written (even though
it has been explained in previous posts)and then making totally
unfounded or baseless assertions about the translator and, in this
case, about the Chinese historians sources for their descriptions so
as to cast doubt on the veracity of what they wrote.
Again, the above poster has failed to grasp that a lack of evidence
for something is evidence for nothing at all.
> Dated-when and taken-from-where really do not matter that much. None
> of the names is absolute certainty. So why would any researcher place
> his blind faith on one and only one deck of 4-suited cards as ultimate
> data source?
This is another common fallacy used by the above poster - called the
'straw person' fallacy. It is perhaps the commonest irrational ploy
(after it has been been demonstrated to them numerous times in
previous posts) used by them. The position and claims made by mahjong
researchers is reduced to a caricature and then an irrational
conclusion is made from that caricature. That irrational conclusion is
then used to support the therefore baseless assertion put foward by
the above poster, that "Dated-when and taken-from-where really do not
matter that much."
A further tactic is blatantly accusing other posters of objecting to
their ideas when the actual objection - the only objection in this
case - is to the above poster's behaviour on this forum.
>> The same tactics put forward by the above poster can be found in the
>> further forum subjects;
>> Why a Sparrow?
>> Mahjong and Matiao related? How and Why?
>> Origin of Mahjong(MJ)/Other Hu Pai Design.
>> Winds Order.
>> What is Ma Que/Mahjong?(Was Winds Order).
>> Origin of Mahjong. Invented or Evolved.
>There are interesting points of view in all the above posts. They are
>getting even better.
The above poster’s ‘points of view’ are irrelevant. What is relevant
is the behaviour of the poster as reflected in the manner of their
'reasoning' in the subjects listed earlier.
Again, these behaviours are seen when the poster;
(1) ignores or completely forgets to answer the arguments that
were given with documentary evidence or
(2) distorts that evidence by taking it out of context or
(3) when answers about various terms were provided with contextual
evidence, then falls back on the tactic of casting unfounded
aspertions on the translator's expertise (or the historians) while
(4) continuing to blatantly cite or use terms from that very
translation (and historian)
and...
(5) caricaturing the statements and positions of others on this forum
and then
(6) making a totally baseless assertion based in part on that
caricature, to support their own agenda which is...
(7) to swamp this forum with repeated claims, unsupported by any
logically coherent argument and without any relevant and directly
related, dated, evidence when required.
msta...@talktalk.net
> The fact that the 3-suited card deck does appear in the Illustrated
> Book of the Mahjong Museum [of Japan] indicates such a deck existed at
> one time. Any researcher would jump on the lead, I would think.
The above poster has again ignored the explanation for why their
appeal to undated sources is irrelevant and irrational.
This behaviour is an example of the above poster completely and
utterly failing to understand that to establish any explanation for
the origin of a term or name of an object (that is, cause and effect),
then any evidence must at least either be from or before the time of
the existence of that object. If the object has a known date then any
causative evidence must be from the same time or before the time of
that object to at least begin to establish a cause and effect
relationship.
Undated photos are therefore useless and therefore irrelevant to any
explanation, involving cause and effect in time, which seeks to be a
viable alternative explanation.
For interested readers, the photo in question has no date whatsoever.
Its use in any explanation reduces that explanation to a Guess.
> > The above poster has failed to grasp that "Ming four-suited ma diao
> > deck" refers to the four-suited ma diao deck as it appeared in dated.
>
> The earth was the center of the universe for a long time. That theory
> was also dated. So, we have "dated" errors in history. Mahjong history
> could be in error too.
Students of bizarre and hilarious logic may be interested in this
piece. (Please refer to other subject threads on this forum for
similar cases.) The above poster is laughably ignoring the reason
(explained to them repeatedly in past posts in other subject threads)
why a theory or hypothesis survives or falls. It survives or falls by
the standard of evidence supporting it, not by the date it existed.
The above ‘reasoning’ is an example of an irrelevant premise being
used to support a wrong conclusion.
It is not the content of the above poster's arguments, but their
behaviours in and use of correspondence that constitute an abuse of
this forum.
al
> On Jan 13, 9:41 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> It is important to point out, for those not familiar with the above
> posters behaviour, that the behaviours above are commonly found
> throughout their postings in the threads listed in a previous post on
> this subject.
>
posters are not objective and tend to attack a person rather than what
is posted.
The behavior of this poster is not so examplary, to say the least.
> These behaviours consist of misreading what was written (even though
> it has been explained in previous posts)and then making totally
> unfounded or baseless assertions about the translator and, in this
> case, about the Chinese historians sources for their descriptions so
> as to cast doubt on the veracity of what they wrote.
>
Specificaally, the classical case in point was the name of Ma Diao.
Two writer-historian differ in calling it. One was Horse-Hang and the
other Horse-Drop.
What was hung or dropped. It was assumed to be a leg.
> Again, the above poster has failed to grasp that a lack of evidence
> for something is evidence for nothing at all.
>
Is that not evidence? Then what is?
> > Dated-when and taken-from-where really do not matter that much. None
> > of the names is absolute certainty. So why would any researcher place
> > his blind faith on one and only one deck of 4-suited cards as ultimate
> > data source?
>
That question is fair. Why confine oneself to an only source in
research, especially as there has not been that much progress for
years. I recall raeding once some one remarked that there has not been
anything new in the past 125 years.
> This is another common fallacy used by the above poster - called the
> 'straw person' fallacy. It is perhaps the commonest irrational ploy
> (after it has been been demonstrated to them numerous times in
> previous posts) used by them. The position and claims made by mahjong
> researchers is reduced to a caricature and then an irrational
> conclusion is made from that caricature. That irrational conclusion is
> then used to support the therefore baseless assertion put foward by
> the above poster, that "Dated-when and taken-from-where really do not
> matter that much."
>
What is being referred to here? "Half-Cash" and "Zero-Cash" and Cash
Stars?
Such notion sounds more like baseless to me.
> A further tactic is blatantly accusing other posters of objecting to
> their ideas when the actual objection - the only objection in this
> case - is to the above poster's behaviour on this forum.
>
I see a tactic of this poster is to attack a person rather than his
concept. I see blatlant accusation without specifics.
> >> The same tactics put forward by the above poster can be found in the
> >> further forum subjects;
> >> Why a Sparrow?
> >> Mahjong and Matiao related? How and Why?
> >> Origin of Mahjong(MJ)/Other Hu Pai Design.
> >> Winds Order.
> >> What is Ma Que/Mahjong?(Was Winds Order).
> >> Origin of Mahjong. Invented or Evolved.
Each of the above topics has contributed directly or indirectly to
mahjong knowledge, especially the recent ones on Yinyangyu (FISH) and
the yinyang sign of Double-Happiness.
> >There are interesting points of view in all the above posts. They are
> >getting even better [and better].
>
> The above poster’s ‘points of view’ are irrelevant. What is relevant
> is the behaviour of the poster as reflected in the manner of their
> 'reasoning' in the subjects listed earlier.
>
Try to appreciate correlative thinking. Oriental culture and language
are built on correlative thinking. Simple logic is not the only way.
A Way is not the only way.
A Name isn'tt forever same.
> Again, these behaviours are seen when the poster;
> (1) ignores or completely forgets to answer the arguments that
> were given with documentary evidence or
What if the "documented evidence" is not realistic in my view. I am
allowed to express my opinion and offer my interpretation?
> (2) distorts that evidence by taking it out of context or
Specifically what item? Evidence may mean one thing to one person and
may mean something different to another. The eyes filter information
for the brain and vise versa.
"Principles and purpose" of many games were lost in Ming period. Is
that considered evidence? The Ma Diao game was changed by Vice
Minister of War, Wang Daokun (1525-93).
There was no mention as to what principles and what purposes were for
the Ma Diao game, which is supposed to be the bedrock of mahjong
research. Where was the evidence of any actual change?
> (3) when answers about various terms were provided with contextual
> evidence, then falls back on the tactic of casting unfounded
> aspertions on the translator's expertise (or the historians) while
"Unfounded aspertions"? What are thtose?
Historians were described as "unofficial". That is in the translation.
Translation lacks drawings and that is true. CASH is a term coined by
Himly and it might not have been the name of the suit which had 1-Cash
in Ming card with a taiji diagram (grand ultimate).
> (4) continuing to blatantly cite or use terms from that very
> translation (and historian)
> and...
Does it not seem strange to any one? How can a Star represent Myriads?
Zero-Cash is supreme because emptiness is the source etc.
Try to understand that for somebody who was born in China simply can
not accept such descriptions as Cash-money. However, I feel strongly
the symbols were to mean something else. Some people may not be able
to accept that either.
The earth was the center of the universe for more than 1700 years.
> (5) caricaturing the statements and positions of others on this forum
> and then
> (6) making a totally baseless assertion based in part on that
> caricature, to support their own agenda which is...
Here is a "baseless asertion" for a hidden agenda?
> (7) to swamp this forum with repeated claims, unsupported by any
> logically coherent argument and without any relevant and directly
> related, dated, evidence when required.
When it is a new idea. There is no dated dead documents in history.
Researchers combed the mahjong graves all over the world. They have
not yet uncovered much of anything for years. Even now the name of the
game is being hypothesized. We are nowhere near the origin of mahjong.
Think outside the "BOX".
Enogh is enough of this. Only mahjong topics will be discussed.
al
> On Jan 14, 2:47 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> It is not the content of the above poster's arguments, but their
> behaviours in and use of correspondence that constitute an abuse of
> this forum.
Would you accept the 30-card deck on page 55 of Mahjong Museum Book if
a date for it can be fixed? It has a printing block made of wood. That
wood block may be traced to a printing house which existed within a
time frame. What else is needed to authenticate?
You know what? Come to think of it. Peopele who believe in all Himly
and Wilkinson said or wrote basically believe in what players of the
day knew about the mahjong game. Those historians got their knowledge
from players of the day through interpreters. They wrote down what
they HEARD and that is some of your dated documented evidence.
I learned the game over 60 years ago, through "word-of-mouth", so I
know. Most eople before me had to do the same way. No books.
We are wasting time. Let's do some research work.
Cofa Tsui
news:88d833f5-1485-46b6...@m4g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Hello Al,
I believe what Julian has presented is a good advice. And I wish to
emphasize the following which I think could be helpful to you about making
your posts to the group (I am a general reader of the group and I know what
would be informative to me and what would simply drive me away from
continuing on reading):
From Julian's:
> Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between "research" (the
> activity) and the *presentation* of research.
> Only then do we consume other researchers' time by sending the article
> for consideration by a journal or conference, or by putting it up on
> the Web.
I think the main point here is to post the presentation *in one, complete,
whole article*. Individual questions, arguments and postings sound more like
the acts of doing a *research* - This is very similar to what you have been
doing with most of your posts. If this is really a research, then say so
(like "I am doing a research" etc) and it would be up to the readers to
reply.
On the other hand, if you really mean to post a *presentation*, then posting
in the form of scattered short messages here and there, but without
supporting evidence with the messages, would be a manner that could cause
confusions to the general readers - I believe this is how Michael is trying
to point out about the *side effect* of the manner of you posting the
messages (as presentation). His purposes are for good and in good faith, at
least this is what I feel!
This MJNG is in fact generally, commonly, comparatively, mostly, very, very
friendly (although I rarely visit other newsgroups). We shall all treasure
it!
MHO!
--
Cofa Tsui
International Mahjong[r] Infoweb
www.iMahjong.com
msta...@talktalk.net
> On the other hand, if you really mean to post a *presentation*, then posting
> in the form of scattered short messages here and there, but without
> supporting evidence with the messages, would be a manner that could cause
> confusions to the general readers - I believe this is how Michael is trying
> to point out about the *side effect* of the manner of you posting the
> messages (as presentation). His purposes are for good and in good faith, at
> least this is what I feel!
You are correct Cofa. However, I am afraid there is a misunderstanding
here. The behaviour - that is, the way the other poster has conducted
themselves in every discussion thread - when confronted with
propositions (derived from demonstrated arguments with supporting
documentary evidence) that are contrary to their own, is to use every
defensive ploy to protect their ideas. These ploys are not only an
abuse of this forum but also an abiuse of what constitutes informal
logic and evidence.
I have no problem with contrary viewpoints, but I cannot tolerate such
repeated abusive behaviour, in subject threads not intentionally
connected with the other posters' opinions, when that repeated
behaviour has been pointed out with sound arguments and
demonstrations.
msta...@talktalk.net
> Would you accept the 30-card deck on page 55 of Mahjong Museum Book if
> a date for it can be fixed?[snip]
"To use three-suited decks in the origin of ma que symbols research,
those decks must be dated and dated prior to the earlest ma que
record
- to allow for the probability that the influence was from the card
deck to ma que and not from ma que to the card deck."
> You know what? Come to think of it. People who believe in all Himly
> and Wilkinson said or wrote basically believe in what players of the
> day knew about the mahjong game. Those historians got their knowledge
> from players of the day through interpreters. They wrote down what
> they HEARD and that is some of your dated documented evidence.
> We are wasting time. Let's do some research work.
These last comments serve to illustrate the disrespect the above
poster has for this forum. These comments are examples of (1) and (5)
below.
(1) ignores or completely forgets to answer the arguments that
were given with documentary evidence or
(2) distorts that evidence by taking it out of context or
(3) when answers about various terms were provided with contextual
evidence, then falls back on the tactic of casting unfounded
aspertions on the translator's expertise (or the historians) while
(4) continuing to blatantly cite or use terms from that very
translation (and historian)
and...
(5) caricaturing the statements and positions of others on this forum
and then
(6) making a totally baseless assertion based in part on that
caricature, to support their own agenda which is...
msta...@talktalk.net
> It is more important to point out, to readers of this post, that some
> posters are not objective and tend to attack a person rather than what
> is posted.
> The behavior of this poster is not so examplary, to say the least.
Unfortunately, the error in the above posters analysis is that not all
'attacks' on the person are unjustified. It is only when such
'attacks' are irrelevant to the point at issue that the fallacy (ad
hominem) arises. In this case, the point at issue is the behaviour of
the above poster in the mahjong forum. Also, the 'attack' is not on
the personal qualities of the person but on their behaviours in the
forum.
> > Again, the above poster has failed to grasp that a lack of evidence
> > for something is evidence for nothing at all.
>
> Is that not evidence? Then what is?
No evidence = Is evidence for nothing at all.
> What if the "documented evidence" is not realistic in my view. I am
> allowed to express my opinion and offer my interpretation?
Again, it is the behaviour of the above poster in such discussions
that is the issue, not their opinions.
> > (2) distorts that evidence by taking it out of context or
>
> Specifically what item? Evidence may mean one thing to one person and
> may mean something different to another. The eyes filter information
> for the brain and vise versa.
(1) ignores or completely forgets to answer the arguments that
were given with documentary evidence or
(2) distorts that evidence by taking it out of context
> There was no mention as to what principles and what purposes were for
> the Ma Diao game, which is supposed to be the bedrock of mahjong
> research.
(5) caricaturing the statements and positions of others on this forum
and then
(6) making a totally baseless assertion based in part on that
caricature, to support their own agenda which is...
(7) to swamp this forum with repeated claims, unsupported by any
logically coherent argument and without any relevant and directly
related, dated, evidence when required.
> "Unfounded aspertions"? What are thtose?
> Historians were described as "unofficial". That is in the translation.
(3) when answers about various terms were provided with contextual
evidence, then falls back on the tactic of casting unfounded
aspertions on the translator's expertise (or the historians) while
(4) continuing to blatantly cite or use terms from that very
translation (and historian)
> Try to understand that for somebody who was born in China simply can
> not accept such descriptions as Cash-money. However, I feel strongly
> the symbols were to mean something else. Some people may not be able
> to accept that either.
The above poster is again attempting to divert attention away from the
use of evidence as support for their statements. Personal feelings are
no evidence at all for this subject. Statements making a claim to non
acceptance of other propositions put forward for serious consideration
must be backed up with sound logic and evidential support.
al
> "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
Yes. He usually offers straight forward advice. I value it.
And I wish to
> emphasize the following which I think could be helpful to you about making
> your posts to the group (I am a general reader of the group and I know what
> would be informative to me and what would simply drive me away from
> continuing on reading):
>
Okay.
> From Julian's:
>
> > Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between "research" (the
> > activity) and the *presentation* of research.
> > Only then do we consume other researchers' time by sending the article
> > for consideration by a journal or conference, or by putting it up on
> > the Web.
>
This sounds a bit like 19th century methodology.
I thought the internet and www have been invented as result of need
for quicker interchange of information. Was it not started by
researchers too?
I had the notion of getting help from informed and expert readers who
have knowledge in their own special area of study and experience and
get answers to questions quicker than doing all the reading and search
on your own. Some people are better at imental flexibility and others
are better at historical details. I thought group discussion would be
a group effort to get answers instead isolated searching alone.
It would be a long time before we see a research paper. I remember
when I put a lengthy post out one time on *origin of mahjong and other
Hu Pai* with details and references. The first remark I got was: who
wants to read that? Too long".
> I think the main point here is to post the presentation *in one, complete,
> whole article*. Individual questions, arguments and postings sound more like
> the acts of doing a *research* - This is very similar to what you have been
> doing with most of your posts. If this is really a research, then say so
> (like "I am doing a research" etc) and it would be up to the readers to
> reply.
>
My first post on a topic is something like what you say. But I have
never stated that was a research. I thought readers may laugh about
such presumption.
When I get no response from readers and meanwhile I get additional
material I keep adding on. When some one comments then I learn from
it.
When unfriedly remarks made I shot back. When there is disagreement, I
say so and repeat if needed. That is why some people dislike that.
> On the other hand, if you really mean to post a *presentation*, then posting
> in the form of scattered short messages here and there, but without
> supporting evidence with the messages, would be a manner that could cause
> confusions to the general readers - I believe this is how Michael is trying
> to point out about the *side effect* of the manner of you posting the
> messages (as presentation). His purposes are for good and in good faith, at
> least this is what I feel!
>
May be...may be not.
> This MJNG is in fact generally, commonly, comparatively, mostly, very, very
> friendly (although I rarely visit other newsgroups). We shall all treasure
> it!
>
This is the only NG I participate.
> MHO!
>
I reserve mine for now. But thanks for tour advice and supoort.
> --
> Cofa Tsui
> International Mahjong[r] Infowebwww.iMahjong.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
+++++++++++
Cheers...al
Julian Bradfield
> On Jan 15, 3:58 pm, "Cofa Tsui" <cofat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This sounds a bit like 19th century methodology.
>
> I thought the internet and www have been invented as result of need
> for quicker interchange of information. Was it not started by
> researchers too?
The WWW, not the internet. But the way physicists use the WWW is
to make their papers available quickly - they don't (so far as I know)
discuss things very much in newsgroups or on mailing lists.
Some mathematicians discuss philosophical aspects of the foundations
of mathematics on an email list - but such discussions, if they
produce anything really interesting, will ultimately turn into an
article.
> I had the notion of getting help from informed and expert readers who
> have knowledge in their own special area of study and experience and
> get answers to questions quicker than doing all the reading and search
> on your own. Some people are better at imental flexibility and others
> are better at historical details. I thought group discussion would be
> a group effort to get answers instead isolated searching alone.
Group discussion is not actually very efficient, and for lots of
people to take part in a sustained group discussion, you need people
who are either unemployed, grad students, or retired (or just
obsessed). The rest of us find it hard to afford the time - it's
easier to put aside time to read an article and write a reply once
every few months, than to find time every day to post articles like this.
> It would be a long time before we see a research paper. I remember
> when I put a lengthy post out one time on *origin of mahjong and other
> Hu Pai* with details and references. The first remark I got was: who
> wants to read that? Too long".
You posted it to Usenet, which is not a medium suited for long
messages. Type it up (nicely), and make the PDF available - then we
can print it and read at our leisure. Or put it in HTML on the Web,
and post a reference to it.
al
Cofa Tsui
> On 2009-01-16, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> > I had the notion of getting help from informed and expert readers who
> > have knowledge in their own special area of study and experience and
> > get answers to questions quicker than doing all the reading and search
> > on your own. Some people are better at imental flexibility and others
> > are better at historical details. I thought group discussion would be
> > a group effort to get answers instead isolated searching alone.
>
> Group discussion is not actually very efficient, and for lots of
> people to take part in a sustained group discussion, you need people
> who are either unemployed, grad students, or retired (or just
> obsessed). The rest of us find it hard to afford the time - it's
> easier to put aside time to read an article and write a reply once
> every few months, than to find time every day to post articles like this.
It is true. I agree, with a note to that group of frequent posters:
people who are interested in the specific topic and perhaps are also
researching on that subject, may also post more often. But in general,
if you don't receive response it most likely means readers are not
interested. (They could still read it for information, though.)
> > It would be a long time before we see a research paper. I remember
> > when I put a lengthy post out one time on *origin of mahjong and other
> > Hu Pai* with details and references. The first remark I got was: who
> > wants to read that? Too long".
>
> You posted it to Usenet, which is not a medium suited for long
> messages. Type it up (nicely), and make the PDF available - then we
> can print it and read at our leisure. Or put it in HTML on the Web,
> and post a reference to it.
And one of the reasons for "who wants to read that" could be that "no
one is really interested," it may not because it was too long. We did
have some good discussion, collaboration experiences on this NG - see
some examples from link below (^_^):
http://imahjong.com/maiarchives205.html
The bottom line is: If the topic is of no interest to others, there
would be no response. If one's behaviour is offensive or
objectionable, people will simply not read his posts at all; and some
may point out the problem for good reasons. Repeated posting in the
same manner won't help (in either getting feedback for a research, or
getting agreement from others on a statement/presentation, or simply
trying to get some response), but could worsen the general image of
the poster in that particular group.
Again, MHO.
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
al
Thanks again...al
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Itemize what you criticize.
Al,
I do not really want to place myself into this discussion, but you do
not seem to acknowledge some problems with your posts, and you seem to
be requesting specific examples. Since I think that these problems may
be unintentional rather than deliberate, I will point out several
specific examples here that I personally find problematic:
>CASH is a term coined by Himly and it might not have been the name of the suit which had 1-Cash in Ming card with a taiji diagram (grand ultimate).
You state this as if it is an established fact, but I doubt that Himly
‘coined’ the term. My understanding is that Himly was trying to convey
information that was told to him – not making up his own terms for the
game (like Babcock did for reasons of copywriting the game for the
export market). I see no reason for you to state that Himly ‘coined’
the term! No evidence is supplied to support this claim other than
your opinion (based, apparently, solely on idea that the term must be
wrong since it does not fit your Yijing theory, regardless of whether
or not there is supporting documentation, and that Himly is not
Chinese so that you question the validity of his research into a
Chinese game). If someone already believes that the Yijing hypothesis
is correct, then it may seem that this makes logical sense, but to
someone like me who is simply trying to evaluate possibilities (and
who is doubtful of your hypothesis), this ‘logic’ is meaningless!
>But "Zero Cash" is no cash. I will repeat that.
Is that like saying the King, Queen and Jack are not Hearts, Diamonds,
Clubs or Spades in a Western card deck? How about an Ace high (rather
than an ace ranking below a two), is that not the same as saying Zero
cash is supreme (i.e. ranked highest)? If you have a ‘Cash’ suit with
numbers 1 through 9 and wanted to add two additional cards to that
suit, would not ‘Half Cash’ and ‘Zero Cash’ work for that purpose?
Doesn’t 0, ½, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 make a rational progression of
values [note that for these ‘Cash’ suit card, the rank/values/
supremacy are apparently reversed so that 9 is the lowest and 0 the
highest]? Just stating that there is no such thing as a zero value
coin does not negate the possibility of using a numerical progression
within this suit. Would it have been acceptable to you if it had been
called ‘No Cash’ (or ‘Without Cash’) rather than ‘Zero Cash’? I had
emailed my thoughts on this to you personally quite a long time ago,
but you seem to ignore it since it did not fit with your theory since
you have not addressed this point in this forum. If you ignore my
ideas, then why should I consider your ideas?
>How can a Star represent Myriads?
Long ago, I explained in an email to you that I thought that the
representation of the figures from the Water Margin novel was
reasonable, but you never address this alternative explanation that
may counter your own. To repeat that information here, there are 108
bandit/heroes in the novel with 36 associated with the heavenly stars,
and 72 with the earthly fiends. For the ‘myriads’ suits, 9 x 4 = 36,
and for the other two suits 2 x 9 x 4 = 72, for a total of 108 cards!
Can you not see a possible connection here? Since the Myriads suit has
36 cards, and there are 36 heavenly star characters associated with
the novel, does it not seem understandable why figures associated with
the novel may have been depicted on the cards? Or are you simply
ignoring this information since it does not fit well into your theory?
If you ignore alternative explanations, then I have no reason to
consider yours. In this example, the ‘stars’ and figures from the
novel can be specifically correlated, yet you want us to consider some
vague ‘cosmological’ connection that to you possibly think implies the
Yijing when you have failed to provide any specifics.
>The earth was the center of the universe for more than 1700 years.
I fail to see any purpose for this statement. Yes, people make
mistakes, beliefs are sometimes wrong; theories are sometimes
discredited or revised based on new information. Are you admitting
that your theory may be wrong by making this statement, or are you
trying to imply that if another unrelated theory from the past is now
considered to be wrong, then your newer idea about mahjong must be
correct??? I cannot follow your logic for making this statement!
>Have you seen the additional information in photo 79 on page 55 of "Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum"? >>Worth seeing...eye-opener for sure.
It is certainly not an eye opener to me, and I do not know what
significance you are trying to place on this photo. You seem to be
selectively applying your own method of ‘logic’! For example, you have
argued that the dots in mahjong do not represent coins because they do
not have square centers, yet insists that they must represent taiji
(yin/yang) diagrams in support of your yijing theory (since they are
on the card deck as depicted in photos 78/79), even though they do not
picture the taiji diagram [or Yijing hexagrams or trigrams] on any
mahjong tiles that I am aware of (not even on one dot where the size
lends itself to more elaborate carving, and often to more elaborate
pictures than on #2-9)! Even though photos 78/79 shows pairs of
trigrams (representing 18 different hexagrams?) on two suits and the
taiji diagram as some of the circles in one of those suits, the next
figure on the same page (photos 80/81) clearly shows cash coins as
commonly drawn in Chinese artwork. Doesn’t this then also ‘prove’,
using your same ‘logic’, that the mahjong dots suit must have evolved
from depictions of cash coins on card decks?! If you acknowledge the
importance of dating sources, then which came first, the Yijing
symbology or the coin depictions?
Have you tried to understand why those 18 (out of 64 total) hexagrams
were selected for those cards and not the other hexagrams? What, if
any, is their significance? Why wouldn’t trigrams (hexagrams) also be
on the ‘myriads suit? Do you really feel that depictions of Yijing
symbology on some cards in decks of unknown dates means that all of
that type of card decks, and by extension mahjong, were created to
reflect the Yijing? This does not make sense to me!
>… eye-opener for sure.
Said the blind man! My regular prescription lenses do not seem to see
the same thing as your apparently rose tinted ones. So far you have
not presented a single thing that convinces me that your Yijing
hypothesis is worth my time to look into, unless I missed something
that is buried in the disorganized, highly repetitive posts of yours.
>Try to appreciate correlative thinking. Oriental culture and language are built on correlative thinking. Simple logic is not the only way.
Are you trying to say that correlative thinking and simple logic are
mutually exclusive? That if the correlative thinking used in your
Yijing theory presentation does not also follow simple logic, then
that is ok? I do not agree! If you are unable to make logical
responses to logical concerns about your proposed hypothesis, then
admit it rather than trying to use this approach to excuse weaknesses
in your hypothesis. How about trying logical correlative thinking!
>I say "open your eyes" to the "big picture" and close them to minor details.
Huh?!? I don’t consider the points that I have raised concerning your
hypothesis to be “minor”, and you seem to be advocating closing ones
mind to any details that do not support your hypothesis! If your
hypothesis does not hold up to careful examination, then of what value
is it? To me there would be very little value in it! To me, even your
“big picture” is severely lacking.
There are numerous other points that I could similarly address from
this thread and others, but I have already spent far too long on a
topic that I do not find particularly interesting. Hope the comments
help you to see what makes the Yijing hypothesis uninteresting to me
so far.
Dan
al
> On Jan 13, 4:41 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Itemize what you criticize.
>
> Al,
> Dan
++++++++++++++++++++++
DAN: I do not really want to place myself into this discussion, but
you do not seem to acknowledge some problems with your posts, and you
seem to be requesting specific examples.
AL: [WHICH I DID]
Since I think that these problems may be unintentional rather than
deliberate, I will point out several specific examples here that I
personally find problematic:
[I APPRECIATE THAT]
>CASH is a term coined by Himly and it might not have been the name of the suit which had 1-Cash in Ming card with a taiji diagram (grand ultimate).
You state this as if it is an established fact, but I doubt that Himly
'coined' the term. My understanding is that Himly was trying to convey
information that was told to him - not making up his own terms for the
game (like Babcock did for reasons of copywriting the game for the
export market). I see no reason for you to state that Himly 'coined'
the term! No evidence is supplied to support this claim
[DAN, THIS WAS GIVEN IN A POST WHICH RAISED THE QUESTION "WHO COINED
CASH, STRING OF CASH..." I WAS TOLD BY A RELIABLE SOURCE THAT HIMLY WAS
FIRST TO USE THE TERM. I HAD NO REASON TO DOUBT, SINCE HIMLY WAS ONE
OF EARLY HISTORIANS.]
other than your opinion (based, apparently, solely on idea that the
term must be wrong since it does not fit your Yijing theory,
regardless of whether or not there is supporting ocumentation,
[YOU MADE A WRONG ASSUMPTION HERE. THE TERM IS WRONG BECAUSE THE
SYMBOL FOR IT HAD MORE THAN ONE NAME. IT WAS CALLED CAKE / COOKIE,
CONTAINER, AND OTHER NAMES BESIDES CASH.
and that Himly is not Chinese so that you question the validity of his
research into a
Chinese game).
[I QUESTION ANY ONE'S RESEARCH WORK WHEN IT COMES TO MAHJONG. COME TO
THINK OF IT. HIMLY DID A BETTER JOB THAN THE CHINESE PEOPLE
THEMSELVES.
If someone already believes that the Yijing hypothesis is correct,
then it may seem that this makes logical sense, but to someone like me
who is simply trying to evaluate possibilities
[THE POSSIBILITY OF WHAT? A SYMBOL CAN HAVE A NUMBER OF CORRECT NAMES?
NOBODY KNEW WHAT THE SYMBOL WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. ENGRAVERS COULD PUT
WHATEVER THEY WANTED INSIDE THE CIRCLE, THE REASON BEING THAT THE GAME
HAD LOST ITS MAIN THEME (PROBABLY) OVER A PERIOD OF UNKNOWN NUMBER OF
YEARS.(MA DIAO & OTHER GAMES LOST THEIR "PRINCIPLE AND PURPOSE").
(and who is doubtful of your hypothesis), this 'logic' is meaningless!
[WHAT LOGIC? I SEE NO LOGIC IN CASH EITHER. HOW CASH GO WITH THE
WINDS ? WHERE IS THE CORRELATION?
>But "Zero Cash" is no cash. I will repeat that.
Is that like saying the King, Queen and Jack are not Hearts,
Diamonds,
Clubs or Spades in a Western card deck?
[NO, DAN. IT IS NOT THE SAME LOGIC.
FOR ONE THING, THE PICTURES SHOW WHAT THE CARDS ARE EXPLICITLY. HEARTS
AND DIAMONDS ARE LIKE RACIAL OR ETHNIC IDENTITIES. RIGHT?
How about an Ace high (rather than an ace ranking below a two), is
that not the same as saying Zero cash is supreme (i.e. ranked
highest)?
[YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT HERE. THIS IS SIMILAR TO A WILD CARD IDEA,
EXCEPT THE FACT ZERO MEANS "0" WHICH IS "VOID OF ONE" OR "EMPTINESS"
AS IN MA DIAO.
EMPTINESS AND VOID DO NOT COUNT MUCH IN TERMS OF MONEY. THEY ARE
MEANINGFUL TERMS IN YIJING, AS YOU WELL KNOW.]
If you have a 'Cash' suit with numbers 1 through 9 and wanted to add
two additional cards to that suit, would not 'Half Cash' and 'Zero
Cash' work for that purpose?
Doesn't 0, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 make a rational progression of
values
[NO, DAN. IT SEEMS IRRATIONAL TO ME. I WOULD HAVE ADDED 10 AND 11; NOT
ZERO AND ONE-HALF.
[note that for these 'Cash' suit card, the rank/values/supremacy are
apparently reversed so that 9 is the lowest and 0 the highest]? Just
stating that there is no such thing as a zero value coin does not
negate the possibility of using a numerical progression within this
suit.
[IT MIGHT NOT "NEGATE THE POSSIBILITY", BUT IT DEFIES REASON. BY THE
WAY, ZERO-CASH, VOID OF ANY CASH, RANKS "SUPREME" ULTIMATE?
Would it have been acceptable to you if it had been called 'No
Cash' (or 'Without Cash') rather than 'Zero Cash'?
[NO. IT WOULD NOT. THE WHOLE IDEA OF CASH IS A CONCEPT MISPLACED. YOU
HAVE SO FAR FAILED TO UNDERSTAND MY POINT OF VIEW. CASH DOES NOT
EXPLAIN THE GAME'S DESIGN AND RULES OF PLAY.
I had emailed my thoughts on this to you personally quite a long time
ago, but you seem to ignore it since it did not fit with your theory
since you have not addressed this point in this forum. If you ignore
my ideas, then why should I consider your ideas?
FIRST I MUST ADMIT I DO NOT RECALL MUCH OF ANY EXCHANGE OF IDEA ON
THIS. SECOND, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I PUT ANY IRRELEVANT DISCUSSIONS
ASIDE. NOW, I HAVE ADDRESSED YOUR POINT ADEQUATELY? WE DISAGREE.]
>How can a Star represent Myriads?
Long ago, I explained in an email to you that I thought that the
representation of the figures from the Water Margin novel was
reasonable, but you never address this alternative explanation that
may counter your own.
[NO. DAN, FIRST OF ALL, THE MYRIAD IS A WRONG TERM TO BEGIN WITH. I
TOO HAVE WRITTEN NUMEROUS TIMES ON THIS. MYRIAD CAN BE A COLLECTIVE
ADJECTIVE MEANING A LARGE NUMBER AND NOT NECESSARILY FIXED AT TEN-
THOUSAND.
USING A HE ROE FIGURE FROM A NOVEL TO REPRESENT TEN-THOUSAND CASH IS
RIDICULOUS ANYWAY. THAT LOOKS TO ME LIKE PURE FICTION ON THE PART OF
THE ARTIST AND COPY-CATS.
To repeat that information here, there are 108
bandit/heroes in the novel with 36 associated with the heavenly stars,
and 72 with the earthly fiends. For the 'myriads' suits, 9 x 4 = 36,
and for the other two suits 2 x 9 x 4 = 72, for a total of 108 cards!
Can you not see a possible connection here? Since the Myriads suit has
36 cards, and there are 36 heavenly star characters associated with
the novel, does it not seem understandable why figures associated with
the novel may have been depicted on the cards?
[THOSE ARE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS. DO YOU KNOW IF THEY WERE DATED
EVIDENCE? APPROXIMATELY WHEN DID THEY FIRST APPEAR ON CARDS? AND WHY?
I RECALL READING CARDS HAD TO BE SANCTIONED BY THE RULER BEFORE
PRINTED FOR PUBLICATION OR USE. DO YOU THINK THOSE BANDITS WOULD HAVE
BEEN ALLOWED TO BE GLORIFIED?
BY THE SAME TOKEN, WHY WOULD ANY RULER OF OLDEN DAYS ALLOW PLAYING
CARDS TO HAVE CASH AS SYMBOLS WHICH DENOTE GAMBLING, A FORBIDDEN
ACTIVITY FROM TIME TO TIME IN ANCIENT CHINA?]
Or are you simply ignoring this information since it does not fit well
into your theory?
[I IGNORED IT PERHAPS IT WAS BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT MADE NO SENSE.]
IF MONEY AMOUNTS WERE TO BE PLACED ON THOSE CARDS, DRAWINGS WERE NOT
NEEDED. SEE THESE CARDS THERE WAS A BETTER WAY.
+++++++++++++++
文钱:http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/SH35_small.jpg
百子:http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/SH14_small.jpg
万贯:http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/SH19_small.jpg
十万贯:http://www.poker168.com/Yezi/SH16_small.jpg
+++++++++++++
If you ignore alternative explanations, then I have no reason to
consider yours.
[IF THAT IS HOW YOU REGARD EXPLANATION OF OTHERS', THAT IS OKAY WITH
ME.]
In this example, the 'stars' and figures from the
novel can be specifically correlated, yet you want us to consider some
vague 'cosmological' connection that to you possibly think implies
the
Yijing when you have failed to provide any specifics.
[I HAVE, BUT YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE NOTICED IT. NOW, I OFFERED THE PHOTO
ON PAGE 55 OF ILLUSTRATED BOOK OF THE MAHJONG MUSEUM (JAPAN, 1999). I
DO NOT NEED TO EXPLAIN. THE SYMBOLS SPEAK FOR ME.
WHERE DID THE WOOD BLOCK AND PHOTO COME FROM AND WHEN? THAT IS A
SEPARATE QUESTION. THE YIJING DIVINATION CONCEPT IS CLEARLY
ILLUSTRATED.]
>The earth was the center of the universe for more than 1700 years.
I fail to see any purpose for this statement. Yes, people make
mistakes, beliefs are sometimes wrong; theories are sometimes
discredited or revised based on new information. Are you admitting
that your theory may be wrong by making this statement, or are you
trying to imply that if another unrelated theory from the past is now
considered to be wrong, then your newer idea about mahjong must be
correct??? I cannot follow your logic for making this statement!
[I AM SURPRISED. WHAT I STATED IS SIMPLE. I HAD FOLLOWED UP WITH
EXPLANATION. THE STATEMENT REFERS TO SOMEONE'S INSISTENCE ON "DATED
EVIDENCE" FOR THE PHOTOS IN THE JAPANESE MJM BOOK. MY POINT WAS THAT
'FLAT EARTH' THEORY WAS DATED AND DOCUMENTED. A DATE DID NOT MAKE A
THEORY RIGHT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, EVIDENCE CAN BE GOOD EVEN WITHOUT A DATE. AS IT IS
POSSIBLE SOME TIMES TO PROVIDE A PROBABLE DATE OR AN APPROXIMATE DATE.
IN THE CASE OF THIS DECK OF CARDS IN THE JAPANESE BOOK, THE CONCEPTUAL
EVIDENCE IS IMPORTANT TO MY MIND.
>Have you seen the additional information in photo 79 on page 55 of "Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum"? >>Worth seeing...eye-opener for sure.
It is certainly not an eye opener to me,
[WHY NOT? HAVE YOU SEEN OR THOUGHT ABOUT IT BEFORE?]
and I do not know what significance you are trying to place on this
photo.
[THE SIGNIFICANCE IS THAT THE CARDS WERE DESIGNED ON THE CONCEPT OF
DIVINATION. CAN YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CHINESE WORDS?
FURTHER SIGNIFICANCE IS IN THE FACT THAT I HAD HYPOTHESIZED MAHJONG
WAS OR POSSIBLY DESIGNED BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF I-CHING (YIJING).
THAT WAS IN MY POST ON ORIGIN OF MAHJONG AND OTHER HU PAIS.]
You seem to be selectively applying your own method of 'logic'!
[SUCH IS A SWEEPING STATEMENT AND IS UNTRUE. I SELECT BUT I DO APPLY
BASIC LOGIC. IT MIGHT NOT BE ALWAYS SO CLEAR TO OTHERS WHO READ MY
WRITING. I ACCEPT THAT WOULD BE MY SHORTCOMING]
For example, you have argued that the dots in mahjong do not represent
coins because they do not have square centers,
[SO WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO THAT?]
yet insists that they must [??] represent taiji (yin/yang) diagrams in
support of your yijing theory (since they are on the card deck as
depicted in photos 78/79),
[REFER TO MA DIAO TRANSLATION ARTICLE. "1-CASH. LIKE THE DIAGRAM OF
THE TAIJI(GRAND ULTIMATE)]
even though they do not picture the taiji diagram [or Yijing hexagrams
or trigrams] on any
mahjong tiles that I am aware of (not even on one dot where the size
lends itself to more elaborate carving, and often to more elaborate
pictures than on #2-9)!
[TAKE A GOOD LOOK OF THIS LINK]
VISUALIZE A SMALLER SYMBOL SO MORE CAN FIT ONTO A MAHJONG TILE.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg
Even though photos 78/79 shows pairs of trigrams (representing 18
different hexagrams?) on two suits and the taiji diagram as some of
the circles in one of those suits, the next figure on the same page
(photos 80/81) clearly shows cash coins as commonly drawn in Chinese
artwork. Doesn't this then also 'prove', using your same 'logic', that
the mahjong dots suit must have evolved from depictions of cash coins
on card decks?!
[NO. DAN, YOU MISSED MY POINT. MAHJONG HAS EAST SOUTH WEST AND NORTH
WINDS PLUS THE RED, GREEN AND WHITE TRIO. CASH CAN NOT RELATE TO THEM
ON A CONCEPTUAL BASE. YIN-YANG AND TRIGRAMS CAN. AS I SAID BEFORE,
MAHJONG IS A GAME OF CHANGES. TRIGRAMS AND HEXAGRAMS ARE RESULTANT
CHANGES OF YIN AND YANG IN YIJING, THE BOOK OF CHANGES.
CORRELATION IS THE KEY.
If you acknowledge the importance of dating sources, then which came
first, the Yijing
symbology or the coin depictions?
[IT IS NOT WHAT CAME FIRST THAT COUNTS, BUT WHAT MAKES SENSE. THE CASH
HYPOTHESIS HAS A VERY LOW CORRELATION COEFFICIENT, BECAUSE IT CAN NOT
EXPLAIN ANYTHING ABOUT THE WINDS OF CHANGE AND OTHER NATURAL ELEMENTS
IN THE GAME. YIJING CAN EXPLAIN THE COMPOSITION OF MAHJONG AND THE
RULES OF PLAY. THE HYPOTHESIS OF "CHANGES" HAS A HIGH CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT. YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IN EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN.
Have you tried to understand why those 18 (out of 64 total) hexagrams
were selected for those cards and not the other hexagrams?
[NO, DAN. I DID NOT STUDY THEM. NOW YOU MENTOIONED IT, I SHOULD TAKE A
CLOSER LOOK.
What, if any, is their significance? Why wouldn't trigrams
(hexagrams) also be on the 'myriads suit? Do you really feel that
depictions of Yijing symbology on some cards in decks of unknown dates
means that all of that type of card decks, and by extension mahjong,
were created to reflect the Yijing? This does not make sense to me!
[I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU SAYING HERE. TAIJI DIAGRAM HAS SHOWN UP IN
OTHER "MONEY-SUITED" CARD DECKS.
>... eye-opener for sure.
Said the blind man! [GOOD ONE!]
My regular prescription lenses do not seem to see the same thing as
your apparently rose tinted ones. So far you have not presented a
single thing that convinces me that your Yijing
hypothesis is worth my time to look into, unless I missed something
that is buried in the disorganized, highly repetitive posts of yours.
[IF YOU SEE NOTHING BY NOW, THE PROBLEM IS NOT WITH YOUR EYES. IT IS
YOUR MIND.
>Try to appreciate correlative thinking. Oriental culture and language are built on correlative thinking. Simple logic is not the only way.
Are you trying to say that correlative thinking and simple logic are
mutually exclusive?
[NO.]
That if the correlative thinking used in your
Yijing theory presentation does not also follow simple logic,
[WHAT IS NOT LOGICAL?
then that is ok? I do not agree! If you are unable to make logical
responses to logical concerns about your proposed hypothesis, then
admit it rather than trying to use this approach to excuse weaknesses
in your hypothesis. How about trying logical correlative thinking!
I HAVE PRESENTED NUMEROUS POSTS ON THE TOPIC. IT LOOKS LIKE I HAVE NOT
BEEN ABLE TO GET THROUGH TO YOU. I WON'T BOTHER AGAIN.
>I say "open your eyes" to the "big picture" and close them to minor details.
Huh?!? I don't consider the points that I have raised concerning your
hypothesis to be "minor",
[I EXPLAINED THAT IN DETAIL ALREADY IN MY EXAMPLES OF CHINESE WRITING
AND THINKING.]
and you seem to be advocating closing ones mind to any details that do
not support your hypothesis!
[NO. THAT IS STRETCHING IT A BIT]
If your hypothesis does not hold up to careful examination, then of
what value is it? To me there would be very little value in it! To me,
even your "big picture" is severely lacking.
[YOU SEEM TO DEMAND TOTAL, PERFECT CORRESPONDENCE IN MINUTE DETAILS
FOR A GAME AND ITS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK. HAVE YOU SEEN SUCH A GAME? I
KNOW MY HYPOTHESIS STANDS UP BETTER TO EXAMINATION THAN ANYTHING RIGHT
NOW. I AM STILL WORKING ON IT.]
There are numerous other points that I could similarly address from
this thread and others, but I have already spent far too long on a
topic that I do not find particularly interesting. Hope the comments
help you to see what makes the Yijing hypothesis uninteresting to me
so far.
[ I DO NOT FIND SUCH EFFORT HELPFUL THIS TIME. I AM BASICALLY
REPEATING MY SELF. I DID SAY WE SHOULD LEAVE THE TOPIC. IF YOU REFUSE
EVEN TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONCEPT IN PHOTO 79, PAGE 55 OF THE JAPANESE
MJM BBOK, BECAUSE IT HAS NO DEFINITE DATE ATTACHED, THEN YOU HAVE NO
INTENTION TO BE HELPFUL. I CAN ACCEPT THAT.]
+++++++++++++++++
Cheers....al
al
双眼 = 雙眼 = a pair or both eyes.
双手 = 雙手 = a pair or both hands.
These are typical examples of pairs, comparable to yin-yang.
THE MAIN IDEA IS DUALITY. YIN-AND-YANG REPRESENTS DUALITY. AND THE TWO
CIRCLES, ONE LIGHT AND ONE DARK, LIKE A PAIR OF FISH EYES IN A TAIJI
DIAGRAM, ARE SYMBOL OF DUALITY.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_7.jpg
In mahjong, a pair of * eYe * is critical requirement for every
winning hand. Nothing counts without the pair. That is a basic rule of
the game. It is a rule that has never been changed, as far as I know.
So a pair of eyes is needed to have a winning hand. But why? What is
the "principle behind the rule"?
Some people may still have doubts on any suggestion of something new,
such as the duality concept in I-Ching and its possible connection to
the pair in mahjong winning pattern which consists of sets of tiles in
combination sequences of 3's and a pair. Yet there has not been offer
of explanation for the game's unique rules of play.
In fact, NG's mahjong history is filled with years of discussion on
meaning of Chinese words and the identity of various symbols.
It's about time to study the basic rules of the game. Its name is so
mixed up, we can not get near its origin talking about names
Rules of play are more stable and more or less uniform in different
parts of the old country. In addition a rule was established for a
reason. What is the reason for the need of a pair of *eYe* in
mahjong? An answer to this fundamentally question can lead to the
concept of the game's origin.
If yin-yang creation concept is not the idea of this rule, could some
one think of a better "principle behind the rule"? Let's see it.
For some evidence in card game history, look at the "Modern" "money-
suited" deck in Sl;operama FAQ #11.
In this deck, one card has a large "Double-Happiness" sign in the
middle. Directly above this sign is one eye and directly below the
same sign is another eye. The two eyes are placed horizontally, above
and below the Double-Happiness sign; obviously, one eye belongs to one
face and the other eye belongs to another face.
A double-happiness sign is traditionally a marriage of male and
female. One could accept that one eye belongs to the male and the
other eye belongs to the female. A pair of eyes can represent both
genders in card game design, evidently.
Strictly speaking, the comparison is not totally accurate, but that is
typical in the use of metaphors. And when most people were illiterate
and when the language was in early development, as it was in ancient
China, metaphors and similes were best means of communication for
intangible concepts. Words could not give adequate explanation and
most people could not read. Exact description was impossible.
Generally Westerners try to apply modern 21st century logic to
understand ancient allegorical thinking is futile exercise. They
simply lack appreciation for a different culture. For example, in Dao-
De Jing, this is how the world was filled with myriads of all things.
"Dao produced One. One produced Two. Two produced Three. Three
produced Ten-thousand-things."
Such is over-simplification. It is true, but that was the world-view
of people in ancient time.
Same for the yin-yang concept, although yin and yang are not separate
but together as one whole unit, It is easier to think of them as
separate entities when two types of lines representing their polar-
opposites in trigrams.
Yin and ang are not fixed or static. They are dynamic and changing. In
the Tai Chi (Taiji) diagram, Yin begins at Summer Solstice and yang
begins at Winter Solstice. Yin grows from minimum to maximum and yang
grows likewise, and they recycle.
The yin-yang diagram is a trace of the changing patterns of shadow and
sunlight in a yearly cycle. It is showing how the day-light hours
change through the seasons. That is how I understand it. Technically,
the Tai Chi diagram is a graph of a series of measurements of shadows.
It is a chart constructed from empirical data. The essence of the
diagram is unending cyclical change over the four seasons.
One interesting note: the Chinese used a pole exactly 8-ft. tall to
measure the sun's shadow and came up with the yin-yang pattern
thousands of years ago.
A further note for people who insist on detailed accuracy: the solid
and broken lines, as given in The Living I-Ching, [ -x- ] is old yin
line which has the gap filled by an 'x'. And [ -o- ] is old yang line
which is a solid line with a big 'o' in it. The simple broken and
solid lines without 'x' and 'o' are 'young' yin line and 'young' yang
line. These lines are in changing combination of trigrams. So, yin-
yang polarity is dynamic and not static.
For card game design, as seen in the sample of "modern money-suited"
card deck in Sloperama FAQ #11, a simple metaphor, like a pair of
*eYe* serves the purpose. No need to complicate the idea with finer
details. That is how I see it.
By the way, some researchers may have objection to the loose use of
"modern" in terms of dated-ness. Others might accept it as 'not-
ancient'. The fact is that such a deck did exist at one time within
the period between "modern" and "ancient".
Those eyes on the "modern" card are human eyes. (Refer again to the
"money-suited" deck in Sloperama FAQ #11. They probably represent male
and female in context of the double-happiness sign.
I do not recall reading anything on a reason for their symbolic use.
Where did the "eyes" come from and why mahjong players all call them
as such?
Here is a clue. The taiii (Tai Chi) diagram looks like a pair of fish
in mating. The term yin-yang-fish is in Tai Chi glossary; "yu" in yin-
yang-yu meaning fish. That is probably the reason for the mysterious
fish-symbol on some decks of playing cards. See photo 45 (Shui-Huo Ti
Pai) in the Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum (Japan, 1999).
Fish have eyes. In Chinese metaphors, eyes are eyes. Even though one
is black and the other white, one is like the other.
Thus, the taiji diagram first could just be an artistic drawing
displaying a set of empirical data. This collection of shadows became
a pair of fish.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_7.jpg
Then extrapolation by simile; fish-eyes compared to and substituted
with human eyes. However, underneath all the poetic exercise, the
basic idea is "DUOALITY".
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
+++++++++++
Allan Lee
P.S. This is serious effort of inquiry into mahjong origin. Read it if
you want and critique if you like. Questions are welcome.
++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
[snip]
> There are numerous other points that I could similarly address from
> this thread and others, but I have already spent far too long on a
> topic that I do not find particularly interesting. Hope the comments
> help you to see what makes the Yijing hypothesis uninteresting to me
> so far.
>
> [ I DO NOT FIND SUCH EFFORT HELPFUL THIS TIME. I AM BASICALLY
> REPEATING MY SELF. I DID SAY WE SHOULD LEAVE THE TOPIC. IF YOU REFUSE
> EVEN TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONCEPT IN PHOTO 79, PAGE 55 OF THE JAPANESE
> MJM BBOK, BECAUSE IT HAS NO DEFINITE DATE ATTACHED, THEN YOU HAVE NO
> INTENTION TO BE HELPFUL.
Regarding his photo 78/79 claim, the previous poster still fails to
grasp that the photo is of utterly no use in any claim involving an
influence in time. The irrational reliance on this photo is explained
below;
The above poster fails to understand that in an argument asserting
that B (ma qiao suit names/meanings) was influenced by A (I Ching
concepts), providing data C (photo 78/79), that is
not demonstrated to precede or come from the time of B, cannot and
does not in any way support the assertion of an influence.
The above poster has also attempted in the past to distort
his 'evidence' C (the photo 78/79) to correspond with A.
al
All your A, B ans C...
Not convincing me!
You have failed utterly to appreciate the photos 78 and 79 in the
Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum (1999).
What I said was that that deck of cards illustrate the idea I have in
mind as it pertains to the mahjong game design. Those symbols have
correspondence with my thinking and I will use them for demonstration
and explanation from now on. I found my answer.
You researchers can search and re-search all you want. Post what you
can find if you wish.
++++++++++++++++++
Cheers....
msta...@talktalk.net
> You have failed utterly to appreciate the photos 78 and 79 in the
> Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum (1999).
> What I said was that that deck of cards illustrate the idea I have in
> mind as it pertains to the mahjong game design. Those symbols have
> correspondence with my thinking and I will use them for demonstration
> and explanation from now on. I found my answer.
The statements above seem or appear to suggest that the photos 78/79
are only going to be used for illustration of the above poster's idea
for MJ game design.
If the suggestion is accurate then there should be no problem using
the photos for that purpose.
However, if the photos' symbols are going to be used as demonstrable
evidence in an explanation that claims that the origin of the MJ
suits' symbols were based on I Ching symbols, then the photos are not
fit for that purpose as they are undated and unsourced.
msta...@talktalk.net
> You have failed utterly to appreciate the photos 78 and 79 in the
> Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum (1999).
>
> What I said was that that deck of cards illustrate the idea I have in
> mind as it pertains to the mahjong game design.
This is acceptable since it says the photos are to be used for
illustrating an idea.
> Those symbols have correspondence with my thinking and I will use them for demonstration
> and explanation from now on. I found my answer.
However, the symbols, at this point, can in no way be used as evidence
of the early meanings of the three suits as the photos are undated and
unsourced and so we cannot know whether they predate the earliest ma
qiao record/description of the suits.
al
>
> > [..]
>
> Regarding his photo 78/79 claim, the previous poster still fails to
> grasp that the photo is of utterly no use in any claim involving an
> influence in time. The irrational reliance on this photo is explained
> below;
Please make simple. Phrase it in logical format if you would.
>
> The above poster fails to understand that in an argument asserting
> that B (ma qiao suit names/meanings) was influenced by A (I Ching
> concepts), providing data C (photo 78/79), that is
> not demonstrated to precede or come from the time of B, cannot and
> does not in any way support the assertion of an influence.
>
> The above poster has also attempted in the past to distort
> his 'evidence' C (the photo 78/79) to correspond with A.
That would be terrible. Trying to distort C to correspond with A.
How was that done?
I remember seeing a symbol like this in the link below. Well, this is
no Cash for sure. There is no square hole. Anybody can see that.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg
+++++++++++
Quote:
"Regarding his photo 78/79 claim, the previous poster still fails to
grasp that the photo is of utterly no use in any claim involving an
influence in time. The irrational reliance on this photo is explained
below;
The above poster fails to understand that in an argument asserting
that B (ma qiao suit names/meanings) was influenced by A (I Ching
concepts), providing data C (photo 78/79), that is
not demonstrated to precede or come from the time of B, cannot and
does not in any way support the assertion of an influence.
The above poster has also attempted in the past to distort
his 'evidence' C (the photo 78/79) to correspond with A."
Unquote.
+++++++++++
The quoted text sounds too much like textbook material. Let me
simplify the argument. I hope this is what it meant to say.
A= I-Ching concepts
B= Ma qiao suit names / meanings
C= Photo 78/79 [a game with 3 suits of I-Ching symbols]
C can not have influence on B
Unless C is older than or as old as B.
++++++++++++++
First, is the re-wording of the argument now correct?
Now please somebody explain the logic in simple vocabulary.
......................
msta...@talktalk.net
> How was that done?
The quote was incorrect. That should not have been cut and pasted. A,
in the original post was a four suited ma diao deck. The distortion
came when the above poster attempted to make the 3-suited deck in the
MJ Museum book into a 4-suited deck. But it seems that deck is now
back down to 3 suits (see below).
> A= I-Ching concepts
> B= Ma qiao suit names / meanings
> C= Photo 78/79 [a game with 3 suits of I-Ching symbols]
>
> C can not have influence on B
> Unless C is older than or as old as B.
> ++++++++++++++
>
> First, is the re-wording of the argument now correct?
Clever, but incorrect; Missing Premise; A cause/influence must precede
its effect. B = earliest documented ma qiao suit names/meanings. (C is
now correct). C is undated and therefore cannot be claimed to be older
than or as old as B. Since we do not know how old C is it cannot be
claimed to come before B. Therefore C cannot be claimed as evidence of
a cause/influence of the effect/result B.
> Now please somebody explain the logic in simple vocabulary.
Undated and unsourced material cannot be used as a cause/influence in
a cause and effect argument, in which an effect is dated and sourced.
al
> > That would be terrible. Trying to distort C to correspond with A.
> > How was that done?
>
> The quote was incorrect.
Where and what is in error?
That should not have been cut and pasted. A,
> in the original post was a four suited ma diao deck. The distortion
> came when the above poster attempted to make the 3-suited deck in the
> MJ Museum book into a 4-suited deck. But it seems that deck is now
> back down to 3 suits (see below).
No. It was the other way. You tried to distort the photo 78/79 set to
3-suited madiao game. I gave reasons for it's being a 4-suited game.
The Red Flower, White Flower and Old Thousand are the key theme cards
in the game. I men that is what the game is about; not money.
The problem is you can not even include the 4th suit in mahjong for
comparison with your money suits. Money gets blown away in the Winds!
>
> > A= I-Ching concepts
> > B= Ma qiao suit names / meanings
> > C= Photo 78/79 [a game with 3 suits of I-Ching symbols]
>
> > C can not have influence on B
> > Unless C is older than or as old as B.
> > ++++++++++++++
>
> > First, is the re-wording of the argument now correct?
>
> Clever, but incorrect; Missing Premise; A cause/influence must precede
> its effect. B = earliest documented ma qiao suit names/meanings. (C is
> now correct). C is undated and therefore cannot be claimed to be older
> than or as old as B. Since we do not know how old C is it cannot be
> claimed to come before B. Therefore C cannot be claimed as evidence of
> a cause/influence of the effect/result B.
>
State your argument in simplest form.
Can somebody help?
This guy gets carried away with words.
> > Now please somebody explain the logic in simple vocabulary.
>
> Undated and unsourced material cannot be used as a cause/influence in
> a cause and effect argument, in which an effect is dated and sourced.
What do you see as the cause? Is it the photo 78/79 in the Book?
What is the effect? Be specific now.
Summarize the A, B, C in 3 short sentences, like, A is this. B is
this. C is that. Then state: if such condition exists, then no logical
conclusion possible (which you already did).
It is important to identify what is cause and what is effect exactly
and specifically.
++++++++++++++++++
Cheers...
msta...@talktalk.net
The distortion of C to match A was given in a previous post when the
above poster stated;
"[THE SIGNIFICANCE IS THAT THE CARDS WERE DESIGNED ON THE CONCEPT OF
DIVINATION. CAN YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CHINESE WORDS?"
The three suits are clearly so marked but the three extra cards of the
deck of cards are not. Claiming the cards represent divination without
any evidence is plain distortion.
> No. It was the other way. You tried to distort the photo 78/79 set to
> 3-suited madiao game.
The above poster is wrong again. Ma Diao was a game played with a **4 -
suited deck** of money suited cards.
> I gave reasons for it's being a 4-suited game.
There were no specific reasons from the above poster. Just vague
assertions. No specific definition nor specific criteria of a suit was
given that corresponds with the concept of suit in cards. Instead, the
concept of 'suit' was redefined so that the three extra cards could be
shoe-horned to fit it.
> The Red Flower, White Flower and Old Thousand are the key theme cards
> in the game. I men that is what the game is about; not money.
Speculation, until a specific argument with specific evidence of this
interpretation is given.
> The problem is you can not even include the 4th suit in mahjong for
> comparison with your money suits. Money gets blown away in the Winds!
Wrong again. This was again answered fully in a previous thread. The
money derivation hypothesis does claim to explain the extra groups,
only the derivation of the earliest three suit terms. Specifically,
the claim is that the terms were originally derived from money terms
found in preceding money suited card games.
> > Clever, but incorrect; Missing Premise; A cause/influence must precede
> > its effect. B = earliest documented ma qiao suit names/meanings. (C is
> > now correct). C is undated and therefore cannot be claimed to be older
> > than or as old as B. Since we do not know how old C is it cannot be
> > claimed to come before B. Therefore C cannot be claimed as evidence of
> > a cause/influence of the effect/result B.
>
> State your argument in simplest form.
Simply, the reason for a fuller reply is that it is a protection
against the above poster's habit of the troll behaviour of distorting
and incorrectly restating others positions.
> Can somebody help?
> This guy gets carried away with words.
Ignoring the rude and ungracious last remark;
the above poster claimed;
"[THE SIGNIFICANCE IS THAT THE CARDS WERE DESIGNED ON THE CONCEPT OF
DIVINATION. CAN YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CHINESE WORDS?
FURTHER SIGNIFICANCE IS IN THE FACT THAT I HAD HYPOTHESIZED MAHJONG
WAS OR POSSIBLY DESIGNED BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF I-CHING (YIJING).
The last sentence has no specific credible evidence at all to support
it. It may be right and it may be wrong. Until specific credible
evidence from the earliest period is forthcoming, it is baseless.
Principle; A cause/influence must precede its effect.
(1) B = earliest documented ma qiao suit names/meanings.
(2) C = photo 78/79 3-suited deck and/or the concepts depicted on the
cards.
(3) C is undated and therefore cannot be claimed to be older than or
as old as B.
(4) The above poster is claiming that C is evidence for an influence
on B.
(5) But a cause/influence must precede its effect.
(6) and since we have (3)
(7) then C cannot be claimed as evidence of a cause/influence of the
effect/result B.
> What is the effect? Be specific now.
> It is important to identify what is cause and what is effect exactly
> and specifically.
Specifically, the above poster is again confused. He has failed to
specifically describe or explain why and how the concepts on the photo
78/79 cards are specifically linked to the symbols on the early ma que
cards.
Perhaps the above poster specifically means this; A = I Ching/
divination concepts. B = maqiao symbols/game Y = undated photo 78/79.
(1) there is A on/in B.
(2) There is A on/in Y
(3) therefore (2) is evidence to support (1)
Underlying this, is a form of argument by analogy. Unless the above
poster is more specific about what his argument is, that links photo
78/79 to early ma qiao in any way, then we cannot know what his
specific reasons are and therefore we should not accept any specific
claims that he tries to make.
Now is the time for the above poster to be specific about his
arguments for a link. He demanded a (1), (2), (3) .... argument format
and to be specific, therefore it is his turn to be specific and
explain himself in the same specific way.
He must be specific. It is important that his answers must now be
intelligible and make sense.
He should demand from himself what he demands from others.
al
> On Feb 21, 9:19 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> The distortion of C to match A was given in a previous post when the
> above poster stated;
>
thread has to be marked to identify who says what.
MS: quoting AL
> "[THE SIGNIFICANCE IS THAT THE CARDS WERE DESIGNED ON THE CONCEPT OF
> DIVINATION. CAN YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CHINESE WORDS?"
AL:
Let me repeat the question. Do you read and understand the words 八卦
and 占卜.
八卦 on One-Taiji. Look-alike symbol in MaDiao
占卜 on One-Bamboo have a meaning "to divine" in CEDIC. Bamboo in
MaDiao and bamboo in mahjong; the symbolic correlation is self
evident.
In case you are too proud to ask, 占卜 = to divine.
八卦 is Eight-Trigram. A trigram is a graphic symbol.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
Red Flower (红花), White (白花) Old Thousand (老千).
Red Zhong (中), White Bai (白) and green Fa in mahjong.
The colors of these cards match. The first set of three come from
MaDiao (MJM Book). The second set of colors are in mahjong.
>
MS:
> The three suits are clearly so marked but the three extra cards of the
> deck of cards are not. Claiming the cards represent divination without
> any evidence is plain distortion.
You are either mentally blind or too quick to think of reasons to
attack. The three cards are marked clearly, as Red Flower, White
Flower and Old -Thousand in Chinese characters.
Let me tell you something else. Look at the lower section of each card
of the top 2 suits in Photo -79 each card has two trigrams making 18
hexagrams representing stages of life development. The first hexagram
is Heaven (Man), the second hexagram is Earth (Woman), the third
hexagram is Sprouting (Birth) etc. etc.
However, I think I am wasting my time on this.
>
AL:
> > No. It was the other way. You tried to distort the photo 78/79 set to
> > 3-suited madiao game.
I gave an explanation why the card deck Photo-79 is 4-suited in
detail in a post earlier. A suit is in a defined limited number. Cards
are grouped or suited by their common characteristics.
Lu Rong's 38-card deck, is it 4-suited? How does 38/4 sound?
4 suits of 9 and a remainder of 2 loose cards? What about the 40-card
4-suited Ma Diao? 10 cards to each suit? Think about it for a while.
>
MS:
> The above poster is wrong again. Ma Diao was a game played with a **4 -
> suited deck** of money suited cards.
>
Right you are. How many cards in a suit?
> > I gave reasons for it's [Photo-79] being a 4-suited game.
AL:
A good explanation in fact.
>
MS:
> There were no specific reasons from the above poster. Just vague
> assertions. No specific definition nor specific criteria of a suit was
> given that corresponds with the concept of suit in cards. Instead, the
> concept of 'suit' was redefined so that the three extra cards could be
> shoe-horned to fit it.
I asked the questions about the numeric make-up of the 4-suited decks
in Ming. You have 11 Cash cards with Zero and Half included. There is
no definite number per suit. Did you know that?
>
AL:
> > The Red Flower, White Flower and Old Thousand are the key theme cards
> > in the game. I [mean] that is what the game is about; not money.
>
As a reminder, card designs and distribution had to be permitted by
royal edict in olden days. Gambling had been officially forbidden from
time to time. I assume you have the historic details at your finger
tip and need not give evidence here,. Money symbols connotes gambling.
Pan, Feng and Rong,
they all got it wrong.
MS:
> Speculation, until a specific argument with specific evidence of this
> interpretation is given.
>
Not all speculation and you know it. Try 'correlation' or "reasoning
by analogy" as you said.
AL:
> > The problem is you can not even include the 4th suit in mahjong for
> > comparison with your money suits. Money gets blown away in the Winds!
>
MS:
> Wrong again. This was again answered fully in a previous thread. The
Here it is again. That was "answered fully" previously. Obviously it
is not convincing. Now in simple terms explain how you could reconcile
money with Winds Directions? The honest answer is that they don't
belong in the same game.
Since East South West and North are not money, and they clearly are
Wind / Directions in plain language, they don't belong with Money,
then hose symbols can not be interpreted as Money.
MS:
> money derivation hypothesis does claim to explain the extra groups,
> only the derivation of the earliest three suit terms. Specifically,
> the claim is that the terms were originally derived from money terms
> found in preceding money suited card games.
> ++++++++++++
A key word is missing in your sentence above. That word is "not".
You are saying that the money derivation hypothesis DOES NOT claim to
explain the extra groups. Right?
Why would a researcher tries to explain only part of research subject?
A mahjong set has 4 suits at least. I mean 3 suits of 9 plus a suit of
7 cards (E,S,W,N,Z,F,B).
Suits 1, 2 and 3 are claimed to be related. The 4th suit is unclaimed
and of unknown origin.
This is like formulating a theory of origin for a whole country
knowingly leaving out nearly a quarter of its population in one
separate region.
Not claiming to include the separate group is no excuse to exclude
them in the "research" hypothesis.
It is inexcusable for researchers to pursue such a corrupt project
especially when there is an alternative hypothesis that claims to
include all regions and the total population.
Mahjong was "discovered" in complete sets, with the so-called moneys
suits and a mysterious group of Chinese characters. Historians managed
to get the names from local people who learned from elders verbally.
They could not get any meaningful association between the drawing-
symbols and the strange group of Winds and Colors. So they just
ignored the oddity in the mahjong set.
Unfortunately, Wilkinson and other historians didn't meet any one who
could explain the possibility of an I-Ching connection to the game. So
now his Cash can never buy a good explanation for the game's
composition, rules of play or any meaning of it all.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Enough of this for the day.
[..]
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Feb 21, 6:31 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Feb 21, 9:19 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> MS: quoting AL
> > "[THE SIGNIFICANCE IS THAT THE CARDS WERE DESIGNED ON THE CONCEPT OF
> > DIVINATION. CAN YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CHINESE WORDS?"
>
> AL:
> Let me repeat the question. Do you read and understand the words 八卦
> and 占卜.
> 八卦 on One-Taiji. Look-alike symbol in MaDiao
> 占卜 on One-Bamboo have a meaning "to divine" in CEDIC.
The meanings of the symbols on the cards of the three suits is not is
dispute and has never been.
> Bamboo in MaDiao and bamboo in mahjong; the symbolic correlation is self
> evident.
The above poster should do what he demands of others - be specific. Ma
diao in where? Where is the term 'Bamboo' mentioned in Ma Diao? Where
is the term Bamboo mentioned in early Ma Qiao?
> Red Flower (红花), White (白花) Old Thousand (老千).
> Red Zhong (中), White Bai (白) and green Fa in mahjong.
> The colors of these cards match. The first set of three come from
> MaDiao (MJM Book). The second set of colors are in mahjong.
This is interresting. This very topic was covered in a discussion some
time ago (in 2002 in the subject thread 'Mo He Pai'). There has been
the idea put forward in the past that the three extra cards in 4 then
three suited cards were then transferred or somehow followed into Ma
Qiao.
Examination of the above poster's claim shows that it is incorrect.
(1) A Ma Diao deck consists of 4 suits and three extra cards.The deck
in the MJ Museum book is NOT a Ma Diao deck as represented by Pan for
use in playing the game of Ma Diao. On page 40 of the MJ Museum book
it is explained by Takashi Ebashi that his term 'Ma Tiao' refers to a
FAMILY of playing cards. This FAMILY consists of the orginal four
suited deck and the three suited varieties.
(2) Only the colours on TWO of the cards area identical match. The
cards also contain other insignia that are NOT replicated in MJ.
(3) The third card's insignia are NOT identical to the matched MJ
tile's insignia. Only an interpretation placed on it can shoe-horn it
to fit.
(4) The evidence we have of the earliest sets shows us that these
tiles were NOT present. In two sets they are absent and in the other
only the red zhong is present.
(5) The above poster must specifically describe his argument for a
correlation of these cards using the 1, 2, 3 ... format. He must be
clear and simple.
(6) If his correlation argument is an argument from analogy, then it
is extremely weak to the point of being a possible explanation - not a
probable one. But this will depend on whether he describes his
specific argument in clear and simple terms so that we may evaluate
his reasoning.
> MS:
> > The three suits are clearly so marked but the three extra cards of the
> > deck of cards are not. Claiming the cards represent divination without
> > any evidence is plain distortion.
> You are either mentally blind or too quick to think of reasons to
> attack. The three cards are marked clearly, as Red Flower, White
> Flower and Old -Thousand in Chinese characters.
That the cards are marked with divination concepts is, again, not in
dispute, although I should have said that the two suits are clearly so
marked (the third suit is also clear to me but not necessarily to
others). The third suit, the myriads suit has personages from the
Three Kingdom's Novel sankuochih - an important story with one of its
themes being the exploration of the compatibility of taoism and
confucianism ( and hence is not incongruous with the I Ching idea).
That the three cards follow that idea is also not in dispute - for
example, there is a portrait of what appears to be Wang Bi, an
important intepreter of the I Ching, on one of the cards.
However, it is clear from the extant card packs of the three suited
variety that the earliest known insignia of the three suits plus the
three extra cards, sported non divination insignia. These non
divination insignia still appear on the 3 cards in photo 78/79 plus
the original myriads insignia.
It is therefore NOT clear that the cards COMPLETELY represent
divination unless an intepretation is placed on them that ignores the
influence of previous card insignias, as the previous poster has done.
The placing of other symbols on the cards - whether for decoration or
ideological purposes or for turning the cards into some other use - is
seen from card packs from the late 19th/20th century(see Prunner).
There is no evidence to support a claim that this tradition was
evident during the Ming/early Qing times (aoart from the portraits
from the Water |margin on the Myriads.
Indeed, this tradition was also shown in two early MJ card decks from
around 1915 and shown in a MJ set ordered by Mei Lan Fang (p 60 MJM
book).
> Lu Rong's 38-card deck, is it 4-suited? How does 38/4 sound?
> 4 suits of 9 and a remainder of 2 loose cards?
Wrong again. What the above poster fails to say is that there are no
extra cards. One suit has 11 cards and the 3 others have nine cards
each as Lo describes..
> What about the 40-card 4-suited Ma Diao? 10 cards to each suit?
Similarly, Lo describes Lu Rong's deck but 2 extra cards are added to
the Cash suit, which then has 11 cards and it is this deck that is
described in Pan's manual.
> Right you are. How many cards in a suit?
See above.
>
> > > I gave reasons for it's [Photo-79] being a 4-suited game.
> AL:
> A good explanation in fact.
This is a case of the tester marking their own paper.
> MS:
> > There were no specific reasons from the above poster. Just vague
> > assertions. No specific definition nor specific criteria of a suit was
> > given that corresponds with the concept of suit in cards. Instead, the
> > concept of 'suit' was redefined so that the three extra cards could be
> > shoe-horned to fit it.
>
> I asked the questions about the numeric make-up of the 4-suited decks
> in Ming. You have 11 Cash cards with Zero and Half included. There is
> no definite number per suit. Did you know that?
He is still avoiding giving us an answer to what is his description of
the specific criteria of a suit and what is therefore his specific
definition? Instead he offers a diversion in true contrarian troll
style.
He must answer the specific question with a clear and specific answer
that makes sense.
> As a reminder, card designs and distribution had to be permitted by
> royal edict in olden days. Gambling had been officially forbidden from
> time to time. I assume you have the historic details at your finger
> tip and need not give evidence here,. Money symbols connotes gambling.
Unfortunately, the cards and their games existed nevertheless, as Lu
Rong and Pan Zhiheng and Feng Menglong describe.
> MS:> Speculation, until a specific argument with specific evidence of this
> > interpretation is given.
> Not all speculation and you know it.
The above poster is now a mind reader. Unfortunately he cannot resist
also speculating about the thoughts of others. Sadly, all
speculation.
> Try 'correlation' or "reasoning
> by analogy" as you said.
> A key word is missing in your sentence above. That word is "not".
> You are saying that the money derivation hypothesis DOES NOT claim to
> explain the extra groups. Right?
This is correct. It doesn't even claim that the original engravers/
designers were aware of the money origin.
But this is for a future article and not for prepublication. The above
poster will have to wait.
> Why would a researcher tries to explain only part of research subject?
> A mahjong set has 4 suits at least. I mean 3 suits of 9 plus a suit of
> 7 cards (E,S,W,N,Z,F,B).
Wrong. There is no evidence F and B were original to the game. Z was
in only one early ma qiao tile set. The other two did not have the
group ZFB.
> This is like formulating a theory of origin for a whole country
> knowingly leaving out nearly a quarter of its population in one
> separate region.
> Not claiming to include the separate group is no excuse to exclude
> them in the "research" hypothesis.
This betrays the confused thinking of the above poster. The money
derivation hypothesis only seeks to explain where the three suits
terms - and indeed the three suits - originated. It says nothing about
the other groups.
Other possible explanations for why these extra groups were added can
be devised, but until there is evidence to support any explantion then
they remain just possible curiosities.
> It is inexcusable for researchers to pursue such a corrupt project
> especially when there is an alternative hypothesis that claims to
> include all regions and the total population.
Unfortunately, until the above poster can provide one shred of
evidence to support his speculations, then it will remain one possible
explanation.
[the rest of his reply was a repeated rant and was snipped]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW! Let's have some answers to the questions asked by this poster,
but not nswered by the above poster in his last reply. They are
repeated below.
[He asked]
> State your argument in simplest form.
[this poster's reply]
Simply, the reason for a fuller reply is that it is a protection
against the above poster's habit of the troll behaviour of distorting
and incorrectly restating others positions.
Principle; A cause/influence must precede its effect.
(1) B = earliest documented ma qiao suit names/meanings.
(2) C = photo 78/79 3-suited deck and/or the concepts depicted on the
cards.
(3) C is undated and therefore cannot be claimed to be older than or
as old as B.
(4) The above poster is claiming that C is evidence for an influence
on B.
(5) But a cause/influence must precede its effect.
(6) and since we have (3)
(7) then C cannot be claimed as evidence of a cause/influence of the
effect/result B.
[he asked and demanded]
> What is the effect? Be specific now.
> It is important to identify what is cause and what is effect exactly
> and specifically.
[this poster's reply]
Specifically, the above poster is again confused. He has failed to
specifically describe or explain why and how the concepts on the
photo
78/79 cards are specifically linked to the symbols on the early ma
que
cards.
Perhaps the above poster specifically means this; A = I Ching/
divination concepts. B = maqiao symbols/game Y = undated photo 78/79.
(1) there is A on/in B.
(2) There is A on/in Y
(3) therefore (2) is evidence to support (1)
Underlying this, is a form of argument by analogy. Unless the above
poster is more specific about what his argument is, that links photo
78/79 to early ma qiao in any way, then we cannot know what his
specific reasons are and therefore we should not accept any specific
claims that he tries to make.
Now is the time for the above poster to be specific about his
arguments for a link. He demanded a (1), (2), (3) .... argument
format
and to be specific, therefore it is his turn to be specific and
explain himself in the same specific way.
He must be specific. It is important that his answers must now be
intelligible and make sense.
He should demand from himself what he demands from others.
---------------------------------------------------------------
He wanted answers and they were given. Now it is his turn to be
specific and sensible in his replies. No more diversions or giving
answers in question form. No more distortion of texts; or forgetting
past answers; or giving statements of belief without evidence; or
restating wrongly others positions.
Lets have the specific explanations, in simple form, of his reasoning.
He asked and was given the arguments from this poster, now it is his
turn to reply in kind.
He must demand from himself what he demands from others.
Come, no more denial.
al
> On Feb 22, 5:13 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 6:31 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Feb 21, 9:19 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > AL:
> > Let me repeat the question. Do you read and understand the words 八卦
> > and 占卜.
> > 八卦 on One-Taiji. Look-alike symbol in MaDiao
> > 占卜 on One-Bamboo have a meaning "to divine" in CEDIC.
>
> The meanings of the symbols on the cards of the three suits is not is
> dispute and has never been.
>
> > Bamboo in MaDiao and bamboo in mahjong; the symbolic correlation is self
> > evident.
> The above poster should do what he demands of others - be specific. Ma
> diao in where? Where is the term 'Bamboo' mentioned in Ma Diao?
Ah, you don't know yet. I explained that many times. Sou3 relates to
bamboo. Sou is a bundle of tchant (banmboo strips) tied together.
BTW, when as a child, I learn sou3 just by the sound and it meant a
knot in a rope.
Where
> is the term Bamboo mentioned in early Ma Qiao?
Bamboo is where the sparrows are.
+++++++++++
>
> > Red Flower (红花), White (白花) Old Thousand (老千).
> > Red Zhong (中), White Bai (白) and green Fa in mahjong.
> > The colors of these cards match. The first set of three come from
> > MaDiao (MJM Book). The second set of colors are in mahjong.
>
> This is interresting. This very topic was covered in a discussion some
> time ago (in 2002 in the subject thread 'Mo He Pai'). There has been
> the idea put forward in the past that the three extra cards in 4 then
> three suited cards were then transferred or somehow followed into Ma
> Qiao.
>
I am not aware of the discussion history on the topic.
+++++++++++++++
> Examination of the above poster's claim shows that it is incorrect.
>
> (1) A Ma Diao deck consists of 4 suits and three extra cards.The deck
> in the MJ Museum book is NOT a Ma Diao deck as represented by Pan for
> use in playing the game of Ma Diao.
We are not even sure Ma Diao means Horse hangs a leg or Horse drops a
leg or for that matter what the horse did drop!
On page 40 of the MJ Museum book
> it is explained by Takashi Ebashi that his term 'Ma Tiao' refers to a
> FAMILY of playing cards. This FAMILY consists of the orginal four
> suited deck and the three suited varieties.
>
So what does that mean? Ma Tiao can be 4-suited or of 3-suited
variety. They are all in the family.
+++++++++++++++++++
> (2) Only the colours on TWO of the cards area identical match. The
> cards also contain other insignia that are NOT replicated in MJ.
>
Which are the two matching colors?
It depends on which 2 colors do match. The meaning can be very
important metaphorically.
In symbolic communication, two colors and 2 only, red and white for
example, they could represent yin and yang.
The same two colors in a group of 3 colors, red white and green for
example, could mean quite different. They could represent Man, Heaven
and Earth.
In the first example, the concept represented is Duality. In the
second example the concept of Triplicity is represented. One important
thing to appreciate is that triplicity is related to duality.
++++++++++++++++++++
> (3) The third card's insignia are NOT identical to the matched MJ
> tile's insignia. Only an interpretation placed on it can shoe-horn it
> to fit.
>
That is how simplicity of allegory and complexity of metaphors can
confuse people who are not accustomed to oriental culture.
++++++++++++++++++++
> (4) The evidence we have of the earliest sets shows us that these
> tiles were NOT present. In two sets they are absent and in the other
> only the red zhong is present.
>
Which earliest set in question? First could it be an incomplete set
with tiles missing? The next question is what other tiles added?
Was there a pair of Dragon and Phoenix ?
The AMNH set has 9 tiles missing. The 4 Bai tles could have taken for
blanks and separated from the set. Zhong and Bai would completee the
Duality concept of Male and Female or yang and yin.
The BMA set likewise has missing tiles, but the Zhong and Bai are
there. As I said in my post "2+3; that is the key".
By the way, that is the basic idea of Yi (variability).
+++++++++++++++
> (5) The above poster must specifically describe his argument for a
> correlation of these cards using the 1, 2, 3 ... format. He must be
> clear and simple.
>
Just to meet your specification, I let you stipulate the conditions in
a null hypothesis for me.
++++++++++++++++++
> (6) If his correlation argument is an argument from analogy, then it
> is extremely weak to the point of being a possible explanation - not a
> probable one. But this will depend on whether he describes his
> specific argument in clear and simple terms so that we may evaluate
> his reasoning.
>
I will try my best. I am not as well schooled as you in logic.
+++++++++++++++++
> > MS:
> > > The three suits are clearly so marked but the three extra cards of the
> > > deck of cards are not. Claiming the cards represent divination without
> > > any evidence is plain distortion.
> > You are either mentally blind or too quick to think of reasons to
> > attack. The three cards are marked clearly, as Red Flower, White
> > Flower and Old -Thousand in Chinese characters...
>
++++++++++++++++++
MS:
> That the cards are marked with divination concepts is, again, not in
> dispute, although I should have said that the two suits are clearly so
> marked (the third suit is also clear to me but not necessarily to
> others). The third suit, the myriads suit has personages from the
> Three Kingdom's Novel sankuochih - an important story with one of its
> themes being the exploration of the compatibility of taoism and
> confucianism ( and hence is not incongruous with the I Ching idea).
That is a bit far fetch. I consider Ten-Thousand-things" in Taoism and
the Yi Jing is relevant reference. The basic concept is 2 interact to
get 3. The 3 continue interaction with 2 and produce the Ten-Thousand-
things in the universe. Myriad is just a countless large number, again
metaphorically.
> That the three cards follow that idea is also not in dispute - for
> example, there is a portrait of what appears to be Wang Bi, an
> important intepreter of the I Ching, on one of the cards.
>
I never noticed that one. That sounds like a name of a famous poet.
Yes?
+++++++++++++++++
> However, it is clear from the extant card packs of the three suited
> variety that the earliest known insignia of the three suits plus the
> three extra cards, sported non divination insignia. These non
> divination insignia still appear on the 3 cards in photo 78/79 plus
> the original myriads insignia.
>
You ae saying Red and White colors are non-divvinational, if I read
you right. I disagree.
Read my explanation for zhong and bai, as well as for zhong fa bai.
See the connections here.
Red and White = zhong and bai = yang and yin = bi-gram --->> trigram
--->> hexagram = divination.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
MS:
> It is therefore NOT clear that the cards COMPLETELY represent
> divination unless an intepretation is placed on them that ignores the
> influence of previous card insignias, as the previous poster has done.
>
AL:
No. No. Quit making accusations. Look at the explanation immediately
above.
Try to understand Chinese philosophy and language usage.
What mistakes made out of ignorance is in the past,' when I was young
and foolish' as they say. Look at the question and answer now.
++++++++++++++++++
> The placing of other symbols on the cards - whether for decoration or
> ideological purposes or for turning the cards into some other use - is
> seen from card packs from the late 19th/20th century(see Prunner).
> There is no evidence to support a claim that this tradition was
> evident during the Ming/early Qing times (aoart from the portraits
> from the Water |margin on the Myriads.
>
This sounds mumble jumble to me. What do you mean?
> Indeed, this tradition was also shown in two early MJ card decks from
> around 1915 and shown in a MJ set ordered by Mei Lan Fang (p 60 MJM
> book).
>
What you added here just muddy the water.
++++++++++++++++
I am tired of this.
---to be continued.
+++++++++++++
> ...
>
> read more >>
al
>
> > On Feb 21, 6:31 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Feb 21, 9:19 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > MS: quoting AL
> > > "[THE SIGNIFICANCE IS THAT THE CARDS WERE DESIGNED ON THE CONCEPT OF
> > > DIVINATION. CAN YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CHINESE WORDS?"?
>
> > AL:
> > Let me repeat the question. Do you read and understand the words 八卦
> > and 占卜.
> > 八卦 on One-Taiji. Look-alike symbol in MaDiao
> > 占卜 on One-Bamboo have a meaning "to divine" in CEDIC..
>
> The meanings of the symbols on the cards of the three suits is not is
> dispute and has never been.
>
You misread and didn't get it. Two suits have the 4 words.
++++++++++
> > Bamboo in MaDiao and bamboo in mahjong; the symbolic correlation is self
> > evident.
>
> The above poster should do what he demands of others - be specific. Ma
> diao in where? Where is the term 'Bamboo' mentioned in Ma Diao? Where
> is the term Bamboo mentioned in early Ma Qiao?
>
Bamboo had been missed for a long time. It got lost through ignorance.
I have given an explanation some time ago. I cannot remember where to
find it. It may be in the thread before you changed its title. I will
do it ine more time.
Divination <<---Tchant = strips of bambo <<--- Suo = bundle of strips
of bamboo.
In short, BAMBOO is SUO!
索 : see here for strings and strips.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:AcoxLUo9zEG3mM:http://depts.washi
Now take a look at the bamboo strips tied in bundles in Mahjong sets,
AMNH and BMA. See the two lines on each bundle? Those are strings! See
how square the ends of the bundles are? The bamboo strips are cut to
the same length. (And what is more? They really do not look like
strings of cash).
Face it. The evidence is mounting.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
[..] [..]
> > I asked the questions about the numeric make-up of the 4-suited decks
> > in Ming. You have 11 Cash cards with Zero and Half included. There is
> > no definite number per suit. Did you know that?
>
> He is still avoiding giving us an answer to what is his description of
> the specific criteria of a suit and what is therefore his specific
> definition? Instead he offers a diversion in true contrarian troll
> style.
>
> He must answer the specific question with a clear and specific answer
> that makes sense.
>
Why didn't you read carefully? I said there is no specific number of
cards per suit. I also answered fully that a suit is but a group of
cards with common characteristics. In fact I gave an example of
grouping people by their ethnicity and not just by number.
You are acting like a regular troll instead of a contrarian troll?
(whatever that is)
> > As a reminder, card designs and distribution had to be permitted by
> > royal edict in olden days. Gambling had been officially forbidden from
> > time to time. I assume you have the historic details at your finger
> > tip and need not give evidence here,. Money symbols connotes gambling.
>
> Unfortunately, the cards and their games existed nevertheless, as Lu
> Rong and Pan Zhiheng and Feng Menglong describe.
>
You are right! Cards existed because they were games and not for
gambling supposedly. What better way to design games with symbols
other than money which would be dead giveaway. What better symbols
than those relating to Chines classic Book of Changes for a classy
game like mahjong and other ambiguous drawings for other cheap cards
decks?
Here is another common sense reason for "NOT MONEY"
++++++++++++++++
> > [..]
> > Why would a researcher tries to explain only part of research subject?
> > A mahjong set has 4 suits at least. I mean 3 suits of 9 plus a suit of
> > 7 cards (E,S,W,N,Z,F,B).
>
> Wrong. There is no evidence F and B were original to the game. Z was
> in only one early ma qiao tile set. The other two did not have the
> group ZFB.
>
In symbolic language you can not be sure if the meanings of colors
matching meanings of symbols or not. I can give you a heads up by
looking at two possibilities.
(1) the original set had the extra tiles and (2) it did not.
The extra cards are not money. They would not be in the original set
by initial design, assuming your set has the 3 money suits. There is
no reason for the extra cards of unknown nature to mix with money
denominations.
And if the extra cards were added some time after the original design,
there would be no reason to add strange extra cards to known money
cards.
Either way, the extra cards would not have been added ro the 3 money
suits, if those were in fact money suits.Then the only reason for the
addition of the extra cards of Zhong Fa Bai and East South West and
North is because the 3 existing suits of mahjong cards were not money
denominations. Cosmology and money do not mix.
Here in a nutshell is a nullification of a null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis is that the three mahjong suits can not be
anything else but money.
It is nullified by the fact that if they were money, the non-money
extra cards would not have been there, whether the 3 suits arrived
with or without the extra non-money cards.
Does that seem reasonable?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[..] MS:
> Unfortunately, until the above poster can provide one shred of
> evidence to support his speculations, then it will remain one possible
> explanation.
>
I might not need it now...[..]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS:
> NOW! Let's have some answers to the questions asked by this poster,[MS]
> but not nswered by the above poster [AL] in his last reply. [..]
Untrue and unfair remarks from that poster [MS] were removed.
>
MS:
+++++++++++++++++
Your provocation is getting me confused now. I guess that is your
debating tactic back in university days. It seems to be working.
I am tired now. Don't shoot back. I am getting sick hearing the same
hash. Take time to think over what I did in nullifying your
hypothesis.
I will reply specifically on my hypothesis. I don't need your
interruption now. Examine your own hypot. from others' view point.
++++++++++++ I reiterate:
Here in a nutshell is a nullification of a null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis is that the three mahjong suits can not be
anything else but money.
It is nullified by the fact that if they were money, the non-money
extra cards would not have been there, whether the 3 suits arrived
with or without the extra non-money cards.
Does that seem reasonable? Cosmology and money do not mix.
+++++++++++
Cheers...
al
>
>[..][..][..][..][..][..][..][..]
See answers to your "demands" at the end.
> > A key word is missing in your sentence above. That word is "not".
> > You are saying that the money derivation hypothesis DOES NOT claim to
> > explain the extra groups. Right?
>
> This is correct. It doesn't even claim that the original engravers/
> designers were aware of the money origin.
> [..]
>
> > Why would a researcher tries to explain only part of research subject?
> > A mahjong set has 4 suits at least. I mean 3 suits of 9 plus a suit of
> > 7 cards (E,S,W,N,Z,F,B).
>
> [..]
> > This is like formulating a theory of origin for a whole country
> > knowingly leaving out nearly a quarter of its population in one
> > separate region. [For example, northern Canada]
> > Not claiming to include the separate group is no excuse to exclude
> > them in the "research" [study] hypothesis.
It so happens that these people in the remote region are aboriginals.
Any conclusion or results from such partial study is flawed.
Similarly, your Cash hypot. is flawed. any results from it is
unreliable.
>
> This betrays the confused thinking of the above poster. The money
> derivation hypothesis only seeks to explain where the three suits
> terms - and indeed the three suits - originated. It says nothing about
> the other groups.
>
I repeat. Your derivation money hypot is definitely flawed. Read my
example given above.
> Other possible explanations for why these extra groups were added can
> be devised, but until there is evidence to support any explantion then
> they remain just possible curiosities.
>
A credible researcher would wait before rushing to form any hypothesis
which knowingly will only cover part of a subject.
> > [..]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[..][..] State specifically next time you make an accusation against me. I can learn to the same to you.
> Principle; A cause/influence must precede its effect.
Only if it is a case of cause and effect.
> (1) B = earliest documented ma qiao suit names/meanings.
> (2) C = photo 78/79 3-suited deck and/or the concepts depicted on the
> cards.
> (3) C is undated and therefore cannot be claimed to be older than or
> as old as B.
> (4) The above poster is claiming that C is evidence for an influence
> on B.
> (5) But a cause/influence must precede its effect.
Again, only when it is a case involving cause and effect.
> (6) and since we have (3)
That is , C is undated therefore it can not be considered "older" than
B.
++++++++++++++++++++
After all that ranting and raving, do you feel better. Did anybody say
you are a windbag. How come you sound so bitter? I intruded your
kingdom of knowledge and higher learning. How dare for any one to
question and argue with you, eh? Come off it. This is a discussion
forum. I don't know who you think you are. To me you are bagful of
historical stuff some of which could be inaccurate.
++++++++++++++++
First understand that a hypothesis does not have to be in a cause and
effect structure. Only probability is in question.
I-Ching concepts are probably not an influence in game designs.
I repeat this as a null hypothesis and I will try to nullify it.
If I can not nullify it, then the statement stands. Otherwise the
statement is untrue.
In other words, if I cannot show the appearance or influence of I-
Ching concepts in numerous games, then the above statement holds true,
meaning I-Ching has nothing to do with Ma Diao Mahjong, Chess etc..
But if I can show you the appearance of I-Ching concepts in card games
and board games then the statement above is untrue, meaning I-Ching
concepts can and probably has an influence on the designs of various
games.
Now, how old is I-Ching?
+++++++++++++++++
Do you see the reasoning. It's different from your formal logic. Give
it some thought. If you have questions. Ask me, but nicely...
++++++++++++++++++
Cheers...
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Feb 22, 11:20 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > > This is like formulating a theory of origin for a whole country
> > > knowingly leaving out nearly a quarter of its population in one
> > > separate region. [For example, northern Canada]
This is Wrong.
The above poster has misunderstood (from his example above) the nature
of the way the research is carried out. If the research was about
devising an explanation of the origin of the entire population of a
country, then, for the purpose of the analogy with ma qiao, certain
criteria must be stated; (this is a very simple analogy)
(1) The population is determined to consist of separate groups (its
ethnic mix) = the separate groups present in early ma qiao.
(2) Each group is then studied, to list its inherent features/
properties/characteristics.
(3) The properties etc of each group are compared with the properties
of other relevant groups, in this case the worldwide ethnic groups
that existed or are existing at the time or, in the case of ma qiao,
the chinese games preceding or existing at the time.
(4) When credible evidence of similarities are found between the study
group and another pre exisiting group, a hypothesis is then devised to
explain the degree of similarities between the two groups.
(5) If no credible evidence is found of any similarities for one of
the groups and another group, then that group is left to one side
until further credible evidence comes to light.
> I repeat. Your derivation money hypot is definitely flawed. Read my
> example given above.
Unfortunately, the example is flawed because it is to vague or non
specific.
> > Other possible explanations for why these extra groups were added can
> > be devised, but until there is evidence to support any explanation then
> > they remain just possible curiosities.
>
> A credible researcher would wait before rushing to form any hypothesis
> which knowingly will only cover part of a subject.
This is wrong. As has been shown, unfortunately, the above poster's
subject is too broad and vague. When detail is added, then it becomes
clear that his analysis is flawed.
> > Principle; A cause/influence must precede its effect.
>
> Only if it is a case of cause and effect.
This is a diversion because no specific explanation of what he means
in relation to his ideas, is given. However, we can still get the
above poster to answer with specific detail as can be seen below at
****....
> That is, C is undated therefore it can not be considered "older" than
> B.
This is correct and so ...
> > (7) then C cannot be claimed as evidence of a cause/influence of the
> > effect/result B.
Now let us remind the above poster of his demands of this poster
(demands which this poster answered)
These are his demands snipped from a previous post of his;
(1) State your argument in simplest form.
(2) Can somebody help?
(3) > > Now please somebody explain the logic in simple vocabulary.
(4) Be specific now.
(5) Summarize the A, B, C in 3 short sentences, like, A is this. B is
this. C is that. Then state: if such condition exists, then no
logical
conclusion possible (which you already did).
(6) It is important to identify what is cause and what is effect
exactly
and specifically.
> > **** IMPORTANT; He has failed to
> > specifically describe or explain why and how the concepts on the
> > photo 78/79 cards are specifically linked to the symbols on the early ma
> > que cards.
> > Perhaps the above poster specifically means this; A = I Ching/
> > divination concepts. B = maqiao symbols/game Y = undated photo 78/79.
> > (1) there is A on/in B.
> > (2) There is A on/in Y
> > (3) therefore (2) is evidence to support (1)
> > IMPORTANT; Underlying this, is a form of argument by analogy. Unless the above
> > poster is more specific about what his argument is, that links photo
> > 78/79 to early ma qiao in any way, then we cannot know what his
> > specific reasons are and therefore we should not accept any specific
> > claims that he tries to make.
>
> > Now is the time for the above poster to be specific about his
> > arguments for a link. He demanded a summary (1), (2), (3) .... argument
> > format [from this poster, and was given it], therefore it is his turn to be specific and
> > explain himself in the same specific way.
[rant snipped]
The rant was another diversion tactic to avoid describing what his
argument is, that links photo 78/79 to early ma qiao in any way. What
is his argument?? Why doesn't he just describe it in simple (1) (2)
(3) logical argument format with a conclusion? Where is his answer?
Why wont he answer in the way he demanded others to do of their
explanations?
He must demand of himself what he demands of others.
[Further answers snipped, because he must now put his reasoning in a
simple, logically sequence argument. (A), (B), (C) ... format is also
fine instead of (1), (2), (3) ....]
Let's have the specific reasons and logic.
al
> On Feb 23, 2:29 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 11:20 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> [..]
Let me quote something on statistical testing.
"In the sciences, null hypotheses are frequently used. The null
hypothesis posits no relationship and then see if a relationship
exists...This is conservative approach and works well with statistical
techniques, many of which are aimed at measuring the likelihood that a
difference found is truly significant [significant means generalizable
to a large population]. If the null hypothesis is not supported, the
way is open for an alternative hypothesis."
++++++++++++++++
The following is also in my previous post.
A hypothesis does not have to be in a cause and effect structure. Only
probability is in consideration here.
I-Ching concepts are probably not an influence in game designs.
That is null hypothesis. Try to nullify it.
If it cannot be nullified, then the statement stands. If it is
nullified then the statement is untrue.
In other words, if you cannot show the appearance of symbols and
influence of I-Ching concepts in numerous games, then the above
statement holds true, meaning I-Ching has nothing to do with Ma Diao
Mahjong, Chess etc..
But if I can show you the appearance of I-Ching concepts in card games
and board games then the statement above is untrue, meaning I-Ching
concepts can and probably has an influence on the designs of various
games.
+++++++++++++++++
Ma Diao
----------
Void of 1-Cash which is called Zero Cash and Empty Hot Water Bottle is
in Ma Diao. So is 1-Cash which is like the diagram of taiji (grand
ultimate). [ The Playing-Card Volume 31 Number 2, pages 88 and 90]
They are I-Chinf symbols. Void or the Great Emptiness is the origin of
the universe. Taiji from the Emptiness and produced ten-thousand
things and all.
Chess
--------
An 8x8 chess board with 64 hexagrams:.. an oracle applicable to each
gua is placed inside 64 squares. Illustration 54: The topology of 8-
Gua [page 287, The Genealogy of Chess and Extension and Variation of
the Book of Change, Volume 12.]
Hexagame
-------------
Photo 79 from wood block photo 78 on page 55 of Illustrated Book of
the Mahjong Museum [Japan, 1999] shows the yin-yang tai chi symbol on
one suit of 9 cards, bamboo tchants for divination on another suit of
9 cards, hexagrams at the lower portion of each card in these 2 suits.
A third suit has the myriads from 1 to 9, similar to those of mahjong.
In addition, a three-card group carries the concept of triplicity in
Red Flower, White Flower and Old Thousand, symbolic of Man Heaven and
Earth in harmony and cyclical change.
The Chinese characters for Bagua (8-trigram) on the 1-taiji and the
Chinese characters for divination on the 1-Tchant (bamboo) .
The whole game was designed with I-Ching symbols and concepts. I call
this the Hexagame.
Mahjong (Sparrow)
------------------------
The cosmological components in mahjong link to Daoism or Taoism. They
include the Winds / Directions, Seasons with their corresponding
seasonal flowers. I-Ching Duality concept is visible in symbols like
Dragon and Phoenix and hidden in a pair of "eyes". Triplicity concept
are visible in colors white, green and red (Bai-Fa-Zhong for (Heaven-
Earth-Man) and hidden in the rules of play which requires the
formation of 3- card series resembling the 3-line combination like
trigrams.
Bamboo symbol relates to tchant in divination. Ten-thousand (myriad)
associates with I-Ching and Daoism creation of all things in the
universe.
in addition, it is the seasonal change that resembles a simulation of
Nature's circular unending cycle in the game of mahjong. That is
unmistakably cosmological concept in Daoism and I-Ching.
++++++++++++++++++
There are other games, but this should be enough to show that I-Ching
concepts are probably in various designs of old games.
Note that it is the use of the I-Ching concepts in different games at
different times by different people being described here. No claim is
made regarding cause-effect relationship among or between games.
It is hoped that a better understanding of the underlying concept for
a game can give a deeper appreciation for the many symbols in it. All
pieces in a game should correlate and be coherent.
+++++++++++++++++
Cheers....
Allan Lee
February 23, 2009
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Feb 23, 4:16 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Feb 23, 2:29 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
Unfortunately, this is going to be quite a long post because the above
poster’s post contains many points of reasoning that have to be
unravelled, due to the language used.
(A)
> Let me quote something on statistical testing.
> "In the sciences, null hypotheses are frequently used. The null
> hypothesis posits no relationship and then see if a relationship
> exists...This is conservative approach and works well with statistical
> techniques, many of which are aimed at measuring the likelihood that a
> difference found is truly significant [significant means generalizable
> to a large population]. If the null hypothesis is not supported, the
> way is open for an alternative hypothesis."
[snip]
(B)
> A hypothesis does not have to be in a cause and effect structure. Only
> probability is in consideration here.
(C)
> I-Ching concepts are probably not an influence in game designs.
> That is null hypothesis. Try to nullify it.
(D)
> If it cannot be nullified, then the statement stands. If it is
> nullified then the statement is untrue.
(E)
> In other words, if you cannot show the appearance of symbols and
> influence of I-Ching concepts in numerous games, then the above
> statement holds true, meaning I-Ching has nothing to do with Ma Diao
> Mahjong, Chess etc
(F)
> But if I can show you the appearance of I-Ching concepts in card games
> and board games then the statement above is untrue, meaning I-Ching
> concepts can and probably had an influence on the designs of various
> games.
Ok. This is, in my view, *two separate issues* because the above
poster has failed to be specific about the meanings of the terms he
used.
1stly, because the above poster has used the concept of ‘probability’
in his discussion in (A) and (B) above, then we are forced - by his
lack of any specific explanation of what he means by the term
‘probability/probable’, as he uses it - to consider his claims as a
form of statistical argument. But the statements are vague and
confusing unless we feed in our own meaning of probability to make
sense of his claims (E) and (F) and (G) (below). In this context
(from (A) & (B) above) he must be talking about ‘degrees of
probability’ (unless somebody else has a better definition?).
But what sort of statistical argument (probability argument) is he
using? Is he using an Inductive Generalisation or a Statistical
Syllogism - or something else?
His statements (E) and (F) above could each read as an *inductive
generalization*. Taking the positive form (F), we know what the
observed card and board games are because he lists them (there are 4
games – Ma Diao, Chess, Hexagame and Mahjong). An inductive
generalisation *moves from the particular to the general* and so has
the form;
(1) V% of observed W’s are X
(2) It is probable, therefore that V% of all W’s are X.
So, applied to his case;
(1) V% of observed Chinese card and board games (of a particular
class) are influenced by I Ching concepts.
(2) It is probable, therefore, that V% of all Chinese card and board
games (of a particular class) are influenced by I Ching concepts. (He
uses phrases such as ‘various games’ and ‘old games’ so I take it he
means all the games in a particular class of card and board games? But
we cannot be sure.).
His statements (E) and (F) above could also each read as a
*Statistical Syllogism*. A Statistical Syllogism *moves from the
general to the particular* and so has the form;
(1) V % of all W’s are X.
(2) y is a W.
(3) It is probable to the degree 0.V, therefore, that y is X. (where
“It is probable to the degree 0.V = there is a V% chance that …”)
Applied to the above poster’s hypothesis, we have;
(1) V% of all Chinese card and board games (of a particular class) are
influenced by I Ching concepts.
(2) Ma Diao/Ma Qiao are Chinese card/board games.
(3) It is probable to the degree 0.V, therefore, the Ma Diao/Ma Qiao
are influenced by I Ching concepts.
If the above poster would like to tell us specifically how
‘probability’ is used in his arguments then we can proceed, from the
meaning he gives us, to examine his claims.
But his claims also involve other nonspecific or ambiguous terms . If
we know what he means by them then we may be able to clarify the
nature of his ‘probability’ argument – whether it is either of those
described above or something else? So;
(1) What is the specific nature of the 'influence' the above poster is
talking about??
(2) What does he specifically mean by 'designs' in his term 'game
designs'??
(3) What parts of a 'game' in his term 'game designs' is he saying
were ‘probably the result of an influence??
(4) What does he specifically mean by ‘appearance’ (as in presence) or
(as in what it looks like or (something else)??
(5) What does he specifically mean by ‘numerous games’ in (E) above??
(6) What does he specifically mean by ‘various games’ as in (F)
above??
(7) What does he specifically mean by ‘old games’ as in (G) below??
He must give a clear and specific description/definition of what *he*
means by each of these terms, as they are used in his claims, if we
are to understand what he is claiming. Unless we know what *he* means
then we *cannot* and *should not* be forced to interpret what he means
and hence be fooled into accepting his claims at this point. Hence, we
*cannot* and *should not* accept any of his claims.
2ndly, his claims also used disconfirming instances/confirming
instances against a sort of ‘null’ hypothesis and an alternative
positive hypothesis, respectively, so we are also forced to consider
his argument form as an Induction by Confirmation.
But unless he provides specific meanings to the above terms as he uses
them in his claims, this will be left to another reply. But if no
satisfactory meanings are given then we will be forced to apply our
own meanings and then examine his reasoning in those claims.
It is only because he insisted that his claims were some sort of
‘probability’ arguments that this post focused on that term in
particular, at this point.
[snip]
>(G) There are other games, but this should be enough to show that I-Ching
> concepts are probably in various designs of old games.
[snip]
al
> On Feb 24, 2:15 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 4:16 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Feb 23, 2:29 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
Too long (far too long) ....what you sing is not my song.
+++++++++++++++++
This is all I have to say for now.
"In the sciences, null hypotheses are frequently used. The null
hypothesis posits no relationship and then see if a relationship
exists...This is conservative approach and works well with statistical
techniques, many of which are aimed at measuring the likelihood that a
difference found is truly significant [significant means generalizable
to a large population]. If the null hypothesis is not supported, the
way is open for an alternative hypothesis."
++++++++++++++++
A hypothesis does not have to be in a cause and effect structure. Only
probability is in consideration here.
I-CHING CONCEPTS ARE PROBABLY NOT AN INFLUENCE IN GAME DESIGN.
That is A null hypothesis. The preliminary test is to nullify it.
If it cannot be nullified, then the statement stands as true.
If it can be nullified then the statement is untrue.
In view of the I-Ching symbols and concepts in games such as Ma Diao,
Xiangqi, Hexagame (note), and Mahjong (Sparrow), to name a few, it is
obvious that the above 'null hypothesis' can be nullified.
"if the null hypothesis is not supported, the way is open for an
alternative hypothesis."
The "alternative hypothesis" is I-Ching symbols and concepts can be
and probably are an influence in game designs.
Note: Hexagame is a name invented here for the hypothesis to
distinguish it from the Ming Ma Diao. This Hexagame is in the
Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum (1999, Japan), Photo 79 with
its woodblock photo 78 on page 55.. It has drawings of actual
hexagrams (two trigrams side by side) on a total of eighteen (18)
cards in 2 suits. Hexagram is unmistakable symbol of I-Ching oracle
for divination.
++++++++++++++++
This is all I need to say.
Discussion? Not today.
Allan Lee
February, 25, 2009
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Feb 25, 7:42 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
[snip]
> A hypothesis does not have to be in a cause and effect structure. Only
> probability is in consideration here.
>
> I-CHING CONCEPTS ARE PROBABLY NOT AN INFLUENCE IN GAME DESIGN.
So we are again forced to ask, would the above poster like to tell us
how ‘probability’ is specifically used in his arguments then we can
proceed, from the meaning he gives us, to examine his claims.
He has used the 'probability' term but has not told or explained to us
what his probability argument is.
Since he has not given us a meaning then we must reject or not accept
his claims about probability in his hypotheses.
So his hypothesis becomes;
> I-CHING CONCEPTS ARE NOT AN INFLUENCE IN GAME DESIGN.
Now, notice that there is no definition of 'game design'. What 'game'
is it? Does it refer to the design of the name of the game or the
gameplay or the iconography on the pieces? We are forced to guess his
meaning and so we are forced to again reject his hypothesis because it
is too vague or broad.
> That is A null hypothesis.
Unfortunately it is completely useless as a hypothesis.
> The preliminary test is to nullify it.
> If it cannot be nullified, then the statement stands as true.
> If it can be nullified then the statement is untrue.
Unfortunately, because it is so vague we are being forced to 'nullify'
something we cannot understand because the person who proposed it
refuses to explain what he means by the terms that make up his claims.
It is like an exercise in trying to 'nullify' fog.
> In view of the I-Ching symbols and concepts in games such as Ma Diao,
Unfortunately, there is only one I Ching symbol described on one Ma
Diao card that we have credible evidence for. The rest of the
iconography is described as representing denominations of cash.
> Xiangqi, Hexagame (note),
Unfortunately, the I Ching symbols are only shown on 2 suits. The rest
of the iconography perhaps represents personage related to the I
Ching.
There are no rules/gameplay described nor a name of the game for this
deck of cards. Therefore, we cannot know what game was played with
these cards and hence we do not know if I Ching concepts were involved
at all in these two features.
> and Mahjong (Sparrow), [snip]
Unfortunately there is no credible evidence at this time, that I Ching
concepts were/are involved in Mahjong/ma qiao. All there is is the
above poster's unsupported interpretation
> it is obvious that the above 'null hypothesis' can be nullified.
Unfortunately, it cannot for the reasons above.
[snip]
> This is all I need to say.
> Discussion? Not today.
This is a refusal to clarify all of the vague and ambiguous and hence
incoherent statements he has asserted?
We are still entitled to ask:
(1) What is the specific nature of the 'influence' the above poster
is
talking about??
(2) What does he specifically mean by 'designs' in his term 'game
designs'??
(3) What parts of a 'game' in his term 'game designs' is he saying
were ‘probably the result of an influence??
(4) What does he specifically mean by ‘appearance’ (as in presence)
or
(as in what it looks like or (something else)??
(5) What does he specifically mean by ‘numerous games’ in (E) above??
(6) What does he specifically mean by ‘various games’ as in (F)
above??
(7) What does he specifically mean by ‘old games’ as in (G) below??
He must give a clear and specific description/definition of what *he*
means by each of these terms, as they are used in his claims, if we
are to understand what he is claiming.
Unless we know what *he* means then we *cannot* and *should not* be
forced to interpret what he means
and hence be fooled into accepting his claims at this point. Hence, we
*cannot* and *should not* accept any of his claims.
But unless he provides specific meanings to the above terms as he
pa...@email.unc.edu
I wanted to point out my agreement with the following statement by
Julian in the hope that emphasizing it will bring it to your serious
attention:
>intuitions can be essential in *forming* a theory, but do nothing to
>*confirm* the theory.
What I consider to be one of your problems is that once you form a
theory that you believe in, you seem to lose any ability to remain
objective. I think that objectivity is essential for a serious
researcher.
When you proposed your Sparrow hypothesis, your ‘supporting’
information followed a similar nonobjective viewpoint that you are
demonstrating in your current Yijing hypothesis. Look at how you
presented your sparrow ideas. Once you became convinced that the
Yijing ideas were better than the sparrow ones, you apparently had no
difficulty discarding the previous sparrow hypothesis. Examine why! I
think that it was because there was really no substantial or reliable
supporting information given for the sparrow hypothesis. Intuition
cannot confirm a theory, you need objective evidence.
The lack of substance in your presentation on the sparrow idea, which
allowed you to easily discard it in favor of the Yijing idea, is
similar to the lack of substance in your current presentation on the
Yijing. That lack of reliable (and logical) information is why I
remain absolutely unconvinced by your posts.
Your lack of the ability to examine a hypothesis objectively or
logically is a contributing factor in the trolling behavior that you
exhibit on this group.
-----
Way back on Oct 17, 2007 I had pointed out to you a game analysis
correlating with the Yijing:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.mahjong/browse_thread/thread/39d014d2c2d05d45#
With a link to this site:
http://www.magictortoise.com/Tantrix_YiJing.pdf
While that author could present a nice analysis showing the
correlations between the game of Tantrix and the Yijing, we KNOW that
Tantrix was not actually invented based on Yijing concepts. The
inventor of the modern game of Tantrix did not base his game design on
the Yijing because he is still alive (so we can confirm this
information with him) and DID NOT KNOW about the Yijing prior to Dr.
Dunbar’s analysis!
You now state:
On Feb 23, 9:15 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Chess
>--------
>An 8x8 chess board with 64 hexagrams:.. an oracle applicable to each
>gua is placed inside 64 squares. Illustration 54: The topology of 8-
>Gua [page 287, The Genealogy of Chess and Extension and Variation of
>the Book of Change, Volume 12.]
An 8x8 board used to play the game of Chess does not mean that the
designer based the game on the Yijing! Your ‘logic’ is atrocious!
Please get help!
While the Yijing was designed as a way of explaining (predicting) ‘ten
thousand’ things (i.e., essentially everything), it does not mean that
everything is designed based on the Yijing!
Tantrix correlates well with the Yijing, but was NOT designed based on
the Yijing.
Chess has 64 squares and the Yijing has 64 hexagrams (with one of the
possible arrangements being an 8x8 square), but that doesn’t mean that
Chess was designed based on the 64 hexagrams of the Yijing!
Mahjong has 2 eyes and melds of 3, but that doesn’t mean that Mahjong
was designed based on the Yijing (Yin/Yang & Trigrams, respectively)!
Mahjong has some correlation with a sparrow, but that does not mean
that it was invented with the sparrow in mind (although the early name
for the game gives some evidence that, at least at one time, there was
some connection with the bird, whether your idea, the connection with
the port city of Ninbo’s pest eradication idea, or simply due to the
sound the tiles make when being shuffled, etc., has yet to be
established).
Tic-tac-toe has a 3x3 playing area, but that does not mean that it was
designed based on the ‘magic square’ (where the numbers 1-9 are placed
such that all columns, rows, and diagonals total 15).
For my own Taiping hypothesis, a good correlation between the Himly
set tiles and Taiping organization does not mean that mahjong was
invented by the Taiping. It does indicate that the Himly set may have
been invented or modified by the Taiping (unless a better explanation
for those particular tiles is discovered) but we do not yet know if
the Himly set represents the earliest version of the game of mahjong.
[If reliable evidence for the existence of mahjong prior to December
1851 is discovered, then the Taiping invention hypothesis can probably
be ruled out. Also, if a mahjong set with a reliable date is
discovered dating from before the Himly set, and that set is
significantly different than the Himly set (such that it no longer
correlates well with the Taiping), then the Taiping origin hypothesis
could probably be discarded.]
Etc.
-----
Your apparent inability to remain objective about your belief in your
Yijing hypothesis, and your inability to be logical, means that your
posts on this group, to me, seem to be worthless trolling. If you
think that your posts are supporting your Yijing hypothesis, then you
are deceiving yourself. Please get help!
Dan
al
I said all I want and need to say.
No more discussion; not to-day.
++++++++++++
Cheers...
al
I said all I need and want to say to-day.
By the way, did you read the Q and A?
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cheers...
msta...@talktalk.net
Unfortunately, that is not the case. He may not *want* to say anything
at this time (for good reasons only known to himself) but he does
*need* to say more - if he is hoping to convince others of his views.
Particularly when others have made the time and effort to respond and
consider his claims seriously.
> No more discussion; not to-day.
This is agreeable. This may indicate that the above poster understands
that he needs to clarify his terms and therefore wants to clarify them
another day.
We will wait for his responses to the questions that appeared in a
previous post and are repeated below;
(1) What is the specific nature of the 'influence' the above poster
is talking about??
(2) What does he specifically mean by 'designs' in his term 'game
designs'??
(3) What parts of a 'game' in his term 'game designs' is he saying
were ‘probably the result of an influence??
(4) What does he specifically mean by ‘appearance’ (as in presence)
or (as in what it looks like) or (something else)??
(5) What does he specifically mean by ‘numerous games’?
(6) What does he specifically mean by ‘various games’?
(7) What does he specifically mean by ‘old games’?
al
This is all I need to say.
Discussion? Not today.
Thanks for your effort and your time.
I have better things to do with mine.
+++++++++++
Cheers…
++++++++++++
P.S.
What you don't know by now
shouldn't bother you anyhow.
++++++++++++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
I am pleased the above poster has acknowledged the real effort and
time put in to reading and trying to understand his posts.
> I have better things to do with mine.
This is very, very unfortunate as it means we will be unable to
question and discuss his claims and so allow him to demonstrate what
he knows about the concepts used - such as probability- and hence this
stops us finding out what he was meaning by them.
This refusal to take the time to engage in discussing and explaining
his terms - when correctly challenged - must be taken as a warning
that ****readers should be very careful and not be fooled into
accepting any of his claims relating to this subject****.
> P.S.
> What you don't know by now
> shouldn't bother you anyhow.
What bothers this poster is the above poster's discourteous behaviour
of the putting posts on this forum that are full of what appear to be
vague and inappropriate terms and then when sincerely and correctly
challenged to explain what they mean, he then avoids the
responsibility of replying.
But perhaps he is not avoiding his responsibility but will reply
another day rather than today?
al
> On Feb 25, 9:22 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 1:18 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > I said all I want and need to say.
>
> Unfortunately, that is not the case. He may not *want* to say anything
> at this time (for good reasons only known to himself) but he does
> *need* to say more - if he is hoping to convince others of his views.
>
> Particularly when others have made the time and effort to respond and
> consider his claims seriously.
>
You are kidding!
> > No more discussion; not to-day.
>
> This is agreeable. This may indicate that the above poster understands
> that he needs to clarify his terms and therefore wants to clarify them
> another day.
>
> We will wait for his responses to the questions that appeared in a
> previous post and are repeated below;
>
You will have a long wait. It would be a waste of time to repeat.
> (1) What is the specific nature of the 'influence' the above poster
> is talking about??
Ask Dan, he knows what I talked about, although he disagreed.
> (2) What does he specifically mean by 'designs' in his term 'game
> designs'??
Read my posts. Here is a clue: Bamboo is Suo.
And this is the key: The rule of Two and Three.
More specific, the influence is in the rules pf game-play in addition
to superficial symbols which had been exposed to alterations,
artistically, dialectically and "grammatically".
Winds change with seasons and life changes with the cycle of time.
Man's desire to minimize uncertainty has been there in olden days as
in nowadays. We listen to the news and consult investment dealers or
psychiatrist these days. People in ancient China consult the I-Ching
hexagrams. Even kings did that; so I read. Mahjong game design
simulates the changes in Nature and Man's attempt to cope with the
changes.
Now do you see there are possibly "principles in the rules"?
> (3) What parts of a 'game' in his term 'game designs' is he saying
> were ‘probably the result of an influence??
It is just explained. I do not have dated documented evidence from
dead historians. What I say is a plausible explanation for the rules
of the game. Plausibility leads to probability in a continuum scale.
> (4) What does he specifically mean by ‘appearance’ (as in presence)
> or (as in what it looks like) or (something else)??
He does not understand your question. He can not give an answer.
> (5) What does he specifically mean by ‘numerous games’?
> (6) What does he specifically mean by ‘various games’?
> (7) What does he specifically mean by ‘old games’?
You should know all the answers to (5), (6) and (7).
If you can not appreciate answers to (2) and (3), nothing matters much
anyway.
++++++++++++
al
My courtesy is strictly reciprocal.
>
> But perhaps he is not avoiding his responsibility but will reply
> another day rather than today?
Look at who is trolling now.
+++++++++++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
> > (1) What is the specific nature of the 'influence' the above poster
> > is talking about??
>
> Ask Dan, he knows what I talked about, although he disagreed.
No. It is the above poster's specific claims we are asking about and
it is HIS specific meanings he must give to us. Not someone elses
meanings of his claims.
He must stop avoiding answering these questions if he wishes his
claims to be taken seriously.
> > (2) What does he specifically mean by 'designs' in his term 'game
> > designs'??
> Read my posts. Here is a clue: Bamboo is Suo.
[snip]
No. No more vague statements. He must be clear and specific. The 1, 2,
3... format is acceptable. He must explain clearly what he means by
'game designs' and 'influence'. He must expect from himself what he
expects form others.
> More specific, the influence is in the rules of game-play in addition
> to superficial symbols which had been exposed to alterations,
> artistically, dialectically and "grammatically".
The 1st part is acceptable but the 2nd is just another rehash of his
baseless assertions.
> Winds change with seasons and life changes with the cycle of time.
[snipped middle section]
> Mahjong game design simulates the changes in Nature and Man's attempt to cope with the
> changes.
> Now do you see there are possibly "principles in the rules"?
But what does this mean?? What is the above poster asking us to
accept? That his idea described above is possible??? Sure, it is
'possible'. But now he is using 'possibility' instead of
'probability'.
So what does he mean by 'possible'???
He must be specific and clear about what he means by principles
*possibly* being in the rules.
Just because something is 'possible' doesn't give us any reason for
accepting it as real. For us to reasonable acceptance of his ideas,
our acceptance must be based on actual evidence.
He is specifcally avoiding the fact that his arguments are not
supported by actual evidence.
He must not avoid this fact by using words such as possibly/probably/
plausibly - unless he can tell us what they mean when he uses them.
> > (3) What parts of a 'game' in his term 'game designs' is he saying
> > were ‘probably the result of an influence??
> It is just explained. I do not have dated documented evidence from
> dead historians. What I say is a plausible explanation for the rules
> of the game. Plausibility leads to probability in a continuum scale.
Now we have 'plausible'. Is this another term for 'possible'???
He must tell us in specific, clear terms if we are to understand his
claim.
> > (4) What does he specifically mean by ‘appearance’ (as in presence)
> > or (as in what it looks like) or (something else)??
> He does not understand your question. He can not give an answer.
Does 'appearance have the meaning as in;
(1) 'he made an appearance at the concert' (that is, he was present at
the concert) or
(2) he has the appearance of a clown (what he looks like) or
(3) is there another meaning???
> > (5) What does he specifically mean by ‘numerous games’?
> > (6) What does he specifically mean by ‘various games’?
> > (7) What does he specifically mean by ‘old games’?
>
> You should know all the answers to (5), (6) and (7).
No. This is another avoidance strategy so that he can get out of
telling us what he means by these terms. If we do not know then how he
demonstrate his ideas and so allow us to accdept them or not?
> If you can not appreciate answers to (2) and (3), nothing matters much
> anyway.
No! This is yet another way of avoiding answering those who sincerely
wish to understand his claims.
How can we appreciate his answers to (2) and (3) if he will not
explain what he means by certain terms used in those answers?? The
meaning of those answers rests on the meanings of those terms??
[cut and pasted from previous post.]
> A hypothesis does not have to be in a cause and effect structure. Only
> probability is in consideration here.
> I-CHING CONCEPTS ARE PROBABLY NOT AN INFLUENCE IN GAME DESIGN.
So we are again forced to ask, would the above poster like to tell us
how ‘probability’ is specifically used in his arguments then we can
proceed, from the meaning he gives us, to examine his claims.
He has used the 'probability' term but has not told or explained to
us
what his probability argument is.
Since he has not given us a meaning then we must reject or not accept
his claims about probability in his hypotheses.
He has also failed to answwer this as well.
What are his probability arguments??? Where are the answers???
He must be specific and tell us.
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Feb 26, 8:09 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > This refusal to take the time to engage in discussing and explaining
> > his terms - when correctly challenged - must be taken as a warning
> > that ****readers should be very careful and not be fooled into
> > accepting any of his claims relating to this subject****.
> > But perhaps he is not avoiding his responsibility but will reply
> > another day rather than today?
> Look at who is trolling now.
Tsk. Tsk. The question was about what the above poster said;
"> > No more discussion; not to-day. "
If not to-day, then perhaps another day? THAT was the meaning. It is
fair that we should ask whether his posting was temporary or
permanent.
So, once again, avoiding answering the questions "means we will be
unable to
question and discuss his claims and so allow him to demonstrate what
he knows about the concepts used - such as probability - and hence
this
stops us finding out what he was meaning by them."
No more avoidance. Let's have some specific answers to all the
questions.
al
> On Mar 8, 11:49 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 8:09 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> [snipped content]
> > > This refusal to take the time to engage in discussing and explaining
> > > his terms - when correctly challenged - must be taken as a warning
> > > that ****readers should be very careful and not be fooled into
> > > accepting any of his claims relating to this subject****.
> > > But perhaps he is not avoiding his responsibility but will reply
> > > another day rather than today?
Why is there the need to address the readers? Do you think they are
incapable of deciding for themselves on what they read?
> > Look at who is trolling now.
>
> Tsk. Tsk. The question was about what the above poster said;
> "> > No more discussion; not to-day. "
>
> If not to-day, then perhaps another day? THAT was the meaning. It is
> fair that we should ask whether his posting was temporary or
> permanent.
Is that trolling, or what?
>
> So, once again, avoiding answering the questions "means we will be
> unable to
> question and discuss his claims and so allow him to demonstrate what
> he knows about the concepts used - such as probability - and hence
> this
> stops us finding out what he was meaning by them."
>
I think I do know the concept of probability. In fact I have
miscalculated it many times in life.
You seem to forget the history of mahjong is mostly based on
"probables".
State what you know is a certainty in mahjong history other than the
fact we are still questioning what the real name of the game is and
what the circle symbol was intended to be at origin.
Show what you can prove with A, B and C, but don't forget your
assumption could be just a probability.
> No more avoidance. Let's have some specific answers to all the
> questions.
Let me start from a post back on 2007-09-27. This was what I knew at
the time. The idea essentially unchanged. Read it.
I would revise a few points if I were to do it over, because I have
learned more about the game and its 'probable' history now.
Here is what I wrote year-and-a-half ago. Some revisions are covered
by subsequent posts. I will explain if you have questions.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Mahjong and Hu-Pai Designs
(Relate to I-Ching & Taoism)
Introduction
Mahjong and other Hu Pais relate to I-Ching. (Yes. I mean I-Ching 易经).
I-Ching is also known as the "Book of Changes" . It is about change
and changeability of everything in the universe. In other words, I-
Ching is OBSERVATION OF CHANGES literally, just as the meaning for
"Book of Changes".
I learned just recently from reading. I = 易 = change. Ching is 经 as in
经历 like chronicle of observations. The books and references I used are
listed separately.
To show how Mahjong and other Hu Pai game design could be based on
concepts and principles in I-hing, I compare the basic structure of
Mahjong with basic structure of I-Ching. I will also relate symbols in
I-Ching to symbols in Mahjong. Keep in mind that the central idea is
CHANGE and that the process of change is simple and cyclical, just as
explained in I-Ching (a term credited to Confucius).
First let me explain about the I-Ching trigram. It is a symbol of 3
lines which can be arranged in 8 different orders of yin and yang, one
line above another. These symbols were used as metaphors in place of
many words when the language was rudimentary. To illustrate, each
trigram starts from a bi-gram of 2 lines, yin and yang. Let yin = 0
and yang = 1. These 2 lines can make 4 bi-grams, such as O-1, 0-0,
1-0- 1-1. Then the interactions of the 4 bi-grams with yin and yang
beget 8 trigrams: 1-1-1, Heaven; 0-1-1, Lake; 1-0-1, Fire; 0-0-1,
Wind; 0-1-0 Thunder; 1-1-0, , Water; 1-0-0, Mountain; 0-0-0, Earth
(Living I-Ching by Deng Ming-Dao); they are usually shown in line-
symbols. A broken line is yin and a solid line is yang. Trigrams are
building-blocks of I-Ching divination system of hexagram.
Hexagrams are two trigrams in a stack; each has 6 lines Yin and Yang,
in 64 different configurations. Each configuration is a metaphor with
a message for interpretation. This is my basic knowledge of I-Ching.
In tracing the root of a game like Mahjong which has changed names, no
history in written authorship, undergone changes in symbols and cards
added, numerous versions of terms for symbols, even acquired new rules
of play, the core structure and concept of the game is more
significant than its superficial looks. As for any invention, the
uniqueness is not in the appearance but it is in the idea. That is the
essence and meaning of "intellectual property". Intellectual property
is what I have here.
Reference List:
"The Living I-Ching", by Deng Ming-Dao, copyright 2006.
"The I-Ching Book", by Chris Marshall, ISBN 1 84442 634 3; 2004.
"Taoism, A Short Introduction", by James Miller, copyright 2003.
"Wikipedia" on-line.
"Mah-Jongg from Shanghai to Miami Beach", ISBN 0-8118-4733-0, 2005.
"The Happy Game of Mah-Jong", by D.H. Li, ISBN 0-9637852-3-0, 1994.
"The Complete Book of Mah-Jongg", by A.D. Millington, 1993
"The Paying-Card" articles by Michael Stanwick and Andrew Lo
"Sloperama" FAQ and NG discussions and emails from group members
"Chemistry for Dummies", by John T. Moore,ISBN 0-7645-5430-1, 2003
"Ralph Waldo Emerson", CD (CNIB library), 2007
"The History of Mahjong" NG Post by Cofa Tsui, January 2004
"The ZuiHu game" NG Post by ithinc, August 2007
Characteristics of Mahjong (MJ) and other Hu Pai with Parallels in I-
Ching
A pair in MJ is called "eyes". A pair in I-Ching is yin and yang,
darkness and light.
Phoenix & Dragon are gender symbols in MJ; Yin &Yang are parallels in
I-Ching.
'Dui' a pair in Zui-Hu, literally meaning 'opposed'; Y&Y are opposites
in I-Ching.
Directions, (East-South-West-North) in Mahjong; directions are
trigrams in I-Ching.
'Wan' is 'Ten-thousand' in MJ; means 'ten-thousand-thing' in Tai-Chi
and I-Ching.
'Old-Thousand' a card in Hu pai maybe fertility symbol like Mother
Earth in I-Ching.
Scores multiply stepwise in MJ by 2. Trigrams mutate to hexagrams in
steps by 2.
Seasons and Directions are MJ cards; Seasons & Directions are I-Ching
trigrams
Yin and yang, opposites in I-Ching, interact to make 2-line bi-grams &
3-line trigrams.
The goal in MJ is a symbols grouping, 2-3-3-3-3. A pair is '2' , and
sub-groups of '3'.
An MJ hand, 13 cards, by D & D, change to a pair + 4 of 3's,
(2-3-3-3-3 Hu-pattern.)
In I-Ching, '2' = Y & Y, interact with each other; generate 8 groups
of 3's (trigrams).
'Kan' is a MJ 3-card 'run', e.g. 1-2-3. 'Kan' in I-Ching is trigram-
water that flows.
Changes occur in each MJ hand by D&D; changes in I-Ching from Y&Y
interaction.
Hu, 和 in etymology = 'eat rice together'; it is 'unite together' of
Y&Y in I-Ching.
MJ 'Dead-wall' is forbidden zone; I-Ching Tai-Chi, 太极 is primal
birthing place.
The 'primal birthing place' is the blank space, an inner circle of
'Heaven-Eight trigram'.
'Heaven-8 Trigrams' express the "cyclical, seasonal and directional
nature of changes".
MJ circles of King Wen trigrams represent cyclical changes of
everything in the universe.
MJ stick/string symbols are lines of yin-yang; they created all the
'ten-thousand things'.
Yin and Yang exist in pair. They attract to a union like electron and
proton of atoms.
Yin or Yang can not exist alone; hence a bird, the sparrow is in place
of 1-stick/string.
The simplicity of symbols in MJ is like the simplicity of trigrams in
I-Ching.
E-S-W-N and the 4 Seasons in MJ are part of King Wen's Trigram-circle.
The process of change affects every MJ-hand via the rules of 'draw and
discard'.
Cycle of change affects everything in the universe in I-Ching by union
of Y&Y.
'Draw and Discard' create changes in MJ; combination and permutation
in I-Ching.
Fair and simple rules for all Hu games; 'power of 2' is formula for I-
Ching trigrams.
Mahjong and other Hu Pai have symbols and many metaphors.
I-Ching trigrams and hexagrams are metaphors and more.
MJ symbol called by different names; MJ rules can differ here and
there.
In Taoism wisdom "Name is not forever Name. Way is not the only Way".
A case in point, Tai-Chi, 太极 by my interpretation, it mean 'primal
birthing place'. (Every Chinese child by age 5 hears enough swearing
to know what 太 means. No need for etymology to analyze the word. The
dot is a sign of something came out between two legs. A birthing
occurred! Yet the use of V- word is still taboo. Medical description
and dictionary definition for the virgina is "shaded-passage". I call
it here as 'birthing place'.
In summary, connections between I-Ching and game design of Mahjong
include:
The circle symbol in Mahjong (Spare Coin) is trigram circle of King
Wen in I-Ching.
The stick/string/rope symbol (Suo Zi) in Mahjong is Yin-Yang line in
I-
Ching.
The 'wan' symbol in Mahjong is referred to as "ten-thousand-thing' in
I-Ching.
Seasons and Directions are part of I-Ching and part of Maahjong.
The 'Pair' has special significance in both Mahjong and I-Ching.
Parallel exists in I-Ching for the mahjong 'dead-wall', Tai-Chi (太极).
'Kan,' 'Dui' and 'Qian' have corresponding usage in Mahjong and I-
Ching.
"Why a Sparrow?" is answered; needed for non-existent half-Yin-Yang
pair.
Change by Yin-yang union in I-Ching; change by 'peng & chow' in MJ.
Conclusion:
Mahjong and other Hu-game designs relates directly to I-Ching, 易经.
A coherent explanation is now possible for the symbols, structure and
rules of the game.
The concentric circles in MJ are King-Wen-Circles in I-Ching. The
Strings or Sticks in MJ are Yin-Yang-Lines in I-Ching. The Sparrow was
a substitute for a half-Yin-Yang-Line which can not exist without an
opposite. (Yin-Yang-Lines exist together at least in pair; that is
what 'Hu' (和) means in Hu-Pai. 和= together, Yin AND Yang.
A few key questions have been answered with evidence directly from I-
Ching. There was a design concept in Mahjong, after all.
My thanks and appreciation for the discussions with and assistance
from members of our group; I am glad to have contributed my little
bit. I hope someday somehow somebody will get the Mahjong/Sparrow
origin straight.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You see? Photo 79 on page 55 of Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum
(1999,Japan) illustrate and explain what I had in mind.
Mahjong is Chinese game. I feel a sense of duty to get its history
better than what it is now. A load of Cash piled there and a bunch of
Dragons wandering in the Winds year after year through the Seasons
smelling Flowers just won't do for a game-design.
+++++++++++++++++
Allan Lee
March 10, 2009
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 9, 3:34 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > Tsk. Tsk. The question was about what the above poster said;
> > " No more discussion; not to-day. "
>
> > If not to-day, then perhaps another day? THAT was the meaning. It is
> > fair that we should ask whether his posting was temporary or
> > permanent.
>
> Is that trolling, or what?
Unfortunately it is not. The above poster gave the reply 'not to-day',
therefore - in view of him avoiding answering questions - it was
appropriate to ask whether he was going to reply another day.
> I think I do know the concept of probability. In fact I have
> miscalculated it many times in life.
This is also avoiding answering the questions asked of him about his
use of 'probable' in his previous posts. He has still avoided giving a
clear and specific answer to the questions.
> You seem to forget the history of mahjong is mostly based on
> "probables".
[snipped]
> Show what you can prove with A, B and C, but don't forget your
> assumption could be just a probability.
As above, he has not given us any meaning of what he means by his use
of "probables/probability". He has just avoided answering the
questions and continued using the 'probable' term evn though he has
not told us what he means by it.
> > No more avoidance. Let's have some specific answers to all the
> > questions.
[snip]
> Here is what I wrote year-and-a-half ago. Some revisions are covered
> by subsequent posts. I will explain if you have questions.
> +++++++++++++++++++++
[snipped]
Oh well. It seems we are not going to get the answers to the questions
he was asked, in order for his claims to make sense.
The most recent important ones were;
What does he mean by plausible??
What does he mean by probable/probability??
In view of these unanswered questions, we are forced to assume that
his explanation is one of a number of unsupported explanations put
forward to explain various features of the game of ma que/ma qiao/mah
jong.
> A few key questions have been answered with evidence directly from I-
> Ching. There was a design concept in Mahjong, after all.
Unfortunately, the above poster has consistently failed to grasp the
role of evidence when making a claim. It is not the evidence from the
I Ching that is in question, but the lack of any objective evidence -
to support any connection of a link between the I Ching and the game
of ma que/ma qiao/mah jong - outside of his own subjective
interpretations.
If this objective evidence comes to light (from research carried out
by others), then his explanation will gain merit.
al
> > A hypothesis does not have to be in a cause and effect structure. Only
> > probability is in consideration here.
> > I-CHING CONCEPTS ARE PROBABLY NOT AN INFLUENCE IN GAME DESIGN.
>
This is typical quoting out of context. Deliberate? Or not?
That was stated as a "null hypothesis" and it was nullified meaning
that the statement was shown to be untrue.
++++++++++
> So we are again forced to ask, would the above poster like to tell us
> how ‘probability’ is specifically used in his arguments then we can
> proceed, from the meaning he gives us, to examine his claims.
>
> He has used the 'probability' term but has not told or explained to
> us
> what his probability argument is.
>
> Since he has not given us a meaning then we must reject or not accept
> his claims about probability in his hypotheses.
>
> He has also failed to answwer this as well.
>
> What are his probability arguments??? Where are the answers???
>
> He must be specific and tell us.
++++++++++++++++
Since you insist, i would say it this way. The probability, as an
estimate, should be higher than that in your "money-base" derivation
theory. And if you doubt that, show me how reliable you think your
cash-hypot is. Then we can compare point by point.
+++++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 9, 3:25 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
[snipped unanswered questions and points]
Note that the above poster has made no attempt whatsoever, to answer
the questions and points put to him in this poster's previous post.
> > > A hypothesis does not have to be in a cause and effect structure. Only
> > > probability is in consideration here.
> > > I-CHING CONCEPTS ARE PROBABLY NOT AN INFLUENCE IN GAME DESIGN.
>
> This is typical quoting out of context. Deliberate? Or not?
Not.
In a previous post a whole series of questions/points was put to the
above poster in an attempt to get him to tell us what he meant by
certain terms in his arguments. Unless we know what they mean we
haven't a hope of getting a specific understanding his statements.
> That was stated as a "null hypothesis" and it was nullified meaning
> that the statement was shown to be untrue.
In was meaningless unless the above poster tells us what 'probability'
argument he is referring to. HE used the term and it was HE who
introduced it when talking about the null hypothesis and it was HE who
used the term 'statistical' when talking about the null hypothesis.
Here is what HE said;
"Let me quote something on statistical testing.
"In the sciences, null hypotheses are frequently used. The null
hypothesis posits no relationship and then see if a relationship
exists...This is conservative approach and works well with
statistical
techniques, many of which are aimed at measuring the likelihood that
a
difference found is truly significant [significant means
generalizable
to a large population]. If the null hypothesis is not supported, the
way is open for an alternative hypothesis."
and HE also said;
"I-Ching concepts are probably not an influence in game designs.
That is null hypothesis. Try to nullify it."
Therefore, we are forced to ask what he means by 'probability' and
'probable' in terms of a statistical argument.
If he cannot find the post referred to, this poster will direct him to
it.
> > So we are again forced to ask, would the above poster like to tell us
> > how ‘probability’ is specifically used in his arguments then we can
> > proceed, from the meaning he gives us, to examine his claims.
> > He has used the 'probability' term but has not told or explained to
> > us what his probability argument is.
> > Since he has not given us a meaning then we must reject or not accept
> > his claims about probability in his hypotheses.
> > He has also failed to answer this as well.
> > What are his probability arguments??? Where are the answers???
> > He must be specific and tell us.
> ++++++++++++++++
> Since you insist, I would say it this way. The probability, as an
> estimate, should be higher than that in your "money-base" derivation
> theory. And if you doubt that, show me how reliable you think your
> cash-hypot is. Then we can compare point by point.
??? So is he now saying that his 'probability' argument is not a
statistical one, after giving us a quote indicating that it was??
He has just replaced his vague term 'probability' with another vague
term 'estimate'.
(1)What does he specifically mean by estimate??
(2) And then, an estimate of what???
(3) How do we arrive at an estimate???
(4) What is his 'estimate' argument??
(5) What does he mean by 'reliable'????
al
> On Mar 10, 2:22 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 3:25 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
I deleted the stuff that has given you trouble.
Your semantics gets you more confused.
> > ++++++++++++++++
> > Since you insist, I would say it this way. The probability, as an
> > estimate, should be higher than that in your "money-base" derivation
> > theory. And if you doubt that, show me how reliable you think your
> > cash-hypot is. Then we can compare point by point.
My suggestion was to suit your mind-set and logic.
>
> ??? So is he now saying that his 'probability' argument is not a
> statistical one, after giving us a quote indicating that it was??
>
Do you think that is what he was saying? What do you think he is
trying to do?
> He has just replaced his vague term 'probability' with another vague
> term 'estimate'.
> (1)What does he specifically mean by estimate??
> (2) And then, an estimate of what???
> (3) How do we arrive at an estimate???
> (4) What is his 'estimate' argument??
>
> (5) What does he mean by 'reliable'????
I believe these are all common English terms. They should be in the
dictionary. Come to think of it. You might want to refer to a book on
statistical analysis for words like probability, estimate,
reliability, correlation etc.
+++++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
> > ??? So is he now saying that his 'probability' argument is not a
> > statistical one, after giving us a quote indicating that it was??
>
> Do you think that is what he was saying? What do you think he is
> trying to do?
An impossible question to answer since we do not know what is going on
inside the above poster's thinking.
We do not know because when he answers, he answers using vague terms
that have more than one meaning.
When we try to pin him down he uses another avoidance strategy by
replacing one vague term with another vague term.
> > He has just replaced his vague term 'probability' with another vague
> > term 'estimate'.
> > (1)What does he specifically mean by estimate??
> > (2) And then, an estimate of what???
> > (3) How do we arrive at an estimate???
> > (4) What is his 'estimate' argument??
>
> > (5) What does he mean by 'reliable'????
>
> I believe these are all common English terms. They should be in the
> dictionary. Come to think of it. You might want to refer to a book on
> statistical analysis for words like probability, estimate,
> reliability, correlation etc.
No. The above poster is still avoiding answering the above questions
by attempting to make others do his work for him!
He must stop being lazy by getting others to do his own work and he
must stop using terms in a vague way and give us specific meanings to
the terms we are asking about.
No more avoiding the questions. Let's have specific meanings to the
terms.
al
> On Mar 10, 6:44 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > ??? So is he now saying that his 'probability' argument is not a
> > > statistical one, after giving us a quote indicating that it was??
>
> > Do you think that is what he was saying? What do you think he is
> > trying to do?
>
> An impossible question to answer since we do not know what is going on
> inside the above poster's thinking.
>
> We do not know because when he answers, he answers using vague terms
> that have more than one meaning.
>
I wish I could use big long words like you do sometimes.
> When we try to pin him down he uses another avoidance strategy by
> replacing one vague term with another vague term.
>
> > > He has just replaced his vague term 'probability' with another vague
> > > term 'estimate'.
> > > (1)What does he specifically mean by estimate??
Estimate it.
> > > (2) And then, an estimate of what???
Whatever...
> > > (3) How do we arrive at an estimate???
By estimating...
> > > (4) What is his 'estimate' argument??
Not sure how he would estimate an argument.
>
> > > (5) What does he mean by 'reliable'????
Not an 'estimated' argument, probably.
>
> > I believe these are all common English terms. They should be in the
> > dictionary. Come to think of it. You might want to refer to a book on
> > statistical analysis for words like probability, estimate,
> > reliability, correlation etc.
>
> No. The above poster is still avoiding answering the above questions
> by attempting to make others do his work for him!
>
You are probably right.
> He must stop being lazy by getting others to do his own work and he
> must stop using terms in a vague way and give us specific meanings to
> the terms we are asking about.
>
> No more avoiding the questions. Let's have specific meanings to the
> terms.
He probably does not know the terms himself, in your estimation?
++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
> Estimate it.
> Whatever...
> By estimating...
> Not sure how he would estimate an argument.
> Not an 'estimated' argument, probably.
> You are probably right.
> He probably does not know the terms himself, in your estimation?
Thus, when we try to get him to give clear and specific meanings to
terms he uses, so that we may undersatand what his reasons are in his
arguments, he answers with the above meaningless nonsense.
But these answers are the tools that allow him to avoid giving precise
descriptions of what his reasoning is.
They allow him to present his assertions in the most general, vague
and ambiguous of terms so that the underlying reasoning is not
apparent and thus they serve to shield his reasoning from scrutiny.
al
I have done enough explaining by now in direct response to you or
indirectly through my response to others. I am tired of it.
It is obviously any effort is futile and counter-productive. You
accepted the words of Himly, Wilkinson, Eberhart, Prunner etc., so
long as it was in print, without question, credible or not. You
demanded proof of actual application of any idea from other
hypothesis, while there has never been any such proof of direct link
for the Cash notion other than somebody said that it was what people
called it, regardless what else other people called it.
Then you chose to defend only the circle symbol; making an assumption
that the circle (with or without a square in the middle) is a copper
coin, then using logic to concluded Wan must be Ten-thousand Cash. Suo
looks like a string of Cash in an amount of 100 or thousand (no
matter). And you actually pride yourself on solid logical ground. I
can only tell you this abou your logic. When the assumption is false,
your conclusion is faulty.
You can not recognize the subtle presence of ZFB in 'early' mahjong
sets or refused to acknowledge it (because historians did not write
about it before they died).
I came across this post this afternoon.
+++++++++++++++
QUOTE:
mstanw...@aol.com (Michael Stanwick) wrote in message <news:
52f8c9c6.02112...@posting.google.com>...
> I have seen several authors such as Dummett and Prunner mention that
> the 'Dragons' correspond to the three additional cards of a
> three-suited money pack, but I have not seen any evidence to suggest
> that this correlation is warranted, apart from the coincidental. I
> would be most interested in any evidence to support the contention
> that the three 'Dragons'are the usual three honours of any traditional
> money-suited card pack.
These correspondances are easy to establish for the White and Red
Dragons: these two Mahjong tiles correspond to the money-suited
"honours" 'Bai hua' ("white flower") and 'Hong hua' ("red flower")
respectively. (These cards have alternative names but these ones are
as traditional as the others.)
See Prunner*, Nr. XVIII (Majong-Kartenspiel), p.51-2:
XVIII/11: Inschrift: Pai pan [Bai ban] ... entpricht ... der Pai-hua
[Bai hua]... der Geldspielkarten. ("Caption: Pai pan... corresponds...
to Pai-hua... of the money-suited cards")
XVIII/21: Inschrift: Hung Chung [Hong zhong] ... entpricht ... dem
Wert hung-ma (Nr. IX/21) [but Nr. IX/21 has Hung-hua, "red flower"]
der Geldspielkarten. ("Caption: Hung Chung... corresponds... to the
value hung-ma [sic]... of the money-suited cards")
"Fa cai," of course, doesn't mean "Green Dragon" but "Get rich!". In
the money-suited cards there is a card called "Old Thousand" or
"Thousand times ten thousand" (Qian wan, already so in the 15th
century), which nicely fits the "Fa cai" motto.
Prunner again: XVIII/1: Inschrift: Fa-ts'ai [Fa cai] ... entpricht ...
dem Wert Ch'ien-wan [Qian wan] bei den Geldspielkarten.
* Prunner = Gernot Prunner, "Ostasiatische Spielkarten", Bielefeld,
1969 (exhibition catalogue of the Deutsches Spielkarten-Museum)
>That paper has been substantially revised in the light
>of new evidence and will be submitted
>to The Playing-Card in the near future.
Good. I look forward to reading it.
Cheers,
Thierry
UNQUOTE+++++++++++++++++
That post dates back many years. You have maintained your solid
stationary position. It is unlikely to change your defense argument
which you can probably recite the words in your sleep. (You remember
Wilkinson backward . you said one time.)
The multi-facet concepts of Triplicity is there although Terry was not
quite correct. Fa is not fa-cai (get-rich). The symbol color for
wealth is gold. Green color is symbolic of growth. You can see and
feel the word showing "sprouting (hexagram #3). Growth = regeneration
= multiplication = old-thousand = countless number.
Chinese words have layers of meanings. That escaped the notice and
inquiry of visiting historians in China. Scholars like you came along
have no way of knowing, but when you looked around and what did you
find. Chinese players don't know much either; they know less than you
do. There was hardly any books written in Chinese. The authoritative
voice on the game is not in the Chinese language. So, why should you
pay any attention to the Chinese descendants regardless where they
come from?
What you don't know is this. The authorities you respect and revere
learned what they knew from people who were less educated and less
knowledgeable than posters in this group.
Names of symbols and meanings of ZFB were taken from uneducated
players who did not think of a triplicity concept for the 3 words
Zhong, Fa and Bai. They only gave a meaning for individual words
without context.
Contextual meaning was impossible without first knowing the basic
theme or concept of the game. That is why mahjong historians have been
dead wrong about the Cash. Players are still unsure of the game's
history. Chinese players don't know what suo means. They do not call
it a string of cash. I know that.
There were very few mahjong book by Chinese authors. The readership
was never there in China. Few people could read. Players learned
without reading any written instruction. Culturally expertise in games
was not a respectful occupation. Scholars engage in the arts. Games
were for the lazy people. Social and economic circumstances created a
scarcity of mahjong books in China for centuries.
+++++++++++++
What I wanted to say is (1) the game is more than just about Cash (2)
you can keep your mind closed after all these years (3) the historians
who brought the game out of China learned from people less
knowledgeable about mahjong than posters in this group (4) mahjong
books were not popular with readers nor writers (5) mahjong players
were mostly idle and/or unemployed.
+++++++++++
But, I can nor provide you credible evidence.
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 12, 5:41 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> I have done enough explaining by now in direct response to you or
> indirectly through my response to others. I am tired of it.
He claims to have done enough explaining but then he proceeds to do
more explaining.....?
> It is obviously any effort is futile and counter-productive. You
> accepted the words of Himly, Wilkinson, Eberhart, Prunner etc., so
> long as it was in print, without question, credible or not.
This is a blatant attempt to misrepresent my views again, that the
above poster trots out repeatedly.
> You demanded proof of actual application of any idea from other
> hypothesis,
Wrong. What the above poster fails to understand is that what is next
required of him is some documentary evidence that supports his
hypothetical link to the games in question. The evidence must NOT be
from his own head or from his own wishes distorted by his bias. It
must not be reinterpreted by him. In other words it must be credible.
If he has no credible evidence then he must phrase his statements to
reflect that.
> Then you chose to defend only the circle symbol;
Another falsehood. Nobody is defending anything.
> making an assumption
> that the circle (with or without a square in the middle) is a copper
> coin, then using logic to concluded Wan must be Ten-thousand Cash. Suo
> looks like a string of Cash in an amount of 100 or thousand (no
> matter). And you actually pride yourself on solid logical ground.
Yes. But the above poster does not understand the logical grounds and
argument for the above proposition. He does not understand it because
he has an inbuilt bias resulting from his tendency to ignore and
misrepresent evidence and arguments that conflict with his own views.
He also has a serious tendency to look for and recognise only evidence
that confirms his own views.
> When the assumption is false, your conclusion is faulty.
Unfortunately, he has not provided any credible evidence for his
assertion that the 'assumption' is false.
> You can not recognize the subtle presence of ZFB in 'early' mahjong
> sets or refused to acknowledge it (because historians did not write
> about it before they died).
He also fails to understand that something is not so just because HE
asserts it. He must demonstrate it to us with credible objective
evidence from outside his own influence and bias.
> These correspondences are easy to establish for the White and Red
> Dragons:
No they are not "easy to establish". The number of similarities are
far outweighed by the dissimilarities.
> See Prunner*, Nr. XVIII (Majong-Kartenspiel), p.51-2:
> XVIII/11: Inschrift: Pai pan [Bai ban] ... entpricht ... der Pai-hua
> [Bai hua]... der Geldspielkarten. ("Caption: Pai pan... corresponds...
> to Pai-hua... of the money-suited cards")
> XVIII/21: Inschrift: Hung Chung [Hong zhong] ... entpricht ... dem
> Wert hung-ma (Nr. IX/21) [but Nr. IX/21 has Hung-hua, "red flower"]
> der Geldspielkarten. ("Caption: Hung Chung... corresponds... to the
> value hung-ma [sic]... of the money-suited cards")
From the evidence we now have (the fact that the himly set has none of
these plus the 2 glover sets have only 1), Prunner's correspondences
are very weak. Again, the correspondences are the results of arguments
from analogy. But the similarities are outweighed by the
dissimilarities.
Plus, as far as I am aware, Prunner does not provide any detailed
discussion of his reasons why he thinks they correspond - unlike his
discussion on the classification of styles of card decks.
> "Fa cai," of course, doesn't mean "Green Dragon" but "Get rich!". In
> the money-suited cards there is a card called "Old Thousand" or
> "Thousand times ten thousand" (Qian wan, already so in the 15th
> century), which nicely fits the "Fa cai" motto.
This is a correct reference to Prunner. The problem here is that this
card deck is from the 20th century.
It also doesn’t nicely fit the motto.
We are still waiting to unearth evidence that these cards were used or
transferred to ma que. In the meantime, it is another intriguing
hypothesis.
> That post dates back many years. You have maintained your solid
> stationary position. It is unlikely to change your defense argument
> which you can probably recite the words in your sleep. (You remember
> Wilkinson backward . you said one time.)
This is correct. However, the meaning of the comment was completely
different to the snide, sarcastic and bitter remarks of the above
poster.
As always, when new, credible, objective evidence comes to light that
conflicts or disconfirms parts of an explanation, then that
explanation will either be adapted or discarded.
> Chinese words have layers of meanings. That escaped the notice and
> inquiry of visiting historians in China. Scholars like you came along
> have no way of knowing, but when you looked around and what did you
> find. Chinese players don't know much either; they know less than you
> do. There was hardly any books written in Chinese. The authoritative
> voice on the game is not in the Chinese language. So, why should you
> pay any attention to the Chinese descendants regardless where they
> come from?
The same old hackneyed accusations trotted out. The above poster is
simply unaware of the hypocrisy of his position when he makes the sort
of baseless comments of others as above. He cannot see that what is
demanded of him is credible objective evidence supporting his position
but not in any way touched by his bias.
[snip]
> Names of symbols and meanings of ZFB were taken from uneducated
> players who did not think of a triplicity concept for the 3 words
> Zhong, Fa and Bai. They only gave a meaning for individual words
> without context.
Maybe this is the case and maybe it is not the case. Just stating it
as fact makes it useless. 1st he must demonstrate that there is
credible evidence to support such an interpretation .
[snipped unsupported assertions]
> But, I can nor provide you credible evidence.- Hide quoted text
The golden rule is: When there is good reason to doubt a proposition,
we should proportion our belief /acceptance in it, to the evidence.
When his 'correspondences' have some credible objective evidence for
them, then his statements and arguments will gain weight.
al
> On Mar 13, 12:52 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 5:41 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > I have done enough explaining by now in direct response to you or
> > indirectly through my response to others. I am tired of it.
>
> He claims to have done enough explaining but then he proceeds to do
> more explaining.....?
>
> > It is obviously any effort is futile and counter-productive. You
> > accepted the words of Himly, Wilkinson, Eberhart, Prunner etc., so
> > long as it was in print, without question, credible or not.
>
> This is a blatant attempt to misrepresent my views again, that the
> above poster trots out repeatedly.
>
> > You demanded proof of actual application of any idea from other
> > hypothesis,
>
> Wrong.
Wrong? How so?
What did those guys have to prove to you?
Did you not take their words for everything said or written?
> Wrong. What the above poster fails to understand is that what is next
> required of him is some documentary evidence that supports his
> hypothetical link to the games in question.
A physical link? How physical?
> The evidence must NOT be
> from his own head or from his own wishes distorted by his bias.
So, it must be somebody else idea. That is what history is all about?
Read and copy. Don't bother to think. Your own idea is no credible
evidence.
> It must not be reinterpreted by him. In other words it must be credible.
>
Take what is there word for word. Any reinterpretation is corruption
and therefore not credible. Only what is written is credible; is that
right?
> If he has no credible evidence then he must phrase his statements to
> reflect that.
>
Like the 30-card, a reduction from 40-card deck, "probably"?
> > Then you chose to defend only the circle symbol;
>
> Another falsehood. Nobody is defending anything.
>
You have been saying you had explained the money-derivation-hypothesis
numerous times in previous posts. You were not defending it? I got the
impression you have strong belief in it and that it met your criteria
of "credible evidence".
> > making an assumption
> > that the circle (with or without a square in the middle) is a copper
> > coin, then using logic to concluded Wan must be Ten-thousand Cash. Suo
> > looks like a string of Cash in an amount of 100 or thousand (no
> > matter). And you actually pride yourself on solid logical ground.
You cited reference to Prunner, Eberhard and another authority on
Chinese money history to support your MDH. That is not defending it?
Then that is my mistake.
>
> Yes. But the above poster does not understand the logical grounds and
> argument for the above proposition. He does not understand it because
> he has an inbuilt bias resulting from his tendency to ignore and
> misrepresent evidence and arguments that conflict with his own views.
>
My basic understanding is logic would be a total loss if the
assumption is on shaky ground.
> He also has a serious tendency to look for and recognise only evidence
> that confirms his own views.
>
It is difficult enough to do just that. There is enough negativity out
there without my looking for it.
> > When the assumption is false, your conclusion is faulty.
>
> Unfortunately, he has not provided any credible evidence for his
> assertion that the 'assumption' is false.
>
Didn't I say the coin as cash is a wrong assumption? It was based on
hearsay. That is self-evident. How many other names it has been
called? I told you Chinese people don't use that term as cash. What
more credible evident you need? A sound recording?
> > You can not recognize the subtle presence of ZFB in 'early' mahjong
> > sets or refused to acknowledge it (because historians did not write
> > about it before they died).
>
> He also fails to understand that something is not so just because HE
> asserts it. He must demonstrate it to us with credible objective
> evidence from outside his own influence and bias.
>
Mahjong history has been screwed up for over a hundred years. There is
hardly any credible evidence. Historians and writers repeat each
others' work. What is accumulated became the "credible evidence".
I do not think the story of mahjong is 'credible'. My perspective is
entirely different from history so far. I learned now the sparrow bird
had very little to do with game. Yet the game is still widely known as
Sparrow.
I will find objective evidence in I-Ching, Book of Changes.
++++++++++++++++++++
Enough for now....
+++++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 13, 10:21 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 13, 12:52 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I will find objective evidence in I-Ching, Book of Changes.
All that is needed then is any mention in the I Ching, that the
concepts found in I Ching were used to design the game of Ma Que -
assuming that is the current claim.
Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
They must actually state or discuss or describe clearly so that we
know unambiguously what they mean.
This is what was meant by 'objective' evidence.
al
> On Mar 14, 3:31 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 10:21 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 13, 12:52 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > I will find objective evidence in I-Ching, Book of Changes.
>
> All that is needed then is any mention in the I Ching, that the
> concepts found in I Ching were used to design the game of Ma Que -
> assuming that is the current claim.
>
for concept used in ma que design?
I am not sure if you really meant that.
Don't be surprised if I found mention of divination associated with
games in ancient history.
I-Ching (Book of Changes) dates back thousands years!
Are you open to consideration for a possibility of an ancient ma que
game? What name would you be willing to accept besides ma que? It
probably would not be called ma que if there ever was any similar
game.
> Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
> who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
>
Funny thing...
I-Ching concepts had been used in games before Ma Diao, if you think
about it. Hundred and more games of numerous applications got changed.
Refer to Manual of Leaves by Lo, page 87, The Playing-Card, v31 N2.
Quote:
"There are hundred games and more, because the applications are
numerous, and changes are the fashion." [CHANGES TOOK PLACE]. Wang
Daokun, Vice Minister of War, (1525-1593 ) changed Ma Diao. Again I
quote:
"He [Wang Daokun] has reversed the hierarchy of great men and
dismissed the universe." (Page 87, Lo)
Note this. Pan said Wang dismissed the universe. He also said
"emptiness forms the base". Lo translated Pan. "1 Cash, like the
diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate)".
Did Pan know what he was talking about? Did Lo translate Pan's work as
Pan had meant? I-Ching terms are thrown around. What are they doing
here?
Zero Cash had a heading "Void of one cash". Page 87 again, "Zero is
taken to be supreme. This is reversing the hierarchy."
+++++++++++
Let me list a few terms for you to kick around.
Universe, Emptiness, Void, Supreme, grand, Ultimate, Taiji, diagram,
change...
More: "3-Cash. Like the shape of the qian (Creative) trigram.
6-Cash. Like the shape of the kun (Receptive) trigram."
I see many I-Ching terms used. Why? For no reason?
+++++++++++++
> They must actually state or discuss or describe clearly so that we
> know unambiguously what they mean.
>
Now I see why Cash and money is so acceptable. It is unambiguous.
'Tong' means only one thing, Tong Chien. String means only a hundred
Cash (may be a thousand). Myriad means only ten-thousand Cash. Simple
straightforward...
Ever occurred to you that Pan Zhiheng might not have known much about
I-Ching, Book of Changes concepts? He learned the game from his peers
and elders without reference to written instructions. What credible
evidence I have for that claim? The fact he was writing the
instruction manual himself.
Games were there before Pan was born. He was aware many games had been
changed in "application and purpose". The inference is that there were
other older games before Ma Diao.
Is that credible evidence, by the way, for claiming a game such as
mahjong might have a theme or design concept? Other many games had
numerous "application and purpose".
+++++++++++++++++
> This is what was meant by 'objective' evidence.
Can't help but wonder. Did the MDH pass the test?
And I thank you...
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 14, 12:19 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 14, 3:31 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > I will find objective evidence in I-Ching, Book of Changes.
>
> > All that is needed then is any mention in the I Ching, that the
> > concepts found in I Ching were used to design the game of Ma Que -
> > assuming that is the current claim.
>
> That may sound like encouraging words, but to find mention in I-Ching
> for concept used in ma que design?
>
> I am not sure if you really meant that.
Yes. It was stated that; "I will find objective evidence in I-Ching,
Book of Changes."
To be directly relevant it would need to say the I Ching concepts were
used in Ma Que - or another game sharing ma ques features -type of
playing instruments (can be cards), four players, draw and discard,
melds of three or four cards etc.
But perhaps that quote meant something else?
> Don't be surprised if I found mention of divination associated with
> games in ancient history.
That may be the case. But we need objective evidence that I Ching
concepts were used in a preceding game design that has a lineage link
with ma que - for example mo hu pai.
> I-Ching (Book of Changes) dates back thousands years!
> Are you open to consideration for a possibility of an ancient ma que
> game? What name would you be willing to accept besides ma que? It
> probably would not be called ma que if there ever was any similar
> game.
The ancient game would have to have core features that are mostly
similar to ma que's core features, to be of interest.
> > Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
> > who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
>
> Funny thing...
> I-Ching concepts had been used in games before Ma Diao, if you think
> about it.
Please state the reference for this claim, or the games, so it may be
verified.
> Hundred and more games of numerous applications got changed.
> Refer to Manual of Leaves by Lo, page 87, The Playing-Card, v31 N2.
> Quote:
> "There are hundred games and more, because the applications are
> numerous, and changes are the fashion." [CHANGES TOOK PLACE]. Wang
> Daokun, Vice Minister of War, (1525-1593) changed Ma Diao. Again I
> quote:
> "He [Wang Daokun] has reversed the hierarchy of great men and
> dismissed the universe." (Page 87, Lo)
The quotes are accurate but, unfortunately, the conclusions taken from
them are wrong.
The 1st quote is accurate. It appears in the second paragraph and
relates to the four suited money card deck that is described in that
paragraph. In my view, Pan is saying that these type of card packs
were very adaptable – they could be used for numerous games. The
fashion was to make changes to existing games to make up new ones that
could be played with these cards.
The 2nd quote is accurate. It is taken from the third paragraph. The
beginning of the third paragraph is about, in my view, the effect the
appearance of cards for wine drinking had on these money suited cards.
Pan is saying that the many applications or games these cards could be
used for became more shallow because of the influence of the wine
drinking cards.
Wine drinking cards are large and squat and have line drawings of
people taken from ancient novels as well as legendary and historical
figures. Lo says that there is clearly a connection with money suited
cards as some decks have cards labelled at the top with money-suit
signs.
It is this type of cards that Wang Daokun is connected with in Pan’s
account, NOT the thin or slender money suited playing cards described
in paragraphs one and two. We know this since Lo describes more fully
these cards in his chapter on cards in the catalogue Asian Games; the
art of contest. It is that book that was put forward for suggested
reading.
Lo mentions Wang’s connection with these cards (his Rules for cash) in
the copious endnotes about these drinking cards.
Therefore, Wang Daokun did NOT change Ma Diao. He did not change the
four suited money deck at all.
[snipped]
> I see many I-Ching terms used. Why? For no reason?
This was discussed before. Pan used these terms as a means to
illustrate what he was describing.
> > They must actually state or discuss or describe clearly so that we
> > know unambiguously what they mean.
> Now I see why Cash and money is so acceptable. It is unambiguous.
> 'Tong' means only one thing, Tong Chien. String means only a hundred
> Cash (may be a thousand). Myriad means only ten-thousand Cash. Simple
> straightforward...
This is a totally wrong interpretation of what was meant.
> Games were there before Pan was born. He was aware many games had been
> changed in "application and purpose". The inference is that there were
> other older games before Ma Diao.
> Is that credible evidence, by the way, for claiming a game such as
> mahjong might have a theme or design concept? Other many games had
> numerous "application and purpose".
(1)Yes, there were card games before Pan. (see Lo for a discussion).
(2) Yes, many games were changed to create new games that were played
with the *same card deck* - either of four suits or changing it to
three suits by dropping the top suit. Lo describes the different games
played with these cards.
(3) This is credible evidence for the inference that card games
evolved from earlier or preceding card games by making changes to
those card games. This is one premise (abbreviated) that has been
described for the MDH.
(4) Yes, this is evidence that mah-jong might have a theme or design
concept. This is not in dispute. All possibilities remain open.
(5) But what theme or design concept? There is more than one
possibility that can be drawn up. In order for one possibility to be
actual (real) we must have credible objective evidence to support it
and it alone. The theme may be very simple or very complex or
something in between. We just do not know at this point.
al
> On Mar 14, 7:52 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 14, 12:19 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 14, 3:31 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > I will find objective evidence in I-Ching, Book of Changes.
>
> > > All that is needed then is any mention in the I Ching, that the
> > > concepts found in I Ching were used to design the game of Ma Que -
> > > assuming that is the current claim.
>
> > That may sound like encouraging words, but to find mention in I-Ching
> > for concept used in ma que design?
>
> > I am not sure if you really meant that.
>
> Yes. It was stated that; "I will find objective evidence in I-Ching,
> Book of Changes."
>
towards any evidence to come.
++++++++++++++
> To be directly relevant it would need to say the I Ching concepts were
> used in Ma Que - or another game sharing ma ques features -type of
> playing instruments (can be cards), four players, draw and discard,
> melds of three or four cards etc.
>
> But perhaps that quote meant something else?
>
> > Don't be surprised if I found mention of divination associated with
> > games in ancient history.
>
> That may be the case. But we need objective evidence that I Ching
> concepts were used in a preceding game design that has a lineage link
> with ma que - for example mo hu pai.
>
> > I-Ching (Book of Changes) dates back thousands years!
> > Are you open to consideration for a possibility of an ancient ma que
> > game? What name would you be willing to accept besides ma que? It
> > probably would not be called ma que if there ever was any similar
> > game.
>
> The ancient game would have to have core features that are mostly
> similar to ma que's core features, to be of interest.
>
> > > Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
> > > who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
>
> > Funny thing...
> > I-Ching concepts had been used in games before Ma Diao, if you think
> > about it.
>
> Please state the reference for this claim, or the games, so it may be
> verified.
>
can recognize it or not. Some pieces have identical patterns as I
recall,the 5 for example. I have to check on that.
> > Hundred and more games of numerous applications got changed.
> > Refer to Manual of Leaves by Lo, page 87, The Playing-Card, v31 N2.
> > Quote:
> > "There are hundred games and more, because the applications are
> > numerous, and changes are the fashion." [CHANGES TOOK PLACE]. Wang
> > Daokun, Vice Minister of War, (1525-1593) changed Ma Diao. Again I
> > quote:
> > "He [Wang Daokun] has reversed the hierarchy of great men and
> > dismissed the universe." (Page 87, Lo)
>
> The quotes are accurate but, unfortunately, the conclusions taken from
> them are wrong.
>
What conclusion is wrong?
+++++++++++
> The 1st quote is accurate. It appears in the second paragraph and
> relates to the four suited money card deck that is described in that
> paragraph. In my view, Pan is saying that these type of card packs
> were very adaptable – they could be used for numerous games. The
> fashion was to make changes to existing games to make up new ones that
> could be played with these cards.
>
So, some of the games had been changed.
Pan did not exclude Ma Diao. No mention of that. What was there which
Lo translated could have been one that had been changed.
Wang Daokun "dismissed the universe". He "reversed the hierarchy of
great men". That means Zero made supreme or not?
You should review it.
+++++++++++++
> The 2nd quote is accurate. It is taken from the third paragraph. The
> beginning of the third paragraph is about, in my view, the effect the
> appearance of cards for wine drinking had on these money suited cards.
> Pan is saying that the many applications or games these cards could be
> used for became more shallow because of the influence of the wine
> drinking cards.
>
My understanding of "shallow" is deeper than yours.
I see shallowness in a philosophical sense. No reference made in this
page on card-size and shape.
> Wine drinking cards are large and squat and have line drawings of
> people taken from ancient novels as well as legendary and historical
> figures. Lo says that there is clearly a connection with money suited
> cards as some decks have cards labelled at the top with money-suit
> signs.
>
That seems irrelevant. Even the "ten-thousand" sign can be misplaced
or misinterpreted.
> It is this type of cards that Wang Daokun is connected with in Pan’s
> account, NOT the thin or slender money suited playing cards described
> in paragraphs one and two. We know this since Lo describes more fully
> these cards in his chapter on cards in the catalogue Asian Games;
Then what is the meaning of reversing the hierarchy and dismissing the
universe?
++++++++++++++++++
the
> art of contest. It is that book that was put forward for suggested
> reading.
> Lo mentions Wang’s connection with these cards (his Rules for cash) in
> the copious endnotes about these drinking cards.
>
> Therefore, Wang Daokun did NOT change Ma Diao. He did not change the
> four suited money deck at all.
>
I won't say I believe all what you said. I think Wang had changed more
than that. I will have to check into that before I say anything
further.
Wait a minute. Wang "reversed the hierarchy of great men and dismissed
the universe". You are trying to tell me he did not do that?
Wang was the one who made 9 the least and Zero supreme. That is the
order he reversed. The reversed hierarchy is evident in Ma Diao (page
87, TPC V31N2)
As for the "universe", I think there is more meaning to it. And it
does not (not likely anyway) relate to slander or fat cards, in my
view. "Dismiss the universe"? That is a huge thing!
Regardless what Lo said elsewhere. Just look at the items in this
discussion now, page 87 TPC V31N2.
+++++++++++++
> [snipped]
>
> > I see many I-Ching terms used. Why? For no reason?
>
Let me repeat. Many I-Ching terms used in the article by Pan
translated by Lo, TPC V31N2.
Why? That is supposed to be a translation of an instruction manual
written in Chinese by Pan.
Why an instruction manual made reference to I-Ching concepts and used
I-Ching terminology?
Were mahjong players all I-Ching students or scholars who would
understand I-Ching concepts and terms?
When you write an article, you would write for the readers. Right? Why
didn't Pan make it simpler if he could?
> This was discussed before. Pan used these terms as a means to
> illustrate what he was describing.
>
That is obvious. But my question is "Why?"
There has never been 'discussion' on the question. If you had a good
reason, you would have written a page just like that. I see no lengthy
reply.
And I think the answer is becoming obvious too. It's because you can
not find answer for this pertinent question that relates to a source
you want to avoid.
+++++++++++++++++++
> > > They must actually state or discuss or describe clearly so that we
> > > know unambiguously what they mean.
> > Now I see why Cash and money is so acceptable. It is unambiguous.
> > 'Tong' means only one thing, Tong Chien. String means only a hundred
> > Cash (may be a thousand). Myriad means only ten-thousand Cash. Simple
> > straightforward...
>
> This is a totally wrong interpretation of what was meant.
>
The interpretation is alright, including the hidden motive. The demand
is ridiculous. You know how many times the word "probably" is used in
describing anything related to mahjong or any other game history?
You want to shut out anything that threatens your MDH.
+++++++++++++
> > Games were there before Pan was born. He was aware many games had been
> > changed in "application and purpose". The inference is that there were
> > other older games before Ma Diao.
> > Is that credible evidence, by the way, for claiming a game such as
> > mahjong might have a theme or design concept? Other many games had
> > numerous "application and purpose".
>
> (1)Yes, there were card games before Pan. (see Lo for a discussion).
> (2) Yes, many games were changed to create new games that were played
> with the *same card deck* - either of four suits or changing it to
> three suits by dropping the top suit. Lo describes the different games
> played with these cards.
You mean that is common occurrence in game history. Same cards for
different game-play, as I understand it.
> (3) This is credible evidence for the inference that card games
> evolved from earlier or preceding card games by making changes to
> those card games. This is one premise (abbreviated) that has been
> described for the MDH.
Of course that does not necessarily apply to all card games. I mean
some games must have started new somehow sometimes.
However, more meaningful is the implication that symbols may not match
the game-concept, "application and purpose".
And I have said many times. To search for the origin of mahjong,
analyze the rules of play in addition to judging by the symbols.
Symbols get called by mistake. Symbols get changed by artistic
expression. Symbols have more than one interpretations.
Rules are more stable. Some may never change.
Here is puzzling question. Why people insist that mahjong must have
inherited money-symbols from Ma Diao? Why could it not be either from
some other game or originated with the inventor?
+++++++++++++++++
> (4) Yes, this is evidence that mah-jong might have a theme or design
> concept. This is not in dispute. All possibilities remain open.
> (5) But what theme or design concept? There is more than one
> possibility that can be drawn up. In order for one possibility to be
> actual (real) we must have credible objective evidence to support it
> and it alone. The theme may be very simple or very complex or
> something in between. We just do not know at this point.
Have you heard of a complex theme for a game?
Simplicity is the secret to longevity. I said that before.
++++++++++++++++++++
Now see how easy it is to reply when you have an answer? Try to give
even just a probable or possible explanation why so many I-Ching terms
and concepts found in Pan's manual.
++++++++++++++
Cheers...
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 14, 8:25 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 14, 7:52 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 14, 12:19 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 14, 3:31 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > > I will find objective evidence in I-Ching, Book of Changes.
>
> > > > All that is needed then is any mention in the I Ching, that the
> > > > concepts found in I Ching were used to design the game of Ma Que -
> > > > assuming that is the current claim.
>
> > > That may sound like encouraging words, but to find mention in I-Ching
> > > for concept used in ma que design?
>
> > > I am not sure if you really meant that.
>
> > Yes. It was stated that; "I will find objective evidence in I-Ching,
> > Book of Changes."
>
> You know what. That tone in the response conveys a subjective feeling
> towards any evidence to come.
This is confusing. It was stated by the above poster that "I will find
objective evidence in I-Ching, Book of Changes." This claim was made
in relation to MJ design. It was also made after a description of what
"objective evidence" means in relation to MJ game design.
(1) "Hundred and more games of numerous applications got changed."
That is not the same as what the quote says. (see below)
(2) "Wang Daokun, Vice Minister of War, (1525-1593) changed Ma
Diao." (see why below)
> +++++++++++> The 1st quote is accurate. It appears in the second paragraph and
> > relates to the four suited money card deck that is described in that
> > paragraph. In my view, Pan is saying that these type of card packs
> > were very adaptable – they could be used for numerous games. The
> > fashion was to make changes to existing games to make up new ones that
> > could be played with these cards.
>
> So, some of the games had been changed.
> Pan did not exclude Ma Diao. No mention of that. What was there which
> Lo translated could have been one that had been changed.
It is my understanding that the nine games are examples of the hundred
games and more that the applications of the four suited cards allowed.
The games consist of the playing pieces, the rules, the number of
players etc. From Lo's other articles, some of these games are
described. It appears that most of the changes were made by dropping
the top suit, by changing the function of particular cards to allow
different combinations etc.
> Wang Daokun "dismissed the universe". He "reversed the hierarchy of
> great men". That means Zero made supreme or not?
No, not in my opinion. My understanding is this relates to his wine
drinking card game. I am not going to describe how these wine drinking
games were generally played as it would take too long. Please see the
relevant chapter in the book Asian Games; the art of contest.
But it does seem that these games were a type of role-playing game,
played when drinking wine.
But in Wang's game he puts up the poor but virtuous to stand up to the
rich and brash. His game is designed to put the rich and brash to
shame because just having much cash is nothing - one has to be able to
use cash once it is gathered. Thus it seems his game also uses the
money suited cards.
IMO, the great men are considered to be the rich and brash. But in his
game he reverses this and it is the poor who become great, because
they know how to use cash.
> You should review it.
See above.
>
> > The 2nd quote is accurate. It is taken from the third paragraph. The
> > beginning of the third paragraph is about, in my view, the effect the
> > appearance of cards for wine drinking had on these money suited cards.
> > Pan is saying that the many applications or games these cards could be
> > used for became more shallow because of the influence of the wine
> > drinking cards.
>
> My understanding of "shallow" is deeper than yours.
> I see shallowness in a philosophical sense. No reference made in this
> page on card-size and shape.
??? This is not what was meant. The term 'shallow' above refers to
Pan's moral reaction to the uses these cards were put. Indeed, he says
the lewdness displayed when playing these cards "makes one want to
puke."
Also, it seems discussing Buddhism was a feature of these culural
activities.
Please reread what was said in light of this.
> > It is this type of cards that Wang Daokun is connected with in Pan’s
> > account, NOT the thin or slender money suited playing cards described
> > in paragraphs one and two. We know this since Lo describes more fully
> > these cards in his chapter on cards in the catalogue Asian Games;
>
> Then what is the meaning of reversing the hierarchy and dismissing the
> universe?
That is for you to argue.
> Wait a minute. Wang "reversed the hierarchy of great men and dismissed
> the universe". You are trying to tell me he did not do that?
I am not trying to tell you anything. The comments are my
explanantions of my views on the matter.
My view is what was explained above, on this matter. Please reread.
> Wang was the one who made 9 the least and Zero supreme. That is the
> order he reversed. The reversed hierarchy is evident in Ma Diao (page
> 87, TPC V31N2)
We do not know what game cards he was using. I my view, from my
reading of the text, his hierarchy refers to that of poor ----> rich
and brash. In his role playing game he is reversing that.
> As for the "universe", I think there is more meaning to it. And it
> does not (not likely anyway) relate to slander or fat cards, in my
> view. "Dismiss the universe"? That is a huge thing!
You have the freedom to think and accept what you please. My position
is the same but I also want good reasons and credible evidence and
good arguments to pursuade me.
I am open to pursuasion.
> Let me repeat. Many I-Ching terms used in the article by Pan
> translated by Lo, TPC V31N2.
> Why? That is supposed to be a translation of an instruction manual
> written in Chinese by Pan.
>
> Why an instruction manual made reference to I-Ching concepts and used
> I-Ching terminology?
Perhaps because Pan was a Confucian scholar? Perhaps because he was
familiar with those terms. Perhaps becuase his manuals were read by
the literati or educated classes who also knew Confucian concepts
etc.?
> Were mahjong players all I-Ching students or scholars who would
> understand I-Ching concepts and terms?
MJ? There is no mention of MJ. Ma Diao yes. MJ no.
Please explain this confusion.
> And I think the answer is becoming obvious too. It's because you can
> not find answer for this pertinent question that relates to a source
> you want to avoid.
Strange remark.
[snipped irrelevant remarks]
> Here is puzzling question. Why people insist that mahjong must have
> inherited money-symbols from Ma Diao?
Tsk. Tsk. That is NOT what is being claimed.
> Why could it not be either from
> some other game or originated with the inventor?
Tsk. Tsk. No one is denying that posibility. BUT, in the light of NO
credible objective evidence from outside of your explanation, it
remains, IMO, a possibility only.
Hence why the search for confirming or disconfirming evidence.
al
> On Mar 15, 3:06 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 8:25 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 14, 7:52 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 14, 12:19 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 14, 3:31 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > I will find objective evidence in I-Ching, Book of Changes.
>
> > > > > All that is needed then is any mention in the I Ching, that the
> > > > > concepts found in I Ching were used to design the game of Ma Que -
> > > > > assuming that is the current claim.
>
> > > > That may sound like encouraging words, but to find mention in I-Ching
> > > > for concept used in ma que design?
>
> > > > I am not sure if you really meant that.
>
> > > Yes. It was stated that; "I will find objective evidence in I-Ching,
> > > Book of Changes."
>
> > You know what. That tone in the response conveys a subjective feeling
> > towards any evidence to come.
>
> This is confusing. It was stated by the above poster that "I will find
> objective evidence in I-Ching, Book of Changes." This claim was made
> in relation to MJ design. It was also made after a description of what
> "objective evidence" means in relation to MJ game design.
>
the "objective evidence" the next day. I mean I didn't think anybody
would be foolish enough to think that.
>
>
> > > To be directly relevant it would need to say the I Ching concepts were
> > > used in Ma Que - or another game sharing ma ques features -type of
> > > playing instruments (can be cards), four players, draw and discard,
> > > melds of three or four cards etc.
Ma que did not come from whatever in one step. Did it?
Then why can it not evolve from I-Ching concepts in design and end up
eventually as ma que?
>
> > > But perhaps that quote meant something else?
Yes. It meant eventually, if ever, but I will apply my effort to show
you and get you convinced. I think you can still learn the game yet.
>
> > > > Don't be surprised if I found mention of divination associated with
> > > > games in ancient history.
>
> > > That may be the case. But we need objective evidence that I Ching
> > > concepts were used in a preceding game design that has a lineage link
> > > with ma que - for example mo hu pai.
You refused to recognize the three cards or triad in Mo He. You will
move the goal posts if I get to them.
>
> > > > I-Ching (Book of Changes) dates back thousands years!
> > > > Are you open to consideration for a possibility of an ancient ma que
> > > > game? What name would you be willing to accept besides ma que? It
> > > > probably would not be called ma que if there ever was any similar
> > > > game.
>
> > > The ancient game would have to have core features that are mostly
> > > similar to ma que's core features, to be of interest.
Not 148 cards, I hope.
>
> > > > > Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
> > > > > who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
"Actually states" is literally like what? "Probably" just won't do?
Did I mention that historians used that word many times. "Probably" I
did.
>
> > > > Funny thing...
> > > > I-Ching concepts had been used in games before Ma Diao, if you think
> > > > about it.
>
> > > Please state the reference for this claim, or the games, so it may be
> > > verified.
>
TPC V31 N2 has reference made by Pan translated by Lo many I-Ching
terms. The 1-Cash is like taiji diagram. What do you think that is ,
like a guo or a cake?
> > Tien-Gow comes to mind. The cosmological concepts is there whether you
> > can recognize it or not. Some pieces have identical patterns as I
> > recall,the 5 for example. I have to check on that.
Yes. Tien-Gow is likely one link. I will have to work my way to show
you how.
>
> > > > Hundred and more games of numerous applications got changed.
> > > > Refer to Manual of Leaves by Lo, page 87, The Playing-Card, v31 N2.
> > > > Quote:
> > > > "There are hundred games and more, because the applications are
> > > > numerous, and changes are the fashion." [CHANGES TOOK PLACE]. Wang
> > > > Daokun, Vice Minister of War, (1525-1593) changed Ma Diao. Again I
> > > > quote:
> > > > "He [Wang Daokun] has reversed the hierarchy of great men and
> > > > dismissed the universe." (Page 87, Lo)
>
> > > The quotes are accurate but, unfortunately, the conclusions taken from
> > > them are wrong.
>
> > What conclusion is wrong?
>
> (1) "Hundred and more games of numerous applications got changed."
>
> That is not the same as what the quote says. (see below)
>
No difference in meaning.
> (2) "Wang Daokun, Vice Minister of War, (1525-1593) changed Ma
> Diao." (see why below)
>
> > +++++++++++
> The 1st quote is accurate. It appears in the second paragraph and
> > > relates to the four suited money card deck that is described in that
> > > paragraph. In my view, Pan is saying that these type of card packs
> > > were very adaptable – they could be used for numerous games. The
> > > fashion was to make changes to existing games to make up new ones that
> > > could be played with these cards.
>
You may be right. Good point. After all, money is mighty. It can go
with any game.
> > So, some of the games had been changed.
> > Pan did not exclude Ma Diao. No mention of that. [..].
>
> It is my understanding that the nine games are examples of the hundred
> games and more that the applications of the four suited cards allowed.
> The games consist of the playing pieces, the rules, the number of
> players etc. From Lo's other articles, some of these games are
> described. It appears that most of the changes were made by dropping
> the top suit, by changing the function of particular cards to allow
> different combinations etc.
>
> > Wang Daokun "dismissed the universe". He "reversed the hierarchy of
> > great men". That means Zero made supreme or not?
>
> No, not in my opinion. My understanding is this relates to his wine
> drinking card game. I am not going to describe how these wine drinking
> games were generally played as it would take too long. Please see the
> relevant chapter in the book Asian Games; the art of contest.
>
> But it does seem that these games were a type of role-playing game,
> played when drinking wine.
>
> But in Wang's game he puts up the poor but virtuous to stand up to the
> rich and brash. His game is designed to put the rich and brash to
> shame because just having much cash is nothing - one has to be able to
> use cash once it is gathered. Thus it seems his game also uses the
> money suited cards.
>
> IMO, the great men are considered to be the rich and brash. But in his
> game he reverses this and it is the poor who become great, because
> they know how to use cash.
>
Another good point. I can see your point. That is a possible
interpretation.
> >[..]
>
> > > The 2nd quote is accurate. It is taken from the third paragraph. The
> > > beginning of the third paragraph is about, in my view, the effect the
> > > appearance of cards for wine drinking had on these money suited cards.
> > > Pan is saying that the many applications or games these cards could be
> > > used for became more shallow because of the influence of the wine
> > > drinking cards.
That I agree. Shallow dies not apply to card design.
>
> > My understanding of "shallow" is deeper than yours.
> > I see shallowness in a philosophical sense. No reference made in this
> > page on card-size and shape.
>
> ??? This is not what was meant. The term 'shallow' above refers to
> Pan's moral reaction to the uses these cards were put. Indeed, he says
> the lewdness displayed when playing these cards "makes one want to
> puke."
>
Sounds reasonable.
> Also, it seems discussing Buddhism was a feature of these culural
> activities.
>
> Please reread what was said in light of this.
>
> > > It is this type of cards that Wang Daokun is connected with in Pan’s
> > > account, NOT the thin or slender money suited playing cards described
> > > in paragraphs one and two. We know this since Lo describes more fully
> > > these cards in his chapter on cards in the catalogue Asian Games;
>
I have not hd the opportunity to read Lo there.
> > Then what is the meaning of reversing the hierarchy and dismissing the
> > universe?
>
> That is for you to argue.
>
> > Wait a minute. Wang "reversed the hierarchy of great men and dismissed
> > the universe". You are trying to tell me he did not do that?
>
> I am not trying to tell you anything. The comments are my
> explanantions of my views on the matter.
>
> My view is what was explained above, on this matter. Please reread.
>
You made sense in what is explained.
> > Wang was the one who made 9 the least and Zero supreme. That is the
> > order he reversed. The reversed hierarchy is evident in Ma Diao (page
> > 87, TPC V31N2)
>
> We do not know what game cards he was using. I my view, from my
> reading of the text, his hierarchy refers to that of poor ----> rich
> and brash. In his role playing game he is reversing that.
>
Sounds reasonable.
> > As for the "universe", I think there is more meaning to it. And it
> > does not (not likely anyway) relate to slander or fat cards, in my
> > view. "Dismiss the universe"? That is a huge thing!
>
> You have the freedom to think and accept what you please. My position
> is the same but I also want good reasons and credible evidence and
> good arguments to pursuade me.
>
> I am open to pursuasion.
>
Difficult to tell.
> > Let me repeat. Many I-Ching terms used in the article by Pan
> > translated by Lo, TPC V31N2.
> > Why? That is supposed to be a translation of an instruction manual
> > written in Chinese by Pan.
>
> > Why an instruction manual made reference to I-Ching concepts and used
> > I-Ching terminology?
>
> Perhaps because Pan was a Confucian scholar? Perhaps because he was
> familiar with those terms. Perhaps becuase his manuals were read by
> the literati or educated classes who also knew Confucian concepts
> etc.?
>
"Perhaps"... Possible, but not probable?
> > Were mahjong players all I-Ching students or scholars who would
> > understand I-Ching concepts and terms?
>
> MJ? There is no mention of MJ. Ma Diao yes. MJ no.
You are right again.
>
> Please explain this confusion.
>
> > And I think the answer is becoming obvious too. It's because you can
> > not find answer for this pertinent question that relates to a source
> > you want to avoid.
>
> Strange remark.
>
My sense is that you never wanted anything to interfer with your
belief in the Cash theory. You avoid even to comment when I found and
showed the I-Ching symbols link over a year ago. The timing seems to
be in conflict with your joint effort on your article on the CDH.
> [snipped irrelevant remarks]
>
> > Here is puzzling question. Why people insist that mahjong must have
> > inherited money-symbols from Ma Diao?
>
> Tsk. Tsk. That is NOT what is being claimed.
>
> > Why could it not be either from
> > some other game or originated with the inventor?
>
> Tsk. Tsk. No one is denying that posibility. BUT, in the light of NO
> credible objective evidence from outside of your explanation, it
> remains, IMO, a possibility only.
>
> Hence why the search for confirming or disconfirming evidence.
+++++++++++++
You expect some one to have said explicitly that ma que is based on I-
Ching. No such specificity in ma que history.
Your MDH 40 cards to 30 cards was only a "probable" event as a
conjecture of some one.
+++++++++++++++
I have an uneasy feeling that historians like Himly and collector like
Glover are not mahjong players. What do you know of their background
knowledge of the game?
And how much game playing hands-on experience do you have?
I would like to know so I can respond accordingly in future posts.
+++++++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 16, 10:17 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 15, 3:06 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Ma que did not come from whatever in one step. Did it?
> Then why can it not evolve from I-Ching concepts in design and end up
> eventually as ma que?
That is acceptable. But I did not get that meaning from what you said.
That is why I had to ask you what you meant. But you got my meaning
wrong and jumped to a wrong conclusion.
> > > > But perhaps that quote meant something else?
>
> Yes. It meant eventually, if ever, but I will apply my effort to show
> you and get you convinced. I think you can still learn the game yet.
Can you see now? I was asking you if you meant something else. It is
now clear that what you wrote did not have the meaning I thought it
had.
What do you mean by “I think you can still learn the game yet.”?
> You refused to recognize the three cards or triad in Mo He. You will
> move the goal posts if I get to them.
What three cards in Mo He? Are you sure you meant Mo He?
You mentioned three cards in the Glover sets.
If you meant in the Glover sets as the HK, MK and EK (Heavenly King
etc) then I didn't refuse to recognise them. I have seen Heaven, Earth
and Man mentioned. I didn't accept your connection with ZFB because I
still don't understand what you are claiming.
What “goal posts” do you mean?
I have never moved the goal posts. What has clearly happened many
times, is that you have misunderstood my statements. You have
mentioned the statements and words being too long and by your replies
you clearly had a problem understanding them because I had to keep on
re explaining what I said.
What you also failed to understand is the *role* of logical thinking
and the *role* of different types of evidence in claims or arguments.
I am not attacking you or criticizing your personal qualities here, so
please don't start calling me names etc.
> > > > > I-Ching (Book of Changes) dates back thousands years!
> > > > > Are you open to consideration for a possibility of an ancient ma que
> > > > > game? What name would you be willing to accept besides ma que? It
> > > > > probably would not be called ma que if there ever was any similar
> > > > > game.
>
> > > > The ancient game would have to have core features that are mostly
> > > > similar to ma que's core features, to be of interest.
>
> Not 148 cards, I hope.
For ‘core features’, please read my posts in the threads;
Winds Order.
What is Maque/Mahjong? (was Winds Order).
This subject is complex and I do not have the time to repeat my
arguments again, so reading those threads will bring you up to speed
with my thinking on the matter.
If you wish to ask me specific questions about those posts then I will
try and answer them.
> > > > > > Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
> > > > > > who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
>
> "Actually states" is literally like what? "Probably" just won't do?
Literally it means that if I find some Ming dynasty Ma Diao cards and
I know nothing else about them, but I claim, "Gosh! The round symbols
on one suit of these cards used in Ma Diao look like or correlate with
cash coins. I think the suit is called Cash!"
Someone comes along and says; "So what? What evidence have you got
beyond the fact that they *look like* cash coins?"
I go away and find a document from the Ming period in which the game
of Ma Diao is described and the cards used for it are described and
one of the suits in my claim is described and is called Cash.
Then I can claim that that the document **actually states** that this
suit is called Cash.
Actually states = the statements exists in reality, they are
unambiguous.
> Did I mention that historians used that word many times. "Probably" I
> did.
Yes you did. But when you mentioned it you linked it with a
*statistical argument* and when I asked you what that argument was, so
I could understand what you meant, you did not give any explanation.
I even gave other meanings that you might have meant for the term but
you did not reply to those either.
> > > > > Funny thing...
> > > > > I-Ching concepts had been used in games before Ma Diao, if you think
> > > > > about it.
> > > > Please state the reference for this claim, or the games, so it may be
> > > > verified.
> TPC V31 N2 has reference made by Pan translated by Lo many I-Ching
> terms. The 1-Cash is like taiji diagram. What do you think that is ,
> like a guo or a cake?
You see the problem I have? You said "… I-Ching concepts had been used
in games BEFORE Ma Diao...". Isn't that what you said? You said BEFORE
Ma Diao?
So what games BEFORE Ma Diao? That is all I want to know.
> > > Tien-Gow comes to mind. The cosmological concepts is there whether you
> > > can recognize it or not. Some pieces have identical patterns as I
> > > recall,the 5 for example. I have to check on that.
I know about Tian Jiu 'Heavens and Nines’. These are dominoes. These
tablets or cards are well known amongst researchers and other members
of this forum. Lo and Wilkinson and Culin have commented on them etc.
I have also commented on the fact that they have the terms Heaven,
Earth, Man and Harmony linked with the dominoes 6-6, 1-1, 4-4 and 1-3.
But there is NO evidence that I have found this game predates or comes
BEFORE Ma Diao. The dominoes do, but I have yet to see any mention of
the terms above linked to the specific dominoes outside of the game.
If anyone has any info I would be interested.
The earliest description of Tian Jiu is from Pan Zhiheng's 'Sequel to
a Manual of Leaves'.(see Lo)
A much better candidate in my opinion for MAYBE an influence is the
game of Tong Qi. The game was played in a similar manner to Ma Que
according to Lo, and dates from around the same time. Or, it *may be*
that it was created by taking the dominoes and using them for a game
similar to the precursor type of game to Ma Que such as mo hu or peng
hu.
> Yes. Tien-Gow is likely one link. I will have to work my way to show
> you how.
Please do, but keep in mind that you are claiming a game that came
BEFORE Ma Diao. Perhaps you would like to change that?
Also, I would like to remind you that I am aware of games that have
divinational uses and also that have I Ching concepts in them and were
perhaps created with their portrayal in mind.
I would like to draw your attention to the ~18th century game of Shi
Hu. It was played with a money suited card deck. However, its RULES
were used as a basis for the game called ba gua yexi (8 hexagram
card). This game was invented (according to Lo) by Yu Yue (1821 –
1907).
Most of these points are taken from Lo’s chapter in Asain Games; the
art of contest.
Most of what I have written summarises the point that card games
evolve from preceding card games. The depth of the process or
influence is a matter for evidence. For example, the game just
mentioned; It consists of a name, rules and playing pieces etc. These
are all features of the game. We can see that Lo’s account says that
the game’s rules were influenced by a preceding money suited card
games rules. The entire game was invented BUT was a combination a
various influences. We know of one, because we have credible evidence
taken from the inventors own detailed testimony.
> > > What conclusion is wrong?
> > (1) "Hundred and more games of numerous applications got changed."
> > That is not the same as what the quote says. (see below)
>
> No difference in meaning.
Oh yes there is.
You said; “Hundred and more games of numerous applications got
changed."
The quote says; "There are hundred games and more, because the
applications are
numerous, and changes are the fashion."
IMO, your quote is saying that the hundred games have numerous
applications. Pan is saying that it is the type of cards that have
numerous applications and hence why there are a hundred games or more.
> > I am open to pursuasion.
>
> Difficult to tell.
No it isn’t. Please do not get upset just because people do not accept
what you claim.
If you want people to accept what you claim then you have got to
satisfy their criteria = (***rules***) for accepting something.
If you think their **rules** are wrong then you have the freedom to
say so and argue your point of view with reasons and logic.
> > > Why an instruction manual made reference to I-Ching concepts and used
> > > I-Ching terminology?
>
> > Perhaps because Pan was a Confucian scholar? Perhaps because he was
> > familiar with those terms. Perhaps becuase his manuals were read by
> > the literati or educated classes who also knew Confucian concepts
> > etc.?
>
> "Perhaps"... Possible, but not probable?
Yes,partly. But it was the author who made reference to those concepts
for descriptive purposes. Since we have no evidence why he used those
terms in his description then we have to use the terms ‘perhaps’ or
‘possible’. Probable can mean a slight amount of evidence to a load of
evidence and since we have none (to my knowledge) about what sort of
philosophical thinking Pan believed in, I used ‘perhaps’.
> > > And I think the answer is becoming obvious too. It's because you can
> > > not find answer for this pertinent question that relates to a source
> > > you want to avoid.
> > Strange remark.
> My sense is that you never wanted anything to interfere with your
> belief in the Cash theory. You avoid even to comment when I found and
> showed the I-Ching symbols link over a year ago. The timing seems to
> be in conflict with your joint effort on your article on the CDH.
I find peoples’ willingness to assume things about me to be most
weird. This has happened in my workplace when discussing matters of
interest. I spend a lot of time explaining to my colleagues that they
are wrong about what I say and how their wrongness more often than not
is only because they makes assumptions without realising it and then
jump to conclusions.
If you have a ‘sense’ about something then jolly well come out and
ask. Do not assume. Do you mean ‘feeling’ when you say ‘sense’?
I make unwarranted assumptions – most people do all the time. But I
try damn hard not to.
Because this is a written form of communication, then when you get a
sense, it is very easy just to ask if what you sense is for real.
As to avoiding. I cannot put it more plainly than this. It just so
happens to be, in my estimation, the most useful explanation that I
have come across.
“In my estimation” means that by my rules of evidence and logic.
And that doesn’t mean I am not aware of other explanations. All other
explanations should be kept on standby, in case a piece of evidence
shows up that any of them can explain or that it confirms to some
degree.
> You expect some one to have said explicitly that ma que is based on I-
> Ching. No such specificity in ma que history.
There should be some explicit mention of I Ching concepts in written
accounts of ma que – in descriptions of its rules, the tile insignias
etc. Otherwise, we don’t know either way – maybe it was and maybe it
wasn’t. We just don’t know.
Sure, things look like other things. Coincidences are utterly common.
We can read more into something than what is really there. We can see
something in something else that isn’t there.
To really stop any of that from happening, we must proportion our
beliefs to credible/compelling evidence and hence reasons - to put our
beliefs beyond reasonable doubt.
It is exactly like a court of law. Why should we believe the
prosecution’s claim that so an so was there therefore he did it? We
mustn’t. They must demonstrate their claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
> Your MDH 40 cards to 30 cards was only a "probable" event as a
> conjecture of some one.
I don’t know what this means.
> I have an uneasy feeling that historians like Himly and collector like
> Glover are not mahjong players. What do you know of their background
> knowledge of the game?
I don’t have anything about their background knowledge of the game.
Annoyingly, they didn’t mention anything in their writings as far as I
am aware – apart from a brief note by Himly(see other post).
That is why I am extremely reluctant to guess anything about their
background knowledge.
> And how much game playing hands-on experience do you have?
I do not play now. I played when I was much younger – in New Zealand.
But I would like to know why you think experience PLAYING the game is
relevant to the game’s very early development? It is an interesting
notion. Can you please clarify what you mean?
al
++++++++++++++
I am all tired out just reading this.
But I thank you for the reply and helpful leads.
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 17, 7:52 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> I am all tired out just reading this.
> But I thank you for the reply and helpful leads.
Well, I know what you mean. It took me a lot of my time and effort to
answer your post as I thought it was the right thing to do.
It is very exhausting work.
I am assuming from your last sentence that you will not be replying to
the many points I raised?
You are welcome to the leads.
al
> You are welcome to the leads.
++++++++++++
Cheers....
al
> On Mar 16, 10:48 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 16, 10:17 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 15, 3:06 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Ma que did not come from whatever in one step. Did it?
> > Then why can it not evolve from I-Ching concepts in design and end up
> > eventually as ma que?
>
> That is acceptable. But I did not get that meaning from what you said.
> That is why I had to ask you what you meant. But you got my meaning
> wrong and jumped to a wrong conclusion.
>
But your verbosity is wearing me down.
Can you limit the points to just a few in a post?
[..]
>
> What do you mean by “I think you can still learn the game yet.”?
>
It was meant for sarcasm. I thought you don't have much playing
experience.
> > You refused to recognize the three cards or triad in Mo He. You will
> > move the goal posts if I get to them.
>
> What three cards in Mo He? Are you sure you meant Mo He?
>
The Red Flower, White Flower and the Old Thousand.
> You mentioned three cards in the Glover sets.
>
> If you meant in the Glover sets as the HK, MK and EK (Heavenly King
> etc) then I didn't refuse to recognise them. I have seen Heaven, Earth
> and Man mentioned. I didn't accept your connection with ZFB because I
> still don't understand what you are claiming.
>
ZFB = MEH = ManEarthHeaven.
> What “goal posts” do you mean?
>
When I found I-Ching correspondence (first you said would look at it),
then you added more conditions.
>[..]
>
> What you also failed to understand is the *role* of logical thinking
> and the *role* of different types of evidence in claims or arguments.
>
But I do not see that "logic" in your CDH or MDH.
>[..]
> > > > > > I-Ching (Book of Changes) dates back thousands years!
> > > > > > Are you open to consideration for a possibility of an ancient ma que
> > > > > > game? What name would you be willing to accept besides ma que? It
> > > > > > probably would not be called ma que if there ever was any similar
> > > > > > game.
>
> > > > > The ancient game would have to have core features that are mostly
> > > > > similar to ma que's core features, to be of interest.
Can you state clearly these "core features"? Then I will know what I
must search for.
[..]
> For ‘core features’, please read my posts in the threads;
> Winds Order.
> What is Maque/Mahjong? (was Winds Order).
>
I tried and failed to find that post. Please simply restate the core
features in a paragraph.
> This subject is complex and I do not have the time to repeat my
> arguments again, so reading those threads will bring you up to speed
> with my thinking on the matter.
>
No argument necessary; only a statement of core features is needed.
> If you wish to ask me specific questions about those posts then I will
> try and answer them.
>
I have no specific question at this point.
> > > > > > > Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
> > > > > > > who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
Did anybody "actually states that money was used as the round symbol
and why is that somebody so credible? In view of the 'fact' that games
got changed during Ming drinking-card period. Symbols might not match
games' application and purpose.
Who knows and how he knows for sure money symbols were adopted for
mahjong? Those symbol don't look like Cash to me.
Why did you accept it at face-value?
The man who first used the term Cash may not have played the game.
>
> > "Actually states" is literally like what? "Probably" just won't do?
>
> Literally it means that if I find some Ming dynasty Ma Diao cards and
> I know nothing else about them, but I claim, "Gosh! The round symbols
> on one suit of these cards used in Ma Diao look like or correlate with
> cash coins. I think the suit is called Cash!"
> Someone comes along and says; "So what? What evidence have you got
> beyond the fact that they *look like* cash coins?"
> I go away and find a document from the Ming period in which the game
> of Ma Diao is described and the cards used for it are described and
> one of the suits in my claim is described and is called Cash.
>
> Then I can claim that that the document **actually states** that this
> suit is called Cash.
>
> Actually states = the statements exists in reality, they are
> unambiguous.
>
First, that so-called Cash is also called GUO, fruit.
Secon, that fruit looks like a taiji diagram.
Third, there is the highest card called Empty Hot Water Bottle.
Need I say more? What kind of Cash this you are talking about? It is
all funny money!
And just because somebody had written it and another person translated
it into English so you could read. Then that became credible evidence?
Where is all the logic and critical thinking?
> >[..]
> > > > > > Funny thing...
> > > > > > I-Ching concepts had been used in games before Ma Diao, if you think
> > > > > > about it.
> > > > > Please state the reference for this claim, or the games, so it may be
> > > > > verified.
> > TPC V31 N2 has reference made by Pan translated by Lo many I-Ching
> > terms. The 1-Cash is like taiji diagram. What do you think that is ,
> > like a guo or a cake?
>
> You see the problem I have? You said "… I-Ching concepts had been used
> in games BEFORE Ma Diao...". Isn't that what you said? You said BEFORE
> Ma Diao?
>
> So what games BEFORE Ma Diao? That is all I want to know.
>
> > > > Tien-Gow comes to mind. The cosmological concepts is there whether you
> > > > can recognize it or not. Some pieces have identical patterns as I
> > > > recall,the 5 for example. I have to check on that.
>
> I know about Tian Jiu 'Heavens and Nines’. These are dominoes. These
> tablets or cards are well known amongst researchers and other members
> of this forum. Lo and Wilkinson and Culin have commented on them etc.
> I have also commented on the fact that they have the terms Heaven,
> Earth, Man and Harmony linked with the dominoes 6-6, 1-1, 4-4 and 1-3.
>
Then why didn't you search a little further?
Can you not see the round shapes? There are correspondence in the
concept of Heaven King, Earth King and Man King.
Conceptual similarity is more reliable than graphical resemblance.
That is like saying character is more important than looks.
> But there is NO evidence that I have found this game predates or comes
> BEFORE Ma Diao. The dominoes do, but I have yet to see any mention of
> the terms above linked to the specific dominoes outside of the game.
>
"Outside of the game"?
That is like moving the goal post.
If you don't find anything, then there is nothing?
Dominoes and mahjong are like moneys and chimpanzees or vise versa.
They belong in the animal kingdom or whatever. Ma Diao is a bird. It
does even belong to mahjong. There is hardly a trace of DNA there
common between Ma Diao and mahjong.
The analogy may not be exact scientifically, but you get what I mean.
As far as evidence goes, how much literature written on geocentric
theory for years? There was a mountain of material evidence from the
authorities of those years. Galileo proved them all wrong. Relying
totally on past and existent knowledge is unwise. Exercise judgment.
> If anyone has any info I would be interested.
>
> The earliest description of Tian Jiu is from Pan Zhiheng's 'Sequel to
> a Manual of Leaves'.(see Lo)
>
Do you have a page number?
> A much better candidate in my opinion for MAYBE an influence is the
> game of Tong Qi. The game was played in a similar manner to Ma Que
> according to Lo, and dates from around the same time. Or, it *may be*
> that it was created by taking the dominoes and using them for a game
> similar to the precursor type of game to Ma Que such as mo hu or peng
> hu.
>
Where can I get further details on that Tong Qi?
This could be a good lead.
> > Yes. Tien-Gow is likely one link. I will have to work my way to show
> > you how.
>
> Please do, but keep in mind that you are claiming a game that came
> BEFORE Ma Diao. Perhaps you would like to change that?
>
I have no fixation on Ma Diao. The game doesn't even have a real name.
I don't consider the authors credibly educated when they mixed the I-
Ching symbols with Cash irrationally.
> Also, I would like to remind you that I am aware of games that have
> divinational uses and also that have I Ching concepts in them and were
> perhaps created with their portrayal in mind.
>
Are you telling me the oracle mahjong?
> I would like to draw your attention to the ~18th century game of Shi
> Hu. It was played with a money suited card deck. However, its RULES
> were used as a basis for the game called ba gua yexi (8 hexagram
> card). This game was invented (according to Lo) by Yu Yue (1821 –
> 1907).
>
I will need more time to study each of the above.
> Most of these points are taken from Lo’s chapter in Asain Games; the
> art of contest.
>
I could not find this book. Any direct lead here?
> Most of what I have written summarises the point that card games
> evolve from preceding card games. The depth of the process or
> influence is a matter for evidence. For example, the game just
> mentioned; It consists of a name, rules and playing pieces etc. These
> are all features of the game. We can see that Lo’s account says that
> the game’s rules were influenced by a preceding money suited card
> games rules. The entire game was invented BUT was a combination a
> various influences. We know of one, because we have credible evidence
> taken from the inventors own detailed testimony.
>
What I dislike most is the term "Money-suited". When a game changed or
evolved out of some other games, it does not necessarily continue to
be "money-suited".
[..]
> > > >[..]
>
> >[..]
>
> > You expect some one to have said explicitly that ma que is based on I-
> > Ching. No such specificity in ma que history.
>
> There should be some explicit mention of I Ching concepts in written
> accounts of ma que – in descriptions of its rules, the tile insignias
> etc. Otherwise, we don’t know either way – maybe it was and maybe it
> wasn’t. We just don’t know.
>
Find a date (approximate) for photo 78 and 79 on page 55 Illustrated
Book of the Nahjong Museum.
The description is explicit.
> [..]
> It is exactly like a court of law. Why should we believe the
> prosecution’s claim that so an so was there therefore he did it? We
> mustn’t. They must demonstrate their claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> > Your MDH 40 cards to 30 cards was only a "probable" event as a
> > conjecture of some one.
>
> I don’t know what this means.
>
This refers to the derivation of mahjong quadrupling 30 cards to 120.
The 30 was said to have reduced from 40.
Pan wrote about dropping 10 cards but who extrapolated the
quadruplication? Was there actual credible evidence?
> > I have an uneasy feeling that historians like Himly and collector like
> > Glover are not mahjong players. What do you know of their background
> > knowledge of the game?
Did either one write any account of playing a game with so and so? I
would expect some interesting encounter in some actual experience if
they did.
>
> I don’t have anything about their background knowledge of the game.
> Annoyingly, they didn’t mention anything in their writings as far as I
> am aware – apart from a brief note by Himly(see other post).
>
Without reading further posts, I will bet he was a non-player.
> That is why I am extremely reluctant to guess anything about their
> background knowledge.
>
> > And how much game playing hands-on experience do you have?
>
> I do not play now. I played when I was much younger – in New Zealand.
>
> But I would like to know why you think experience PLAYING the game is
> relevant to the game’s very early development? It is an interesting
> notion. Can you please clarify what you mean?
+++++++++++
First prior knowledge can influence perception and gullibility on the
one hand and it can affect the sense of curiosity on the other. The
less one knows a game the more curious but also more gullible about
what is heard or read. On the hand, the more one knows of a game or
something else, the tendency is to be less curious but more discerning
of what is read or heard.
For example, the Chinese people who played the mahjong game who told
Himly about the game were not curious about the game at all. They
called the round thing by different names. They did not care much what
the round things were. But if you told them you don't have to have
equal tiles for each wall, they might not believe you so readily.
++++++++++++++++++
Hands-on experience enhances depth of perception and judgment.
++++++++++
Cheers....
P.S. please present shorter posts.
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 17, 7:52 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 16, 10:48 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 16, 10:17 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 15, 3:06 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> But your verbosity is wearing me down.
> Can you limit the points to just a few in a post?
> [..]
That will be a problem. I take every point you make seriously.
Just one of your answers tend to contain many points that need
answering.
I try and make my answers thorough and as complete as I can so you can
understand my reasoning.
You have had a tendency to misinterpret me so often that I now take
precautions by describing my thinking as thoroughly as I can.
But I will try and limit it where I can.
Is that ok?
I don’t mind if you want to answer in more than one post. I also don’t
mind if you want to take as much time as you like to reply.
> > What do you mean by “I think you can still learn the game yet.”?
>
> It was meant for sarcasm. I thought you don't have much playing
> experience.
Why did you feel you needed to be sarcastic at me?
[I have snipped quite a lot so as to make this post brief]
> I tried and failed to find that post. Please simply restate the core
> features in a paragraph.
You said;
“I-Ching (Book of Changes) dates back thousands years!
Are you open to consideration for a possibility of an ancient ma que
game? What name would you be willing to accept besides ma que? It
probably would not be called ma que if there ever was any similar
game.”
Ok. I am doing you a BIG favour here. Since it requires explanation,
then I am going to have to use many words.
Core features are my *necessary conditions* for a game to be
considered a ma que game
I am prepared for it not to be called ma que.
These conditions are;
(1) Having playing instruments consisting of three, money-derived
suits each with 1 - 9 consecutive units (or one alternative suit)
with
each suit quadruplicated, together with four, quadruplicated,
Directions (or Directions alternatives) is a condition, but it is not
the only condition that has to be satisfied for some game to be a
game
of maque.
(2) Having a melds only consisting of the formulae of chows, pungs,
kongs and pairs (of identical units) is a condition.
Both (1) and (2) are each the necessary conditions for maque. They
are
those things whose absence (either one or both) *guarantees* that a
game of maque cannot be played.
> > > > > > > > Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
> > > > > > > > who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
> Did anybody "actually states that money was used as the round symbol
> and why is that somebody so credible? In view of the 'fact' that games
> got changed during Ming drinking-card period. Symbols might not match
> games' application and purpose.
> Who knows and how he knows for sure money symbols were adopted for
> mahjong? Those symbol don't look like Cash to me.
> Why did you accept it at face-value?
I haven’t. That is why the MDH is a hypothesis. It consists of a
series of arguments whose conclusions each go to being one of the
statements in the hypothesis. The various arguments consist of
supported premises and justified assumptions.
Your explanation lacks any form of support from outside of your own
interpretations from your own thinking. I have been saying this for a
long time.
Can you please tell me if you have anything to support your claims,
from outside of your interpretations?
> The man who first used the term Cash may not have played the game.
You see? This is what I am talking about. (Please don’t get upset with
things I am going to say as I am telling them to you with the
sincerest of motives. And I am not trying to be clever with words
either. I am trying to show you how I see your reasoning. If you think
I am wrong, then tell me your reasoning.)
I think you are saying; “no one has proved the man who first used the
term Cash, had played the game. Therefore he may not have played the
game.”
Your lack of evidence is evidence for nothing at all, is it?
That is why I am really not interested in “may not”. The reason why is
that it tells me nothing. You have no evidence to show me to back up
your claim, do you?
> > Actually states = the statements exists in reality, they are
> > unambiguous.
>
> First, that so-called Cash is also called GUO, fruit.
Yes. But its original meaning was CASH, wasn’t it.
> Second, that fruit looks like a taiji diagram.
Where does it say that?
> Third, there is the highest card called Empty Hot Water Bottle.
I can’t find that. Can you tell me where it is? I remember the name
though.
> Need I say more? What kind of Cash this you are talking about? It is
> all funny money!
We are talking about playing cards aren’t we? The cards are named
after denominations of cash. The suits represent a hierarchy of units
of cash. Some of these cards have different names – a nickname for
example.
> And just because somebody had written it and another person translated
> it into English so you could read. Then that became credible evidence?
I don’t understand your argument. Are you saying the author did not
exist?
Perhaps you mean that since somebody wrote it and somebody translated
it then the I Ching is not credible either? Perhaps this applies to
any written account?
> Where is all the logic and critical thinking?
Unfortunately, I must ask you toplease reread all the other posts
relating to this subject. I cannot go on because I am restricted by
keeping my answers as short as possible. I hope you understand.
> > I know about Tian Jiu 'Heavens and Nines’. These are dominoes. These
> > tablets or cards are well known amongst researchers and other members
> > of this forum. Lo and Wilkinson and Culin have commented on them etc.
> > I have also commented on the fact that they have the terms Heaven,
> > Earth, Man and Harmony linked with the dominoes 6-6, 1-1, 4-4 and 1-3.
>
> Then why didn't you search a little further?
Why are you assuming I didn’t? You don’t know what I have done. You
don’t know anything at all about my research other than what you have
been told or read. Please can you stop assuming things about me.
> Can you not see the round shapes? There are correspondence in the
> concept of Heaven King, Earth King and Man King.
I am sorry. What round shapes?
> Conceptual similarity is more reliable than graphical resemblance.
That is really too deep for me. Can you please tell me what you mean
by that?
> If you don't find anything, then there is nothing?
No. If you don’t find anything = no evidence. But, no evidence doesn’t
= the something doesn’t exist. You need evidence to show something
does or doesn’t exist.
Do you remember me saying this a lot? If you don’t find anything,
there is no compelling reason for thinking your something does exist.
> Dominoes and mahjong are like moneys and chimpanzees or vise versa.
> They belong in the animal kingdom or whatever. Ma Diao is a bird. It
> does even belong to mahjong. There is hardly a trace of DNA there
> common between Ma Diao and mahjong.
> The analogy may not be exact scientifically, but you get what I mean.
I think so. I really think you do not understand the MDH at all, you
know? It is a real pity because I have really tried with a lot of
effort and my time, to explain it to you.
I am really, really, sorry you do not understand it.
My simple, short answer (I hope you find it short)is that Ma Diao is
not a precursor game play to Ma que. It is only the playing
instruments and may be some minor method like the anticlockwise order
of play, that are important, because its playing instruments were used
and adapted for many different games such that they ended up as three
suits and then they were doubled and quintupled and quadrupled etc.
> As far as evidence goes, how much literature written on geocentric
> theory for years? There was a mountain of material evidence from the
> authorities of those years. Galileo proved them all wrong. Relying
> totally on past and existent knowledge is unwise. Exercise judgment.
You have said this before. Do you remember?
The simplest and shortest answer is that we rely on evidence. We are
justified in believing a claim if we have no good reason to doubt it.
A good reason is one that has evidence in its favour. Ok?
If contrary or disconfirming evidence comes along then we will have to
adapt or change our claims.
> > The earliest description of Tian Jiu is from Pan Zhiheng's 'Sequel to
> > a Manual of Leaves'.(see Lo)
>
> Do you have a page number?
Page 222. TP-c. V31. #5.
> Where can I get further details on that Tong Qi?
Lo’s chapter in Asain Games is the only lead I am aware of at this
time.
> I have no fixation on Ma Diao. The game doesn't even have a real name.
> I don't consider the authors credibly educated when they mixed the I-
> Ching symbols with Cash irrationally.
Oh but they didn’t. That is just your misunderstanding of them. But
you are entitled to think what you will.
> Are you telling me the oracle mahjong?
No. One of the games is below.
> > I would like to draw your attention to the ~18th century game of Shi
> > Hu. It was played with a money suited card deck. However, its RULES
> > were used as a basis for the game called ba gua yexi (8 hexagram
> > card). This game was invented (according to Lo) by Yu Yue (1821 –
> > 1907).
>
> I will need more time to study each of the above.
>
> > Most of these points are taken from Lo’s chapter in Asain Games; the
> > art of contest.
>
> I could not find this book. Any direct lead here?
Try abebooks on the internet. It was put out by the Asia Society, New
York. It is pretty expensive.
>
> What I dislike most is the term "Money-suited". When a game changed or
> evolved out of some other games, it does not necessarily continue to
> be "money-suited".
This is true. I use the term to refer to the three suits as an origin
term derived from the MDH. It is quite clear that the meanings of the
three suits changed over time. Early players and manufacturers may or
may not have been aware of the suits derivations – but the hypothesis
proposes that the terms remained as did a form of the insignia. But
over time their meanings were changed and the insignia were abstracted
or changed as well.
> Find a date (approximate) for photo 78 and 79 on page 55 Illustrated
> Book of the Nahjong Museum.
> The description is explicit.
I have no idea what you mean. You want me to find a date? Why? It is
you who need to surely. You are making the claim about that deck
aren’t you?
> Pan wrote about dropping 10 cards but who extrapolated the
> quadruplication? Was there actual credible evidence?
Yes. Lo mentions the games in his chapter from Asian Games. He
mentions the sources of the texts.
> Did either one write any account of playing a game with so and so? I
> would expect some interesting encounter in some actual experience if
> they did.
I don’t know of any writings I am afraid.
> > I don’t have anything about their background knowledge of the game.
> > Annoyingly, they didn’t mention anything in their writings as far as I
> > am aware – apart from a brief note by Himly(see other post).
>
> Without reading further posts, I will bet he was a non-player.
Why? Do you have some evidence?
> > But I would like to know why you think experience PLAYING the game is
> > relevant to the game’s very early development? It is an interesting
> > notion. Can you please clarify what you mean?
> First prior knowledge can influence perception and gullibility on the
> one hand and it can affect the sense of curiosity on the other. The
> less one knows a game the more curious but also more gullible about
> what is heard or read. On the hand, the more one knows of a game or
> something else, the tendency is to be less curious but more discerning
> of what is read or heard.
This all depends on how people acquire knowledge. It depends on each
individual.
> For example, the Chinese people who played the mahjong game who told
> Himly about the game were not curious about the game at all.
How do you know?
> They called the round thing by different names.
Where does it say that in Himly?
> They did not much care what the round things were.
How do you know that as well? May be they did and maybe they didn’t.
> Hands-on experience enhances depth of perception and judgment.
It may enhance or it may not. It all depends on how that experience is
understood and assimilated by each individual. I know of people who
have had a bad experience of a particular group of people. They
extrapolated their experiences to all of those types of people and are
now bigoted towards them.
> P.S. please present shorter posts.
I have tried to keep my answers short but your post was very long.
I will delete any points you make that I know are repetitions. When I
do please do not take offense or get upset or take it personally.
al
> On Mar 19, 3:35 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 7:52 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 16, 10:48 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 16, 10:17 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 15, 3:06 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > But your verbosity is wearing me down.
> > Can you limit the points to just a few in a post?
> > [..]
>
> > > [..]
> [..]
> >[..]
"Three money-derived suits" should not be a necessary condition.
This restricts the game to be a product of evolution and never a
possible invention. There is such thing as a game of invention. (Tong
Qi, you said?)
Three symbol suits...
++++++++++++
A predecessor of mahjong does not have to quadruplicated and played
with rules include combination of pengs and kongs as a mahjong game is
playee today.
"Directions or Directions alternative" should not be a condition at
the start of the game's inception. Any invention goes through changes
and enhancement in stages.
+++++++++++++
You would consider as credible evidence" only if some one had said
that was mahjong or its "alternative"?
> > > > > > > > > Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
> > > > > > > > > who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
No. That is impossible. I don't know of anybody ever made the
connection between mahjong and I-Ching. Would you not have learned of
it if something written on that?
> > Did anybody "actually states that money was used as the round symbol
> > and why is that somebody so credible? In view of the 'fact' that games
> > got changed during Ming drinking-card period. Symbols might not match
> > games' application and purpose.
> > Who knows and how he knows for sure money symbols were adopted for
> > mahjong? Those symbol don't look like Cash to me.
Look at the 1-Circle (Tong). Is it a coin as defined by Pan or pPeng
in Ma Diao?
Does it not look more like this in the link below?
http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg
> > Why did you accept it at face-value?
Why did you accept Himly's Cash naming of the symbol so readily. I
could not agree with you in regarding his rendition of TONG as
credible evidence.
>
> I haven’t. That is why the MDH is a hypothesis. It consists of a
> series of arguments whose conclusions each go to being one of the
> statements in the hypothesis. The various arguments consist of
> supported premises and justified assumptions.
>
As I said many times before, logic is fine, but when the assumption is
wrong, your argument is worthless.
MDH is based on the circle being a money coin. From that you build the
denominations of Strings and Myriads. When you come to the winds ESWN
and the Triads ZFB, you can not explain the association of these
oddities with money. Then you say your hypot excludes everthing else
for now. It deals with money suits only. Changes can be made after
"compelling evidence" shows up. Meanwhile you argue and argue to
protect it.
> Your explanation lacks any form of support from outside of your own
> interpretations from your own thinking. I have been saying this for a
> long time.
> Can you please tell me if you have anything to support your claims,
> from outside of your interpretations?
>
When I can not get support from outside of my interpretation, then my
hypothesis is no good. Where is "outside"?
Do I understand this correctly. Unless I can get support from our
group, my idea or your idea is not any good.
Now, based on lack of "outside support", you have judged my hypot as
being no good. I know you pride yourself as being a logical thinker.
What is your own critical view without "outside" influence?
++++++++++++++[..].
Cheers...
msta...@talktalk.net
I have tried to keep this post as short as possible.
Can you please give me an answer to my question below in ***.
> > What do you mean by “I think you can still learn the game yet.”?
> It was meant for sarcasm. I thought you don't have much playing
> experience.
***Why did you feel you needed to be sarcastic at me?***
[You said;]
> “I-Ching (Book of Changes) dates back thousands years!
> Are you open to consideration for a possibility of an ancient ma que
> game? What name would you be willing to accept besides ma que? It
> probably would not be called ma que if there ever was any similar
> game.”
I think we are talking at cross purposes here.
You asked me for my ‘core features’ so you would know what to look
for.
You did not say you wanted me to list them so you could disagree with
them.
You wanted me to list them so you could disagree with them.
I feel I have wasted my time looking for them and pasting them into my
reply.
If you had said you were going to see if they were what you wanted,
then I would not have listed them but instead directed you to where
they were posted. I would also have directed you to posts where you
could read why I think they are core features.
You had posted to those posts as well so you must know what was
written there.
You asked for “an ancient ma que game”. You also said “any similar
game”.
You did NOT ask for a “predecessor of mah-jong”.
Since I do not know what it is you think is an ancient ma que game or
a predecessor game then why don’t you tell me what it is you have in
mind?
You clearly do not like mine, so list yours?
> > You said;
> > “I-Ching (Book of Changes) dates back thousands years!
> > Are you open to consideration for a possibility of an ancient ma que
> > game? What name would you be willing to accept besides ma que? It
> > probably would not be called ma que if there ever was any similar
> > game.”
[I replied]
>>The ancient game would have to have core features that are mostly
>>similar to ma que's core features, to be of interest.
[you then replied]
>Can you state clearly these "core features"? Then I will know what I
>must search for.
You asked me for my ‘core features’ so you would know what to look
for.
You did not say you wanted me to list them and then disagree with
them.
I feel I have wasted my time looking for them and pasting them into my
reply.
If you had said you were going to see if they were what you wanted,
then I would not have listed them, but instead directed you to where
they were posted. I would also have directed you to posts where you
could read why I think they are core features.
You had posted to those posts as well so you must know what was
written there.
You asked for “an ancient ma que game”. You also said “any similar
game”.
You did NOT ask for a “predecessor of mah-jong”.
Since I do not know what it is you think is an ancient ma que game or
a predecessor game then why don’t you tell me what it is you have in
mind?
You clearly do not like mine, so list yours?
I will look at them and see if I agree/disagree with them. I will give
my reasons as well so you can understand why I agree/disagree.
> You would consider as credible evidence" only if someone had said
> that was mahjong or its "alternative"?
I am sorry, what do you mean? What is the *that* in “that was mah-jong
or its alternative”?
> > > > > > > > > > Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
> > > > > > > > > > who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
>
> No. That is impossible. I don't know of anybody ever made the
> connection between mahjong and I-Ching. Would you not have learned of
> it if something written on that?
I am just explaining that if Himly had said I Ching was used or, even
going back to Pan, if he said the round symbols were I fact I Ching
symbols or concepts. Something like that.
Also, I really think it is up to you to go and find out if there is
any mention.
> Look at the 1-Circle (Tong). Is it a coin as defined by Pan or Peng
> in Ma Diao?
>
> Does it not look more like this in the link below?
http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg
Oh, I agree that the Taiji probably appears on the 1 cash. I said that
already. I have seen a I cash card in Prunner’s catalogue that has a 1
cash with a small taiji symbol on the card.
I do not agree that the hexagram lines appear on the 1 cash of Pan
though. He does not mention them at all.
> Why did you accept Himly's Cash naming of the symbol so readily. I
> could not agree with you in regarding his rendition of TONG as
> credible evidence.
Why not? You never did give your reasons as far as I am aware.
> MDH is based on the circle being a money coin. From that you build the
> denominations of Strings and Myriads.
That is correct. But more importantly it is the reasons why we say
that the terms and the suits in the earliest set were derived from
money and these reasons come from the game being linked to preceding
card games. For example, peng hu pai that have similar card
combinations, draw and discard method, three suits of numbered cards 1
– 9 of the cash suited cards.
But I have said and described this already as you know, and you want
me to keep posts brief.
> When you come to the winds ESWN
> and the Triads ZFB, you cannot explain the association of these
> oddities with money. Then you say your hypot excludes everything else
> for now. It deals with money suits only. Changes can be made after
> "compelling evidence" shows up.
That is absolutely correct. Yes.
It may be that these groups symbols have no association with money.
Yes? They were put on the tiles because of somebody’s reasons and we
shall have to wait until we get some inkling from documents. But it is
ok to speculate about them isn’t it.
But why that number of extra groups is a matter for the gameplay of
the early game.
I have written about this in my latest article.
>Meanwhile you argue and argue to protect it.
I don’t protect anything. But you know that don’t you?
You must know that I have repeatedly said that I am prepared to change
my mind provided you give me some good reasons to do so.
I am afraid so far you haven’t. Please don’t get upset at that and
make another sarcastic remark at me.
And please don’t keep accusing me falsely. Ok?
It may seem that way to you but if I say I am not protecting it, you
should take me at my word, just as I would do the same for you. Ok?
> When I cannot get support from outside of my interpretation, then my
> hypothesis is no good.
No, no.To me it is neither good nor bad (unless it is internally
inconsistent or contradictory). It is interesting.
I don’t want you to get upset of feel I am offending you in any
way.Ok?.
What I meant was is that so far you haven’t given any evidence to
support any of its claims. There is no evidence from other sources
that say that I Ching was used in such-and-such a precursor game to ma
que or that they were used in the preceding development of ma que.
Where is "outside"?
Outside of your own justifications (you know,eg, this is how I see it
therefore that is how it is, type of thing). Or ‘I think the I Ching
says this and this and I can see that it ma que therefore ma que was
designed with I Ching concepts.’
‘Outside’ evidence is information that comes not from you, not from
your interpretations. It comes from other places.
al
> On Mar 19, 7:52 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> I have tried to keep this post as short as possible.
>
> Can you please give me an answer to my question below in ***.
>
> > > What do you mean by “I think you can still learn the game yet.”?
> > It was meant for sarcasm. I thought you don't have much playing
> > experience.
>
> ***Why did you feel you needed to be sarcastic at me?***
>
That was reflex reaction. You had not been nice to me for quite a
while. I was that 'previous poster' in a number of previous posts.
I detected a weakness in you and your heroes I thought. You historians
didn't seem to be experienced MJ players. That was the impression I
got.
[..]
> I think we are talking at cross purposes here.
>
> You asked me for my ‘core features’ so you would know what to look
> for.
> You did not say you wanted me to list them so you could disagree with
> them.
> You wanted me to list them so you could disagree with them.
>
I wanted to know what core value meant to you so I will have some
guide-lines and won't waste time looking for non-essentials.
Now the goal-posts are nowhere in sight.
> I feel I have wasted my time looking for them and pasting them into my
> reply.
>
If I can not find the core values you set, your time would be a waste.
So is mine.
> If you had said you were going to see if they were what you wanted,
> then I would not have listed them but instead directed you to where
> they were posted. I would also have directed you to posts where you
> could read why I think they are core features.
>
> You had posted to those posts as well so you must know what was
> written there.
>
I was not sure what core values you have in mind now. It's good to
clarify. They are more like impossible conditions. I needed to know
and I appreciate your time and effort. Thanks again.
> You asked for “an ancient ma que game”. You also said “any similar
> game”.
>
> You did NOT ask for a “predecessor of mah-jong”.
>
> Since I do not know what it is you think is an ancient ma que game or
> a predecessor game then why don’t you tell me what it is you have in
> mind?
>
I don't know what an ancient mahjong game is like. It might not be
what you have seen so far.
> You clearly do not like mine, so list yours?
>
I don't have one, never mind a list.
++++++++++
>
> > > [..]
>
> > You would consider as credible evidence" only if someone had said
> > that was mahjong or its "alternative"?
>
> I am sorry, what do you mean? What is the *that* in “that was mah-jong
> or its alternative”?
>
'That' mean whatever.
> > > > > > > > > > > Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
> > > > > > > > > > > who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
>
I do not know of anybody actually said or wrote in plain words. I have
seen the exact idea expressed in illustrated playing cards.
Photo 79 and 78 have the deck of 30 cards and the wood-block for
printing shown and a brief description in English and Japanese
describing it as ma diao and "eight signs of divination are written on
the lower indices of Coin and Strings".
"Eight signs" means bagua, as you know. Divination purpose is
unmistakable.
The cards have taiji (yin-yang) diagrams in one suit and Chinese
writing (2 words) taht say Eight-Trigram (Bagua). Also two trigrams at
the lower portion of each of the 9 cards in that suit.
Two trigrams make a hexagram. Hexagram is an unmistakable sign for I-
Ching divination.
The second suit of 9 cards have 1 to 9 bamboo strips. In Hong Kong
when I was there in 1949 I saw those bamboo strips in a bamboo
tubular container on a small table on Connaught Street near the hotel
where I stayed. Those bamboo strips carry the oracle messages for
divination.
In photo 79 the 1-Bamboo has two words in Chinese meaning "to divine".
Similarly as in the taiji suit, each card has 2 trigrams depicting a
hexagram.
I should mention an interesting observation found when I looked into
the sequence of the 18 hexagrams on the 18 cards in the 2 suits of the
deck in photo 79 of "Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum. The
hexagrams are in order from 1 to 18 with 2 exceptions. The first is
Heaven, next is Earth third is Sprouting then Youth, Waiting,
Dispute...so on. It is like a description of life's progressive
development. I thought that is interesting. There seems to a message
in the symbols of those cards.
+++++++++++++
Here is evidence "outside" of my head. Obviously that had been in some
one else head. The wood-block recorded the source to locate the wood
carver. The carver had to have lived for a period of time. A time
frame can be established. No doubt the idea existed.
The question should be asked is how well the idea does fit the mahjong
game in terms of correspondences and if the I-Ching concept can
explain coherently all the symbols and some of the rules of the
mahjong game. There is work to do in finding how the game developed
from that point as in Photo 79 (MJM Book) to the way it is now. Photo
79 captures one stage of development.
+++++++++++
[..]
> I am just explaining that if Himly had said I Ching was used or, even
> going back to Pan, if he said the round symbols were I fact I Ching
> symbols or concepts. Something like that.
>
Pan used I-Ching symbols to define Cash.
What did he mean by "1 Cash. Like the taiji diagram" (grand ultimate)?
Can it be said that Pan used symbol "like" the taiji diagram in I-
Ching?
> Also, I really think it is up to you to go and find out if there is
> any mention.
Pan didn't know for sure the absolute truth. He repeated what he heard
about the game from his source through oral tradition. That is why he
had a different name for the game than the other unofficial
historians. That is your evidence, but not the credible evidence you
think you have.
>
> > Look at the 1-Circle (Tong). Is it a coin as defined by Pan or Peng
> > in Ma Diao?
>
> > Does it not look more like this in the link below?
>
> http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg
>
> Oh, I agree that the Taiji probably appears on the 1 cash. I said that ]already].
You have seen it. That means the taiji was used. Whether Pan said or
did not say I-Ching concept was applied, I-Ching foot-print was there.
That is better evidence than some one said so only. We have physical
evidence regardless who said what. That taiji diagram is the smoking
gun!
> already. I have seen a I cash card in Prunner’s catalogue that has a 1
> cash with a small taiji symbol on the card.
>
That is corroborated evidence. Would you say? I mean the taiji diagram
did get into card design in the past. That established it is nothing
new. It also adds to the probability that a taiji diagram was likely
on the 1-Cash in Ma Diao.
You have seen a small taiji symbol on a card in Prunner's catalogue.
It didn't occur to you that it had any significance, I suppose. It
took you a long time to come out with this bit of information. Why you
held it for so long?
What looked "like the diagram of taiji" was in fact the diagram of
taiji. Who and how can anybody mistake a taiji diagram for something
else, especially when trigrams were used to describe the layout
pattern of other cards. Trigrams associate with the taiji diagram,
regardless how the words and phrases were translated.
+++++++++++++
> I do not agree that the hexagram lines appear on the 1 cash of Pan
> though. He does not mention them at all.
>
Who said anything about hexagram lines on Pan's 1 Cash? Why brought
that up now. Pan's 1-Cash was described as "like the diagram of the
taiji". (Grand ultimate) was added by Pan or in translation.
++++++++
Hexagram lines made up of 2 trigrams are on 18 cards of that undated
deck in photo79 of the Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum.
In addition, there are 3 more cards. They are written or printed
unmistakably as Red Flower, White Flower and Old Thousand in Chinese
characters. Their allegorical and philosophical meaning is Man-Heaven-
Earth and connotative with ZBF.
+++++++++++++++
By the way, who had said that Zhong-Fa means "hit and go"?
+++++++++++++++
> > Why did you accept Himly's Cash naming of the symbol so readily. I
> > could not agree with you in regarding his rendition of TONG as
> > credible evidence.
>
> Why not? You never did give your reasons as far as I am aware.
>
My simple reason was cash has nothing to do with ZFB and ESWN. I said
if a hypot can not explain a problem or results in an experiment, its
coefficient of correlation is zero and the hypot is worthless. Also I
said repeatedly Chinese players do not call that Cash. When Cash has
many names, how can only one be so reliable? You read Himly,
Wilkinson, Prunner and Vassier (or whatever) and Eberhart and you took
their words for it. You went by "documented" and "dated" evidence.
I can understand. That is in your training and regular work habit.
> > MDH is based on the circle being a money coin. From that you build the
> > denominations of Strings and Myriads.
>
> That is correct. But more importantly it is the reasons why we say
> that the terms and the suits in the earliest set were derived from
> money and these reasons come from the game being linked to preceding card games.
There is no proof of a link. You had a deck of 60-card in Mo He.
Somebody used simple arithmetic and divided it by 2 and hypothesized
that 30 must have come from Ma Diao when its 40 was reduced to 30. Pan
did say 10 cards were left out of Dou Fu.
Then another assumption without "evidence" of any 'say-so' the 30 was
quadruplicated to 120. No description of the 12 cards beside the 108
money cards. That gave us Peng He Pai.
However, by definition Peng He is not mahjong. I don't remember from
my reading if it was concluded as ancestor of mahjong or not in a
lengthy discussion some years ago and repeated later.
++++++++++++
Mahjong tiles have dice and Tien-Gow in their bones, like 'bone' in
their tiles). Somehow historians persuaded the games world to believe
that those tiles have DNA related closer to paper cards. All based on
one round shape molecule called Cash from homonym Tong as copper and
expanded to copper-money.
That is how I see MDH.
++++++++++++++++
> card games. For example, peng hu pai that have similar card
> combinations, draw and discard method, three suits of numbered cards 1
> – 9 of the cash suited cards.
>
> But I have said and described this already as you know, and you want
> me to keep posts brief.
>
I seem to recall your objection to its lack of 'datedness'. Did you
not have a long discussion with Cofa on Mo He and Peng He? Was there a
problem in their origin and question of evidence? Did any western
historians write on either game?
+++++++++++
> >[..]
Have to cut it shorter....
>
> What I meant was is that so far you haven’t given any evidence to
> support any of its claims. There is no evidence from other sources
> that say that I Ching was used in such-and-such a precursor game to ma
> que or that they were used in the preceding development of ma que.
>
No. That is only for copy-cat thinking. You will never find anything
beyond Ming, Pan and Lo.
> Where is "outside"?
>
> Outside of your own justifications (you know,eg, this is how I see it
> therefore that is how it is, type of thing). Or ‘I think the I Ching
> says this and this and I can see that it ma que therefore ma que was
> designed with I Ching concepts.’
>
Hypothetically, yes. I see what you don't see. Especially when it can
explain and correlate many features in the mahjong game, what is wrong
with presenting a hypothesis without outside evidence?
MDH is hypothetical only, is it not? It is even attempting to relate
only part of the game awaiting correspondence for a part that is so
far unrelated.
> ‘Outside’ evidence is information that comes not from you, not from
> your interpretations. It comes from other places.
Requirement for outside evidence applies to old and dated thinking and
historical perspective. New idea may not have historical evidence, but
it should not be automatically treated as unworthy of consideration
solely on the basis of lack of evidence for the time being. Who knows
what evidence might turn up eventually?
External support one way or another is an extra help. The value of a
new concept should not be judged entirely by historical precedence.
That is what I am saying.
Who first thought of going to the moon? Where was the credible
evidence for any possibility of such idea? I-Ching based design for
mahjong is new. In fact I learned a new term for that kind of
thinking. It is aprophenic if I recall correctly. So even if I can not
find a clear physical link from I-Ching to mahjong, don't jump to
fortify your MDH.
Mahjong's root is with the dominoes, not paper cards like Ma Diao.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks again for the leads in your previous post.
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 20, 6:33 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 19, 7:52 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > I have tried to keep this post as short as possible.
> Make it even shorter next time.
That will depend on the points you raise I am afraid. If you make
points that I think I need to answer, then I will have to answer them.
Such is the nature of a discussion forum. Sorry.
But I can tell you, from now on I will not make a long reply if you
forget about past answers and repeat your claims overand over again.
Is that ok? I will just remind you that you are repeating yourself. I
hope you won’t get upset or take offence at that. It is the easiest
way to do it I feel.
> > ***Why did you feel you needed to be sarcastic at me?***
>
> That was reflex reaction. You had not been nice to me for quite a
> while. I was that 'previous poster' in a number of previous posts.
I thought as much. I went over a lot of your early replies and noticed
that you more often than not you had misinterpreted what I was saying.
It is not a criticism. It is just a problem with internet
communication.
Please don’t get upset at what I am saying here. I noticed that you
hadn’t realised the style of discussion when we were discussing
various arguments and reasons.
I did mention to you in one of the initial emails that your views
would be critically looked at – that was the style of discussion I am
talking about. I had an inkling you were annoyed at my responses to
your ideas in your emails but I didn’t think for a moment that you
would take the critical analysis as an attack at an emotional and
personal level.
I can now understand the nature of some of your replies now.
> I detected a weakness in you and your heroes I thought. You historians
> didn't seem to be experienced MJ players. That was the impression I
> got.
But do you see now? I hope you mean a weakness in my arguments – not
in me. Is that right?
But why do you say they are my ‘heroes’? I know that is your
impression of how you think I see them. But I must tell you are wrong.
Can you please see that?
Was it meant to be sarcastic?
I have tried to make my responses in a way you can feel them, but you
keep making what seem to me to be sarcastic remarks at me. Why?
Also, did it not occur to you that your assumption about being an
experienced MJ player might not be relevant to 1870 playing?
> I don't know what an ancient mahjong game is like. It might not be
> what you have seen so far.
It is really quite easy. Just say what you think a predecessor MJ game
should be like.
I would be interested to hear your views.
We could then discuss whether it is ok or not. How about it?
> > You clearly do not like mine, so list yours?
> I don't have one, never mind a list.
I was thinking, you clearly didn’t like my list. Why didn’t you like
it?
Saying what you think is wrong with mine might help us.
> Photo 79 and 78 have the deck of 30 cards and the wood-block for
> printing shown and a brief description in English and Japanese
> describing it as ma diao and "eight signs of divination are written on
> the lower indices of Coin and Strings".
> "Eight signs" means bagua, as you know. Divination purpose is
> unmistakable.
I was thinking about that when I 1st saw that picture about 4 years
ago. Don’t you think it is also possible that the cards could also be
used as playing cards in a playing card game?
>There seems to a message
> in the symbols of those cards.
That could be the case.
> Here is evidence "outside" of my head.
Ok.
> The question should be asked is how well the idea does fit the mahjong
> game in terms of correspondences and if the I-Ching concept can
> explain coherently all the symbols and some of the rules of the
> mahjong game. There is work to do in finding how the game developed
> from that point as in Photo 79 (MJM Book) to the way it is now.
Please forgive me. I do not understand what you just said. You said “…
from that point as in Photo 79 [..] to the way it is now.”
What do you mean by **that point**?
Is it a date or time?
> 79 captures one stage of development.
I am sorry, can you tell me how do you know that? Could it not be one
type of use these cards were put to? Or could it not be one type of
symbols that people put on these type of cards?
> Pan used I-Ching symbols to define Cash.
I am sorry. Don’t you mean ‘describe’?
In Lo’s translation Pan said “I describe what is depicted.” He doesn’t
say “define”.
> What did he mean by "1 Cash. Like the taiji diagram" (grand ultimate)?
> Can it be said that Pan used symbol "like" the taiji diagram in I-
> Ching?
For the 1 Cash he said ‘like the diagram …’
For the 3 Cash he said ‘like the shape …’
For the 6 Cash he said ‘like the shape…’
Do you remember I said that, IMO, there is a round object depicted on
the 1 Cash and it is probably a rendition of the Taiji diagram? I have
seen small Taiji diagrams on other 1 Cash cards in other packs. But
only on the 1 Cash.
The other cards mention the shapes made by the trigrams – these shapes
are made by the arrangements of the lines. Therefore the coins are
arranged like that to make that shape.
> Pan didn't know for sure the absolute truth. He repeated what he heard
> about the game from his source through oral tradition. That is why he
> had a different name for the game than the other unofficial
> historians. That is your evidence, but not the credible evidence you
> think you have.
I am afraid I do not agree with you about this.
You have mentioned it often before. I hope you don't mind, but you
have repeated yourself again.
To keep these posts short as possible, I will not answer this subject
again. Ok?
!stly, don’t you think it is impossible to have absolute certainty or
truth?
Do you know why? Because it is always possible that something was
overlooked.
I don’t think anybody, Pan, me, you, anybody is omniscient.
You must know that the mere possibility of error is not a genuine
reason to doubt Pan’s account?
To have knowledge that Pan’s *money descriptions* were doubtful, you
must give me some evidence to the contrary.
I agree that there were slight variations in the *name for the game*,
because as you pointed out, we have credible evidence of that.
I am sorry, but there is no credible evidence that I know of, to give
me grounds for doubt about Pan’s descriptions of the Cards as Cash
based.
Please don’t get upset, but just because *you* say you don’t believe
it, or *you* doubt it but you having nothing to offer me to show your
doubt is ok - just because you say those things with no proof/
evidence, I am unable to believe you.
That would go against my best judgement of what I think is a good
reason to believe something.
Now, if Lu Rong said that the cards did not represent Cash, then I
would have to accept your point.
Is that Ok? Do you understand my objection?
> > Oh, I agree that the Taiji probably appears on the 1 cash. I said that ]already].
>
> You have seen it. That means the taiji was used. Whether Pan said or
> did not say I-Ching concept was applied, I-Ching foot-print was there.
> That is better evidence than some one said so only. We have physical
> evidence regardless who said what. That taiji diagram is the smoking
> gun!
Look. I am really sorry for this. But I do not think it is.
There is a difference between what the iconography is on the cards and
what is the cards’ actual meanings.
That is the lesson about Pan’s 1 Cash diagram.
Lo mentions in his Asian Games chapter that the various iconographies
on various types of cards were a testament to elegant and popular
tastes.
I have seen Western cards with various iconography on the Aces only,
and on each of the suit cards as well. Each card displays the emblem
of what it means (like the number of spades or diamonds or clubs) but
the iconography on each card is different. Some have cars, some have
planes, some have famous politicians etc.
> > already. I have seen a I cash card in Prunner’s catalogue that has a 1
> > cash with a small taiji symbol on the card.
>
> That is corroborated evidence. Would you say? I mean the taiji diagram
> did get into card design in the past. That established it is nothing
> new. It also adds to the probability that a taiji diagram was likely
> on the 1-Cash in Ma Diao.
I don’t know the date of Prunner’s deck. He gives dates, but I am not
sure of them because he doesn’t discuss how he got the dates. However,
I agree it adds to the probability, yes. Sure.
But it means the Taiji diagram got printed onto the card.
> You have seen a small taiji symbol on a card in Prunner's catalogue.
> It didn't occur to you that it had any significance, I suppose. It
> took you a long time to come out with this bit of information. Why you
> held it for so long?
I am sorry. Please don’t take offence. But you have forgotten that you
have said this before?
Also, do you remember that I have answered it before?
Can you admit that your memory is faulty?
Please don’t get upset at that. It happens.
Also, its significance, IMO, is nothing surprising for the reasons
above.
Also, I didn’t hold it for so long. I mentioned it when I remembered
it when my memory was touched by the subject.
So I can’t understand why you are again making a question that
suggests I have been dishonest?
Why do you feel the need to be nasty at me in this discussion when I
have gone out of my way to try and understand your point of view?
> What looked "like the diagram of taiji" was in fact the diagram of
> taiji. Who and how can anybody mistake a taiji diagram for something
> else, especially when trigrams were used to describe the layout
> pattern of other cards. Trigrams associate with the taiji diagram,
> regardless how the words and phrases were translated.
I don’t agree with you about this either. I do not think you can say
“in fact”. It ‘most probably was’ is ok for me.
You see, Pan was trying to describe what he saw by making reference to
objects he was aware of and what most probably his readers were aware
of.
If the 1 Cash was a one circle with a line through it or a couple of
twisted lines through it, it might make Pan think of the Taiji
diagram, so he said that is what it looks like.
Please don’t discard this comment unless you can give me a reason why
you think it is not possible? I am not saying that is right, just that
Pan is describing what he saw using common shapes that he knew.
> In addition, there are 3 more cards. They are written or printed
> unmistakably as Red Flower, White Flower and Old Thousand in Chinese
> characters. Their allegorical and philosophical meaning is Man-Heaven-
> Earth and connotative with ZBF.
I am sorry. What reasons do you have for those claims?
I don’t remember any evidence outside of your own interpretations. Do
you have some?
Can you please direct me to the evidence you have?
> By the way, who had said that Zhong-Fa means "hit and go"?
I think it was Wilkinson. He said his Chinese friends styled it
‘chungfa’. He defined it as ‘hit and go’. It was the name of the game
according to him.
> My simple reason was cash has nothing to do with ZFB and ESWN.
Can you please tell me why does it have to?
> Also I said repeatedly Chinese players do not call that Cash.
Can you please tell me which players? I mean do you mean modern
players?
> There is no proof of a link. You had a deck of 60-card in Mo He.
> Somebody used simple arithmetic and divided it by 2 and hypothesized
> that 30 must have come from Ma Diao when its 40 was reduced to 30. Pan
> did say 10 cards were left out of Dou Fu.
But that is why it is a hypothesis. It makes assumptions based on good
reasons and it also has evidence as well. It then makes predictions
from its conclusions. These predictions say that if we were to go out
now and look at old documents from the time (if we can get any) then
we should find what the hypothesis predicts.
For example, tong from the Himly set. It is hypothesised (there is an
argument for it) that the character is a shorthand form of tong
meaning copper or cash (we have a similar analogical situation in
money cards with hua). The prediction says that if this is probably
the case, we should find some evidence of that term used in cards as a
term for cash.
My Chinese colleague searched high and low for all the terms used in
card games.
Recently he found the term tong/copper/cash in a description of a hand
made up of money suited cards.
Lo said that the 30 card deck was doubled to play mo hu. It was then
quadrupled quintupled etc to play other games. He mentions these games
played with these cards (the ma diao type deck and since they had each
card quadrupled or quintupled then clearly the madiao deck was
multiplied up that way. He gives the reference for the description of
these two games in his endnotes in Asian Games.
> However, by definition Peng He is not mahjong. I don't remember from
> my reading if it was concluded as ancestor of mahjong or not in a
> lengthy discussion some years ago and repeated later.
I think it was implicated. Yes.
> No. That is only for copy-cat thinking. You will never find anything
> beyond Ming, Pan and Lo.
But how do you know? Please try and look. You are intelligent and
resourceful so I am sure you can find something.
Look how far you have come already.
Please don’t get despondent and give up.
Don’t worry. It is not copy-cat thinking if that is what is worrying
you.
It is called looking for objective evidence.
I am sure you will have a go.
Have some confidence in yourself.
> Hypothetically, yes. I see what you don't see. Especially when it can
> explain and correlate many features in the mahjong game, what is wrong
> with presenting a hypothesis without outside evidence?
Oh. Please don’t misunderstand me. I can see what you see. Of course I
can.
It is just that it is with no outside evidence actually describing I
Ching concepts I relation to the make up of the card deck symbols back
in late Ming and Qing times.
> MDH is hypothetical only, is it not?
Not in the way I think you mean. There is a difference between the
meaning of ‘hypothesis’ and ‘hypothetical’.
Don’t you know this difference in meaning?
> It is even attempting to relate
> only part of the game awaiting correspondence for a part that is so
> far unrelated.
I am sorry, I don’t understand this. Can you explain what you mean?
> > ‘Outside’ evidence is information that comes not from you, not from
> > your interpretations. It comes from other places.
>
> Requirement for outside evidence applies to old and dated thinking and
> historical perspective. New idea may not have historical evidence, but
> it should not be automatically treated as unworthy of consideration
> solely on the basis of lack of evidence for the time being. Who knows
> what evidence might turn up eventually?
Oh, absolutely true.
> External support one way or another is an extra help. The value of a
> new concept should not be judged entirely by historical precedence.
> That is what I am saying.
For me, the value is in its usefulness as a good explanation. But for
me it doesn't have a coherence with reality and so it would be a waste
of my time to use it as a primary explanation. But I will keep it on
standby with other explanations. Is that ok?
> Who first thought of going to the moon? Where was the credible
> evidence for any possibility of such idea? I-Ching based design for
> mahjong is new.
No, I am afraid it is not new. Ly Yu Sang talks about it in his book
dated 1923. Millington mentioned Sang’s ideas.
> In fact I learned a new term for that kind of
> thinking. It is aprophenic if I recall correctly. So even if I can not
> find a clear physical link from I-Ching to mahjong, don't jump to
> fortify your MDH.
Have I jumped to fortify the MDH?
Don’t you remember that I said it is not my MDH?
Can you please accept that and stop saying that it is, because that is
not true.
> Mahjong's root is with the dominoes, not paper cards like Ma Diao.
Well, I am afraid I disagree with you here as well.
I am sorry, but I think that MJ has its roots in dominoes and paper
cards and perhaps in other places as well. I don’t want to rule
anything out a this stage.
> Thanks again for the leads in your previous post.
You are welcome.
al
> On Mar 22, 3:27 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 6:33 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 19, 7:52 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > > I have tried to keep this post as short as possible.
> > Make it even shorter next time.
>
> But I can tell you, from now on I will not make a long reply if you
> forget about past answers and repeat your claims overand over again.
> Is that ok?
How else to get a point across?
[..]
>
> > >[..]
> [..]
> >[..][..]
> It is really quite easy. Just say what you think a predecessor MJ game
> should be like.
> I would be interested to hear your views.
> We could then discuss whether it is ok or not. How about it?
>
I will let you know when I come to it or close to it.
> > > [..]
> I was thinking, you clearly didn't like my list. Why didn't you like
> it?
> Saying what you think is wrong with mine might help us.
>
My impression is that you define mahjong by the "earliest set' found.
> > Photo 79 and 78 have the deck of 30 cards and the wood-block for
> > printing shown and a brief description in English and Japanese
> > describing it as ma diao and "eight signs of divination are written on
> > the lower indices of Coin and Strings".
> > "Eight signs" means bagua, as you know. Divination purpose is
> > unmistakable.
>
> I was thinking about that when I 1st saw that picture about 4 years
> ago. Don't you think it is also possible that the cards could also be
> used as playing cards in a playing card game?
>
Ah, I see what possibly the misunderstanding is.
You mean you thought I was saying mahjong was designed for divination
use only?
Mahjong is a game designed based on I-Ching concepts which include yin-
yang binary and creation of the universe, trigram and hexagram symbols
and cyclical changes of myriads of things.
Essentially mahjong is a game. Its symbols represent tools and
principles of I-Ching divination, as I see it.
+++++++++++++
As I said,
> >There seems to a message
> > in the symbols of those cards.
>
> That could be the case.
>
> > Here is evidence "outside" of my head.
>
> Ok.
>
It's nice see that 'ok'.
> > The question should be asked is how well the idea does fit the mahjong
> > game in terms of correspondences and if the I-Ching concept can
> > explain coherently all the symbols and some of the rules of the
> > mahjong game. There is work to do in finding how the game developed
> > from that point as in Photo 79 (MJM Book) to the way it is now.
>
> Please forgive me. I do not understand what you just said. You said "...
> from that point as in Photo 79 [..] to the way it is now."
> What do you mean by **that point**?
> Is it a date or time?
>
A time frame that may satisfy the requirement of "dated" evidence.
> > 79 captures one stage of development.
>
By that I meant a stage of the game's development. The game is assumed
as called in the MJM book madiao, 3-suited.
> I am sorry, can you tell me how do you know that? Could it not be one
> type of use these cards were put to? [Yes. these are playing cards for games] Or could it not be one type of
> symbols that people put on these type of cards?
>
Type of use is for games. Type of symbols is from I-Ching.
> > Pan used I-Ching symbols to define Cash.
>
> I am sorry. Don't you mean 'describe'?
> In Lo's translation Pan said "I describe what is depicted." He doesn't
> say "define".
>
> > What did he mean by "1 Cash. Like the taiji diagram" (grand ultimate)?
> > Can it be said that Pan used symbol "like" the taiji diagram in I-
> > Ching?
>
> For the 1 Cash he said 'like the diagram ...'
> For the 3 Cash he said 'like the shape ...'
> For the 6 Cash he said 'like the shape...'
>
He was the author of the manual. Why did Pan need to give descriptions
as such, like this and like that?
Do you think it sounds like he was looking at some cards. Did that
sound like he was certain what he was describing?
> Do you remember I said that, IMO, there is a round object depicted on
> the 1 Cash and it is probably a rendition of the Taiji diagram? I have
> seen small Taiji diagrams on other 1 Cash cards in other packs. But
> only on the 1 Cash.
>
What is it that you are trying to tell me?
> The other cards mention the shapes made by the trigrams - these shapes
> are made by the arrangements of the lines. Therefore the coins are
> arranged like that to make that shape.
>
Trigrams might have been common symbols people recognize and use on a
daily base then.
> > Pan didn't know for sure the absolute truth. He repeated what he heard
> > about the game from his source through oral tradition. That is why he
> > had a different name for the game than the other unofficial
> > historians. That is your evidence, but not the credible evidence you
> > think you have.
>
> I am afraid I do not agree with you about this.
>
I know. You have chosen his madiao as research reference point.
[..]
> !stly, don't you think it is impossible to have absolute certainty or
> truth?
> Do you know why? Because it is always possible that something was
> overlooked.
> I don't think anybody, Pan, me, you, anybody is omniscient.
>
> You must know that the mere possibility of error is not a genuine
> reason to doubt Pan's account?
> To have knowledge that Pan's *money descriptions* were doubtful, you
> must give me some evidence to the contrary.
>
> I agree that there were slight variations in the *name for the game*,
> because as you pointed out, we have credible evidence of that.
>
> I am sorry, but there is no credible evidence that I know of, to give
> me grounds for doubt about Pan's descriptions of the Cards as Cash
> based.
>
> Please don't get upset, but just because *you* say you don't believe
> it, or *you* doubt it but you having nothing to offer me to show your
> doubt is ok - just because you say those things with no proof/
> evidence, I am unable to believe you.
>
> That would go against my best judgement of what I think is a good
> reason to believe something.
>
> Now, if Lu Rong said that the cards did not represent Cash, then I
> would have to accept your point.
>
> Is that Ok? Do you understand my objection?
>
Yes I understand your objection. You based on prior evidence of Rong.
But you are assuming Rong was right because he had said it first. That
is not always the case: First said; first must right.
On the other hand, you don't seem to understand why I don't rely on
Pan or Rong. They gathered their knowledge of the game by oral
tradition which as cited in history, full of homonyms of many
meanings.
This may be an example. Even Millington have me confused now . On page
96, "the circles are properly termed T'ung meaning 'wheel', signifying
the Wheel of Heaven. They are, however, commonly called 'Ping, meaning
'cash' or small coin."
> > > Oh, I agree that the Taiji probably appears on the 1 cash. I said that ]already].
>
> > You have seen it. That means the taiji was used. Whether Pan said or
> > did not say I-Ching concept was applied, I-Ching foot-print was there.
> > That is better evidence than some one said so only. We have physical
> > evidence regardless who said what. That taiji diagram is the smoking
> > gun!
>
> Look. I am really sorry for this. But I do not think it is.
>
> There is a difference between what the iconography is on the cards and
> what is the cards' actual meanings.
>
I must admit I fail to understand you and your negativity.
> That is the lesson about Pan's 1 Cash diagram.
>
> Lo mentions in his Asian Games chapter that the various iconographies
> on various types of cards were a testament to elegant and popular
> tastes.
>
So who is Lo? Why is so that whatever he says it must be so? Can you
not have independent thinking as logical on your own?
> I have seen Western cards with various iconography on the Aces only,
> and on each of the suit cards as well. Each card displays the emblem
> of what it means (like the number of spades or diamonds or clubs) but
> the iconography on each card is different. Some have cars, some have
> planes, some have famous politicians etc.
>
So what are you saying? the symbols mean nothing?
> > > already. I have seen a I cash card in Prunner's catalogue that has a 1
> > > cash with a small taiji symbol on the card.
>
> > That is corroborated evidence. Would you say? I mean the taiji diagram
> > did get into card design in the past. That established it is nothing
> > new. It also adds to the probability that a taiji diagram was likely
> > on the 1-Cash in Ma Diao. [?]
>
> I don't know the date of Prunner's deck. He gives dates, but I am not
> sure of them because he doesn't discuss how he got the dates. However,
> I agree it adds to the probability, yes. Sure.
>
> But it means the Taiji diagram got printed onto the card.
>
You are good at getting details like that. See what you can do here.
> > [..]
>
> > What looked "like the diagram of taiji" was in fact the diagram of
> > taiji. Who and how can anybody mistake a taiji diagram for something
> > else, especially when trigrams were used to describe the layout
> > pattern of other cards. Trigrams associate with the taiji diagram,
> > regardless how the words and phrases were translated.
>
> I don't agree with you about this either. I do not think you can say
> "in fact". It 'most probably was' is ok for me.
It most certainly probable is more like it. It's semantics again.
> You see, Pan was trying to describe what he saw by making reference to
> objects he was aware of and what most probably his readers were aware
> of.
I don't see what you see.
But you don't see is that Pan was writing a manual and giving a
description of a card that he knew. He was not deciphering a sketch
made by somebody else. Visualize the situation.
> If the 1 Cash was a one circle with a line through it or a couple of
> twisted lines through it, it might make Pan think of the Taiji
> diagram, so he said that is what it looks like.
This (what you suppose) is impossible. Pan was either looking at an
old card or getting a description from his head. It was most certainly
probable a taiji diagram was there.
> Please don't discard this comment unless you can give me a reason why
> you think it is not possible? I am not saying that is right, just that
> Pan is describing what he saw using common shapes that he knew.
>
I gave my reason as you requested.
Furthermore you seem to have better imagination than I thought.
That twisted line separates a black section of area from a white
section and it might just by chance happens there was a round dot in
each area. What else would he call such a shape?
On the other hand there might not have been more than just a twisted
line inside a blank circle, as you ensision. The Pan's imagination led
him to give an abbreviated description for the drawing and called it
taiji diagram.
Either situation is possible and therefore can not be ruled out.
In scenario 1, Pan recognized the symbol and called it as a taiji
diagram. In scario 2, Pan used his imagination and guessed at the
scratched line with no details.
Should we accept Pan's description for the rest of the suits if that
was scenario 2. If Pan would interpret a drawing as taiji diagram
based on a twisted line across a circle. What credibility should a
writer like that deserve?
> > In addition, there are 3 more cards. They are written or printed
> > unmistakably as Red Flower, White Flower and Old Thousand in Chinese
> > characters. Their allegorical and philosophical meaning is Man-Heaven-
> > Earth and connotative with ZBF.
>
> I am sorry. What reasons do you have for those claims?
> I don't remember any evidence outside of your own interpretations. Do
> you have some?
> Can you please direct me to the evidence you have?
>
You forgot this time. Did we not just go through the interpretation
and linkage of Heaven Wang, Earth Wang and Man Wang? We looked at
Himly's tile set.
They have a connection to Bai-Fa-Zhong.
> >[..]
>
> > My simple reason was cash has nothing to do with ZFB and ESWN.
>
> Can you please tell me why does it have to?
By that question, I can guess that you never try to invent a game.
If you had ever tried to put a game together with your idea, then you
will understand and appreciate why the pieces should relate and how
they relate.
A game like mahjong has 136 or more tiles. The pieces came together by
design. OOPS, I have no evidence. Just forget it.
>
> > Also I said repeatedly Chinese players do not call that Cash.
>
> Can you please tell me which players? I mean do you mean modern
> players?
>
Modern players call it the same as olden day players. It's oral
tradition. Remember.
> > There is no proof of a link. You had a deck of 60-card in Mo He.
> > Somebody used simple arithmetic and divided it by 2 and hypothesized
> > that 30 must have come from Ma Diao when its 40 was reduced to 30. Pan
> > did say 10 cards were left out of Dou Fu.
>
> But that is why it is a hypothesis. It makes assumptions based on good
> reasons and it also has evidence as well. It then makes predictions
> from its conclusions. These predictions say that if we were to go out
> now and look at old documents from the time (if we can get any) then
> we should find what the hypothesis predicts.
>
I remember one prediction made. It was "ten-thousnd" in Ma Diao found
in mahjong as "predicted".
> For example, tong from the Himly set. It is hypothesised (there is an
> argument for it) that the character is a shorthand form of tong
> meaning copper or cash (we have a similar analogical situation
+++++++++++
Copper is copper, period. Copper does not mean copper money. Look at
the CEDICT.
http://www.mandarintools.com/cgi-bin/wordlook.pl?word=0x9285&searchtype=trad&where=anywhere
钱 = Chien. It is metal money.
+++++++++++
> in money cards with hua). The prediction says that if this is probably
> the case, we should find some evidence of that term used in cards as a
> term for cash.
>
Your logic may sound good. Any "prediction" based on a sample size
equal to 2 is crazy!
> My Chinese colleague searched high and low for all the terms used in
> card games.
> Recently he found the term tong/copper/cash in a description of a hand
> made up of money suited cards.
>
You already started with "money-suited" cards, what else do you expect
to find other than "tong/copper/cash"?
> Lo said that the 30 card deck was doubled to play mo hu. It was then
> quadrupled quintupled etc to play other games. He mentions these games
> played with these cards (the ma diao type deck and since they had each
> card quadrupled or quintupled then clearly the madiao deck was
> multiplied up that way. He gives the reference for the description of
> these two games in his endnotes in Asian Games.
>
And what was the credible evidence being referenced? Did you check
with Lo. Do you have reference to show?
> > However, by definition Peng He is not mahjong. I don't remember from
> > my reading if it was concluded as ancestor of mahjong or not in a
> > lengthy discussion some years ago and repeated later.
>
> I think it was implicated. Yes.
>
You mean it was implicated as "Yes"(Mahjong)?
> >[..]
> [..][..]
>
>[..]
>
> > [..]
>
> > > 'Outside' evidence is information that comes not from you, not from
> > > your interpretations. It comes from other places.
>
> > Requirement for outside evidence applies to old and dated thinking and
> > historical perspective. New idea may not have historical evidence, but
> > it should not be automatically treated as unworthy of consideration
> > solely on the basis of lack of evidence for the time being. Who knows
> > what evidence might turn up eventually?
>
> Oh, absolutely true.
>
Then why you insisted on credible evidence before you judge my
hypothesis?
If you had considered my hypothesis, why is wrong?
> > External support one way or another is an extra help. The value of a
> > new concept should not be judged entirely by historical precedence.
> > That is what I am saying.
>
> For me, the value is in its usefulness as a good explanation. But for
> me it doesn't have a coherence with reality and so it would be a waste
> of my time to use it as a primary explanation. But I will keep it on
> standby with other explanations. Is that ok?
>
So, coherence with reality is lacking in my taiji game-concept. This
is amazing. You gauge a hypot by "coherence with reality". But you
left 7 out of a total of 34 tiles due to absence of cohesion. What
kind of double standard are you keeping?
I wonder what 'coherence with reality' really means. You are incapable
of handling intangibles? Copper cash is tangible and real. Therefore
you have no problem with it. Taiji, divination, Bagua and hexagram
etc. are too incoherent with reality.
Now I know your metal preference. I will try to avoid the abstract.
+++++++++++
> > Who first thought of going to the moon? Where was the credible
> > evidence for any possibility of such idea? I-Ching based design for
> > mahjong is new.
>
> No, I am afraid it is not new. Ly Yu Sang talks about it in his book
> dated 1923. Millington mentioned Sang's ideas.
>
What did Ly Yu Sang say? Can you summarize his key concept in a
paragraph?
Now I remember. Millington has some material in his book as in
Sang's. So I heard. This a while back.
I reviewed Millington today. His chapter 5 has a lot on philosophical
background of mahjongg. I noticed one key difference of his idea from
mine.My emphasis is on the divination aspects of I-Ching. His focus is
on creation. I like his explanations for the "principles in the
rules".
They probably do not come up to par. No credible evidence yet, Unless
Sang had also said so. That I do not know.
I disagree on his symbols, their names and meaning.
> >[..]>
>[..]
> >[..]
> [//]
++++++++++++++++
I lost part of this post. I quoted Millington's description for the
circle. I wonder where he got his information.
al
> On Mar 22, 3:27 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 6:33 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 19, 7:52 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > > I have tried to keep this post as short as possible.
> > Make it even shorter next time.
>
> That will depend on the points you raise I am afraid.
I will raise fewer points.
And you are not afraid. Why say that?
[..]
> > > [..]
>[..]
> >[..]
>[..]
> > > [..]
>[..]
> > Photo 79 and 78 have the deck of 30 cards and the wood-block for
> > printing shown and a brief description in English and Japanese
> > describing it as ma diao and "eight signs of divination are written on
> > the lower indices of Coin and Strings".
> > "Eight signs" means bagua, as you know. Divination purpose is
> > unmistakable.
>
> I was thinking about that when I 1st saw that picture about 4 years
> ago. Don’t you think it is also possible that the cards could also be
> used as playing cards in a playing card game?
>
The cards are in a playing-card catalog. What else could they be used
for?
> >[..]
>
> >[..]
>
> > 79 captures one stage of development. [of the mahjong game possibly in my hypothesis.]
>
> I am sorry, can you tell me how do you know that?
No need to be sorry. Why keep saying that. You don;t mean it.
Could it not be one
> type of use these cards were put to? Or could it not be one type of
> symbols that people put on these type of cards?
>
You may want to clarify this question.
> > [..]
> I am afraid.
You shouldn't have to.
[..]
> I agree that there were slight variations in the *name for the game*,
> because as you pointed out, we have credible evidence of that.
>
> I am sorry, but there is no credible evidence that I know of, to give
> me grounds for doubt about Pan’s descriptions of the Cards as Cash
> based.
>
You are blind to the meaning of Zero Cash and Half Cash?
You don't get the sense of funny money?
What happens to your logical thinking here?
> Please don’t get upset, but just because *you* say you don’t believe
> it, or *you* doubt it but you having nothing to offer me to show your
> doubt is ok - just because you say those things with no proof/
> evidence, I am unable to believe you.
>
You are hopeless. You are a addict to Cash. I can't help you.
> That would go against my best judgement of what I think is a good
> reason to believe something.
>
> Now, if Lu Rong said that the cards did not represent Cash, then I
> would have to accept your point.
>
> Is that Ok? Do you understand my objection?
>
It's not okay and I do not understand your objection. If Rong is wrong
then Pan is also wrong. But what Pan says should not depend on what
Rong said before Pan.
> > > Oh, I agree that the Taiji probably appears on the 1 cash. I said that ]already].
>
> > You have seen it. That means the taiji was used. Whether Pan said or
> > did not say I-Ching concept was applied, I-Ching foot-print was there.
> > That is better evidence than some one said so only. We have physical
> > evidence regardless who said what. That taiji diagram is the smoking
> > gun!
>
> Look. I am really sorry for this. But I do not think it is.
>
You sound real sorry this time. You get to disagree one more time.
> There is a difference between what the iconography is on the cards and
> what is the cards’ actual meanings.
>
> That is the lesson about Pan’s 1 Cash diagram.
>
Ah, taiji diagram mean Cash, like?
> Lo mentions in his Asian Games chapter that the various iconographies
> on various types of cards were a testament to elegant and popular
> tastes.
>
And what does that mean or imply to mean? They are just pretty
pictures ?
> I have seen Western cards with various iconography on the Aces only,
> and on each of the suit cards as well. Each card displays the emblem
> of what it means (like the number of spades or diamonds or clubs) but
> the iconography on each card is different. Some have cars, some have
> planes, some have famous politicians etc.
>
So iconogrphs can be meaningless, but COINs are money from Day-1.
> > > already. I have seen a I cash card in Prunner’s catalogue that has a 1
> > > cash with a small taiji symbol on the card.
>
> > [..]
> I don’t know the date of Prunner’s deck. He gives dates, but I am not
> sure of them because he doesn’t discuss how he got the dates. However,
> I agree it adds to the probability, yes. Sure.
>
You did not mention dates associated with Lo's references that I can
recall.
> But it means the Taiji diagram got printed onto the card.
What does this mean? We are talking about pictures on cards.
>
> > You have seen a small taiji symbol on a card in Prunner's catalogue.
> > It didn't occur to you that it had any significance, I suppose. It
> > took you a long time to come out with this bit of information. Why you
> > held it for so long?
>
Is that credible outside evidence? It is a fact then taiji diagram has
been used in playing-card design. It would not be a strange symbol to
see it ma diao.
> I am sorry. Please don’t take offence. But you have forgotten that you
> have said this before?
[This is out of context. I will say it again if the need arises.]
>[..][..]
>
> >[..]
> I am sorry. What reasons do you have for those claims?
I figured out the meaning of your favorite expression, i think.
Every "sorry" is an implication of some one's mistake. Right?
I know your answer already.
I answered that in my last post.
> I don’t remember any evidence outside of your own interpretations. Do
> you have some?
> Can you please direct me to the evidence you have?
>
I will put them in a separate post.
> >[..]
> > My simple reason was cash has nothing to do with ZFB and ESWN.
>
> Can you please tell me why does it have to?
>
You know the reasons by now. I read your way of assessing hypotheses
in a recent post. It has to do with extend of explanation and
coherence with reality.
> >[..]
> > There is no proof of a link. You had a deck of 60-card in Mo He.
> > Somebody used simple arithmetic and divided it by 2 and hypothesized
> > that 30 must have come from Ma Diao when its 40 was reduced to 30. Pan
> > did say 10 cards were left out of Dou Fu.
>
> But that is why it is a hypothesis. It makes assumptions based on good
> reasons and it also has evidence as well. It then makes predictions
> from its conclusions. These predictions say that if we were to go out
> now and look at old documents from the time (if we can get any) then
> we should find what the hypothesis predicts.
>
> For example, tong from the Himly set. It is hypothesised (there is an
> argument for it) that the character is a shorthand form of tong
> meaning copper or cash (we have a similar analogical situation in
> money cards with hua). The prediction says that if this is probably
> the case, we should find some evidence of that term used in cards as a
> term for cash.
>
Copper means the metal copper.
Money was a slang twisted into copper coin.
Look at the link to CEDICT.
http://www.mandarintools.com/cgi-bin/wordlook.pl?word=0x9285&searchtype=trad&where=anywhere
> My Chinese colleague searched high and low for all the terms used in
> card games.
> Recently he found the term tong/copper/cash in a description of a hand
> made up of money suited cards.
>
That is like the bamboo money disc in Eberhart (2003).
+++++++++++
> Lo said that the 30 card deck was doubled to play mo hu.
Documented dated credible evidence?
It was then
> quadrupled quintupled etc to play other games.
When was the first quad.? Which other quad. games?
Again, documented, dated, credible evidence convinced you?
He mentions these games
> played with these cards (the ma diao type deck
Is that why you chose ma diao as the reference deck for mahjong
origin?
and since they had each
> card quadrupled or quintupled then clearly the madiao deck was
> multiplied up that way. He gives the reference for the description of
> these two games in his endnotes in Asian Games.
>
He did give reference. How can I get a copy of his "Games?
I paid over 100 U$ for Illustrated Book of Manjong Museum.
> >[..]
>[..]
> > Hypothetically, yes. I see what you don't see. Especially when it can
> > explain and correlate many features in the mahjong game, what is wrong
> > with presenting a hypothesis without outside evidence?
>
> Oh. Please don’t misunderstand me. I can see what you see. Of course I
> can.
>
> It is just that it is with no outside evidence actually describing I
> Ching concepts [in] relation to the make up of the card deck symbols back
> in late Ming and Qing times.
>
Are you sure that is the problem only? "Just that"?
Think again. What is needed after that? I may find that at the same
time.
> > MDH is hypothetical only, is it not?
>
> Not in the way I think you mean. There is a difference between the
> meaning of ‘hypothesis’ and ‘hypothetical’.
>
Explain that for me.
>[..]
> > It is even attempting to relate
> > only part of the game awaiting correspondence for a part that is so
> > far unrelated.
>
> I am sorry, I don’t understand this. Can you explain what you mean?
>
I think I was telling you your MDH can not relate money coins with
winds and ZFB.
In other words, MDH is flawed and should not be formulated.
I gave an analogy as in studying Canadian history excluding the Eskimo
and native Indian population.
I can use your words to describe your own MDH as below.
> > > [..][..]
> For me, the MDH value is in its [uselessness] as a good explanation. And for
> me it doesn't have a coherence with reality...[..].
>
> >[..] I-Ching based design for
> > mahjong is new.
>
> No, I am afraid it is not new. Ly Yu Sang talks about it in his book
> dated 1923. Millington mentioned Sang’s ideas.
>
Now I know Millington and Sang said about the same thing. I am told. I
just reviewed Millington yesterday or the other day. That is good. I
can build on their foundation work. Mine is not a lone voice in the
wild any more, although my connection is in the divination symbols
like trigrams and hexagrams and bamboo strips which relate to the
basic philosophical principle of changes in nature, like the seasons
and life and everything in the universe. I can see
we are in the same ball park at different times and speak the same
language.
> > [..]
> [..]
> Well, I am afraid I disagree with you here as well.
Nothing to be afraid of. We often disagree. No need to be sorry
either.
> I am sorry, but I think that MJ has its roots in dominoes and paper
> cards and perhaps in other places as well. I don’t want to rule
> anything out a this stage.
>
I gave an analogy for this already.
Dominoes and mahjong are like monkeys and chimpanzees.
Paper pai and mahjong are like birds and chimpanzees. [..]
+++++++++++
al
> On Mar 22, 4:27 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 3:27 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 20, 6:33 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 19, 7:52 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > > > I have tried to keep this post as short as possible.
> > > Make it even shorter next time.
>
>
Reference flawed MDH...
> > I don’t remember any evidence outside of your own interpretations. Do
> > you have some?
> > Can you please direct me to the evidence you have?
>
> I will put them in a separate post.
>
> > >[..]
> > > My simple reason was cash has nothing to do with ZFB and ESWN.
>
Money can not explain why the Winds/Directions and ZFB being in the
tile set with Coins and Strings and Myriads. I have said thas many
times.
> > Can you please tell me why does it have to?
Perhaps you should read what I posted.
http://www.mandarintools.com/cgi-bin/wordlook.pl?word=0x9285&searchtype=trad&where=anywhere
>
You said yourself. The measure of the value of a hypot is in how much
it can explain and its "coherence with reality".
Of course the coherence of a game's pieces depends directly on how the
pieces can explain the game as a whole and correlate each other.
Imagine yourself designing a simple new game. Then you will appreciate
what coherence and correlation really mean in games.
> [..]
> +++++++++++
I hope I gave you the correct post.
It is "Winds are winds; Cash not cash".
al
> On Mar 22, 3:27 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 6:33 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 19, 7:52 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > > I have tried to keep this post as short as possible.
> > Make it even shorter next time.
>
> >[..]
>
> > My simple reason [ is this ]:
cash has nothing to do with ZFB and ESWN.
>
> Can you please tell me why does it have to?
>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.mahjong/browse_thread/thread/ab941ba0d18a5551#
By mistake I gave in my reply a link to CEDICT for the Chinese word,
copper, which is shown as not a standard or common expression for
money.
As I suggested previously, try to design a simple game for yourself.
Choose the pieces and name them. Set a few rules. Then you would have
a real appreciation of the need for theme, coherence, and correlation
etc. among the pieces and in the rules. Mahjong though an old game
should not be any exception.
> >[..]
+++++++++++
I visited the site of "Asian Games Art of Contest" just this morning.
I found an item of interest and I wonder if that had any influence on
your belief in Cash or the MDH. Mahjong is said to belong to the money-
suited category of games.
That was not meant to be hypothetical, by the way it was stated.
+++++++++++++
P.S. I do have "outside" evidence for this post (or not?):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.mahjong/browse_thread/thread/ab941ba0d18a5551#
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 22, 4:27 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> How else to get a point across?
That is ok. I don’t mind you repeating the same points over and over.
But you said “Make it even shorter next time”.
Your reply seemed to me to be an order. There were no words in it like
‘can you’ or ‘please can you’. These would have told me it was a
polite request and not an order.
But you just made a demand that seemed to me to be in a curt and angry
way.
Is that what you intended?
So I don’t mind making the post’s short because you demanded that.
But because of your demand, I must delete your repetitious statements
and just leave a brief note in reply.
Is that ok?
I have also considered your statements seriously and so have tried to
answer them fully.
Can you answer these questions for me from last last post?
(1) But do you see now? I hope you mean a weakness in my arguments –
not
in me. Is that right?
(2) But why do you say they are my ‘heroes’? Was it meant to be
sarcastic?
(3) I have tried to make my responses in a way you can feel them, but
you
keep making what seem to me to be sarcastic remarks at me. Why?
(4) Also, did it not occur to you that your assumption about being an
experienced MJ player might not be relevant to 1870 playing?
It is important because it will help me to understand where you are
coming from better.
> My impression is that you define mahjong by the "earliest set' found.
Not quite. I defined it by starting from the present tile sets and
game-plays and name and then moving backwards in time. As we go back
in time, certain features about the game – the name, the tile set and
the features of the game-play begin to disappear until we are left
with a core set of things that we need in order to say, “Hey look!
They are playing ma que!”
> Ah, I see what possibly the misunderstanding is.
> You mean you thought I was saying mahjong was designed for divination
> use only?
What I meant was is that somebody who played a game with three suited
cards (plus the three extra cards), also liked the concepts in the I
Ching and so decided to have a pack made with various I Ching symbols
on them.
A bit like having a pack of Western playing cards and deciding that
instead of the clubs, diamonds etc logos for each suit, they decided
to use 4 types of Forces transport – Army(tanks), Navy(ships), Air
Force(jets) and Police(cars) – for each suit. The court cards (Jack,
Queen, King) could be the three uppermost ranks in each Force. There
would have to be a ranking between suits etc. But the games played
with these cards would be the same as played with the conventional
cards.
> By that I meant a stage of the game's development. The game is assumed
> as called in the MJM book madiao, 3-suited.
Why is it assumed to be that?
What I mean is that it is ok to state that it is an assumption in an
argument when there is no contrary or confirming evidence. But all the
evidence I know of points to a *four* suited card deck card deck for
ma diao.
If you are going to claim the three extra cards are a suit, then I
have to say that by suit I mean that all the cards in each ‘group’
share the same iconography and that there is a numerical hierarchy
within each suit.
That is what I meant by suits as in four suits. Sometimes there were
less than fourty cards – like 38 four example, but there were always
four suits.
If you want to define the three extra cards as a suit, then ok. I will
just say that ma diao was played with a five suited deck.
There is no evidence that I know of that supports the notion that ma
diao was played with a three suited deck. But if you have some, I will
be pleased to change my mind. Do you have any?
> Type of use is for games. Type of symbols is from I-Ching.
But didn’t you say that the cards could be used for divination
purposes? Or have I misunderstood you?
> > For the 1 Cash he said 'like the diagram ...'
> > For the 3 Cash he said 'like the shape ...'
> > For the 6 Cash he said 'like the shape...'
> He was the author of the manual. Why did Pan need to give descriptions
> as such, like this and like that?
> Do you think it sounds like he was looking at some cards. Did that
> sound like he was certain what he was describing?
If I understand your question correctly, then yes.
> > Do you remember I said that, IMO, there is a round object depicted on
> > the 1 Cash and it is probably a rendition of the Taiji diagram? I have
> > seen small Taiji diagrams on other 1 Cash cards in other packs. But
> > only on the 1 Cash.
> What is it that you are trying to tell me?
That I have seen a small taiji diagram in other card decks, but only
on the 1 cash card.
Some # 1 cards have bats on them.
> Trigrams might have been common symbols people recognize and use on a
> daily base then.
Yes. They would be able to understand how the coins were arranged on
each card without having to see each card.
> > That would go against my best judgement of what I think is a good
> > reason to believe something.
> > Now, if Lu Rong said that the cards did not represent Cash, then I
> > would have to accept your point.
> > Is that Ok? Do you understand my objection?
> Yes I understand your objection. You based on prior evidence of Rong.
> But you are assuming Rong was right because he had said it first. That
> is not always the case: First said; first must right.
No, that is not right. What I meant was that Pan says that rpreresent
denominations of Cash. If Lu Rong said something different then that
means that they had another meaning.
> On the other hand, you don't seem to understand why I don't rely on
> Pan or Rong. They gathered their knowledge of the game by oral
> tradition which as cited in history, full of homonyms of many
> meanings.
But you are assuming that happened with Lu Rong and Pan etc. What I
mean is that just because that was the case it does not mean that you
can assume each individual case was like that. You are also assuming
Pan and Rong did not know what they were talking about.
If you want to cast doubt on their testimony you need to have some
credible evidence (objective) to show that their accounts cannot be
trusted.
Otherwise, if I stick to your reasoning I am not going to believe
anything you say about any of your experiences in China. You got those
from hearsay or read Chinese books and they were all from hearsay etc.
All your knowledge about the game based on your experiences in China
is suspect and I should not believe any of it.
Not from anybody in China at any time.
All the ancient Chinese texts are from hearsay etc . I should not
believe any of the I Ching texts or any others. They are all suspect.
Sure, Pan and Rong’s accounts *might be* wrong but that is no reason.
We can use them. If at some point their accounts are shown to be wrong
then we can change our minds and ideas accordingly.
> This may be an example. Even Millington have me confused now . On page
> 96, "the circles are properly termed T'ung meaning 'wheel', signifying
> the Wheel of Heaven. They are, however, commonly called 'Ping, meaning
> 'cash' or small coin."
It is an example of the different terms used. At different times and
places. It is not an example that Pan was wrong or that it cast doubt
on Pan’s account.
As I said, the mere possibility of error is not a genuine reason for
doubt.
That is why I do not accept your claims about Pan.
> That taiji diagram is the smoking gun!
> > There is a difference between what the iconography is on the cards and
> > what is the cards' actual meanings.
> I must admit I fail to understand you and your negativity.
I thought my explanations were really clear.
I regret you see it as negativity. You are an intelligent person, so I
tried to explain what I see are very poor reasons or logic for why you
believe some of the things you claim.
> > Lo mentions in his Asian Games chapter that the various iconographies
> > on various types of cards were a testament to elegant and popular
> > tastes.
> So who is Lo? Why is so that whatever he says it must be so? Can you
> not have independent thinking as logical on your own?
Of course. But it is not Lo as a person. It is nothing to do with
personalities. It is to do with what he reported from his extensive
research.
My independent thinking is informed by what I consider to be good
evidence of what existed.
The important word is ‘informed’. So after the 1st step -when I have
an idea or I have read of an idea or explanation, I do not go and
accept in without examining what evidence there is backing it up. I go
and try and get as much material evidence mentioning the game and the
ideas in the explanation to see if there are any reports that they
existed.
That is the 2nd step.
I thought you knew who Lo is.
Please go this web page to see his expertise and research fields and
publications.
He is an expert in his field of research and therefore I defer to his
expertise and the results of his research.
I know experts are not always right. But they are likely to be more
right than you or I.
Why?
Because Lo, as an expert in his fields, is privy to more information
than you or I. (check out his pubs).
Because he is a better judge of that information than you or I,
because he is more knowledgeable in his field of study than you or I.
Since he is more knowledgeable than you or I about the culture of Ming
and Qing playing card games, his judgements about the Ming and Qing
texts information are most probably more trustworthy than yours or
mine.
> So what are you saying? the symbols mean nothing?
I am saying that in some card decks they are decorative, their meaning
is that they are their because people like those subjects or objects
or those subjects/objects are deemed to be culturally elegant or
popular.
In other card decks they may take the place of the symbols because
people like their own symbols better.
> > But it means the Taiji diagram got printed onto the card.
Yes. Absolutely.
> You are good at getting details like that. See what you can do here.
It is all about doing research. That is what research is all about.
Finding as much material about the subject and considering all the
information from it – not just the stuff that happens to be convenient
to our pet ideas. (’our’ means anyone)
> It most certainly probable is more like it. It's semantics again.
Yes. But *correct* semantics. Most certainly means undoubted. Can you
tell me if you know for sure that it was a taiji diagram?
> But you don't see is that Pan was writing a manual and giving a
> description of a card that he knew. He was not deciphering a sketch
> made by somebody else. Visualize the situation.
My understanding is that he was looking or remembering the cards he
had experience of.
If he was, then it is quite possible for him to be deciphering and
then describing the deciphered object in the illustration on each
card, by making reference to something that he and his readers knew
about. Hence why he says ‘like a…’
> > If the 1 Cash was a one circle with a line through it or a couple of
> > twisted lines through it, it might make Pan think of the Taiji
> > diagram, so he said that is what it looks like.
> This (what you suppose) is impossible. Pan was either looking at an
> old card or getting a description from his head. It was most certainly
> probable a taiji diagram was there.
> > Please don't discard this comment unless you can give me a reason why
> > you think it is not possible? I am not saying that is right, just that
> > Pan is describing what he saw using common shapes that he knew.
> I gave my reason as you requested.
But why cannot it not be what I have suggested? What is in his
description that allows you to say it is ‘impossible’.
> Furthermore you seem to have better imagination than I thought.
> That twisted line separates a black section of area from a white
> section and it might just by chance happens there was a round dot in
> each area. What else would he call such a shape?
But where does he say that there was a black area and a white area?
Yes, a dot might be in each area. Your ‘might just..’ is why I say ‘it
probably is’.
> Either situation is possible and therefore cannot be ruled out.
> In scenario 1, Pan recognized the symbol and called it as a taiji
> diagram. In scario 2, Pan used his imagination and guessed at the
> scratched line with no details.
>
> Should we accept Pan's description for the rest of the suits if that
> was scenario 2.
Oh Yes. For sure (see below).
> If Pan would interpret a drawing as taiji diagram
> based on a twisted line across a circle. What credibility should a
> writer like that deserve?
It depends on what he is describing and how he describes it. Look at
it this way. We should attach the word’ probably’to any *shape*
because that is the thing he has concluded from his deciphering. We
know there are coins because he described them without recourse to
interpretation, but we cannot be totally sure of what shapes their
arrangements make on each card.
> > > In addition, there are 3 more cards. They are written or printed
> > > unmistakably as Red Flower, White Flower and Old Thousand in Chinese
> > > characters. Their allegorical and philosophical meaning is Man-Heaven-
> > > Earth and connotative with ZBF.
> > I am sorry. What reasons do you have for those claims?
> > I don't remember any evidence outside of your own interpretations. Do
> > you have some?
> > Can you please direct me to the evidence you have?
>
> You forgot this time. Did we not just go through the interpretation
> and linkage of Heaven Wang, Earth Wang and Man Wang? We looked at
> Himly's tile set.
> They have a connection to Bai-Fa-Zhong.
Oh heck. You are incorrect if you thought I agreed with that. I
don’t.
1stly, I claim they are a quartet in that set and are seen as a
quartet in that set (that was why I said about the green frames
providing evidence for that ).
2ndly, I haven’t seen any evidence that ZFB have the specific meanings
you claim they have.
I hope I haven’t wasted your time.
> A game like mahjong has 136 or more tiles. The pieces came together by
> design. OOPS, I have no evidence. Just forget it.
Ok. I will ^_^.
Seriously, if you said ‘according to my hypothesis the pieces came
together by design…’ I would understand your claim better. I wouldn’t
say it is wrong or right. It just needs to be backed up by some
objective evidence linking it in the early period to ma que – or
probable precursor games.
> Modern players call it the same as olden day players. It's oral
> tradition. Remember.
Yes. I remember.
But I did not agree with your generalisation.
So it was passed down unmodified? Unchanged?
I know that some terms were changed or modified. I have evidence from
specific periods in time.
I know that some terms were not changed or modified.
> > But that is why it is a hypothesis. It makes assumptions based on good
> > reasons and it also has evidence as well. It then makes predictions
> > from its conclusions. These predictions say that if we were to go out
> > now and look at old documents from the time (if we can get any) then
> > we should find what the hypothesis predicts.
> I remember one prediction made. It was "ten-thousnd" in Ma Diao found
> in mahjong as "predicted".
Unfortunately no. That was already known. That was not a prediction.
> > For example, tong from the Himly set. It is hypothesised (there is an
> > argument for it) that the character is a shorthand form of tong
> > meaning copper or cash (we have a similar analogical situation
> Copper is copper, period. Copper does not mean copper money. Look at
> the CEDICT.
Oh, I know. I have seen it. But that is what is in the hand described
in the literature.
> Your logic may sound good. Any "prediction" based on a sample size
> equal to 2 is crazy!
But it means that the term was used. It does not mean that the term
was not used.
It also means IMO, that you do not understand the role of predictions
relative to hypotheses.
> > My Chinese colleague searched high and low for all the terms used in
> > card games.
> > Recently he found the term tong/copper/cash in a description of a hand
> > made up of money suited cards.
> You already started with "money-suited" cards, what else do you expect
> to find other than "tong/copper/cash"?
The game described is Ma Diao. We know that the cards in Ma Diao were
called after denominations of money. Therefore when specific cards are
mentioned, we can get their meanings based on their reported names in
contemporary texts.
I think I know what you are trying to get at now. Both Pan and Lu
Rong described four suited Ma Diao decks. In their descriptions they
give the meanings of the names of the four suits and the individual
cards as well. So did other literature describing the game of Ma Diao.
You claim that their reports are doubtful based on your claim of the
possibility of error due to hearsay etc.
But you give not one jot of evidence to show that was the case.
The MDH predicts that if Ma Que was derived from a type of preceding
card game, then the claimed MQ suit names meanings are predicted to
exist in any preceding documents describing that type of preceding
card game.
The fact is that those terms and their meanings existed and their
existence is confirming evidence for the predictions of the MDH.
Whether the origins of their meanings and their names were through
some distorting mechanism is neither here nor there. The mere
possibility of the existence of a distorting mechanism in this case,
is not a genuine reason to doubt the terms existence or their meanings
existence.
Please understand that if you try and insist that is not the case, by
saying ‘I don’t believe it’ or ‘it is crazy’ or some other statement
of belief, then I regret to inform you that I will not accept your
beliefs just like I will not accept any statement of faith. (Faith =
belief without relevant evidence).
> Do you have reference to show?
Jin Xueshi, ‘Mu Zhu Xianhua’ (Idle Chats on the Swineherds’ Game) in,
Zhang Chao et al., Zhao dai congshu, vol.4: p 3267.
> You mean it was implicated as "Yes"(Mahjong)?
It was implicated as a precursor game.
> > > New idea may not have historical evidence, but
> > > it should not be automatically treated as unworthy of consideration
> > > solely on the basis of lack of evidence for the time being. Who knows
> > > what evidence might turn up eventually?
>
> > Oh, absolutely true.
> Then why you insisted on credible evidence before you judge my
> hypothesis?
> If you had considered my hypothesis, why is wrong?
It was not “treated as unworthy of consideration”. If it was, then why
have I been discussing it with you?
I assessed your explanation on the basis of adequacy criteria. No, I
am not going to describe them, so don’t ask, ok? If you want to know,
then please get a book on the subject. The difference came about with
the amount of assumptions made and the lack of supporting evidence for
them.
These reasons are not fatal so that is why I keep your explanations
ideas on standby.
Similarly with the Tai ping hypothesis.
Your ideas are not wrong. ‘Wrong’ is the wrong word to use.
When evidence does turn up, and if it is in your explanations favour,
then your explanation becomes stronger and stronger etc. and so
becomes useful as an avenue to explore.
> > For me, the value is in its usefulness as a good explanation. But for
> > me it doesn't have a coherence with reality and so it would be a waste
> > of my time to use it as a primary explanation. But I will keep it on
> > standby with other explanations. Is that ok?
>
> So, coherence with reality is lacking in my taiji game-concept. This
> is amazing. You gauge a hypot by "coherence with reality". But you
> left 7 out of a total of 34 tiles due to absence of cohesion. What
> kind of double standard are you keeping?
None. I think you are getting upset? Is that right? If you are then
please see that is why I keep using phrases such as ‘I am sorry’ etc.
They are designed to tell you that I am not intentionally making you
upset and so you have no reason to use emotionally derived phrases,
like sarcasm, at me or accusing me out of hand. Before you do that can
you please ask me 1st what I mean? I would really appreciate that.
The MDH does not contain any assumption of an overall game design
buried within all the tiles.
I have no evidence for why the extra tile groups were chosen to be
added apart from their usefulness as groups in playing the game as
explained in the last article.
> I wonder what 'coherence with reality' really means. You are incapable
> of handling intangibles? Copper cash is tangible and real. Therefore
> you have no problem with it. Taiji, divination, Bagua and hexagram
> etc. are too incoherent with reality.
I didn’t realise you would get upset this much. I apologise for not
explaining my phrase. I thought you would understand because of all
the discussion about evidence etc.
What I said was the ‘HYPOTHESIS’. I was not talking about the specific
concepts used in it.
I was talking about the fact that if there were evidence of the
connections claimed by it then the hypothesis would be consistent with
reality. The connections it claims would be shown to have a
probability rather than a possibility of existing.
So it has nothing to do with not handling intangibles.
> Now I know your metal preference. I will try to avoid the abstract.
Please don’t jump to conclusions. Now that I have explained it to you,
I hope you can see that jumping to that conclusion is not necessary?
> > No, I am afraid it is not new. Ly Yu Sang talks about it in his book
> > dated 1923. Millington mentioned Sang's ideas.
>
> What did Ly Yu Sang say? Can you summarize his key concept in a
> paragraph?
Because of your following discussion I don’t think I need to. Ok?
[snip]
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 22, 4:27 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > That will depend on the points you raise I am afraid.
> I will raise fewer points.
> And you are not afraid. Why say that?
These are English sayings. "I am afraid" and "I am sorry" mean that "I
admit with regret".
I regret having to make these statements because I know that they are
not what you want to hear.
I regret having to make these statements because I know that you will
get upset and frustrated and annoyed.
I regret making these statements because I know you will think I am
intentionally being negative and blind to your ideas etc.
But I am not regretful for asking or replying with the answers I give.
Ok?
> You are blind to the meaning of Zero Cash and Half Cash?
> You don't get the sense of funny money?
These are playing card suits are they not? They use denominations of
cash - like single cash, strings of cash, myriads of cash and tens of
myriads of cash. Once these are established for the suits then the
different numbers or quantities of cash can be established for each
card according to the requirements of the type of cards.
If the highest value is 9 and eleven cards are used for one suit then
the Cash values must be broken down below 1 Cash for the purpose of
the card deck..
> > Please don’t get upset, but just because *you* say you don’t believe
> > it, or *you* doubt it but you having nothing to offer me to show your
> > doubt is ok - just because you say those things with no proof/
> > evidence, I am unable to believe you.
>
> You are hopeless. You are a addict to Cash. I can't help you.
Oh but you have. Please understand that your viewpoints and methods of
reasoning have been a big help.
It is strange though. I said you try to get me to accept your views
without evidence I require to accept your views and you relied by
saying I am addicted to cash.
What has your no proof/evidence got to do with me being addicted to
cash?
You have got it wrong I am afraid. I am addicted to proper evidence
for claims.
Just like I said here;
> > That would go against my best judgement of what I think is a good
> > reason to believe something.
> > Now, if Lu Rong said that the cards did not represent Cash, then I
> > would have to accept your point.
> > Is that Ok? Do you understand my objection?
> It's not okay and I do not understand your objection. If Rong is wrong
> then Pan is also wrong. But what Pan says should not depend on what
> Rong said before Pan.
I apologise for not explaining it clearer. Ok. Let's try once more.
Pan says cash. If Lu Rong said something else entirely then i cannot
accept Pan's account as being accurate because I have two conflicting
accounts. Both cannot be right so I cannot claim to know either one. I
must doubt both accounts. I therefore cannot use Pan's account at all.
Is that clearer?
> > Look. I am really sorry for this. But I do not think it is.
>
> You sound real sorry this time. You get to disagree one more time.
I don't understand. Are you wanting me to agree with you when you say
something?
Even if you offered me loads of money I would not do that. Not in a
million years.
I understand your frustration and I can understand you getting angry
and wanting to call me names or accuse me of double standards, being
negative, disagreeing and copying my style of writing in a sarcastic
way etc.
But you cannot force me to agree with you. I certainly am not
attmepting to get you to agree with me.
I am just giving you my reasons for what I accept a tthe moment.
Please believe me, I couldn't care less if you believed me or not.
> > Lo mentions in his Asian Games chapter that the various iconographies
> > on various types of cards were a testament to elegant and popular
> > tastes.
>
> And what does that mean or imply to mean? They are just pretty
> pictures ?
I am afraid not. It means that the cards also served the purpose of
illustrating things that were considered to be of popular and elegant
taste in cultured society.
> So iconographs can be meaningless, [...]
No. They were used to reflect elegant and popular tastes. The meanings
of the iconographs reflected the cultural tastes of the period.
> > I don’t know the date of Prunner’s deck. He gives dates, but I am not
> > sure of them because he doesn’t discuss how he got the dates. However,
> > I agree it adds to the probability, yes. Sure.
> > But it means the Taiji diagram got printed onto the card.
> What does this mean? We are talking about pictures on cards.
And the taiji diagram in Prunners deck is tiny and sits in the middle
of a larger abstract pattern. It is a picture on a card.
> > I am sorry. Please don’t take offence. But you have forgotten that you
> > have said this before?
>
> [This is out of context. I will say it again if the need arises.]
But you made an accusation about me. Am I not entitled to answer you?
Am I not entitled to say that you have made that before and I answered
you? Why am i not allowed to answer you and tell you that you forgot
you had mentioned that before?
Why is it out of context? Can you please explain?
> > > My simple reason was cash has nothing to do with ZFB and ESWN.
> > Can you please tell me why does it have to?
> You know the reasons by now. I read your way of assessing hypotheses
> in a recent post. It has to do with extend of explanation and
> coherence with reality.
Can you please refer to my other post in which I have corrected your
wrong meanings of my phrase 'coherence with reality'.
I apologise if you had an emotional reaction to that phrase that
diverted you from thinking about what I could have meant, other than
what you got becuase of your immediate raction to that phrase.
That is why I say I regret having to reply as I do because I am
worried you will get upset and make sarcastic remarks and untrue
accusations about me without thiking that i could have meant something
else.
I certainly hope you are not insulted by the way I say I do not agree
with you.
> > For example, tong from the Himly set. It is hypothesised (there is an
> > argument for it) that the character is a shorthand form of tong
> > meaning copper or cash (we have a similar analogical situation in
> > money cards with hua). The prediction says that if this is probably
> > the case, we should find some evidence of that term used in cards as a
> > term for cash.
>
> Copper means the metal copper.
But the term existed, and had the meaning of a name for cash in a
description of a ma diao hand.
In that context it had that meaning.
> He did give reference. How can I get a copy of his "Games?
> I paid over 100 U$ for Illustrated Book of Manjong Museum.
I do not know. Have you tied the local library?
> > > MDH is hypothetical only, is it not?
>
> > Not in the way I think you mean. There is a difference between the
> > meaning of ‘hypothesis’ and ‘hypothetical’.
>
> Explain that for me.
I will. But first you must tell me what you mean by hypothetical when
you said above "MDH is hypothetical only, is it not?"
Can you tell what you mean so I know i have not misunderstood you?
> > > It is even attempting to relate
> > > only part of the game awaiting correspondence for a part that is so
> > > far unrelated.
> > I am sorry, I don’t understand this. Can you explain what you mean?
> I think I was telling you your MDH can not relate money coins with
> winds and ZFB.
> In other words, MDH is flawed and should not be formulated.
> I gave an analogy as in studying Canadian history excluding the Eskimo
> and native Indian population.
Yes you did. Thank you for that analogy that described what you
meant.
Did you read my reply of your analogy? Here it is again;
"If the research was about
devising an explanation of the origin of the entire population of a
country, then, for the purpose of the analogy with ma qiao, certain
criteria must be stated; (this is a very simple analogy)
(1) The population is determined to consist of separate groups (its
ethnic mix) = the separate groups present in early ma qiao.
(2) Each group is then studied, to list its inherent features/
properties/characteristics.
(3) The properties etc of each group are compared with the properties
of other relevant groups, in this case the worldwide ethnic groups
that existed or are existing at the time or, in the case of ma qiao,
the chinese games preceding or existing at the time.
(4) When credible evidence of similarities are found between the
study group and another pre exisiting group, a hypothesis is then
devised
to explain the degree of similarities between the two groups.
(5) If no credible evidence is found of any similarities for one of
the groups and another group, then that group is left to one side
until further credible evidence comes to light. "
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 22, 4:27 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 22, 3:27 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> As I suggested previously, try to design a simple game for yourself.
> Choose the pieces and name them. Set a few rules. Then you would have
> a real appreciation of the need for theme, coherence, and correlation
> etc. among the pieces and in the rules. Mahjong though an old game
> should not be any exception .
Actually. I did I did not need a theme at all.
Why "should not be" any exception?
> I visited the site of "Asian Games Art of Contest" just this morning.
> I found an item of interest and I wonder if that had any influence on
> your belief in Cash or the MDH. Mahjong is said to belong to the money-
> suited category of games.
No, I am afraid that it didn't.
> That was not meant to be hypothetical, by the way it was stated.
?? I don't understand that. Sorry.
> P.S. I do have "outside" evidence for this post (or not?):http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.mahjong/browse_thread/thread...
What is the link please?
al
> On Mar 23, 6:32 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 4:27 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> [snip]
++++++++++++++++++++
I get the feeling we are both wasting time and energy. we are mostly
repeating our disagreement over and over again. Cheerio...
msta...@talktalk.net
Thank you for the discussion.
al
> On Jan 4, 4:24 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Double Happiness 喜喜 is a pair 又又 like Yin-Yang
>
> > Following is a quote from May 28, 2008 in reference to the mahjong
> > pattern 2 +3's and my suggestion that the '2' correspond with the yin-
> > yang duo in I-Ching (Book of Changes).
> > By the way, I also said the 3's correlate with the trigrams of Bagua;
> > two trigrams form a hexagram oracle in Chinese divination. Recently I
> > found all the signs of support in Photo 79, page 55 of Illustrated
> > Book of Mahjong Museum (1999).
>
> > Quote of reader's comment:
> > "I also agree with [the] response about the pair. It does not show
> > yin- yang (which are states in opposition and complementation, and are
> > NOT identical)." Unquote.
> > ++++++++++++
> > I thought of a response to the comment the other day when I was
> > looking at the "modern deck of money cards" in Sloperama FAQ #11
> > Mahjong History.
> > What I saw was the double happiness sign, 双 喜, which is standard for
> > Chinese weddings. It is represented by identical symbols, 喜 and 喜 side
> > by side like this, 喜喜. Also above and below the double-happiness sign
> > were two big individual eyes. The eyes looked identical too. One eye
> > represents one person and the other eye represents another, as though
> > each eye belongs to one of the happy couple 喜喜 getting married. So,
> > when it comes to the use of Chinese symbols in language,
> > simplification is the rule. By the way, we do refer to the pair in a
> > mahjong winning hand as eyes.
>
> > The point here is that gender is not shown in the symbol, 喜喜. Same
> > happiness sign for bride and groom.
>
> > Another example of Chinese symbolic thinking and writing is the word
> > for twin birth. It is written as 子子 生. We know twins are not always
> > two boys. The main idea is two births while the female gender is
> > omitted in the word 子子. The same idea applies to a pair which may be
> > husband and wife of opposite sex but represented in simplified form as
> > one pair, 一双. The word 双 is made up of identical entities, 又 and 又.
>
> > These typical examples of Chinese etymology indicated clearly that the
> > emphasis is on the quantitative aspect of a word or a symbol rather
> > than the qualitative whenever a collective noun of two entities
> > involved. Such selective representation could have applied logically
> > to the yin-yang pair as I had suggested. A pair is 2, simple as that.
>
> > Therefore a pair of identical tiles in mahjong can represent yin and
> > yang.
> > ++++++++++
> > Allan Lee
> > January 04, 2009
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 双眼 = 雙眼 = a pair or both eyes.
> 双手 = 雙手 = a pair or both hands.
>
> These are typical examples of pairs, comparable to yin-yang.
>
> THE MAIN IDEA IS DUALITY. YIN-AND-YANG REPRESENTS DUALITY. AND THE TWO
> CIRCLES, ONE LIGHT AND ONE DARK, LIKE A PAIR OF FISH EYES IN A TAIJI
> DIAGRAM, ARE SYMBOL OF DUALITY.
>
> http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_7.jpg
>
> In mahjong, a pair of * eYe * is critical requirement for every
> winning hand. Nothing counts without the pair. That is a basic rule of
> the game. It is a rule that has never been changed, as far as I know.
>
> So a pair of eyes is needed to have a winning hand. But why? What is
> the "principle behind the rule"?
>
> Some people may still have doubts on any suggestion of something new,
> such as the duality concept in I-Ching and its possible connection to
> the pair in mahjong winning pattern which consists of sets of tiles in
> combination sequences of 3's and a pair. Yet there has not been offer
> of explanation for the game's unique rules of play.
>
> In fact, NG's mahjong history is filled with years of discussion on
> meaning of Chinese words and the identity of various symbols.
>
> It's about time to study the basic rules of the game. Its name is so
> mixed up, we can not get near its origin talking about names
> Rules of play are more stable and more or less uniform in different
> parts of the old country. In addition a rule was established for a
> reason. What is the reason for the need of a pair of *eYe* in
> mahjong? An answer to this fundamentally question can lead to the
> concept of the game's origin.
>
> If yin-yang creation concept is not the idea of this rule, could some
> one think of a better "principle behind the rule"? Let's see it.
>
> For some evidence in card game history, look at the "Modern" "money-
> suited" deck in Sl;operama FAQ #11.
>
> In this deck, one card has a large "Double-Happiness" sign in the
> middle. Directly above this sign is one eye and directly below the
> same sign is another eye. The two eyes are placed horizontally, above
> and below the Double-Happiness sign; obviously, one eye belongs to one
> face and the other eye belongs to another face.
> A double-happiness sign is traditionally a marriage of male and
> female. One could accept that one eye belongs to the male and the
> other eye belongs to the female. A pair of eyes can represent both
> genders in card game design, evidently.
>
> Strictly speaking, the comparison is not totally accurate, but that is
> typical in the use of metaphors. And when most people were illiterate
> and when the language was in early development, as it was in ancient
> China, metaphors and similes were best means of communication for
> intangible concepts. Words could not give adequate explanation and
> most people could not read. Exact description was impossible.
>
> Generally Westerners try to apply modern 21st century logic to
> understand ancient allegorical thinking is futile exercise. They
> simply lack appreciation for a different culture. For example, in Dao-
> De Jing, this is how the world was filled with myriads of all things.
>
> "Dao produced One. One produced Two. Two produced Three. Three
> produced Ten-thousand-things."
>
> Such is over-simplification. It is true, but that was the world-view
> of people in ancient time.
>
> Same for the yin-yang concept, although yin and yang are not separate
> but together as one whole unit, It is easier to think of them as
> separate entities when two types of lines representing their polar-
> opposites in trigrams.
>
> Yin and ang are not fixed or static. They are dynamic and changing. In
> the Tai Chi (Taiji) diagram, Yin begins at Summer Solstice and yang
> begins at Winter Solstice. Yin grows from minimum to maximum and yang
> grows likewise, and they recycle.
>
> The yin-yang diagram is a trace of the changing patterns of shadow and
> sunlight in a yearly cycle. It is showing how the day-light hours
> change through the seasons. That is how I understand it. Technically,
> the Tai Chi diagram is a graph of a series of measurements of shadows.
> It is a chart constructed from empirical data. The essence of the
> diagram is unending cyclical change over the four seasons.
>
> One interesting note: the Chinese used a pole exactly 8-ft. tall to
> measure the sun's shadow and came up with the yin-yang pattern
> thousands of years ago.
>
> A further note for people who insist on detailed accuracy: the solid
> and broken lines, as given in The Living I-Ching, [ -x- ] is old yin
> line which has the gap filled by an 'x'. And [ -o- ] is old yang line
> which is a solid line with a big 'o' in it. The simple broken and
> solid lines without 'x' and 'o' are 'young' yin line and 'young' yang
> line. These lines are in changing combination of trigrams. So, yin-
> yang polarity is dynamic and not static.
>
> For card game design, as seen in the sample of "modern money-suited"
> card deck in Sloperama FAQ #11, a simple metaphor, like a pair of
> *eYe* serves the purpose. No need to complicate the idea with finer
> details. That is how I see it.
>
> By the way, some researchers may have objection to the loose use of
> "modern" in terms of dated-ness. Others might accept it as 'not-
> ancient'. The fact is that such a deck did exist at one time within
> the period between "modern" and "ancient".
>
> Those eyes on the "modern" card are human eyes. (Refer again to the
> "money-suited" deck in Sloperama FAQ #11. They probably represent male
> and female in context of the double-happiness sign.
>
> I do not recall reading anything on a reason for their symbolic use.
> Where did the "eyes" come from and why mahjong players all call them
> as such?
>
> Here is a clue. The taiii (Tai Chi) diagram looks like a pair of fish
> in mating. The term yin-yang-fish is in Tai Chi glossary; "yu" in yin-
> yang-yu meaning fish. That is probably the reason for the mysterious
> fish-symbol on some decks of playing cards. See photo 45 (Shui-Huo Ti
> Pai) in the Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum (Japan, 1999).
>
> Fish have eyes. In Chinese metaphors, eyes are eyes. Even though one
> is black and the other white, one is like the other.
>
> Thus, the taiji diagram first could just be an artistic drawing
> displaying a set of empirical data. This collection of shadows became
> a pair of fish.
>
> http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_7.jpg
>
> Then extrapolation by simile; fish-eyes compared to and substituted
> with human eyes. However, underneath all the poetic exercise, the
> basic idea is "DUOALITY".
>
> http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
> +++++++++++
> Allan Lee
>
> P.S. This is serious effort of inquiry into mahjong origin. Read it if
> you want and critique if you like. Questions are welcome.
>
> ++++++++
I am searching for "outside" and "credible evidence" relating to my
hypothesis. I have been saying that the symbols in mahjong are not
Cash or "money-based", but they refer to YiJing divination and
concepts of cosmology in Taoism. Point the way if any one has
something somewhere. I could use some help.
So far I found a deck of 30 cards shown on page 55 as photo 79 of
Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum (1999, Japan). That deck of 30
cards consists of 9 sketches of bamboo-strips with hexagram lines, 9
circular Taiji (Tai Chi) diagrams with 6 lines in 2 trigrams side by
side for each card.
The bamboo strips have oracle messages for use in divination practice.
Captain G. E. Mauger gave a mention of 签 (Tchant) in his 1917 article
(Chinese Ma-Tchio Pai, reference: TPC V35 N1, page 27, 28, 29).
The bamboo strips in photo 79 of MJM Illustrated Book have pointed
tips marking the lower ends so the message wording is never placed
upside down.
This evidence needs a date, to be "credible". Any info relating to the
dating of photo 78 and 79 on page 55 of the Illustrated Book of
Mahjong Museum would be helpful.
I am saying the symbols in the mahjong tile set represent concepts of
creation and cosmology in Taoism and Bamboo relates to ancient
divination using sketches of 6 lines in the Book of Changes. East
South West and North, as well as Zhong Fa and Bai are cosmological
aspects of Taoism. Ten-thousand things are part of creation from the
Duality concept and binary repetition. "2 + 3", where 2 is the pair
and 3's are the melds, is a simple way to understand the structure and
meaning of the mahjong game. (I see the melds as trigrams in the Book
of Changes).
+++++++++++++
Cheers...
msta...@talktalk.net
> This evidence needs a date, to be "credible". Any info relating to the
> dating of photo 78 and 79 on page 55 of the Illustrated Book of
> Mahjong Museum would be helpful.
Have you tried contacting them?
al
++++++++++++++
I wrote a letter sometime ago. No reply.
I sent email lately. No contact name in website.
msta...@talktalk.net
Hmmm. I am afraid I cannot help you.
I too have been trying to contact a Japanese friend who belongs to
their organisation, but without success.
msta...@talktalk.net
> Captain G. E. Mauger gave a mention of 签 (Tchant) in his 1917 article
> (Chinese Ma-Tchio Pai, reference: TPC V35 N1, page 27, 28, 29).
I was reading your post again and I thought that this definitely goes
back to my previous subject thread.
It might be good practice to correctly use what the text says?
Let us see what it says.
"Tchantze or Saultze or cords". (The last term is a translation). Put
another way this is 'tchan tze' and 'saul tze'. As I mentioned,
tchantze could be qian zi and saultze, suo zi. The presence of suo zi
tells us that the suit has a very old name dating back to the Ming
Dynasty period. In ma que, this suit also later took on the name of
'bamboos'.
I am sorry, but Tchantze is not 'tchant ze'. It is 'tchan tze'.
Also, I just wanted to say that correctly quoting the whole text that
mentions anything to do with this gives us a fuller picture of what
might have been meant, rather than, incorrectly, quoting part of the
text and possibly giving the impression that information is being
'cherry-picked' to conform to some preconceived notion?
msta...@talktalk.net
Actually, to be strictly accurate, I think I should put it under a
subject heading related to a previous subject ^_^
On Mar 27, 1:43 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Captain G. E. Mauger gave a mention of 签 (Tchant) in his 1917 article
> (Chinese Ma-Tchio Pai, reference: TPC V35 N1, page 27, 28, 29).
It might be good practice to correctly use what the text says?
Let us see what it says.
"Tchantze or Saultze" Put another way this is 'tchan tze' and 'saul
msta...@talktalk.net
> Actually, to be strictly accurate, I think I should put it under a
> subject heading related to a previous subject ^_^
>
> On Mar 27, 1:43 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > (Chinese Ma-Tchio Pai, reference: TPC V35 N1, page 27, 28, 29).
>
> It might be good practice to correctly use what the text says?
>
> Let us see what it says.
>
> "Tchantze or Saultze" Put another way this is 'tchan tze' and 'saul
> tze'. As I mentioned, tchantze could be qian zi and saultze, suo zi.
> The presence of suo zi tells us that the suit has a very old name
> dating back to the Ming Dynasty period. In ma que, this suit also
> later took on the name of 'bamboos'.
>
> I am sorry, but Tchantze is not 'tchant ze'. It is 'tchan tze'.
>
> Also, I just wanted to say that correctly quoting the whole text that
> mentions anything to do with this gives us a fuller picture of what
> might have been meant, rather than, incorrectly, quoting part of the
> text and possibly giving the impression that information is being
> 'cherry-picked' to conform to some preconceived notion?
I made a slight mistake. The quote should say "Tchantze or Saultze or
cords;"
al
They are all rather confusing anyway.
搜索 That looks partly familiar; the 索 anywy.
sōu suǒ = pinyin, meaning: search for; meticulously look for; scour;
do a search (for); look up.
The term is the instruction at the end of a page for China Cards web
site you sent me.
索 may be a symbol for *rope* which is made up of ten or more strands
of threads or strings bound together, but it can convey a meaning of a
metaphor, a rope as a guide for people searching or look for answers
such as in the I-Ching hexagon oracles.
The meaning of the word 索 has been lost a long time and still covered
too deep for mahjong players to find or appreciate.
As we known, some call it string of coins and some it string of fish.
The common mistake made is seeing symbols as actual objects like
thinking the apple in Garden of Eden for real.
+++++++++++++++
al
> On Mar 27, 1:43 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > (Chinese Ma-Tchio Pai, reference: TPC V35 N1, page 27, 28, 29).
>
> I was reading your post again and I thought that this definitely goes
> back to my previous subject thread.
>
> It might be good practice to correctly use what the text says?
>
> Let us see what it says.
>
> "Tchantze or Saultze or cords". (The last term is a translation). Put
> another way this is 'tchan tze' and 'saul tze'. As I mentioned,
> tchantze could be qian zi and saultze, suo zi. The presence of suo zi
> tells us that the suit has a very old name dating back to the Ming
> Dynasty period. In ma que, this suit also later took on the name of
> 'bamboos'.
>
> I am sorry, but Tchantze is not 'tchant ze'. It is 'tchan tze'.
>
What does it mean to you?
To me, it is a bamboo strip or slip.
签 [qian1]
http://i-tjingcentrum.nl/serendipity/uploads/slips.serendipityThumb.jpg
The bamboo Tchan I have seen used are more like the bamboo slips in
the top row of the symbols in photo 79, page 55, Illustrated Book of
the Mahjong Museum. They have one end, the lower end, pointed to mark
the slips always remaining right side up.
+++++++++++
> Also, I just wanted to say that correctly quoting the whole text that
> mentions anything to do with this gives us a fuller picture of what
> might have been meant, rather than, incorrectly, quoting part of the
> text and possibly giving the impression that information is being
> 'cherry-picked' to conform to some preconceived notion?
I believe in quoting what is needed without distorting.
+++++++++++++++
You said something interesting about the age of the term. How did you
determine that? Anyway, have a look at this CEDICT page.
http://www.mandarintools.com/cgi-bin/wordlook.pl?word=0x5B50&searchtype=trad&where=anywhere
There are 200 items used with tze or zi.
Do you see the insignificance of tze and zi?
++++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
I have placed this answer back in this subject because it is about how
we may correctly use sources when we are discussing the definition of
terms.
Please can it be left in this subject unless the subject changes to
something else?
> > > Captain G. E. Mauger gave a mention of ǩ (Tchant) in his 1917 article
> > > (Chinese Ma-Tchio Pai, reference: TPC V35 N1, page 27, 28, 29).
>
> > I was reading your post again and I thought that this definitely goes
> > back to my previous subject thread.
> > It might be good practice to correctly use what the text says?
> > Let us see what it says.
> > "Tchantze or Saultze or cords". (The last term is a translation). Put
> > another way this is 'tchan tze' and 'saul tze'. As I mentioned,
> > tchantze could be qian zi and saultze, suo zi. The presence of suo zi
> > tells us that the suit has a very old name dating back to the Ming
> > Dynasty period. In ma que, this suit also later took on the name of
> > 'bamboos'.
> > I am sorry, but Tchantze is not 'tchant ze'. It is 'tchan tze'.
>
> But more important is its meaning.
> What does it mean to you?
> To me, it is a bamboo strip or slip.
>
> 签 [qian1]
But it is also very important to correctly use the texts you are
citing from.
As in my article, I am unsure as to what meaning Mauger and his
Chinese friends had in mind. That is why I said 'if' when I stated "If
'Tchantze' is indeed, in pinyin, 'qian zi' meaningslip of bamboo or
slips of bamboo used for gambling,...".
The article was discussing Mauger's description. As you may have
noted, the 1st quote says the Mauger begins to describe the tile set
by referrring to it as a form of the money-suited cards that he had
discussed previously.
That is why the footnote mentioned gambling as a possible definition
and that is why other possible connections regarding bamboo and money
were mentioned.
In the wider meaning of the term, not confined to the money context,
it can be (according to my Oxford Chinese-English dictionary) a bamboo
slip used for divination, gambling or contest purposes.
Mandarintools.com gives it also as just 'a stick'.
Its meaning depends on the context that is being discussed. So what
did Mauger or his Chinese friends mean by the term? That is why
quoting all of the text of the sentence etc, is important.
I have no personal inclination as to its meaning. As far as I can
assess, at this time, there is no objective evidence of the underlying
divination concepts in ma que that you suppose. That is why I am
reluctant to say that its meaning is about that use.
However, it cannot be ruled out either since there is no evidence to
rule it out.
> The bamboo Tchan I have seen used are more like the bamboo slips in
> the top row of the symbols in photo 79, page 55, Illustrated Book of
> the Mahjong Museum. They have one end, the lower end, pointed to mark
> the slips always remaining right side up.
But you have seen them used presumably as divination tools, is that
right? If so, I have no problem with that as you are an authority on
your culture as you experienced it.
However, you have then applied that meaning to the ma que term.
Within your own explanation that is fine.
> I believe in quoting what is needed without distorting.
That is ok. But distorting can happen just by leaving out part of a
sentence etc.
> You said something interesting about the age of the term. How did you
> determine that? Anyway, have a look at this CEDICT page.
If you are referring to the statement above, I was referring to 'suo'.
Don't forget that Mauger says another Chinese name for the suit is
'suo' which he defines as 'cords'. 'Suo' is a very old name dating
back, so far, as a suit name to Pan Zhiheng. As we precede forward in
time we note that other terms for the suit appear in the literature.
That was what I was referring to.
Mauger's name is from around 1915, some 300 years later after Pan
Zhiheng.
msta...@talktalk.net
> of threads or strings bound together, but it can convey a meaning of a
> metaphor, a rope as a guide for people searching or look for answers
> such as in the I-Ching hexagon oracles.
That is fine, if you cite it in your explanation.
>
> The meaning of the word 索 has been lost a long time and still covered
> too deep for mahjong players to find or appreciate.
>
> As we known, some call it string of coins and some it string of fish.
> The common mistake made is seeing symbols as actual objects like
> thinking the apple in Garden of Eden for real.
I would agree with you in part. However, the original meaning, from
the evidence we have, is a string of 100 coins.
My recent post should have been posted here, since it features 'suo'
but also it is about the subject thread name -correctly quoting text.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar 30, 2:05 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
I have placed this answer back in this subject because it is about how
we may correctly use sources when we are discussing the definition of
terms.
Please can it be left in this subject unless the subject changes to
something else?
> > > Captain G. E. Mauger gave a mention of ǩ (Tchant) in his 1917 article
> > > (Chinese Ma-Tchio Pai, reference: TPC V35 N1, page 27, 28, 29).
>
> > I was reading your post again and I thought that this definitely goes
> > back to my previous subject thread.
> > It might be good practice to correctly use what the text says?
> > Let us see what it says.
> > "Tchantze or Saultze or cords". (The last term is a translation). Put
> > another way this is 'tchan tze' and 'saul tze'. As I mentioned,
> > tchantze could be qian zi and saultze, suo zi. The presence of suo zi
> > tells us that the suit has a very old name dating back to the Ming
> > Dynasty period. In ma que, this suit also later took on the name of
> > 'bamboos'.
> > I am sorry, but Tchantze is not 'tchant ze'. It is 'tchan tze'.
>
al
> On Mar 19, 3:35 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 7:52 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 16, 10:48 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 16, 10:17 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 15, 3:06 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > But your verbosity is wearing me down.
> > Can you limit the points to just a few in a post?
> > [..]
> I try and make my answers thorough and as complete as I can [..]]..]
> > > What do you mean by “I think you can still learn the game yet.”?
>
> > experience.
>
> Why did you feel you needed to be sarcastic at me?
>
authority of mahjong.
>[..]
With reference to your post on Winds Order etc.,
> > I tried and failed to find that post. Please simply restate the core
> > features in a paragraph.
How many core features in ma que?
Try this question. which core features passed on from ma diao to ma
que? You did claim a link between the two games. Correct?
Now if I can match those features and more, what would you say then? I
like to see and know where the goal posts are first.
>
>[..]
>
> Ok. I am doing you a BIG favour here. Since it requires explanation,
> then I am going to have to use many words.
> Core features are my *necessary conditions* for a game to be
> considered a ma que game
> I am prepared for it not to be called ma que.
> These conditions are;
> (1) Having playing instruments consisting of three, money-derived
> suits each with 1 - 9 consecutive units (or one alternative suit)
> with
> each suit quadruplicated, together with four, quadruplicated,
> Directions (or Directions alternatives) is a condition, but it is not
> the only condition that has to be satisfied for some game to be a
> game
> of maque.
This is an impossible condition. The very concept of "money-derived
suites" is unacceptable. I have telling you the names of the symbols
are meaningless. Money is not the glue that holds the pieces in the
game together, if you know the meaning of my metaphor.
> (2) Having a melds only consisting of the formulae of chows, pungs,
> kongs and pairs (of identical units) is a condition.
Again, you in effect moved the goal posts by hundreds of years.
You claim mahjong comes from ma diao. Where did you find melds of any
combination? And now you want "only" such and such formulae? Including
Kong!
> Both (1) and (2) are each the necessary conditions for maque. They
> are
> those things whose absence (either one or both) *guarantees* that a
> game of maque cannot be played.
>
You have been seeing the final phase of the games evolution and you
have the audacity to define the game as you see it now. You can not
imagine the evolutionary process from its inception in concept in
original form and skip in stages of changes over time.
Yet ma diao has non of the "necessary conditions" and you can claim it
to the primary link.
> > > > > > > > > Or, any mention from somone of around that preriod (circa 1800 - 1870)
> > > > > > > > > who actually states the I Ching concepts were used for ma que.
You know very well that there was no book written on mahjong other
than some remote brief reference in some story book about a game like
mahjong played somewhere.
Here is where a westerner can not appreciate eastern culture. Chinese
people played the game. They don't know the history of it and they
don't care. To produce a witness who had actually stated how the
mahjong game was based centuries ago is simply impossible. And if that
man who stated that was a historian, you will probably wanted the
actual inventor, moving the goal post again.
> > Did anybody "actually states that money was used as the round symbol
Rong and Pan only said those round shapes were called Cash
(translated). The two men only repeated what they heard. No one
actually stated that was derived from money. The games were there long
before their time.
Rong and Pan or Feng did not say who had actually stated the circles
were derived from money. But you consider it is money-derived. Yet you
demand an actual statement from some one as testimonial in my
hypothesis. Right?
Who knew and how he knew for sure money symbols were adopted for ma
diao.
On page 87, TPC-V31-N2, "a cash is circular with the hole square. It
takes its image from the great [note 10], and the counting is done in
reverse ending in Zero Cash. Thus Zero Cash is supreme. Something
empty is ideal for storage and savings."
Note 10 (about cash) on page 96, TPC V31-N2 only says and I quote.
"This refers to the greatness of heaven which is regarded as being
circular, and earth, which is regarded as being square.. See
[dictionary] Hanyu dacidian vol, 2 p. 972".
Zero Cash is empty, blank nothing in the circle. How did it represent
Cash which was supposed to have a "hole square"?
Half Cash did not jave a square hole either. Then look at this. 1-Cash
has what looked "like the diagram of the taiji".
Np mention of square holes for any of the other Cash in the suit. They
were referred to as fruits called "guo". It says "although 'cash' was
its original meaning", but why no hole and who said so actually ?
This 'cash' was placed in single quotes on page 87.
> > [..]
> > Who knows and how he knows for sure money symbols were adopted for
> > mahjong? Those symbol don't look like Cash to me.
> > Why did you accept it at face-value?
>
> I haven’t. That is why the MDH is a hypothesis. It consists of a
> series of arguments whose conclusions each go to being one of the
> statements in the hypothesis. The various arguments consist of
> supported premises and justified assumptions.
>
All these are big words empty like the Zero Cash.
No known person presented the MDH you said, although Wilkinson came
close to having done it. Then where is this MDH from? And you even
told me it is not yours. You are only holding on to it until something
better comes along. Right?
> Your explanation lacks any form of support from outside of your own
> interpretations from your own thinking. I have been saying this for a
> long time.
> Can you please tell me if you have anything to support your claims,
> from outside of your interpretations?
Yes. Go look at photo 79, page 55, Illustrated Book of Mahjong Museum
(1999). I know now also references made by Ly Yu Sang and A. D.
Millington to some aspects I-Ching cosmology.
You have had the Illustrated Book for years. You might have seen the
30-card deck on page 55, photos 78 and 79. But (1) you were not
looking for other explanation than Cash for mahjong and (2) the words
on the first card of each suit did not mean anything to you. (3) No
voice of authority had spoken of the divination aspect of it because
you rely almost solely on past history.
>
> > The man who first used the term Cash may not have played the game.
>
> You see? This is what I am talking about. (Please don’t get upset with
> things I am going to say as I am telling them to you with the
> sincerest of motives. And I am not trying to be clever with words
> either. I am trying to show you how I see your reasoning. If you think
> I am wrong, then tell me your reasoning.)
>
> I think you are saying; “no one has proved the man who first used the
> term Cash, had played the game. Therefore he may not have played the
> game.”
>
> Your lack of evidence is evidence for nothing at all, is it?
>
> That is why I am really not interested in “may not”. The reason why is
> that it tells me nothing. You have no evidence to show me to back up
> your claim, do you?
>
I say you are wrong. This is why I think you are wrong.
This is a fact as I interpreted, Himly considered a set of mahjong
consists of 148 tiles. He did not, being a meticulous person he was
supposed to be, specify 4 blanks as spare.
That is the tell-tale sign in my observation as evidence in my
assessment of Himly as a player of the game.
> > > Actually states = the statements exists in reality, they are
> > > unambiguous.
However, unambiguous, may be as clear as stating that such a country
has "weapon of mass destruction". A statement like that actually
existed. But it was untrue.
>
> > First, that so-called Cash is also called GUO, fruit.
>
> Yes. But its original meaning was CASH, wasn’t it.
But who said so? Where was the actual statement or witness?
Is that not what you would ask for any other hypothesis other than
MDH?
>
> > Second, that fruit looks like a taiji diagram.
So, how many more fruits that look like taiji diagrams? Could the
whole suit of Cash look something like the taiji suit in photo 79 of
MJM Illustrated Book?
> [..]
>
> > Third, there is the highest card called Empty Hot Water Bottle.
>
> I can’t find that. Can you tell me where it is? I remember the name
> though.
On page 90, TPC V31-N2, top paragraph.
>
> > Need I say more? What kind of Cash [is] this you are talking about? It is
> > all funny money!
How an intelligent logician can believe that stuff is beyond me.
>
> We are talking about playing cards aren’t we? The cards are named
> after denominations of cash. The suits represent a hierarchy of units
> of cash. Some of these cards have different names – a nickname for
> example.
>
That means to me Cash may not be cash. It is meaningless among the
suits and in the game as a whole.
No use. Let's forget it.
> > And just because somebody had written it and another person translated
> > it into English so you could read. Then that became credible evidence?
>
> I don’t understand your argument. Are you saying the author did not
> exist?
That brings up an interesting point. I can not say Pan did not exist.
My question is was there something else in existence. Why would Pan
use so many terms and references to I-Ching? Was there some booklet he
used when wrote his manual? I did not read if he had some written
material for reference. Was he writing a simplified version of an
older manual? Did you come across anything on that?
I figured it this way. Using I-Ching symbols to explain how cards look
like in Ming time would be similar to preaching a sermon in Latin to a
catholic congregation today. The language is simply out of sync.
If those TRIGRAMS and TAIJI DIAGRAMS were not Pan's own vocabulary,
then what book was he translating? Good question?
> Perhaps you mean that since somebody wrote it and somebody translated
> it then the I Ching is not credible either? Perhaps this applies to
> any written account?
>
You said it. I-Ching did go through changes itself. The core concepts
remain, as I understand it.
> >[..]
> > > I know about Tian Jiu 'Heavens and Nines’. These are dominoes. These
> > > tablets or cards are well known amongst researchers and other members
> > > of this forum. Lo and Wilkinson and Culin have commented on them etc.
> > > I have also commented on the fact that they have the terms Heaven,
> > > Earth, Man and Harmony linked with the dominoes 6-6, 1-1, 4-4 and 1-3.
>
> > Then why didn't you search a little further?
>
> Why are you assuming I didn’t? [..]
>
I just thought you would have found more than what you said above, if
you had looked into it further.
> > Can you not see the round shapes? There are correspondence in the
> > concept of Heaven King, Earth King and Man King.
>
> I am sorry. What round shapes?
>
Again. You need imagination to go with your wealth of knowledge.
> > Conceptual similarity is more reliable than graphical resemblance.
>
> That is really too deep for me. Can you please tell me what you mean
> by that?
>
The round things in Tian Jiu and the round things in mhjong
correspond. A circle is symbolic of endless cycle of changes.
Cosmology concepts are in both games.
> > [..]
> > Dominoes and mahjong are like monKeys and chimpanzees or vise versa.
> > They belong in the animal kingdom or whatever. Ma Diao is a bird. It
> > does [not] even belong to mahjong. There is hardly a trace of DNA there
> > common between Ma Diao and mahjong.
> > The analogy may not be exact scientifically, but you get what I mean.
>
> I think so. I really think you do not understand the MDH at all,
I understand but I totally disagree with you.
> know? It is a real pity because I have really tried with a lot of
> effort and my time, to explain it to you.
> I am really, really, sorry you do not understand it.
>
You have no one stated that was the process. It was said that was
probably what had happened. I just don't buy your MDH. It's more like
yours now, right?
> My simple, short answer (I hope you find it short)is that Ma Diao is
> not a precursor game play to Ma que. It is only the playing
> instruments and may be some minor method like the anticlockwise order
> of play, that are important, because its playing instruments were used
> and adapted for many different games such that they ended up as three
> suits and then they were doubled and quintupled and quadrupled etc.
>
Where is proof or evidencewhich is not just someody said 'probably'
this and that?
The playing instrument is what I mean, like monkey and a bird.
Ma diao is paper-made. Mahjong is member of the Bone family. There is
fundamental difference in the nature of their DNA. Why can you not see
that?
> > As far as evidence goes, how much literature written on geocentric
> > theory for years? There was a mountain of material evidence from the
> > authorities of those years. Galileo proved them all wrong. Relying
> > totally on past and existent knowledge is unwise. Exercise judgment.
>
> You have said this before. Do you remember?
You did not seem to get it. So I repeat the point.
> The simplest and shortest answer is that we rely on evidence. We are
> justified in believing a claim if we have no good reason to doubt it.
> A good reason is one that has evidence in its favour. Ok?
> If contrary or disconfirming evidence comes along then we will have to
> adapt or change our claims.
>
Remember. The people who had all kinds of evidence in their favor when
Galileo proved them wrong.
> > > The earliest description of Tian Jiu is from Pan Zhiheng's 'Sequel to
> > > a Manual of Leaves'.(see Lo)
>
> > Do you have a page number?
>
> Page 222. TP-c. V31. #5.
>
> > Where can I get further details on that Tong Qi?
>
> Lo’s chapter in Asain Games is the only lead I am aware of at this
> time.
> [..][..]
> > > I would like to draw your attention to the ~18th century game of Shi
> > > Hu. It was played with a money suited card deck. However, its RULES
> > > were used as a basis for the game called ba gua yexi (8 hexagram
> > > card). This game was invented (according to Lo) by Yu Yue (1821 –
> > > 1907).
>
> > I will need more time to study each of the above.
>
> > > Most of these points are taken from Lo’s chapter in Asain Games; the
> > > art of contest.
>
> > I could not find this book. Any direct lead here?
>
> Try abebooks on the internet. It was put out by the Asia Society, New
> York. It is pretty expensive.
> [..]
> > What I dislike most is the term "Money-suited". When a game changed or
> > evolved out of some other games, it does not necessarily continue to
> > be "money-suited".
>
> This is true. I use the term to refer to the three suits as an origin
> term derived from the MDH. It is quite clear that the meanings of the
> three suits changed over time. Early players and manufacturers may or
> may not have been aware of the suits derivations – but the hypothesis
> proposes that the terms remained as did a form of the insignia. But
> over time their meanings were changed and the insignia were abstracted
> or changed as well.
>
> > Find a date (approximate) for photo 78 and 79 on page 55 Illustrated
> > Book of the Nahjong Museum.
> > The description is explicit.
>
> I have no idea what you mean. You want me to find a date? Why? It is
> you who need to surely. You are making the claim about that deck
> aren’t you?
>
You are a researcher historian, much better equipped in every way. You
are interested in getting answers are you not?
> > Pan wrote about dropping 10 cards but who extrapolated the
> > quadruplication? Was there actual credible evidence?
>
> Yes. Lo mentions the games in his chapter from Asian Games. He
> mentions the sources of the texts.
>
Was the game ma que included explicitly in the conversion? You mean
you did not chase after that lead? How could you?
About our venerable historians:
> > Did either one write any account of playing a game with so and so? I
> > would expect some interesting encounter in some actual experience if
> > they did.
>
> I don’t know of any writings I am afraid.
>
Here is another clue for my suspicion of our historians' game
experience.
> > > I don’t have anything about their background knowledge of the game.
> > > Annoyingly, they didn’t mention anything in their writings as far as I
> > > am aware – apart from a brief note by Himly(see other post).
Considering the limited exposure to the real experience of playing the
game, I would give them credit for what they were able to do for the
game.
>
> >[..]
> > > But I would like to know why you think experience PLAYING the game is
> > > relevant to the game’s very early development? It is an interesting
> > > notion. Can you please clarify what you mean?
> > First prior knowledge can influence perception and gullibility on the
> > one hand and it can affect the sense of curiosity on the other. The
> > less one knows a game the more curious but also more gullible about
> > what is heard or read. On the hand, the more one knows of a game or
> > something else, the tendency is to be less curious but more discerning
> > of what is read or heard.
>
> This all depends on how people acquire knowledge. It depends on each
> individual.
>
There is bell shape curve.
> > For example, the Chinese people who played the mahjong game who told
> > Himly about the game were not curious about the game at all.
>
> How do you know?
>
Bell shape curve for one thing. I played with people like them. They
are like my family, friends and relatives. I was one of them.
> > They called the round thing by different names.
> [..]
> > They did not much care what the round things were.
> [..]
> > Hands-on experience enhances depth of perception and judgment.
>
> It may enhance or it may not. It all depends on how that experience is
> understood and assimilated by each individual. I know of people who
> have had a bad experience of a particular group of people. They
> extrapolated their experiences to all of those types of people and are
> now bigoted towards them.
>
You don't seem to appreciate the meaning of the bell curve.
> >[..]
++++++++++
This is too long a post. I am too tired to check for mistakes. I hope
there is no serious error.
++++++++++
Cheers...