Who coined the mahjong symbols "Cash", "String of Cash" , "Myriad of Cash" and why
al
Who coined the mahjong symbols “Cash”, “String of Cash” , “Myriad of
Cash” and why?
The following was taken from a post dated November 3, 2007.
al:
> >By the way, you have a good knowledge of Chinese history and mahjong.
> > Do you know if 'string of cash' was a term first coined and used by a Westerner?
>
MS:
> With reference to Maque, it was reported by, and therefore used by,
> Himly. Himly writes 'so' but gives the character (in Pinyin) for
> 'suo3'. It is the same character that Pan uses for the "String Suit".
>
> Therefore, with reference to Madiao, it was reported by, and therefore
> used by Pan
+++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++
January 7, 2008
Would this be a correct interpretation then?
Pan used “suo”, according to Lo.
Lo’s translation was “suo” for 索.
Lo’s translation was published in the 20th century, The Playing-Card
Vol. xxix Number 3.
Himly wrote it as “So” when he described 索 in the 19th century.
Wilkinson referred to 索 as a “string of Cash”, after Himly, likewise
did Culin.
Himly referred to 索 “suo” as “string of Cash” before Wilkinson, Culin
and Lo.
Himly was the first to call 索 as a “string of Cash”. Is that correct?
I wonder if Lo had gotten the “string” from Himly but only 索 without
the specific “string” from Pan.
The mahjong set of Himly had 索 looking like bamboo sticks (?) and
circles without square holes, looking unlike Cash. Himly’s 索 in
reality at the time of discovery and his writing could not have been a
“string of cash” when Cash was not copper coins as those circles had
no holes. Cash by definition was a copper coin with a square hole in
the middle of each round circle. No hole; not Cash. It’s simple logic.
In fact the hole-less circles look just like coins for divination use,
shown in a link at the end of this post.
The square hole was missing in all the circle symbols of all mahjong
sets shown in M. Stanwick’s mahjong(g), a 4-part series of The Playing-
Card, Volume 32 Number 4 and 5, Volume 34 Number 4 and Volume 35
Number 1. Then how did Himly get the idea of “Cash” and “String of
Cash”?
I can see 2 possibilities. The circle had a shape that was round like
the copper coin and Chinese natives he contacted could have told him
that they had called it “tong”. Because similar sounds in different
tones have different meanings, “Tong” can be a bamboo cylindrical
holder like a tube 筒, or 铜 for copper metal. [in my dialect call it
“huong”.]
Actually copper does not equate directly to cash. It can be copper as
in metal bracelet, copper as in metal button or copper as in metal
utensils. In other words, copper is more like a morpheme which can be
a character or radical and as an adjective or a noun in the Chinese
language, but not necessarily Cash. Cash needs another word to
describe it, such as “tong chein” 铜钱. In fact “chein” 钱 alone has the
full meaning of a metal [copper] coin, but not “tong”. In term of
Chinese etymology, Himly’s “string of Cash” or “Cash” is mistaken
translation.
So “Cash” by Himly was taken incorrectly from the start. The mistake
was in the interpretation that “tong” was “tong chein”, 铜钱, instead
of “tong”, 筒, bamboo cylinder; compounded by the assumption of
“string” as monetary denomination and multiplied by (万) ten-thousand
times!
It was all because of a probable scenario as Himly was told that
“tong” was what the round circle was called; “tong” sounded like
copper; among other things. Himly chose copper and translated it to
mean copper-coin which in English means “Cash”.
Cash is what the Western world knows since over 125 years ago. To
write about mahjong in the Western world, people of the world and all
nationalities use Western terminology. The name for Mahjong is one
prime classic example. So, Cash and String of Cash is just another
incidence of foreignization.
However it was a mistaken term with serious distortion to the history
of mahjong.
Mahjong is not from “three-suited-money-cards”. Mahjong game design in
my view has been based on divination concepts in I-Ching. Here is what
was mistaken by mahjong scholars and historians, including Himly,
Culin and Wilkinson among all others.
The word 索 as the suit in mahjong has multiple meanings.
摸索 [mo1 suo5] /grope/
绳索 [sheng2 suo3] /rope/
索 [suo3] /to search/to demand/to ask/to exact/large rope/isolated/
索 means to search [for answer], to demand [for answer], to ask [for
answer], to exact [an answer] [from an I-Ching hexagram commentary
written on a roll of bamboo slips tied by a string].
I-Ching divination tries to get answers in advance. Its answers are
held in writings on bamboo strips. I quote from “The I-Ching Book” by
Chris Marshall (1994).
“These commentaries are generally understood to be a considerable
achievement as they managed to weld together answers to ethical,
philosophical questions as well as more mundane and practical everyday
problems, producing a kind of synthesized “How-To-Conduct-Your-Life-
Handbook.”
That sounds like getting answers to ten thousand questions for tens of
thousands of people. Divination is the definition of "suo".
索 has been the key word all along and it was completely missed for all
these years. Of course, this has to correlate with the other natural
elements in the mahjong game and explain aspects of pattern formation
of game-play. Now everything fits. Can I prove it? My reply is. Can
anybody deny the correlations?
++++++++++++++
Cheers….al
++++++++++++++
Links to divination coins, bamboo slips and bamboo cylinders:
2 standing cylinder + end view of one lying on the side
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:eqErsFb8Jt8gMM:http://www.jamaligarden.com/images/thumbs/NTTT06G_TN.jpg
+++++++++++
Ends of bamboo cylinders
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:brEnzgg8jtrOmM:http://www.organicjewelry.com/blackbambooburnedendsdots.jpg
+++++++++++++
Bamboo containers (large size for storage)
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:1nYoKD48_9k-uM:http://www.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/26/1/AAAAAo0_5xgAAAAAACYR3g.jpg
++++++++++++++
Typical cylinder or Tong holding long sticks or bamboo slips
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Lk8M0VslRek9QM:http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/974/75015060.JPG
+++++++++++
Bamboo strips tied together with thread:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:AcoxLUo9zEG3mM:http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/callig/7calstrp.jpg
++++++++++
4th Century IMAGE (loose bamboo strips)
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:A2sZUKbZjgkz6M:http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/china1999/thumb/436_119.jpg
+++++++++++++
I-Ching Coins ( abunch of 10 or so)
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:_WtUG_IT-MCioM:http://www.natural-tribal-designs.com/images/tn_IMG_0240.JPG
++++++++++
Early coins [No Square Holes] (divination use) below:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Za1Ck6f2KnmrsM:http://www.lordtimothydexter.com/images/fugio.gif
+++++++++++
I may have eye-sight like McGoo
But I hear whisper from bamboo
++++++++++
Cheers…..al
al
> NAQ (Never-Asked-Question) :
>
> Who coined the mahjong symbols “Cash”, “String of Cash” , “Myriad of
> Cash” and why?
>
foreign language and culture in addition to taking the words of
natives who were uneducated.
Without an appreciation for a core idea in the game of mahjong, the
symbols and their names are unavoidably mistaken. Thus, a coin-like
circular shape was called a Cash, just as a computer mouse called a
real live mouse.
I quote from Steward Culin's "The Game of Ma-Jong". The terminology of
Chinese games is made up of slang and is highly elusive."
He was aware of that, but went on and made the mistake of calling the
symbols as though they were for real.
Culin gave a description of a set of Chinese cards played by Laborers
as follow.
"First, tsin, Chinese coins of the lowest denomination, called by the
slang name of ""ping" or "cakes" from one to nine; second, strings of
one hundred each of these same Chinese coins, called "sok", "string",
from one to nine..."
The key word is SLANG that made the terminology of games "elusive". As
a matter of fact. A slang name is NOT the true name for a thing. As an
example, "sok", assuming it means "string" as indicated by Culin,
being a slang name, it is therefore not a string. Same for the slang
name "tsin"; it was not real coin.
Then it's obvious that the whole mahjong terminology was based on
slang. And the so called Cash-base or money-suited cards is incorrect.
That is unfortunate, because it fouled up the true history of the
mahjong game. The misconception of Cash in the Cards obscured the
meaning of the game as a whole. All the allegories of mahjong became
meaningless in term of money.
Symbols are allegorical. Cash is not symbol; cash is money. Mahjong is
full of symbols and therefore should have a theme of its own,
allegorically.
Cheers....al
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 standing cylinder + end view of one lying on the sidehttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:eqErsFb8Jt8gMM:http://www.jamalig...
> +++++++++++
> Ends of bamboo cylindershttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:brEnzgg8jtrOmM:http://www.organic...
> +++++++++++++
> Bamboo containers (large size for storage)http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:1nYoKD48_9k-uM:http://www.kaboodl...
> ++++++++++++++
> Typical cylinder or Tong holding long sticks or bamboo slipshttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Lk8M0VslRek9QM:http://www.dkimage...
> +++++++++++
> Bamboo strips tied together with thread:http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:AcoxLUo9zEG3mM:http://depts.washi...
> ++++++++++
> 4th Century IMAGE (loose bamboo strips)http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:A2sZUKbZjgkz6M:http://www.nga.gov...
> +++++++++++++
> I-Ching Coins ( abunch of 10 or so)http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:_WtUG_IT-MCioM:http://www.natural...
> ++++++++++
> Early coins [No Square Holes] (divination use) below:http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Za1Ck6f2KnmrsM:http://www.lordtim...
al
> On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> NAQ (Never-Asked-Question) :
>
> > Who coined the mahjong symbols “Cash”, “String of Cash” , “Myriad of
> > Cash” and why?
>
Understandable..."String of Cash" or "Myriad of Cash" are not terms in
common Chinese usage. In fact, Chinese Sparrow-game players do not use
those names at all.
The average Chinese native would have a totally different image of the
"string of cash" and what it looks like (definitely NOT in a roll that
looks like a sausage or bamboo rod); as for "myriad of cash", it is
unheard of. Yet these have become standard terms in Western mahjong
history. Furthermore, Westerners concluded that Cash was the base for
the mahjong game. As I found out recently, the Chinese official
version of the mahjong game history has not been directly examined,
translated or referenced.
+++++++++
> Why? It was a matter of ignorance and superficial understanding of
> natives who were uneducated.
>
I mean they were uneducated in Chinese classic. They as others and
myself used to do; relied on slang words in verbal communication. Most
people never go to school and do not read or write.
I remember quoted Culin's own word about the use of slang by the
Chinese he encountered in his research.
+++++++++
> Without an appreciation for a core idea in the game of mahjong, the
> symbols and their names are unavoidably mistaken. Thus, a coin-like
> circular shape was called a Cash, just as a computer mouse called a
> real live mouse.
>
terminology. The CORE IDEA of the game had been lost for hundreds or
more years. Regional slang terms added as the game migrated from place
to place. When the natives of a region did not know why they called
the symbols, how and why Westerners think and believe Culin, Himly or
Wilkinson had all the correct and definitive erms by just talking to
those people? It boggles my mind!
++++++++
> I quote from Steward Culin's "The Game of Ma-Jong". The terminology of
> Chinese games is made up of slang and is highly elusive."
>
> He was aware of that, but went on and made the mistake of calling the
> symbols as though they were for real.
>
Chinese language would have steered Westerners away from their
mistaken interpretation in the early beginning when they first come
upon the mahjong game.
Symbols represent something else. It is as simple as that. First
mistake...
Words are more communicative than symbols. If the Chinese (author) had
wanted the suit to mean a hundred-cash, it would have been an easy
thing to engrave the words hundred-cash.
Here is a stupid interpretation that escaped logic. I mean why would a
game designer (if he is using cash as the base) go from one-tenth of
one cent to a next higher suit in one-hundred? Then the next higher
suit is ten-thousand? Why not simply from units to tens and to
hundreds in decimal steps?
The point is two little words can replace all symbols. Why use symbols
if they didn't mean something more than 2 words can replcae? Answer is
simple. All the symbols have more meaning than 2 words can say.
Above all, CASH is nowhere near what the symbol meant.
++++++++++++++
> Culin gave a description of a set of Chinese cards played by Laborers
> as follow.
> "First, tsin, Chinese coins of the lowest denomination, called by the
> slang name of ""ping" or "cakes" from one to nine; second, strings of
> one hundred each of these same Chinese coins, called "sok", "string",
> from one to nine..."
>
Even "slang" is slanted. Ping is little cookie. It is mixed up just
because the shape is round. And how does a string go with "cakes"?
+++++++++++++
> The key word is SLANG that made the terminology of games "elusive". As
> a matter of fact. A slang name is NOT the true name for a thing. As an
> example, "sok", assuming it means "string" as indicated by Culin,
> being a slang name, it is therefore not a string. Same for the slang
> name "tsin"; it was not real coin.
>
"SOK" is not a string of cash.
For one thing, Cash is NOT cash-money. As an example in contemporary
experience, a mouse (with a computer) is not a mouse (in the house).
SOK as I explained elsewhere in other posts, means not a string nor
string of anything. SOK has an obscured meaning given in dictionaries;
it means to ask, to search, to demand and to exact, besides meaning a
rope or isolate.
(Himly and his interpreter had some imagination to fix a 100 coins to
that).
The thread or string in the word SOK is part of SOK the object.
Consider how the fact bamboo symbol associated with SOK and string or
thread, and look where the bamboo and threads can and do appear
together; one would come to the pages of ancient Chinese text burned
on bamboo strips and tied by threads and strings.
The pages that were used "to search, to demand, to exact..." answers
were found in Chinese divination practice in ancient time.
Bamboo strips tied together with thread:http://tbn0.google.com/images?
q=tbn:AcoxLUo9zEG3mM:http://depts.washi...
++++++++++
Coins for divination were used also.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:_WtUG_IT-MCioM:http://www.natural...
Early coins [No Square Holes] (divination use) :
++++++++++++
> Then it's obvious that the whole mahjong terminology was based on
> slang. And the so called Cash-base or money-suited cards is incorrect.
>
I am unconvinced of that. Mahjong is not "money-based".
> That is unfortunate, because it fouled up the true history of the
> mahjong game. The misconception of Cash in the Cards obscured the
> meaning of the game as a whole.
[Mahjong like Ma Diao lost its "purpose and application".
> [All the allegories of mahjong became] meaningless in term of money.
>
> Symbols are allegorical. Cash is not symbol; cash is [real actual] money. Mahjong is
> full of [NEW] symbols and therefore should have [had] a theme of its own,
> allegorically.
>
But "CASH" bought and sold it.
> [..]
al
> On Jan 29, 2:43 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> NAQ (Never-Asked-Question) :
>
> > > Who coined the mahjong symbols "Cash", "String of Cash" , "Myriad of
> > > Cash" and why?
>
> The answer to this was given as Himly.
> Understandable..."String of Cash" or "Myriad of Cash" are not terms in
> common Chinese usage. In fact, Chinese Sparrow-game players do not use
> those names at all.
We Chinese call them simpler names, although we didn't know what they
meant.
> The average Chinese native would have a totally different image of the
> "string of cash" and what it looks like (definitely NOT in a roll that
> looks like a sausage or bamboo rod);
Coins can not stay in a roll like that threaded by a string. Paper was
a scarce commodity. The picture is unreal.
> as for "myriad of cash", it is unheard of. Yet these have become standard terms in Western mahjong
> history. Furthermore, Westerners concluded that Cash was the base for
> the mahjong game. As I found out recently, the Chinese official
> version of the mahjong game history has not been directly examined,
> translated or referenced.
> [..]
But I would not be surprised to see Western influence even in the
Chinese language. Look at what happened to hemp-bird; it changed to
hemp-general.
> [..]
>
> Here is the ROOT of the problem of forever confusion in the game's
> terminology. The CORE IDEA of the game had been lost for hundreds or
> more years. Regional slang terms added as the game migrated from place
> to place. When the natives of a region did not know why they called
> the symbols, how and why Westerners think and believe Culin, Himly or
> Wilkinson had all the correct and definitive terms by just talking to
> those people? It boggles my mind!
Why Chinese scholars who are still accepting Cash and Strings of Cash
is a puzzle to me.[..]
> [..]
Early coins had no square holes. they were for divination use.
Mahjong circles have no square holes and they never had square holes.
>
> > Then it's obvious that the whole mahjong terminology was based on
> > slang. And the so called Cash-base or money-suited cards is incorrect.
I am convinced Mahjong is not "money-based".
Here is why. Without going into details, I will just state it simply.
Ancient games were concept-based and not object-based.
Example 1. Dou-Hu (Fighting a Tiger). It relates to a story of a
king's daughter became a man instantly after an offering of a gift of
pearls.
Conceptually, a woman is not that much different from a man. That was
why women like that particular game. There was also a story of a woman
tamed a loose tiger when no one dared. Feminine power and gender
equality had been a desire of women for a long time. But the game was
concept-based. That is the point.
Example 2. Tien-Jiu, Heaven-Nine is another old game. What do people
call those pips or pot-holes? They are supposed to be related to the
constellation in the sky. Obviously they are not holes as objects,
They symbolize a concept whatever that might be. Again, the game was
concept-based, not object-based.
So when I hear people say that mahjong is money-based or Cash-suited,
I can see that is a mistake. Mahjong was said to be a relative of
Heaven-Nine. How can a game changed its character from a related
species like that? No way.
Mahjong is also concept-based, and not object-based. That is my point.
> [..]
++++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> On Jan 29, 2:43 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> NAQ (Never-Asked-Question) :
>
> > > Who coined the mahjong symbols "Cash", "String of Cash" , "Myriad of
> > > Cash" and why?
>
> The answer to this was given as Himly.
> Understandable..."String of Cash" or "Myriad of Cash" are not terms in
> common Chinese usage. In fact, Chinese Sparrow-game players do not use
> those names at all.
> The average Chinese native would have a totally different image of the
> "string of cash" and what it looks like (definitely NOT in a roll that
> looks like a sausage or bamboo rod); as for "myriad of cash", it is
> unheard of. Yet these have become standard terms in Western mahjong
> history. Furthermore, Westerners concluded that Cash was the base for
> the mahjong game. As I found out recently, the Chinese official
> version of the mahjong game history has not been directly examined,
> translated or referenced.
> +++++++++
> Why? It was a matter of ignorance and superficial understanding of
> > foreign language and culture in addition to taking the [SLANG] words of
> > natives who were uneducated.
>
literate.
> I mean they were uneducated in Chinese classic. They as others and
> myself used to do; relied on slang words in verbal communication. Most
> people never go to school and do not read or write.
My mother did not know a single word.
> I remember quoted Culin's own word about the use of slang by the
> Chinese he encountered in his research.
> [..]
>
> Here is the ROOT of the problem of forever confusion in the game's
> terminology. The CORE IDEA of the game had been lost for hundreds or
> more years. Regional slang terms added as the game migrated from place
> to place. When the natives of a region did not know why they called
> the symbols, how and why Westerners think and believe Culin, Himly or
> Wilkinson had all the correct and definitive terms by just talking to
> those people? It boggles my mind!
> I quote from Steward Culin's "The Game of Ma-Jong". The terminology of
> Chinese games is made up of slang and is highly elusive."
>
> > He was aware of that, but went on and made the mistake of calling the
> > symbols as though they were for real.
>
No one knew enough to make a correction then. But why? Now many
English speaking Chinese 150yeasrs ago? Who had the time and dare to
argue about it in writing then? And who would listen to him anyway?
Not yhen and not even now...
> A little thinking on the game symbols plus a bit of understanding of
> Chinese language would have steered Westerners away from their
> mistaken interpretation in the early beginning when they first come
> upon the mahjong game.
>
> Symbols represent something else. It is as simple as that. First
> mistake...
> Words are more communicative than symbols. If the Chinese (author) had
> wanted the suit to mean a hundred-cash, it would have been an easy
> thing to engrave the words hundred-cash.
>
If 'Wan' is 万 (100 x 100) Cash, and if 'sou'(索) is 100 Cash, why not
simply use the symbol(百) for hundred instead of 'string of Cash' (索)?.
索 is an uncommon and ambiguous term, whereas (百) hundred is clearly
numerical. Since (百) was not used in mahjong suit instead of 索, then 索
has a different than numerical meaning. Just think. If (百 x 百) = 万,
why use 索. Obviously, 索 is not 百, a string of hundred coins.
Furthermore, if that is not a string of coin, then Circle is not coin.
Why is it so difficult to see that? BTW, no square holes anyway.
> Here is a stupid interpretation that escaped logic. I mean why would a
> game designer (if he is using cash as the base) go from one-tenth of
> one cent to a next higher suit in one-hundred? Then the next higher
> suit is ten-thousand? Why not simply from units to tens and to
> hundreds in decimal steps?
No satisfactory answer seen to above question as yet; no explanation
from early authors either.
> The point is two little words can replace all symbols. Why use symbols
> if they didn't mean something more than 2 words can replcae? Answer is
> simple. All the symbols have more meaning than 2 words can say.
>
For that matter, why bother to draw 9 concentric circles (27 and more
circles) when 2 words can take their place; thstis if the circles were
coins?
If the circles were cash, 2 words could have done the job better than
symbols.
Again, because the circles were not cash, simple words were not used.
Therefore the coloful concentric layers of circles are symbols for a
conplex concept rather than a single object.
> Above all, CASH is nowhere near what the symbol meant.
> > Culin gave a description of a set of Chinese cards played by Laborers
> > as follow.
> > "First, tsin, Chinese coins of the lowest denomination, called by the
> > slang name of ""ping" or "cakes" from one to nine; second, strings of
> > one hundred each of these same Chinese coins, called "sok", "string",
> > from one to nine..."
>
> Even "slang" is slanted. Ping is little cookie. It is mixed up just
> because the shape is round. And how does a string go with "cakes"?
> > The key word is SLANG that made the terminology of games "elusive". As
> > a matter of fact. A slang name is NOT the true name for a thing. As an
> > example, "sok", assuming it means "string" as indicated by Culin,
> > being a slang name, it is therefore not a string. Same for the slang
> > name "tsin"; it was not real coin.
>
> "SOK" is not a string of cash.
> For one thing, Cash is NOT cash-money. As an example in contemporary
> experience, a mouse (with a computer) is not a mouse (in the house).
Mouse is slang word here. When it is said mahjong is cash-suited or
money-based, it is just like saying a software is mouse-based. A mouse-
device represents a concept in computer technology; likewise the
circle represents a concept in Chinese philosophy. In broken English:
mouse no mouse; cash no cash.
>
> [..]
>
> > [..]
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > > The following was taken from a post dated November 3, 2007.
> [..]
> > > > > Do you know if 'string of cash' was a term first coined and used by a Westerner?
>
> > > MS:
> > > > With reference to Maque, it was reported by, and therefore used by,
> > > > Himly. Himly writes 'so' but gives the character (in Pinyin) for
> > > > 'suo3'. It is the same character that Pan uses for the "String Suit".
>
> > > > Therefore, with reference to Madiao, it was reported by, and therefore
> > > > used by Pan
>
> > > +++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++
> > > January 7, 2008
>
> > > Would this be a correct interpretation then?
>
> > > Pan used "suo", according to Lo.
> > > Lo's translation was "suo" for 索.
> > > Lo's translation was published in the 20th century, The Playing-Card
> > > Vol. xxix Number 3.
> > > Himly wrote it as "So" when he described 索 in the 19th century.
> > > Wilkinson referred to 索 as a "string of Cash", after Himly, likewise
> > > did Culin.
> > > Himly referred to 索 "suo" as "string of Cash" before Wilkinson, Culin
> > > and Lo.
>
> > > Himly was the first to call 索 as a "string of Cash". Is that correct?
> > > I wonder if Lo had gotten the "string" from Himly but only 索 without
> > > the specific "string" from Pan.
String was mis-interpreted. Since then scholars, historians and
authors follow suit.
>
> > > The mahjong set of Himly had 索 looking like bamboo sticks (?) and
> > > circles without square holes, looking unlike Cash. Himly's 索 in
> > > reality at the time of discovery and his writing could not have been a
> > > "string of cash" when Cash was not copper coins as those circles had
> > > no holes. Cash by definition was a copper coin with a square hole in
> > > the middle of each round circle. No hole; not Cash. It's simple logic.
> > > In fact the hole-less circles look just like coins for divination use,
> > > shown in a link at the end of this post.
>
Coins without holes in roll is called a "string of cash". Can you
believe that?
A string is strong enough to hang a thousand coins? (It was modified
to 100 coins).
> [..]
By the way, Dau Nu (Fighting Tiger) had written record as a game of
Late Ming, why there is nothing found written on mahjong? What about
Ma Daio? Pan and Feng wrote manuals on it. Where was mahjong?
+++++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> On Mar 26, 2:24 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 2:43 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> NAQ (Never-Asked-Question) :
>
> > > > Who coined the mahjong symbols "Cash", "String of Cash" , "Myriad of
> > > > Cash" and why?
>
the days of Genesis. Cash, String of Cash and Myriad of Cash are
comparable to the "fruits". And the fruits are apples, pears and
plums.
Round coin are recognizable, tangible and usable. Fruits are visible,
touchable and edible. Their existence is undeniable.
Now look back and ask ourselves. Was the Book of Genesis about fruits
or was there more to the story?
Likewise, was Mahjong a story all about Cash or was there more to the
game?
Think about it.
+++++++++++++++
Cheers.....al
> > The [name Cash] was given as Himly.
> > Understandable..."String of Cash" or "Myriad of Cash" are not terms in
> > common Chinese usage. In fact, Chinese Sparrow-game players do not use
> > those names at all.[..]
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > > > [..]
>
> > > > +++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++
> > > > January 7, 2008
>
> > > > Would this be a correct interpretation then?
>
> > > > Pan used "suo", according to Lo.
> > > > Lo's translation was "suo" for 索.
> > > > Lo's translation was published in the 20th century, The Playing-Card
> > > > Vol. xxix Number 3.
> > > > Himly wrote it as "So" when he described 索 in the 19th century.
> > > > Wilkinson referred to 索 as a "string of Cash", after Himly, likewise
> > > > did Culin.
> > > > Himly referred to 索 "suo" as "string of Cash" before Wilkinson, Culin
> > > > and Lo.
+++++++++++
It is obvious that Chinese had not made the distinction between coins
and concept or objects from symbols since way back. When early
Westerner came along, they could not tell the difference either
because they were strangers in foreign land.
However, it's about time for people today to differentiate objects
from symbols. In olden days people used objects in place words to
express abstract ideas. We have more words at my command now. We need
to look behind an object used in writings of days of old.
Himly and others failed to that.
+++++++++++
>
> > > > Himly was the first to call 索 as a "string of Cash". Is that correct?
> > > > I wonder if Lo had gotten the "string" from Himly but only 索 without
> > > > the specific "string" from Pan.
>
> String was mis-interpreted. Since then scholars, historians and
> authors follow suit.
>
> > > > The mahjong set of Himly had 索 looking like bamboo sticks (?) and
> > > > circles without square holes, looking unlike Cash. Himly's 索 in
> > > > reality at the time of discovery and his writing could not have been a
> > > > "string of cash" when Cash was not copper coins as those circles had
> > > > no holes. Cash by definition was a copper coin with a square hole in
> > > > the middle of each round circle. No hole; not Cash. It's simple logic.
> > > > In fact the hole-less circles look just like coins for divination use,
> > > > shown in a link at the end of this post.
>
> Coins without holes in roll is called a "string of cash". Can you
> believe that?
First, those were not coins. Second, there was symbolic meaning
behind.
> [..]
> > > > The square hole was missing in all the circle symbols of all mahjong
> > > > sets shown in M. Stanwick's mahjong(g), a 4-part series of The Playing-
> > > > Card, Volume 32 Number 4 and 5, Volume 34 Number 4 and Volume 35
> > > > Number 1. Then how did Himly get the idea of "Cash" and "String of
> > > > Cash"?
>
That ought to serve as a strong signal that there was miscommunication
somewhere. But when so few people ever wrote about it, readers believe
anything said. Parsimony carries on.
> > > >[..]
>
> > > > So "Cash" by Himly was taken incorrectly from the start. The mistake
> > > > was in the interpretation that "tong" was "tong chein", 铜钱, instead
> > > > of "tong", 筒, bamboo cylinder; compounded by the assumption of
> > > > "string" as monetary denomination and multiplied by (万) ten-thousand
> > > > times!
His interpretor did not know better. He was partly at fault.
> > [..]
>
> By the way, Dau Nu (Fighting Tiger) had written record as a game of
> Late Ming, why there is nothing found written on mahjong? What about
> Ma Daio? Pan and Feng wrote ...
>
Pan nd Feng wrote game manuals on paper. Yet there is no trace of a
mahjong manual like that for ma daio. Does that not indicate,
possibly, mahjong was long in existence before ma daio? Bones and wood
and knife were made before paper. A majong tile is but a deformed
large dice.
Anybody who thinks mahjong is only about 150 years old needs to think
again.
Diamond was found 5000 years ago in India, but the stone is probably
as old as the earth itself. Mahjong was found by Westerners less than
200 years ago, but the game could have been 2000 years old.
> read more >>
++++++++++++++
Cheers.....al
al
> On Apr 17, 9:10 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Mar 26, 2:24 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 2:43 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> NAQ (Never-Asked-Question) :
>
> > > > > Who coined the mahjong symbols "Cash", "String of Cash" , "Myriad of
> > > > > Cash" and why?
>
> This terminology in the early days of modern mahjong is much liken to
> the days of Genesis. Cash, String of Cash and Myriad of Cash are
> comparable to the "fruits". And the fruits are apples, pears and
> plums.
>
other.
> [..]
>
> Now look back and ask ourselves. Was the Book of Genesis about fruits
> or was there more to the story?
>
> Likewise, was Mahjong a story all about Cash or was there more to the
> game?
>
150 years ago, it was perhaps all about "cash", but should it still
be ?
> [..]
> +++++++++++++++
> [..]
> > > The [name Cash] was given [by] Himly.
> > > Understandable..."String of Cash" or "Myriad of Cash" [even now] are not terms in
> > > common Chinese usage. In fact, Chinese Sparrow-game players do not use
> > > those names at all.[..]
> > > >
They just say soc or mhan. They don't know the exact meaning and they
imply nothing, slang expressions excepted.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> [..]
> > > > > January 7, 2008
>
> > > > > Would this be a correct interpretation then?
>
> > > > > Pan used "suo", [soc] according to Lo.
> > > > > Lo's translation was "suo" for 索.
> > > > > Lo's translation was published in the 20th century, The Playing-Card
> > > > > Vol. xxix Number 3.
> > > > > Himly wrote it as "So" when he described 索 in the 19th century.
> > > > > Wilkinson referred to 索 as a "string of Cash", after Himly, likewise
> > > > > did Culin.
> > > > > Himly referred to 索 "suo" as "string of Cash" before Wilkinson, Culin
> > > > > and Lo.
>
Lo followed suit, so to speak.
> +++++++++++
> It is obvious that Chinese had not made the distinction between coins
> and concept or objects from symbols since way back. When early
> Westerner[s] came along, they could not tell the difference either
> because they were strangers in foreign land.
And they repeat what was told plus a bid of their own interpretation,
perhaps.
>
> However, it's about time for people today to differentiate objects
> from symbols. [..] We need
> to look behind an object used in writings of days of old.
>
> Himly and others failed to [do] that.
He and others couldn't have done better, after all, they were
basically learning at grades 1-2-3 levels.
> +++++++++++
> > > > > The mahjong set of Himly had 索 looking like bamboo sticks (?) and
> > > > > circles without square holes, looking unlike Cash. Himly's 索 in
> > > > > reality at the time of discovery and his writing could not have been a
> > > > > "string of cash" when Cash was not copper coins as those circles had
> > > > > no holes. Cash by definition was a copper coin with a square hole in
> > > > > the middle of each round circle. No hole; not Cash. It's simple logic.
> > > > > In fact the hole-less circles look just like coins for divination use,
> > > > > shown in a link at the end of this post.
The rationalization was that the hole-less coin could have been
silver, because somewhere history of coins had mention of such
production at one time.
Tong is not copper, ngun (silver)
>
> [..]
> > [..]
> > > > > The square hole was missing in all the circle symbols of all mahjong
> > > > > sets shown in M. Stanwick's mahjong(g), a 4-part series of The Playing-
> > > > > Card, Volume 32 Number 4 and 5, Volume 34 Number 4 and Volume 35
> > > > > Number 1. Then how did Himly get the idea of "Cash" and "String of
> > > > > Cash"?
>
> That ought to serve as a strong signal that there was miscommunication
> somewhere. But when so few people ever wrote about it, readers believe
> anything said. Parsimony carries on.
>
> > > > > So "Cash" by Himly was taken incorrectly from the start. The mistake
> > > > > was in the interpretation that "tong" was "tong chein", 铜钱, instead
> > > > > of "tong", 筒, bamboo cylinder; compounded by the assumption of
> > > > > "string" as monetary denomination and multiplied by (万) ten-thousand
> > > > > times!
Slang interpretation and dialect variation added up to
miscommunication.
>
> [..]
> > By the way, Dau Nu (Fighting Tiger) had written record as a game of
> > Late Ming, why there is nothing found written on mahjong? [..]
>
I can see 2 possibilities:
(1) there was written instruction manual but it got destroyed or lost.
(2) there was never instruction manual.
Why didn't somebody like Pan or Feng write up a manual for the game if
mahjong came after Ma Diao? Paper was available by then.
Scenario (1) is more likely the case.
If (2) was the case, then why?
> Pan nd Feng wrote game manuals on paper. Yet there is no trace of a
> mahjong manual like that for ma daio. Does that not indicate,
> possibly, mahjong was long in existence before ma daio? Bones and wood
> and knife were made before paper. A majong tile is but a deformed
> large dice.
>
IF (1) was the case, then Mahjong is older than Ma Diao.
> Anybody who thinks mahjong is only about 150 years old needs to think
> again.
> Diamond was found 5000 years ago in India, but the stone is probably
> as old as the earth itself. Mahjong was found by Westerners less than
> 200 years ago, but the game could have been [ten times or ] 2000 years old.
>
++++++++++++
Cheers....al
marika
>
>
> 2000 years ago, it was perhaps all about fruits,
parsely or cilantro
mk5000
"They'll hurt you, and desert you
And take your soul if you let them
Oh, but don't you let them
You just call out my name"--carole king,
al
> On Apr 29, 9:02 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Apr 17, 9:10 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Mar 26, 2:24 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 29, 2:43 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> NAQ (Never-Asked-Question) :
>
> > > > > > Who coined the mahjong symbols "Cash", "String of Cash" , "Myriad of
> > > > > > Cash" and why?
>
> > This terminology in the early days of modern mahjong is much liken to
> > the days of Genesis. Cash, String of Cash and Myriad of Cash are
> > comparable to the "fruits". And the fruits are apples, pears and
> > plums.
>
> The level of knowledge of one genesis was comparable to that of the
> other.> [..]
>
> > Now look back and ask ourselves. Was the Book of Genesis about fruits
> > or was there more to the story?
>
> 2000 years ago, it was perhaps all about fruits, but not now.
>
> > Likewise, was Mahjong a story all about Cash or was there more to the
> > game?
> > [..]
> > > > The [name Cash] was given [by] Himly.
> > > > Understandable..."String of Cash" or "Myriad of Cash" [even now] are not terms in
> > > > common Chinese usage. In fact, Chinese Sparrow-game players do not
> > > > use those names at all.[..]
Cash is a western notion; It is not in Chinese mahjong.
>
> [..]
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> [..]
> > > > > > January 7, 2008
>
> > > > > > Would this be a correct interpretation then?
>
> > > > > > Pan used "suo", [soc] according to Lo.
> > > > > > Lo's translation was "suo" for 索.
> > > > > > Lo's translation was published in the 20th century, The Playing-Card
> > > > > > Vol. xxix Number 3.
> > > > > > Himly wrote it as "So" when he described 索 in the 19th century.
> > > > > > Wilkinson referred to 索 as a "string of Cash", after Himly, likewise
> > > > > > did Culin.
> > > > > > Himly referred to 索 "suo" as "string of Cash" before Wilkinson, Culin
> > > > > > and Lo.
>
> Lo followed suit [of a western version], so to speak.
That is how it seems.
> [..]
>
> > However, it's about time for people today to differentiate objects
> > from symbols. [..] [..]
Coin or cash is object, not symbol.
>
> > Himly and others failed to [do] that.
> [..]
> > > > > > [..] Cash by definition was a copper coin with a square hole in
> > > > > > the middle of each round circle. No hole; not Cash. It's simple logic.
> > > > > > In fact the hole-less circles look just like coins for divination use,
> > > > > > [..]
See a symbol design below.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg
This circular symbol looks very much like 1-Circle.
>
> The rationalization was that the hole-less coin could have been
> silver, because somewhere history of coins had mention of such
> production at one time.
> Tong is not copper, ngun (silver)
A minor detail: tong was worth one-tenth of one cent.
>
> > [..]
> > > [..]
> > > > > > The square hole was missing in all the circle symbols of all mahjong
> > > > > > sets shown in M. Stanwick's mahjong(g), a 4-part series [..]
> > That ought to serve as a strong signal that there was miscommunication
> > somewhere. But when so few people ever wrote about it, readers believe
> > anything said. [..]
>
> > > > > > So "Cash" by Himly was taken incorrectly from the start. [..]
> Slang interpretation and dialect variation added up to [conclusion from]
> miscommunication especially when translation is also involved].
>
> > [..][..]
>
> > Anybody who thinks mahjong is only about 150 years old needs to think
> > again.
Mahjong was invented before paper was invented. That was one simple
reason tiles were made from ivory and bamboo and never in paper.
> > Diamond was found 5000 years ago in India, but the stone is probably
> > as old as the earth itself. Mahjong was found by Westerners less than
> > 200 years ago, but the game could have been [ten times or ] 2000 years old.
People made conclusion on the age of an object based on the time that
object was found is making the same mistake as the case for diamond.
>
However, regardless who and why the Circle was coined as Cash, the
name is wrong for the simple reason Cash explains nothing for the
game.
> ++++++++++++
I believe there is explanation for every symbol in the mahjong game.
We won't find it in history books.
+++++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> On May 22, 6:52 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 9:02 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:10 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2:24 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Who coined the mahjong symbols "Cash", "String of Cash" , "Myriad of Cash" and why?
> > > This terminology in the early days of modern mahjong is much liken to
> > > the days of Genesis. Cash, String of Cash and Myriad of Cash are
> > > comparable to the "fruits". And the fruits are apples, pears and
> > > plums.
>
> > other.> [..]
>
> > > Now look back and ask ourselves. Was the Book of Genesis about fruits
> > > or was there more to the story?
THOSE SYMBOLS?
> > > [..]
> > > > > The [name Cash] was given [by] Himly.
> > > > > common Chinese usage. In fact, Chinese [MAHJONG] players do not
> > > > > use those names at all.[..]
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++[..]
> Coin or cash is object, not symbol.
>
> > [..]
> > > > > > > [..] [..]
>
> See THE DIFFERENCE OF a symbol design below.
>
> http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg
> This circular symbol looks very much like THE COMMONLY KNOWN 1-Circle.
VISUALIZE SQUEEZING 9 OF THIS SYMBOL ON TO THE FACE OF ONE MAHJONG
TILE. THE LINES BECOME JOINED AND THEY WOULD FORM CIRCLES. NOW THE
SYMBOL MEANS SOMETHING AND IT CAN RELATE TO "TEN-THOUSAND THINGS".
> [..]
> However, regardless who and why the Circle was coined as Cash, the
> name is wrong for the simple reason Cash explains nothing for the
> game.
MEANING IT HAS NO CORRELATION WITH THE GAME PLAY AND UNRELATED TO ONE
WHOLE SUIT OF TILES LIKE EAST-SOUTH-WEST-NORTH AND ZHONG-FA-BAI.
>
> I believe there is [ MEANINGFUL ] explanation for every symbol in the mahjong game.
> We won't find it in history books. [ BUT I HAVE HYPOTHESIZED.]
> +++++++++++
Cheers....al
ithinc
> If 'Wan' is 万 (100 x 100) Cash, and if 'sou'(索) is 100 Cash, why not
> simply use the symbol(百) for hundred instead of 'string of Cash' (索)?.
> 索 is an uncommon and ambiguous term, whereas (百) hundred is clearly
> numerical. Since (百) was not used in mahjong suit instead of 索, then 索
> has a different than numerical meaning. Just think. If (百 x 百) = 万,
> why use 索. Obviously, 索 is not 百, a string of hundred coins.
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
> Furthermore, if that is not a string of coin, then Circle is not coin.
> Why is it so difficult to see that? BTW, no square holes anyway.
Do you look like absolutely the same as your parents?
ithinc
al
why use 索? that was the key question. Where and why the connection
between 索 and 文钱?
文钱 by definition is a round coin with a square hole in the middle. The
square hole is a must for a string to go through. Yet not one, I
repeat, not one "Cash" has shown a square hole in any mahjong set.
You asked: "Do you look like absolutely the same as your parents?"
That is not such an intelligent question, Teacher.
Nobody looks absolutely same as his or her parents. Neither do you.
But,if your parents had 4 legs, I would expect you to have 4 legs
also.
+++++++++++
Cheers....al
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > If 'Wan' is 万 (100 x 100) Cash, and if 'sou'(索) is 100 Cash, why not
> > simply use the symbol(百) for hundred instead of 'string of Cash' (索)?.
> > 索 is an uncommon and ambiguous term, whereas (百) hundred is clearly
> > numerical. Since (百) was not used in mahjong suit instead of 索, then 索
> > has a different than numerical meaning. Just think. If (百 x 百) = 万,
> > why use 索. Obviously, 索 is not 百, a string of hundred coins.
That is still my question.
>
> 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
>
what I would expect. Thank you.
> > Furthermore, if that is not a string of coin, then Circle is not coin.
> > Why is it so difficult to see that? BTW, no square holes anyway.
>
That square hole was what defined the "Cash". Have you seen any of the
Circles with holes for a string to go through?
> Do you look like absolutely the same as your parents?
I answered this one time.
>
> ithinc
+++++++++++++++++
Your last sentence distracted my attention when I read this post
nearly 2 months ago.
Indirectly or unknowingly you proved my point. And my point was that
mahjong symbols were not meant to be quantities.
My reasoning has been that if the mahjong symbols were cash amounts,
they would have been simply engraved on the tiles in words similar to
what is on the cards in the links you included.
Engraving 文 or 百 or 万 is much simpler and effectively more
communicative than having symbols, 索 or string.
The very fact that 索 and other symbols used instead of words says they
are not the same but definitely different.
Your pictures on those cards demonstrated better than I can say in
words.
Let me reiterate. Mahjong uses symbols in its three of four suits. It
did not use simpler written quantitative terms like some card games
did, because from inception mahjong was a different game with its own
unique symbols (not to mention its distinguishing fourth suit with
correspondence to Daoism and cosmology).
+++++++++++++++
Allan Lee
Dec. 6, 2008
al
Because Mahjong tiles showing symbols instead of money amounts, it is
highly probable that the game designer's original idea was not to be
expressed in Cash. Therefore whoever coined the circular shape as
"Cash". It was not the game inventor.
pa...@email.unc.edu
I am tending towards following other posters’ suggested approach of
ignoring your posts, but will try this one more time in the hope that
your behavior will change. Although they pointed out that your
behavior resembles that of an internet ‘contrarian troll’ your
subsequent posts have not indicated any improvement. I currently only
skim your posts, and if they are about your ‘pet theory’ (currently
the Yijing hypothesis), then I do not read them completely. You remind
me of a religious fundamentalist ‘defending’ their beliefs – and I
ignore fundamentalists as being irrelevant to me personally.
I would suggest that you write what you want to post, but to not post
it immediately, waiting a day or two and allow yourself to reread and
correct information prior to posting. (Your numerous posts currently
are swamping this newsgroup – you post more frequently than anyone
else - and I suspect that they hold little of interest to others.)
Better would be to find a friend capable of being objective to
proofread your information prior to posting it. It would be especially
helpful if that proofreader had training in logic (a college level
logic course would be good) or at least is a critical thinker. If you
cannot find a proofreader, then go back and look at your own posts
concerning the ‘Sparrow’ idea, see what you now disagree with, and try
to discover what in that past topic was not logically presented.
You are making very similar errors when posting on your current Yijing
topic. Even within the Yijing topic you may be able to see
inconsistencies that can help to improve future posts. For example, at
one point in time you were trying to point out the concept that
mahjong may have been ‘created’ rather than ‘evolving’. At the time
you seemed to want to discredit the idea that mahjong evolved from the
three suit ‘money’ card decks because you did not like the idea that
the symbols on the mahjong tiles may have ‘evolved’ from symbols of
cash coins, strings of coins, and myriads, and you preferred that they
were ‘created’ from Yijing symbols unconnected to any game predating
mahjong. But now, after you discovered a deck of cards that displays
Yijing symbology, you seem to want us to believe that mahjong
‘evolved’ from this specific deck. First you seemed to argue in favor
of ‘creationism’ while now you seem to be arguing in favor of
‘evolution’. What in your previous thoughts are not compatible with
your current thoughts, and why? Answering this type of question may
help you to see the perspective of someone like me who does not share
your beliefs, and who considers your posts on the topic to be faulty.
If posts advocating the ‘sparrow’ idea do not seem correct to you now,
then try not to make similar mistakes with posts about the Yijing
idea. But you will have to somehow learn what those mistakes were in
order to have a chance of not making similar mistakes in future posts.
Since your current post is atypically short, let me use it as an
example:
On Jan 29, 10:54 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Because Mahjong tiles showing symbols instead of money amounts, it is
> highly probable that the game designer's original idea was not to be
> expressed in Cash. Therefore whoever coined the circular shape as
> "Cash". It was not the game inventor.
You start with the statement “Because Mahjong tiles showing symbols
instead of money amounts…” but do not seem to realize that this
statement is already erroneous! The structure of this part of the
sentence takes the form: ‘A is not B’ [note your use of “instead of”],
without acknowledging that ‘money amounts’ may also be used as
‘symbols’, i.e. that ‘A may be B’, and that in the case of both the
‘money-suit’ cards and mahjong, this may (or may not) be the case. You
have failed to show that ‘A is not B’ rather than that ‘A may be
B’ (or that ‘A is B’).
The opposite premise could probably be more logically argued; that is,
that “money’ depicted in games is not actual money [A is not B] (and
is thus symbolic). The ‘money’ in Chinese card decks (as well as in
Monopoly, poker chips, and other games) has little or no value outside
of the context of that game; therefore it is not real money. If it is
not real money, then it would be reasonable to think of it as symbolic
representations of values.
There are further problems in the logic of the quoted post, but this
first statement alone invalidates the entire argument. To me, this
means that this post is of absolutely no value. Your continued
illogical posts advocating your position are rather annoying, and I
(and I suspect others as well) wish that you would stop. If we cannot
persuade you to improve, then perhaps ignoring you is the only other
option.
Dan
al
> Al,
>
> I am tending towards following other posters’ suggested approach of
> ignoring your posts, but will try this one more time in the hope that
> your behavior will change. Although they pointed out that your
> behavior resembles that of an internet ‘contrarian troll’ your
When some one has an opposing view of mahjong history and has the time
and interest to give his opinion, he is not only a "troll" but a
"contrain troll"?
This is n open forum. I don't read every post.
> subsequent posts have not indicated any improvement. I currently only
> skim your posts, and if they are about your ‘pet theory’ (currently
> the Yijing hypothesis), then I do not read them completely.
You only "skim" my posts and you told me they made no sense to you.
However, I still give you my thanks. Your remarks and questions
helped. My posts improved because of you.
You remind
> me of a religious fundamentalist ‘defending’ their beliefs – and I
> ignore fundamentalists as being irrelevant to me personally.
>
> I would suggest that you write what you want to post, but to not post
> it immediately, waiting a day or two and allow yourself to reread and
> correct information prior to posting.
I am unaware of incorrect information. I thought my reply was
correcting your misunderstanding of the points I made in my post.
++++++++++
(Your numerous posts currently
> are swamping this newsgroup – you post more frequently than anyone
> else - and I suspect that they hold little of interest to others.)
There is space for any one who has anything to post. Do you know of
anybody unable to post because of my input? What is the matter with
you?
You are free to choose what you want or don't want to read. I don't
read FAQ Updates and I skip subjects I am not familiar with. They
don't bother me. How do you figure others' interest? There has been
only a half-dozen posters for the past 2 years!
> Better would be to find a friend capable of being objective to
> proofread your information prior to posting it. It would be especially
> helpful if that proofreader had training in logic (a college level
> logic course would be good) or at least is a critical thinker.
I don't have such a fiend. Most people aren't as crazy as I am,
reading and talking about mahjong. They have better things to do.
But I tell you. I doubt a college degree in logic would do much good.
How many people in this group have college degrees? What have they
"discovered" in their research? "Nothing new in the past 125 years" is
what I read in one of the posts in this group.
What good it will do when the assumption is wrong?
++++++++
If you
> cannot find a proofreader, then go back and look at your own posts
> concerning the ‘Sparrow’ idea, see what you now disagree with, and try
> to discover what in that past topic was not logically presented.
>
I have already done that. I rewrote "My New Answer to Why a Sparrow".
Obviously you either skimmed through or didn't read it at all.
> You are making very similar errors when posting on your current Yijing
> topic. Even within the Yijing topic you may be able to see
> inconsistencies that can help to improve future posts. For example, at
> one point in time you were trying to point out the concept that
> mahjong may have been ‘created’ rather than ‘evolving’. At the time
> you seemed to want to discredit the idea that mahjong evolved from the
> three suit ‘money’ card decks because you did not like the idea that
> the symbols on the mahjong tiles may have ‘evolved’ from symbols of
> cash coins, strings of coins, and myriads, and you preferred that they
> were ‘created’ from Yijing symbols unconnected to any game predating
> mahjong. But now, after you discovered a deck of cards that displays
> Yijing symbology, you seem to want us to believe that mahjong
> ‘evolved’ from this specific deck. First you seemed to argue in favor
> of ‘creationism’ while now you seem to be arguing in favor of
> ‘evolution’. What in your previous thoughts are not compatible with
> your current thoughts, and why? Answering this type of question may
> help you to see the perspective of someone like me who does not share
> your beliefs, and who considers your posts on the topic to be faulty.
+++++++++++++
I see what you mean. But you didn't see what I meant.
Pointing out symbols in Ma Diao deck did not say mahjong was evolved
from that. Age of mahjong has not been established as far as I am
concerned. And I have been saying bones and knife were used before
paper was made or printing was done.
Yijing and divination had influenced other ancient games. A chance
outcome involved in divination has resemblance in all games. My hunch
is that mahjong is older than the Ma Diao in the Japan MJM Book.
But...
The MJM Book showed me my thinking is on track.
That is important to me. I needed some confirmation for my
"apophrenic" mind.
++++++++++
> If posts advocating the ‘sparrow’ idea do not seem correct to you now,
> then try not to make similar mistakes with posts about the Yijing
> idea. But you will have to somehow learn what those mistakes were in
> order to have a chance of not making similar mistakes in future posts.
>
This time I am in luck, in addition to symbols of taiji and bamboo
slips, there are Chinese writings on the cards. Words of Bagua and 'to-
divine' were spelled out in plain Chinese.
++++++++++++++++
> Since your current post is atypically short, let me use it as an
> example:
>
> On Jan 29, 10:54 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Because Mahjong tiles showing symbols instead of money amounts, it is
> > highly probable that the game designer's original idea was not to be
> > expressed in Cash. Therefore whoever coined the circular shape as
> > "Cash". It was not the game inventor.
>
> You start with the statement “Because Mahjong tiles showing symbols
> instead of money amounts…” but do not seem to realize that this
> statement is already erroneous! The structure of this part of the
> sentence takes the form: ‘A is not B’ [note your use of “instead of”],
> without acknowledging that ‘money amounts’ may also be used as
> ‘symbols’, i.e. that ‘A may be B’, and that in the case of both the
> ‘money-suit’ cards and mahjong, this may (or may not) be the case. You
> have failed to show that ‘A is not B’ rather than that ‘A may be
> B’ (or that ‘A is B’).
>
> The opposite premise could probably be more logically argued; that is,
> that “money’ depicted in games is not actual money [A is not B] (and
> is thus symbolic). The ‘money’ in Chinese card decks (as well as in
> Monopoly, poker chips, and other games) has little or no value outside
> of the context of that game; therefore it is not real money. If it is
> not real money, then it would be reasonable to think of it as symbolic
> representations of values.
>
Why need all that? Bamboo is NOT money. Circle is not money. Then Wan
is also not money. Look at what the circle is.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg
+++++++++++++++++++++
> There are further problems in the logic of the quoted post, but this
> first statement alone invalidates the entire argument. To me, this
> means that this post is of absolutely no value. Your continued
> illogical posts advocating your position are rather annoying, and I
> (and I suspect others as well) wish that you would stop. If we cannot
> persuade you to improve, then perhaps ignoring you is the only other
> option.
>
> Dan
+++++++++++++++++
Thanks for a lesson in logic. I will try to improve.
As I said before, logic is as good as the assumption.
A good example is the assumption that the circular shape is "Cash"
based on the sound of 'tong' meaning copper.
From there, you have Zero Cash, Half Cash. What good is logic?
++++++++++++++
Cheers....al
msta...@talktalk.net
> Al,
> I am tending towards following other posters’ suggested approach of
> ignoring your posts, but will try this one more time in the hope that
> your behavior will change. Although they pointed out that your
> behavior resembles that of an internet ‘contrarian troll’ your
> subsequent posts have not indicated any improvement.
Dan. This individual is toying with you. You correctly pointed out
that it is their *behaviour* - *how* they discuss - that characterises
them as a 'contrarian troll'.
You can see that they have admitted they are a troll in their reply,
that is, they have admitted through their behaviour - that they are
indeed a 'contrarian troll'. Their troll behaviour is in their reply
below;
> When some one has an opposing view of mahjong history and has the time
> and interest to give his opinion, he is not only a "troll" but a
> "contrain troll"?
They have read the past post (because they replied to it) in which the
'contrarian troll' is described.
But now they behave as a troll. They deliberately and incorrectly
accuse Dan of saying that they are a troll because they have "an
opposing view of mahjong history". But everywhere we talk about them
as a troll, we say it is their **behaviour** in the way they reply and
NOT their contrary/opposing views that makes them a troll.
This is classic troll behaviour. The individual concerned has
repeaedly been given examples of their troll behaviour, but still they
persist in disrupting threads that does not contain troll behaviour.
Note; the disruption is caused by the troll mischieviously posting
false accusations/assertions/claims into a thread discussion in which
such behaviour was not present. These false accusations/assertions/
claims are of such a nature that they require other poster's to defend
themselves and their views with a response - thus disrupting a
discussion.
As others have said, including the troll themselves = "You are free to
choose what you want or don't want to read", so just ignore their
posts.
al
> Dan. This individual is toying with you. You correctly pointed out
> that it is their *behaviour* - *how* they discuss - that characterises
> them as a 'contrarian troll'.
>
> You can see that they have admitted they are a troll in their reply,
> that is, they have admitted through their behaviour - that they are
> indeed a 'contrarian troll'. Their troll behaviour is in their reply
> below;
>
That is an admission? What kind of logic is that? Or where is the
logic?
Read again the question quoted below.
> > When some one has an opposing view of mahjong history and has the time
> > and interest to give his opinion, he is not only a "troll" but a
> > "contrain troll"?
This was a question and it was not an admission.
>
> They have read the past post (because they replied to it) in which the
> 'contrarian troll' is described.
>
Again the reply has a QUESTION MARK.
> But now they behave as a troll. They deliberately and incorrectly
> accuse Dan of saying that they are a troll because they have "an
> opposing view of mahjong history". But everywhere we talk about them
> as a troll, we say it is their **behaviour** in the way they reply and
> NOT their contrary/opposing views that makes them a troll.
>
You sound confusing and repeating yourself. Rephrase it.
> This is classic troll behaviour. The individual concerned has
> repeaedly been given examples of their troll behaviour, but still they
> persist in disrupting threads that does not contain troll behaviour.
>
I feel I have been contributing to topics of discussion. I do not
believe any lack of participation by others is caused by me.
If we wait for Julian's type of research paper we won't see one for
years.
So far, I post my findings, my opinions, and questions. I didn't mind
to show my ignorance in some areas, and I have learned from a few
people in the group.
Isn't this what open-forum is about?
> Note; the disruption is caused by the troll mischieviously posting
> false accusations/assertions/claims into a thread discussion in which
> such behaviour was not present. These false accusations/assertions/
> claims are of such a nature that they require other poster's to defend
> themselves and their views with a response - thus disrupting a
> discussion.
Posters defending their work is part of the "discussion" exercise and
purpose. Is there specific case in point? False accusation, if it is,
would not stick.
Which claim you found indefensible? If it is indefensible, then it may
be a false claim. Do you think that might be possible, logically
speaking?
>
> As others have said, including the troll themselves = "You are free to
> choose what you want or don't want to read", so just ignore their
> posts.
Wouldn't anybody say that, agree with that and does that? Is everybody
a troll then? What is a formal term for jumping to conclusion?
pa...@email.unc.edu
I do not know how to encourage your enthusiasm for mahjong history
while discouraging your ‘over-enthusiasm’ for your own hypotheses. By
‘over-enthusiasm’ I am referring to what appears to be a loss of the
ability to be objective, and this, combined with your apparent
inability to follow logic in your posts (I am hoping that this is
unintentional due to a lack of understanding rather than intentionally
being a ‘contrarian troll’) is, in my opinion, problematic. My
suggestion for finding a friend who could proofread your information
prior to posting it was a suggestion intended to help with your
objectivity and logic – they would not need to have familiarity with
mahjong. The suggestion for someone with training in logic was solely
due to your apparent frequent inability to present logical thoughts
concerning your ‘pet’ theories. I thought that in your case it might
be necessary for someone with training in order for them to be able to
convince you when faults are detected – for someone without your
persistent ‘over-enthusiasm’ which apparently hinders your
objectivity, this would probably not be necessary. While it is fine
for you to personally believe strongly in your ideas (it encourages
further research), posts on this forum should really try to be
objective and logical if you wish to provide information that may be
of value to readers like me.
Lacking someone to proofread your ideas, perhaps trying to simplify
your statements into an ‘A is/is not/may be/etc. B’ structure,
replacing your chosen words in the sentences that you have
constructed, would help you to partially analyze the logical
construction of your arguments. See my above example that began to
analyze your earlier post. Michael’s numerous recent posts to you also
attempted to point out the errors in logic from posts that you have
made. While you seem to get defensive in your replies (often replying
with further statements that fail to follow the desired logic), I do
think that his points were valid. Perhaps really trying to understand
Michael’s objections from a ‘logic’ perspective (rather than simply
viewing them as disputing your ideas themselves) may help.
If you are unwilling to acknowledge the importance of using
objectivity and logic to present your ideas on this forum, then I
cannot have any hope of helping you. If readers cannot distinguish
between ‘troll’ behavior (purposely baiting or toying with other
posters, provoking responses…) and your intended behavior (purportedly
simply presenting your ideas on mahjong history), then your behavior
is in effect ‘trolling’. There is a problem that occurs on internet
forums that is disruptive and annoying enough to have terms coined for
that behavior. If your behavior resembles ‘trolling’ to readers of
this forum, then, whether intentional or not, it is still annoying and
disruptive to those forum participants. If, after several individuals
have pointed out to you that your behavior is problematic, you do not
acknowledge that there may be a problem with your posts, then I do not
know how I can hold any hope of improvement from you.
Your post concerning your new answer to why a sparrow:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.mahjong/browse_thread/thread/c8f7c2b55552b8f2#
does not really do the analysis that I was suggesting. I was hoping
that you could learn the errors in logic from those posts, in light of
the new theory that you have adopted, and then try to avoid making
similar errors in logic in subsequent posts. Your new post, while
disputing your own previous theory, still makes errors in logic. If
you can identify specific types of errors in logic then you may be
more aware of those types of erroneous statements and hopefully avoid
them in the future. Countering errors in logic with additional errors
in logic does not show that you are learning how to avoid errors in
logic! At least this thread has you arguing against yourself, and thus
you are less likely to take a defensive or reactionary stance. If you
switched perspective back to favoring the ‘sparrow’ hypothesis, then
how would you respond to the “New Answer’ post? The back and forth
that you could generate with yourself on this topic, if you are
capable of switching objectively between the two different hypotheses,
has the potential to be a learning exercise for you.
Good Luck,
Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear above. Making ‘new’ arguments
concerning a topic is different from recognizing errors in logic in
the previous arguments and correcting them. Correcting previous errors
in logic do not necessitate any ‘new’ arguments being made. Just the
recognition of the type of error that had been made would be
sufficient to invalidate the previous perspective without having to
adapt any other theory. You should not need a ‘Yijing’ hypothesis (or
any other hypothesis) to invalidate illogical arguments adapted to
argue another hypothesis (the Sparrow hypothesis). Nor do you need to
advocate any alternative hypothesis on the origin of mahjong to raise
objections to illogical statements supporting some other hypothesis;
one could raise objections to erroneous logic even if one agreed with
the particular hypothesis that it was being used to support. It is the
illogical statements that need correcting, not necessarily the
accompanying hypothesis. However, modification or correction of the
hypothesis often is the result of correcting errors in logic put
forward in support of a hypothesis. I hope you can understand this.
Dan
al
Now I am confused.
"My New Answer to Why a Sparrow" is an acknowledgment of error in
"Why a Sparrow" which was my first post nearly two years ago. Sparrow
was the only name I knew since as a child.
Now we don't know when it got there. who put it there, or why it is
here, and its name is changed (in official China).
Technically, the sparrow has no reason to be there in mahjong and it
can be substituted by any stick. The game is unaffected.
Experience tells me it's common to see sparrow(s) among bamboo in
Chinese paintings. I know for a fact that sparrows nest on bamboo
trees and they eat bamboo seeds. Painting sparrow and bamboo together
is simple realism. Engravers are artists too. I can see they would
think of something like putting a sparrow among the bamboo (assuming
he had interpreted the bamboo suite),
And if so, the name of game didn't mean that much after all. Now the
name is changed. That is even further confirming the insignificance of
a sparrow.
That was what I tried to say. I admitted my mistake in my early post.
+++++++++++++
Cheers....al
pa...@email.unc.edu
Your confusion is why having a friend (preferably with training) help
you with your objectivity and logic may be desirable.
Perhaps the following will aid you in understanding the concept that I
am trying to help you with: Using celebrity endorsements to promote
products is a type of false logic regardless of which product is
endorsed or which celebrity is doing the endorsing. The erroneous
logic exists in this type of advertising independent of those
specifics of the advertisement. Yet advertisers frequently use this
type of advertising even though they probably know that it incorrect.
It is not blatant enough to be called lying (or for ‘false
advertising’ lawsuits), and it works on consumers, but it is still
wrong. It is the type of promotion that is erroneous, regardless of
the merit of the product being advertised.
As Michael and I have been trying to point out, it is not your
favoring of one hypothesis or another concerning mahjong history that
is causing a problem on this forum, it is how you present your
arguments, how you respond to other posters that raise questions
concerning your hypothesis or the manner that you use to present your
ideas, etc. that is causing the problems. I do not think that you are
trying to lie, but the way that you present your information is not
correct. Your errors in logic are far too frequent for someone like me
to have the time to try to correct, and when someone (like Michael)
tries to point out some of the problems, you seem to react very
defensively and use additional erroneous statements in an attempt to
counter what you seem to consider attacks against either you or your
ideas. This approach produces additional erroneous statements when
there are already far too many for someone like me to point out, and
if I did, it seems that it would only provoke even more statements
(including even more erroneous ones), in a process that could go on
and on. This is why it can be considered as ‘trolling’ and why I
consider it to be annoying and disruptive. I think that only an
objective friend (capable of critical logical thinking) to proofread
your arguments prior to posting, regardless of whether or not they
have any knowledge or interest in mahjong, is perhaps the only
possible solution. I am not optimistic about your ability to improve
on your own.
I personally think that the more people we have contemplating
differing possibilities concerning the possible history of mahjong,
the better. I myself have modified or rejected my own hypotheses
concerning mahjong, but I try to remain objective and try to consider
my current hypothesis merely as a ‘work in progress’ that will
probably be modified or rejected in the future. While I consider the
current line of research that I am undertaking to be promising, I am
open to the possibility that it could be wrong. We do not have enough
evidence to ‘prove’ any theory at this time.
Concerning the name ‘Sparrow’ you state, “Now we don't know when it
got there, who put it there, or why it is here, and its name is
changed (in official China).” I can agree to this. But since we do
not know, I also do not think that these ideas can be entirely
rejected simply because one favors another hypothesis. We do not know
why the name ‘sparrow’ was previously associated with the game of
mahjong, and until we do, it is reasonable to examine possible
explanations. Your “acknowledgement of error” appears to me to just be
an attempt to reconcile it with your current Yijing hypothesis (though
I could be reading too much into this as you have not explicitly
brought up the Yijing hypothesis there) rather than examining the
‘sparrow’ ideas on their own merits (or examining the ideas on their
logic – a change of opinion does not necessarily equate with an
understanding of logic, or the lack thereof). If one accepts the idea
that mahjong may have evolved from three-suit ‘money’ cards, then the
switch from not having a bird depicted on the 1 ‘string’ card, to
appearing on the 1 ‘Bam’ tile, is something worth examining.
Examination is not an either/or (black/white) process. There are many
shades or gray that may be missed if one only examines the questions
from an either/or viewpoint.
You state “And if so, the name of game didn't mean that much after
all.” But I would suggest that the name ‘Sparrow’ must have had some
meaning to someone at some time, otherwise it probably would never
have been used! Whether the meaning provides possible clues to the
origin of the game, or only possibly points to a stage in its
evolution, or if it is indeed irrelevant to the study of mahjong
history (being merely ‘artistic license’, mistaken translation of
unfamiliar dialects, or something else) is a question that cannot be
resolved at this time. Your conclusion that “the name of game didn't
mean that much after all” is probably incorrect and is an example of
erroneous logic. You have set up a premise (“…and if so”) that you
attempt to then definitively make a conclusion about, when the initial
premise is not necessarily true (it could be true, but it could also
be false – we do not have enough information at this time to know one
way or the other). But because we do not have enough information to
‘prove’ that the premise is not true, this means that one cannot
‘prove’ that your statement is wrong. We have been trying to indicate
that the logic is wrong and hope that you can recognize the error in
logic. Otherwise it could lead to an extended ‘trolling’ type of
interaction, which is not something that I am willing to participate
in (thus the suggestion of some others on this forum to ignore you
since they also seem unwilling to participate in that type of
interaction).
I do not know if this clarifies things for you, but I hope so. It is
about objectivity and logic, not which hypotheses you happen to be
examining. It is about how you post on this forum.
Best wishes,
Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
I should point out that your confusion is possibly a good sign! It
indicates to me that you are now trying to view the situation from an
unfamiliar perspective.
Your response (Feb 5) to my post (also Feb 5) was also totally
appropriate. You attempted to clarify your position without reverting
to defensively contesting the ideas expressed in my post (or trying to
discredit me or my views). If you could manage to respond in this
manner to other posts, then you may yet become a valued contributor to
this forum.
Keep trying. I have not totally given up on you yet.
Dan
al
> Al,
>
> [..]
>
> I do not know if this clarifies things for you, but I hope so. It is
> about objectivity and logic, not which hypotheses you happen to be
> examining. It is about how you post on this forum.
Dan, I wrote a long reply, point by point. It seems to have gotten
lost.
It won't matter much now.
You know what would be a real help to clarify things for me?
Lay out the logical presentation for the "money-suited" hypothesis.
Let me see the logical progression step by step. I would really
appreciate that.
++++++++++++++++++
>
> Best wishes,
> Dan
+++++++++++++
Thanks....al
P.S. I need only yours and only this once.
pa...@email.unc.edu
> You know what would be a real help to clarify things for me?
> Lay out the logical presentation for the "money-suited" hypothesis.
>
> Let me see the logical progression step by step. I would really
> appreciate that.
>
> P.S. I need only yours and only this once.
Al,
I am very reluctant to post responses to you that directly address
your proposals concerning mahjong until I am more confident that your
replies will stay clear of the ‘trolling’ behavior seen previously.
When Michael tried using examples from your posts (and responses to
his posts) to illustrate your behavior, you seemed to respond as if he
were directly questioning you or your ideas, rather than, as he had
explicitly stated on several occasions, it being your behavior (the
way that you respond rather than the ideas being examined) that was
what he was objecting to. This is the reason that my posts used as
examples either things unrelated to mahjong like advertising (and the
error of logic inherent in celebrity endorsements, the difficulty
countering those errors in logic, etc.), or your own statements
countering your own earlier statements.
I have not tried to examine the ‘money-suit’ card hypothesis in great
detail like Michael has. He has posted information supporting this
hypothesis on this forum. I do not think that I have anything
additional to add to Michael’s information. If you do not understand
some part of his presentation, then perhaps you could point one out
and I could state my perspective. Please only address one item at a
time as I do not have the free time nor desire at present to
thoroughly examine this subject. If the interchange of ideas
concerning the one item progresses reasonably, then perhaps we could
continue to a second, etc.
Dan
al
> On Feb 8, 9:24 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > You know what would be a real help to clarify things for me?
> > Lay out the logical presentation for the "money-suited" hypothesis.
>
> > Let me see the logical progression step by step. I would really
> > appreciate that.
>
> > Thanks....al
> > P.S. I need only yours and only this once.
>
> Al,
>
> I am very reluctant to post responses to you that directly address
> your proposals concerning mahjong until I am more confident that your
> replies will stay clear of the ‘trolling’ behavior seen previously.
> When Michael tried using examples from your posts (and responses to
> his posts) to illustrate your behavior, you seemed to respond as if he
> were directly questioning you or your ideas, rather than, as he had
> explicitly stated on several occasions, it being your behavior (the
> way that you respond rather than the ideas being examined) that was
> what he was objecting to.
Okay, Dan, if your response is like some other poster's then you will
likely see my same reaction.
What I was expecting from you was an objective presentation of a
hypothesis based on "money suits' supported by documented evidence in
a logical format.
I have not seen such work. So I am looking for something better than
whatever posted so far (on money-base).
++++++++++++
[..]
> I have not tried to examine the ‘money-suit’ card hypothesis in great
> detail like Michael has. He has posted information supporting this
> hypothesis on this forum. I do not think that I have anything
> additional to add to Michael’s information. If you do not understand
> some part of his presentation, then perhaps you could point one out
> and I could state my perspective. Please only address one item at a
> time as I do not have the free time nor desire at present to
> thoroughly examine this subject. If the interchange of ideas
> concerning the one item progresses reasonably, then perhaps we could
> continue to a second, etc.
>
> Dan
++++++++++++++++++
Since you have not tried to examine the 'money suit' card hypothesis
in detail as yet, I won't want you to spend time on it. I don't want a
drawn out discussion either. I thought you had related your knowledge
of the Ma Diao game as in Lo's translated article with the money suits
in mahjong. I got that impression because you cited the various
description of Ma Diao cards and you had shown no objection to the
money-suited hypothesis.
However, I have not read any coherent step-by-step presentation
showing logical arguments like what you have suggested, unless I
missed it. Perhaps now I should put it as an open invitation to any
one who thinks he has a unified idea on the mahjong 'money suits'.
Go to it....
+++++
Cheers....
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Okay, Dan, if your response is like some other poster's then you will
> likely see my same reaction.
Whoa Al,
What did I do to provoke this response? I have tried to be patient and
to give you the benefit of doubt, but if you prefer, then I can go
ahead and simply ignore you. You want me to present something that I
do not want to (while I have decent familiarity with the information,
I have not examined it carefully nor prepared any organized
presentation on the topic, and do not have the free time to do so – I
work full time and I am only connected to the internet at work, so I
only have the possibility of lunch and breaks to devote to this). I
gave you an alternative that I thought was a reasonable compromise,
having you point out something (one thing at a time) for me to give my
take on, but you apparently have rejected that approach. I thought
that Michael and others had presented this information on this group
already, and I do not think that it is reasonable for you to want me
to organize that information. It would simply take too much of my free
time to do so. You seem to have more free time than I do (you are
retired and connected to the internet at home, correct?).
I don’t understand why you seem to be opposed to the three-suit
‘money’ card hypothesis. From my viewpoint it would not necessarily
matter in terms of your Yijing hypothesis (or the Taiping origin
hypothesis that I am examining; or most others) whether or not mahjong
tiles were inspired by existing games that used these cards (or
whether or not those cards represent money). Mahjong could have
developed from the card deck while adding additional pieces that in
total would be associated with other things. It’s a new/modified game,
thus new meanings could have been associated with the pieces (whether
Yijing symbolism, Taiping ideology & organization, the life of a
sparrow, Confucian &/or Ching dynasty thoughts & organization, etc etc
etc). Even within the short evidential history of mahjong that we have
available for study, mahjong tiles have changed (e.g., it does not
appear that Zhong/Fa/Bai were originally a group within the mahjong
set, but seems to be a later addition/substitution; and it is unclear
what the original meanings associated with these tiles was; etc).
I hypothesize that the Taiping added the Wang/King tiles (and others
as found in the Himly set) in order to reflect their ideology and
organization (leadership), perhaps changing the 5 characters in the
Wan/Myriads suit from the simple version to the slightly more complex
version to reflect military organization… An evolution from ‘money’
cards would in no way invalidate the proposed new associations with
the Taiping. I do not understand why you may think the three-suit
‘money’ card hypothesis might be incompatible with your Yijing
hypothesis.
I have not noticed any improper supporting information presented by
those who have looked into the three-suit ‘money’ card hypothesis. If
you are not comfortable with evolution from the cards for some reason
other than, for some reason which I do not understand, you feel the
need to discredit it in order to bolster your own Yijing hypothesis
(in which case I do not think that I can help you) then point out what
you perceive as errors in the way that the information on the cards
has been presented. Then perhaps it could be discussed; but so far I
have not noticed errors and I currently think that the evolution from
the cards is likely.
Dan
al
> On Feb 10, 5:05 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Whoa Al,
>
> [..][..]
> .... I do not understand why you may think the three-suit
> 'money' card hypothesis might be incompatible with your Yijing
> hypothesis.
>
basic concept that can relate to rules of play is 'baseless'.
Most Chinese games that survive over time have themes. Chess is a good
example. In addition, rules have principles behind them. (Remember
that in Ma Diao translation?
In chess, according to David H. Li in his Genealogy of Chess, the foot
soldier moves forward or side way, but never backward in retreat.
Principle / purpose was to instill an attitude and standard of conduct
of bravery for soldiers in battle. The game of chess was of course
invented by a brilliant commander of war.
For mahjong, when I say 2 +3 is key, I mean the basic concepts in the
game are Duality and Triplicity relating to creation and changes in
Nature. They are reflected in the rules of the game in terms of yin
and yang and the I-Ching.
The money suit would be compatible with I-Ching only when it comes to
coin-toss for divination.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
> I have not noticed any improper supporting information presented by
> those who have looked into the three-suit 'money' card hypothesis.
The money tiles do not correlate with rules of game play.
The money tiles have no coherent concept for the game.
The money tiles can not explain the game's evolution.
The money tiles have symbol unlike money.
+++++++++++++++
[..]
what
> you perceive as errors in the way that the information on the cards
> has been presented. Then perhaps it could be discussed; but so far I
> have not noticed errors and I currently think that the evolution from
> the cards is likely.
>
> Dan
++++++++++++
As I said in my other post and I quote.
"From now on, I will let that photo [ 79 ] and its contents do the
explanation. I do believe that the basic concept of mahjong design is
there in plain Chinese:
占卜 = divination.
八卦 = Bagua (Eight-Trigram).
Like divining for hexagram, mahjong is a game of CHANCE and CHANGES.
++++++++++
Cheers...
P.S. Mahjong longevity, made in simplicity.
Allan Lee
February 9, 200"
Julian Bradfield
> In chess, according to David H. Li in his Genealogy of Chess, the foot
> soldier moves forward or side way, but never backward in retreat.
> Principle / purpose was to instill an attitude and standard of conduct
> of bravery for soldiers in battle. The game of chess was of course
> invented by a brilliant commander of war.
Stuff and nonsense.
Foot soldiers move forward because if they don't they'll be killed by
their own side. The idea that vassal armies were motivated by playing
chess is simply laughable.
I don't believe there's the slightest evidence that chess was
invented by a brilliant commander of war. (Whether you mean chess
(invented in India, according to everybody except David Li) or
xiangqi.)
This is kind of evidence-free assertion that characterises your posts.
msta...@talktalk.net
Hello Dan.
> I have not tried to examine the ‘money-suit’ card hypothesis in great
> detail like Michael has. He has posted information supporting this
> hypothesis on this forum.
This is correct. It was posted many many times in various threads
related to other subjects.
Not only was the supporting evidence and supporting additional
hypotheses given, but also the logic underpinning the reasoning in
those hypotheses.
The previous poster knows all this of course, but is still intent on
'trolling' this forum by the baiting tactic of throwing up a
'challenge' to you to produce a description of the hypothesis even
though it was produced in discussions on this forum.
The baiting tactic is an attempt to allow the individual to continue
his agenda whilst engaging in his contrarian troll behaviours.
These posts below contain descriptions of the money hypothesis and the
answers to the objections raised by the previous poster. For those
interested, please begin with the thread "Why a Sparrow?" and have fun
reading them.
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
Incorrect use of Ma Diao
Incorrect use of Undated Sources
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 que suit names) was influenced by A (preceding cash suit
names as found in Ma Diao), 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.
Further, as stated above, the above poster is attempting to distort
his 'evidence' C (the photo 78/79) to correspond with A.
New (or old ^_^) readers will see explained in the above subject
threads the various Contrarian Troll behaviours listed 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...
(7) to swamp this forum with repeated claims and criticisms,
unsupported by any
logically coherent argument and without any relevant and directly
related, dated, evidence when required.
NOTE to other readers; It is his behaviours, and NOT his ideas that
are at issue here.
However, none of the hypotheses described on this forum are beyond
doubt IMO. It is the logic and evidence underpinning them that is the
issue and how these are discussed on this forum.
al
Have you seen this link?
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++
You have been a big help in your arrogant way. But I will let Photo 79
on page 55 of the ILLUSTRATED BOOK OF THE MAHJONG MUSEUM " do the
explaining for me.
Have you done a research paper on the question of Cash origin? Let's
see your scholarly work for a change. I promise I will not attack like
you do.
++++++++++++++
Cheers...
al
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have nothing worthwhile to say to this poster.
As far as mahjong history is concerned, I can say my hypothetical
thinking could be summarized as shown in photo 79, page 55 of the
Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum (1999, Japan). No need to
discuss further. I have done some exploratory search. I found the
answer I was looking for.
If anybody thinks he has a better hypothesis, post it in a step by
step development and in a summary format.
Previous posts with scattered discussions are disorganized. Present
whatever hypothesis now if you still have one.
+++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
> I have nothing worthwhile to say to this poster.
Sadly, this is true.
> As far as mahjong history is concerned, I can say my hypothetical
> thinking [snip]
This conflicts with the above poster's statements that are out and out
assertions with no hint whatsoever that they are "hypothetical".
> If anybody thinks he has a better hypothesis, post it in a step by
> step development and in a summary format.
> Previous posts with scattered discussions are disorganized. Present
> whatever hypothesis now if you still have one.
Challenging people to repost what they have already written numerous
times is a baiting tactic. This forces people to post in a style that
suits (no pun intended ^_^) the above poster so he can rehash his
claims without reference to the answers given to his claims in past
posts - answers that have shown the wrong thinking involved in his
assertions and claims.
NOTE; Readers will be made aware of the polite and courteous way in
which the above poster's claims have been discussed, beginning with
'Why a Sparrow? The above poster was treated patiently in the very
long replies to him on the above. It is really disingenuous for him to
say that he replied in the manner that others replied to him. That is
a gross falsehood. From the above subject threads listed it can be
seen that it was he who began the subtle and not so subtle insults/
restatements of positions etc etc.
al
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nothing new worthwhile for me to comment...
Cheers....
msta...@talktalk.net
> Nothing new worthwhile for me to comment...
Ditto.
pa...@email.unc.edu
I think that you need more help than I could possibly hope to convey
online.
You state:
>A hypothesis for the 'origin' of a game of 30 or more pieces without a
>basic concept that can relate to rules of play is 'baseless'.
>
>Most Chinese games that survive over time have themes.
This is essentially proposing the unsubstantiated hypothesis that:
Most Chinese games have themes. [A modified hypothesis from other
posts of yours might replace “themes” with “basic concepts”, or ones
that “correlate with rules of game play”, etc.]
You then use as an example only one game (chess)! Only one! One does
not equal ‘most’! To validate that hypothesis you would have to show
that ‘most’ Chinese games have themes/basic concepts (that correlate
with rules of play). You have not shown that your premise applies to
“most” games [even if only considering only those “that survive over
time”]; show this to be probable for most card games, dominoes games,
dice games, etc. etc. etc., show it for tile matching games using
mahjong pieces.
Your (one) example of chess, while it does have a vague theme, it only
vaguely correlates with rules of play, and even your (one) example for
this correlation (the movement of pawns) contains possible
inaccuracies [as pointed out by Julian]. The ‘theme’ for chess has
only slight correlation with any realities of war, i.e. I doubt that
anyone could illustrate a single historic battle using the chess
pieces and their movements based on the given rules of play. Thus the
above hypothesis may need to be modified to state: Most Chinese games
have themes even if only vaguely illustrative of the historic reality
of those themes.
But ‘money’ could also be considered a “theme”, especially in games
used for gambling where the object of the game is to win money! So
perhaps the hypothesis would need to be narrowed even further to
something like: Most Chinese games have themes even if only vaguely
illustrative of the historic reality of those themes, but they are
only valid for game design if the theme is not just in the pieces, but
also in the rules for game play. Nonsense! This method of making an
unsubstantiated hypothesis, and then narrowing it so far that little
other than your own Yijing hypothesis would qualify, is what I would
consider to be an mental exercise in self-delusion. You are
constructing false premises, and making arguments based on them, to
convince yourself that what you want to be true may actually be true.
While you can do that all you want, I do not think that you should be
subjecting us to your exercises in mental self-delusion! Get help!
To support your Yijing hypothesis you similarly rely on the vagueness
of the correlations:
>For mahjong, when I say 2 +3 is key, I mean the basic concepts in the
>game are Duality and Triplicity relating to creation and changes in
>Nature. They are reflected in the rules of the game in terms of yin
>and yang and the I-Ching.
Vagueness is unconvincing! Being “reflected” is unconvincing!
You further compound the problem this unsubstantiated hypothesis
raises by essentially stating that anything that doesn’t agree with
you on this is “baseless”! Nonsense! It is things like this that lead
people to consider you to be a troll and that make it unworthy of my
time and effort to address you. You seem to be implying that you have
the truth, and anyone that does not agree has a “baseless” viewpoint.
This is inexcusable! Please stop!
This is but one example from numerous problems contained in your post.
I believe that other readers on this forum are intelligent enough to
realize that your posts are full of errors, so I do not need to point
then out one-by-one. It also seems like a waste of time to point these
errors out to you since you do not seem willing or able to learn (as
your behavior does not change). If your inability to learn is due to
low IQ, dementia, side effects of medication or other medical
conditions, then I apologize; but my advise would remain the same –
get help!
Let me point out one other problem since you repeatedly state this (or
something similar) in various posts of yours (even going to the point
of emphasizing it by using all capital letters for the words, as if
repeating and emphasizing something will somehow make it more
true?!?). You state:
>Like divining for hexagram, mahjong is a game of CHANCE and CHANGES.
Or from another recent post:
>Mahjong is a game
>of CHANCE and CHANGES. Similarly, divination depends on CHANCE and
>CHANGES for its result.
Most games that I know of are also “game[s] of CHANCE and CHANGES”,
but that does not mean that card games, board games, dice games, etc.
etc. etc. are all based on the Yijing! Yes, “divination depends on
CHANCE and CHANGES for its results” but this does not necessarily
demonstrate any actual relationship between that and games. You are
applying erroneous logic if you think that this statement has any
relevance. Saying that ‘A’ has ‘B’ and ‘C’, and that ‘Z’ has ‘B’ and
‘C’, does not mean that ‘A’ = ‘Z’! ‘A’ could be absolutely unrelated
to ‘Z’ even if both have ‘B’ and ‘C’. [It has the same logic structure
as stating that a dog has two eyes and four limbs, and humans also
have two eyes and four limbs, therefore implying that dogs are the
same species as humans. Is that the type of logic that you are
expecting us to accept??? Absurd!] Note: If you cannot understand the
use of letters as substitutions for phrases in analyzing the logic
structure of a statement &/or you do cannot understand the use of
analogies to illustrate the absurdity of the logic of a statement,
then get help!
To me, this statement of yours, and any subsequent points based on
this statement, are of no value since any connection between mahjong
and divination cannot be validly connected in this manner. I hope that
the deception inherent in your statement is not intentional.
To me, you do not have credibility as a serious researcher. A mental
exercise in self-delusion is not research! I tried to help because I
thought your behavior was unintentional, and that erroneous statements
were simply because you did not know any better. But my tolerance and
free time are both limited, so I think that I need to say goodbye to
you.
Sorry I could not seem to help.
Also, I am sorry that I have lost patience with you.
Dan
al
I believe in what I said. That is the way I knew how to write it.
I don't mind making mistakes some times. I express my opinion as I see
things. I guess I just can never be as logical as those who can see
logic in everything, including the "money base".
++++++++
Cheers....al
al
>
> > In chess, according to David H. Li in his Genealogy of Chess, the foot
> > soldier moves forward or side way, but never backward in retreat.
> > Principle / purpose was to instill an attitude and standard of conduct
> > of bravery for soldiers in battle. The game of chess was of course
> > invented by a brilliant commander of war.
Dr. David H. Li is my authority on Xiangqi. I trust his work.
If you have not read his book, The Genealogy of Chess", you should
read it before you make your remark. The book has 381 pages which
include 13 pages of bibliography with 4 pages of Chinese history and
culture related to chess. His presentation is orderly, logical and
scholarly.
>
> Stuff and nonsense.
I was just admonished for something like what you just said.
> Foot soldiers move forward because if they don't they'll be killed by
> their own side.
Not always...
The idea that vassal armies were motivated by playing
> chess is simply laughable.
You don't believe in cultivation of the mind? Where have you been?
> I don't believe there's the slightest evidence that chess was
> invented by a brilliant commander of war. (Whether you mean chess
> (invented in India, according to everybody except David Li) or
> xiangqi.)
>
Not everybody else. You are wrong on that. Read Li's book and you will
see.
> This is kind of evidence-free assertion that characterises your posts.
This is untrue also. There is a difference between historians and non-
historians. Historians do their search and research and treasure every
bit of dated documented evidence and just keep accumulating them and
afraid to make mistakes like the non-historians do when they venture
out to unconventional and undocumented territories. I now have a
theory about mahjong game design since only 2 years into this
discussion exchange. I made a few mistakes. But as people who seems to
know it all and make no mistakes, what have you done in the field of
mahjong research? As for me and my posts, I some times speculate and
just question aloud, but I got my answer that at least for now
satisfied my curiosity. Thanks to you, by the way.
++++++++++++
Cheers....
Julian Bradfield
> On Feb 12, 4:51 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > of bravery for soldiers in battle. The game of chess was of course
>> > invented by a brilliant commander of war.
> Dr. David H. Li is my authority on Xiangqi. I trust his work.
Why?
> If you have not read his book, The Genealogy of Chess", you should
> read it before you make your remark. The book has 381 pages which
> include 13 pages of bibliography with 4 pages of Chinese history and
> culture related to chess. His presentation is orderly, logical and
> scholarly.
In principle, I agree that I should, but I'm not interested in the
subject, and I don't have the time, so I confine myself to observing
that reviews of it say that it is not scholarly, and provides no
evidence for its claim of the invention of xiangqi by Han Xin.
If you have read it, perhaps you could help reviewers by pointing out
where in the book is to be found the evidence (as opposed to an unsourced
claim by an unknown Chinese scholar in 1790 to a visiting Westerner).
>> Foot soldiers move forward because if they don't they'll be killed by
>> their own side.
>
> Not always...
True. Sometimes it's because they want the loot, or because they hate
the alien enemy.
> The idea that vassal armies were motivated by playing
>> chess is simply laughable.
>
> You don't believe in cultivation of the mind? Where have you been?
In the real world. While I have (fortunately) no military experience
myself, my older relatives had, and cultivating the mind does not come
into infantry training in any way shape or form! I have no reason to
think things were any different anywhere else in time or space.
>> I don't believe there's the slightest evidence that chess was
>> invented by a brilliant commander of war. (Whether you mean chess
>> (invented in India, according to everybody except David Li) or
>> xiangqi.)
>>
> Not everybody else. You are wrong on that. Read Li's book and you will
> see.
I repeat: what is the evidence, that is to be found in Li's book?
Of course, it could be that Li's theory is right - but he needs to
provide evidence, not, as Banaschak puts it, "ingenious explanations"
from his "fertile imagination" (sound familiar?).
>> This is kind of evidence-free assertion that characterises your posts.
>
> This is untrue also. There is a difference between historians and non-
> historians.
Yes. Non-historians tell stories, whereas historians try to find out
history.
> I now have a
> theory about mahjong game design since only 2 years into this
> discussion exchange.
But you still don't provide any argument why we should accept your
theory. We can't say your theory is wrong, of course; we can only say
that there's no reason to believe it other than your personal feeling
that mah-jong looks like I Ching.
> what have you done in the field of
> mahjong research?
Very little, as I have neither time, nor historical training, nor the
necessary ability to read Chinese and Japanese. My contributions are
confined to unearthing, by chance, the occasional previously unknown
English-language book. (And as you'll recall from this group, we
are just as sceptical of Tam Wing Kwong's unsourced claims about the
history of mah-jong as we are about yours.)
msta...@talktalk.net
> On 2009-02-14, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > I now have a
> > theory about mahjong game design since only 2 years into this
> > discussion exchange.
>
> But you still don't provide any argument why we should accept your
> theory. We can't say your theory is wrong, of course; we can only say
> that there's no reason to believe it other than your personal feeling
> that mah-jong looks like I Ching.
This is true.
Not one shred of relevant evidence has been put forward to
substantiate or demonstrate his ideas of a link. If a piece of
confirming evidence was forthcoming then his ideas would be worth
looking at, most certainly.
al
> On 2009-02-14, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 4:51 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> ...
> >> > of bravery for soldiers in battle. The game of chess was of course
> >> > invented by a brilliant commander of war.
> > Dr. David H. Li is my authority on Xiangqi. I trust his work.
>
> Why?
>
I read his book on Xiangqi.
> > If you have not read his book, The Genealogy of Chess", you should
> > read it before you make your remark. The book has 381 pages which
> > include 13 pages of bibliography with 4 pages of Chinese history and
> > culture related to chess. His presentation is orderly, logical and
> > scholarly.
Rely on a reviewer's (one reviewer) critique making broad brush
judgment like that is inexcusable for some one as learned as you seem
to be.
>
> In principle, I agree that I should, but I'm not interested in the
> subject, and I don't have the time, so I confine myself to observing
> that reviews of it say that it is not scholarly, and provides no
> evidence for its claim of the invention of xiangqi by Han Xin.
>[..]
Read the book yourself. It does not take long because it is well
organized.
>
> >> [..]
>
> > [..]
> >> I don't believe there's the slightest evidence that chess was
> >> invented by a brilliant commander of war. (Whether you mean chess
> >> (invented in India, according to everybody except David Li) or
> >> xiangqi.)
How do you know that?
>
> > Not everybody else. You are wrong on that. Read Li's book and you will
> > see.
>
> I repeat: what is the evidence, that is to be found in Li's book?
Read to be sure. No use for me to tell you.
> Of course, it could be that Li's theory is right - but he needs to
> provide evidence, not, as Banaschak puts it, "ingenious explanations"
> from his "fertile imagination" (sound familiar?).
>
Bansschak was the one and only review in Amazon. You believe him and
ignored the work itself.
Let me ask you. Where is YOUR evidence?
> >> This is kind of evidence-free assertion that characterises your posts.
>
> > This is untrue also. There is a difference between historians and non-
> > historians.
>
> Yes. Non-historians tell stories, whereas historians try to find out
> history.
>
> > I now have a
> > theory about mahjong game design since only 2 years into this
> > discussion exchange.
I attribute the result to good imagination. I am proud of it.
>
> But you still don't provide any argument why we should accept your
> theory. We can't say your theory is wrong, of course; we can only say
Yes. I may very well be right.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge". Need I remind you?
Evidence comes from knowledge. It can be located in time.
Imagination is not from knowledge. It is good to capture it soon.
> that there's no reason to believe it other than your personal feeling
> that mah-jong looks like I Ching.
>
That is the thing, Julian. It is more important that I have the
reasons to trust my own idea. Other people have their own theories to
advance or protect.
++++++++++++++++++++
Cheers
> > [..]
> [..]
al
al
>
> > On 2009-02-14, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > I now have a
> > > theory about mahjong game design since only 2 years into this
>
> > But you still don't provide any argument why we should accept your
>
> This is true.
>
> Not one shred of relevant evidence has been put forward to
> substantiate or demonstrate his ideas of a link.
That is untrue.
1-Cash is a taiji diagram in Ming 4-suited Ma Diao.
Taiji diagram is also in a "modern money deck" in Sloperama FAQ #11. A
whole suit of taiji diagrams in a 4-suited and undated deck in the
Book of the Mahjong Museum (Japan, 1999).
There is "reasoning by analogy". too, I just learned.
If a piece of
> confirming evidence was forthcoming then his ideas would be worth
> looking at, most certainly.
+++++++++++++++
That is encouraging...
So much emphasis on documented and dated evidence; you asked for it
and now you will get it. Let me reveal how and why there has been so
much confusion and distortion infused and introduced into the history
of mahjong.
Captain Mauger said / wrote and used “Tchantzi or Saultzi or cord” in
describing the second mahjong suit, according to what is on pages
28-29 of an article, Mahjong(g) before and after Mahjong(g) Part 2.
The following is a version with “grammatical alteration”.
““Tchantzi [gian ? zi] or [slip of bamboo? **] or Saultzi [suo zi] or
cord [‘string of cash’ or [‘bamboo’];”
The evidence Captain Mauger gave has “Tchantzi or Saultzi or cord”.
The “altered” version also has evidence but with interpretative
questions and implied answers? What was “tchantzi”, a bamboo slip or a
‘string of cash’? What was the documented explanation for a sparrow
associating with either bamboo or cash?
The ** refers to footnote 10 in the article. It says bamboo and cash
are not “incongruous”, because an authority by the name of Eberthard
had written that bamboo discs were used as money sometimes somewhere.
So a string of bamboo is like a string of cash. The evidence source
was dated 2003.
How many people believe bamboo disc and cash coin congruous, I wonder.
Although specific place or specific time period were not given, but
who can dispute dated evidence such as cited, “Eberthard 2003”?
A tiny bit of remote evidence (strictly speaking, undated) can
rationalize or reconcile the difference between a plant bamboo with an
inanimate metal. Powerful logic. Is that analysis by induction or
reasoning by analogy?
++++++++++++++++
Cheers....
Julian Bradfield
> On Feb 14, 5:14 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > Dr. David H. Li is my authority on Xiangqi. I trust his work.
>> Why?
> For good reasons... He is author of many books on a range of subjects.
> I read his book on Xiangqi.
Anybody can write a book, and these days, anyone can publish a book -
as Li has. Professionally, he was an accountancy academic - and world
events over the last few months should show you just how much
reliance to place on anyone in finance!
The difficulty with assessing his non-accountancy books is that they
are self-published, not subject to any review before publication, and
not reviewed after publication either. I've been unable to find any
academic review of any of his works.
(Of course, pre-publication review doesn't stop a lot of poor books
being published - publishers tend to go ahead even with a poor review.)
Moreover, since his non-academic books aren't even in the British
Library, let alone the Edinburgh library, I can't look at them without
buying them.
> Read the book yourself. It does not take long because it is well
> organized.
Make a copy available to me, and I will.
>> >> I don't believe there's the slightest evidence that chess was
>> >> invented by a brilliant commander of war. (Whether you mean chess
>> >> (invented in India, according to everybody except David Li) or
>> >> xiangqi.)
>
> How do you know that?
>>
>> > Not everybody else. You are wrong on that. Read Li's book and you will
>> > see.
>>
>> I repeat: what is the evidence, that is to be found in Li's book?
>
> Read to be sure. No use for me to tell you.
So, despite having read the book, you can't even repeat the evidence
it provides for its main claim?
>> Of course, it could be that Li's theory is right - but he needs to
>> provide evidence, not, as Banaschak puts it, "ingenious explanations"
>> from his "fertile imagination" (sound familiar?).
>>
> Bansschak was the one and only review in Amazon. You believe him and
> ignored the work itself.
>
> Let me ask you. Where is YOUR evidence?
*I* don't need evidence. *I*'m not putting forward a theory. (And the
evidence in favour of the Indian origin of chess - which is of course
a theory, not an undisputed fact - can be found in any standard
history of chess article - go read them! Indeed, since Li must be
concerned to demolish this evidence, he presumably reviews it.)
This is the key point you don't seem to understand. It's not necessary
to provide any evidence against a theory, *unless* there's already
evidence in the theory's favour. A theory with no supporting evidence
is potentially interesting, but no more until support is adduced.
> Yes. I may very well be right.
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge". Need I remind you?
> Evidence comes from knowledge. It can be located in time.
> Imagination is not from knowledge. It is good to capture it soon.
Of course. General relativity and quantum mechanics were stunning
leaps of the imagination. But without the solid physical evidence to
support them, they would have been only that. String theory is a
pretty impressive leap of imagination - but until it gets some
evidential support, it's just one of many weird and wonderful ideas
thrown around by way-out cosmologists.
msta...@talktalk.net
> > > I now have a
> > > theory about mahjong game design since only 2 years into this
> > > discussion exchange.
>
> I attribute the result to good imagination. I am proud of it.
This is wilfull ignorance. The above poster has wilfully ignored,
distorted, forgotten and misunderstood evidence and the sound reasons
for why his 'ideas' are unsubstantiated. When the problems with his
claims were pointed out he wilfully ignored, distorted and falsely
restated the arguments and reasons of his critics.
> > But you still don't provide any argument why we should accept your
> > theory. We can't say your theory is wrong, of course; we can only say
>
> Yes. I may very well be right.
Wrong. Wilfully distorting what the statement said, that is, we do not
know one way or the other.
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge". Need I remind you?
This distorts the role of imagination in explanation building. Once an
explanation is formulated through observation and imagination, it must
be tested with evidence and sound reasoning (logic).
> > that there's no reason to believe it other than your personal feeling
> > that mah-jong looks like I Ching.
>
> That is the thing, Julian. It is more important that I have the
> reasons to trust my own idea. Other people have their own theories to
> advance or protect.
Again we have troll behaviour. Wilfull distortion of the relationship
between explanations and the people who hold them. In past posts it
was pointed out to the above poster that the only reason to favour one
explaantion over another is based on how adequate the explanations are
- how many assumptions they use, how much evidence is supporting them
for example.
The appeal to personal feelings or wilfull ignorance (wilfully
ignoring and distorting evidence and arguments when they are pointed
out) are childish tactics that abuse this forum.
Suggesting others behave from similarly adolescent motivations towards
explanations they favour or use is both naive and offensive.
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Feb 14, 12:01 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > Not one shred of relevant evidence has been put forward to
> > substantiate or demonstrate his ideas of a link.
>
> That is untrue.
> 1-Cash is a taiji diagram in Ming 4-suited Ma Diao.
Wrong. Misleading. There is an illustration on the 1 Cash card that
has an appearance "like the diagram of the taiji". This is not
evidence that the suit was derived from I Ching concepts. Other
illustrations appear on the Wan suit cards that are of portraits of
personages from the novel 'The Water Margin'.
> Taiji diagram is also in a "modern money deck" in Sloperama FAQ #11. A
> whole suit of taiji diagrams in a 4-suited and undated deck in the
> Book of the Mahjong Museum (Japan, 1999).
These are modern decks or undated decks so therefore they do not come
before the earliest ma quiao suit names. They are irrelevant for that
purpose. The reasons for using them are bogus.
> There is "reasoning by analogy". too, I just learned.
This is correct. However, for the reasoning and hence argument to be
robust there must be substantial simialrities between the two things
being used. This was illustrated in the last article apppearing in the
Playing-card.
> So much emphasis on documented and dated evidence; you asked for it
> and now you will get it. Let me reveal how and why there has been so
> much confusion and distortion infused and introduced into the history
> of mahjong.
>
> Captain Mauger said / wrote and used “Tchantzi or Saultzi or cord” in
> describing the second mahjong suit, according to what is on pages
> 28-29 of an article, Mahjong(g) before and after Mahjong(g) Part 2.
>
> The following is a version with “grammatical alteration”.
> ““Tchantzi [gian ? zi] or [slip of bamboo? **] or Saultzi [suo zi] or
> cord [‘string of cash’ or [‘bamboo’];”
>
> The evidence Captain Mauger gave has “Tchantzi or Saultzi or cord”.
>
> The “altered” version also has evidence but with interpretative
> questions and implied answers? What was “tchantzi”, a bamboo slip or a
> ‘string of cash’? What was the documented explanation for a sparrow
> associating with either bamboo or cash?
These are appropriate questions the article was meant to create.
> The ** refers to footnote 10 in the article. It says bamboo and cash
> are not “incongruous”, because an authority by the name of Eberthard
> had written that bamboo discs were used as money sometimes somewhere.
> So a string of bamboo is like a string of cash. The evidence source
> was dated 2003.
State the *entire wording* of the footnote and try and reign in your
troll behaviour for a minute. Once the entire footnote is stated then
an answer will be given.
> How many people believe bamboo disc and cash coin congruous, I wonder.
> Although specific place or specific time period were not given, but
> who can dispute dated evidence such as cited, “Eberthard 2003”?
The absence of a time frame is correct. If the use of bamboo dics for
money appeared before Mauger then it would be an interesting
observation of a tenuous connection until more data came to light.
However, the entire footnote must be stated so that everyone may
understand the distortion placed on it by the above poster's Troll
inclinations.
> A tiny bit of remote evidence (strictly speaking, undated) can
> rationalize or reconcile the difference between a plant bamboo with an
> inanimate metal. Powerful logic. Is that analysis by induction or
> reasoning by analogy?
The above poster left out certain words from the footnote (indeed, he
didn't even quote the entire footnote) that were used to suggest the
tenuous nature of the information from Eberhard.
Also, this is the true lesson to be learned from his bitter and
condescending final remarks. Even *if* the footnote was incorrect in
any way, it does not let the above poster off the hook. Two wrongs do
not make a right.
It is still the case that the above poster has failed to provide any
evidence to demonstrate why his imagined explanation should be
considered equivalent.
Note, even though it cannot be used as the best explanation, it can
still be used as one of many competing ideas to be kept in case
evidence should come to light that it may yet be able to explain.
al
> On 2009-02-18, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 5:14 am, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> > Dr. David H. Li is my authority on Xiangqi. I trust his work.
> >> Why?
> > For good reasons... He is author of many books on a range of subjects.
> > I read his book on Xiangqi.
>
> Moreover, since his non-academic books aren't even in the British
> Library, let alone the Edinburgh library, I can't look at them without
> buying them.
>
> > Read the book yourself. It does not take long because it is well
> > organized.
>
> Make a copy available to me, and I will.
>
copy to you at no cost.
> >> >>[..]
>
> > Bansschak was the one and only review in Amazon. You believe him and
> > ignored the work itself.
And who is Bansschak?
>
> > Let me ask you. Where is YOUR evidence?
>
What is Bansschchak's evidence that had you convinced?
> *I* don't need evidence. *I*'m not putting forward a theory. (And the
> evidence in favour of the Indian origin of chess - which is of course
> a theory, not an undisputed fact - can be found in any standard
> history of chess article - go read them! Indeed, since Li must be
> concerned to demolish this evidence, he presumably reviews it.)
>
I am not clear on what you just said. Should Li be given a chance to
explain? What is the scoop here?
> [..]
+++++++++++++++++++++
Answer to JB on Chess :
Why I believe Xiangqi is Chinese invention
First, I believe in Li’s research and how he traced the development
with clear explanations.
More important is the material presented on page 160 to 164.
The design of the game and its attention given to the foot soldiers
(their number, their formation and their deployment) indicate to me
that some one like Han Xin, who came up through the ranks from a
humble soldier to become a commander, would have the battle field
experience, empathy and care for his lowly followers.
Other related factors include The Art of War being another Chinese
classic and Xiangqi is war-like game, (although I will never know how
they lost the Opium War of 1842 to the British).
Why five soldiers and not 4 or 6? The answer relates to Chinese
culture. The fact is 5 being an odd number; odd numbers are masculine
and even numbers feminine.
If you have a chance to read page 369, you will learn about the
history of name of the game..
Page 369;“The Chinese invention is named as The Game to Capture Xiang
Qi, Xiang Qi being the prince of Chu and arch-enemy of Han Xin, the
inventor of the game.”[Li, 1998)
The name changed back and forth, from Xiangqi to Jiangqi and back to
Xiangqi. It is a typical screw-up like that in mahjiang and mahjueck
and mahque and mahjongg. That is more like a Chinese invention,
alright.
Elephant [象] has nothing to do with the game-play. It got mixed in the
name when xiangqi changed jiangqi. That is nothing strange about
Chinese names. Look at how Sparrow was known over a hundred years
before it changed to another name. Neither one has anything related to
the game, in symbols or game rules.
+++++++++++
So, if somebody like you to say that xiangqi is not an invention of
the Chinese, I can argue that you are very likely incorrect, on the
basis of what is in The Genealogy of Chess by David H. Li.
+++++++++++
Cheers…
al
> On Feb 18, 4:40 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 12:01 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > > Not one shred of relevant evidence has been put forward to
> > > substantiate or demonstrate his ideas of a link.
>
> > That is untrue.
> > 1-Cash is a taiji diagram in Ming 4-suited Ma Diao.
>
> Wrong. Misleading. There is an illustration on the 1 Cash card that
> has an appearance "like the diagram of the taiji". This is not
> evidence that the suit was derived from I Ching concepts.
"An appearance like the diagram of the taiji" is like what?
Anything in the world looks or appears to be "like the diagram of the
taiji"?
If that was not the diagram of taiji and it only appears like it, why
is it there?
Does it look more "like" cash than the diagram of taiji? If so, why
did Lo translate it as "like the diagram of the taiji"? Rather why did
Pan say that "1 Cash. like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate)?
> Other illustrations appear on the Wan suit cards that are of portraits of
> personages from the novel 'The Water Margin'.
>
May be so, but did they have anything to do with Ma Diao? They are
outlaws.
> > Taiji diagram is also in a "modern money deck" in Sloperama FAQ #11. . A
> > whole suit of taiji diagrams in a 4-suited and undated deck in the
> > Book of the Mahjong Museum (Japan, 1999).
>
> These are modern decks or undated decks so therefore they do not come
> before the earliest ma quiao suit names. They are irrelevant for that
> purpose. The reasons for using them are bogus.
Another reason is that you never noticed them until I pointed them
out.
> [..]
> > So much emphasis on documented and dated evidence; you asked for it
> > and now you will get it. Let me reveal how and why there has been so
> > much confusion and distortion infused and introduced into the history
> > of mahjong. [Read what happened in one case of "grammatical alteration"]:
>
> > Captain Mauger said / wrote and used “Tchantzi or Saultzi or cord” in
> > describing the second mahjong suit, according to what is on pages
> > 28-29 of an article, Mahjong(g) before and after Mahjong(g) Part 2..
>
> > The following is a version with “grammatical alteration”.
> > ““Tchantzi [gian ? zi] or [slip of bamboo? **] or Saultzi [suo zi] or
> > cord [‘string of cash’ or [‘bamboo’];”
>
> > The evidence Captain Mauger gave has “Tchantzi or Saultzi or cord”.
Three different words and 3 different sounds for 3 different things.
>
> > The “altered” version also has evidence but with interpretative
> > questions and implied answers? What was “tchantzi”, a bamboo slip or a
> > ‘string of cash’?
What was the documented explanation for a sparrow
> > associating with either bamboo or cash?
>
> These are appropriate questions the article was meant to create.
>
The article injected "string of cash" unknowingly perhaps.
Nevertheless it is a distortion of fact, because 'tchant' [qian] is in
fact a thin strip of bamboo for divination use. I have seen it used.
> > The ** refers to footnote 10 in the article. It says bamboo and cash
> > are not “incongruous”,
"Not incongruous"; ridiculous is more like it.
Bamboo trees grow in groves. People would have grown their own money
mints.
because an authority by the name of Eberthard
> > had written that bamboo discs were used as money sometimes somewhere.
Didn't say for how long and by whom for what purpose. That is typical
Western wisdom in Eastern culture.
> > So a string of bamboo is like a string of cash. The evidence source
> > was dated 2003.
Dated and named. That is dated documented evidence.
>
> State the *entire wording* of the footnote and try and reign in your
> troll behaviour for a minute. Once the entire footnote is stated then
> an answer will be given.
>
It would even be better to do that yourself. Then nothing to be left
out of footnote 10.
> > How many people believe bamboo disc and cash coin congruous, I wonder.
> > Although specific place or specific time period were not given, but
> > who can dispute dated evidence such as cited, “Eberthard 2003”?
>
> The absence of a time frame is correct. If the use of bamboo dics for
> money appeared before Mauger then it would be an interesting
> observation of a tenuous connection until more data came to light.
>
I lived in China before 1950, I never heard of money bamboo trees or
bamboo money trees.
[..]
>
> The above poster left out certain words from the footnote
(indeed, he
> didn't even quote the entire footnote) that were used to suggest the
> tenuous nature of the information from Eberhard.
>
Fill in what is missing and explain it in full.
[..]
>
> Note, even though it cannot be used as the best explanation, it can
> still be used as one of many competing ideas to be kept in case
> evidence should come to light that it may yet be able to explain.
Kept to explain what? Bamboo trees grow money discs?
+++++++++++++++++
Julian Bradfield
>> Make a copy available to me, and I will.
>>
> Send me your postal mailing address by email. I will arrange to get a
> copy to you at no cost.
If you insist... my postal mailing address is on my Web page.
>> > Bansschak was the one and only review in Amazon. You believe him and
>> > ignored the work itself.
>
> And who is Bansschak?
Banaschak is somebody who did a doctoral dissertation on the history
of chess-like games in East Asia. That is, unlike Li, he has subjected
his work to academic review, in the form of his doctoral examination
board. The examination of a German doctoral thesis is usually fairly
rigorous.
The criticisms in his review speak for themselves. (And it's a short
review.)
[...[
> I am not clear on what you just said. Should Li be given a chance to
> explain? What is the scoop here?
I don't understand what you don't understand here.
> The design of the game and its attention given to the foot soldiers
> (their number, their formation and their deployment) indicate to me
> that some one like Han Xin, who came up through the ranks from a
> humble soldier to become a commander, would have the battle field
> experience, empathy and care for his lowly followers.
This is NOT EVIDENCE. This is just an arbitrary intuition that happens
to suit your mindset. As we keep trying to drum into you, such
intuitions can be essential in *forming* a theory, but do nothing to
*confirm* the theory.
> Other related factors include The Art of War being another Chinese
> classic and Xiangqi is war-like game, (although I will never know how
> they lost the Opium War of 1842 to the British).
And what does the existence of a military textbook tell us about
chess? Many cultures have military textbooks.
As for the Opium War...One of the reasons I distrust Li is that in
interviews he has shown that he has a chip on his shoulder about the
Opium War. ("In 1997, we finally threw the opium war conquerors out of
China - maybe in 2007 we will set right the history of chess" - I
paraphrase, but that's roughly what he said.)
> If you have a chance to read page 369, you will learn about the
> history of name of the game..
>
> Page 369;“The Chinese invention is named as The Game to Capture Xiang
> Qi, Xiang Qi being the prince of Chu and arch-enemy of Han Xin, the
> inventor of the game.”[Li, 1998)
And is this supported by evidence, or is it mere assertion?
msta...@talktalk.net
> > > That is untrue.
> > > 1-Cash is a taiji diagram in Ming 4-suited Ma Diao.
>
> > Wrong. Misleading. There is an illustration on the 1 Cash card that
> > has an appearance "like the diagram of the taiji". This is not
> > evidence that the suit was derived from I Ching concepts.
[snip]
> If that was not the diagram of taiji and it only appears like it, why
> is it there?
[sigh] This is becoming tedious. I will explain one more time. The
original statement from the above poster was "1-Cash IS a taiji
diagram in Ming 4-suited Ma Diao." [The 'is' is emphasised by me in
block capitals]. The above poster is claiming it IS a taiji diagram
whereas the text does not give that certainty. The diagram may or may
not be a representation of the Taiji.
It is curious that the above poster is still using the translations in
his arguments when he has attempted to distort them, cast unfounded
doubt on them and cast unfounded doubt on the translators expertise -
all in an attempt to show that they are not worthy as evidence!
> Does it look more "like" cash than the diagram of taiji? If so, why
> did Lo translate it as "like the diagram of the taiji"? Rather why did
> Pan say that "1 Cash. like the diagram of the taiji (grand ultimate)?
These are the proper questions to ask. The above poster is entitled to
make an argument and *draw the conclusion* that the illustration is of
the taiji but he is not entitled to say with certainty [because no
discussion of his reasons was given] that is what Lo's translation
meant.
As I have stated, I think it is somewhat probable that it is a diagram
of the taiji.
> > Other illustrations appear on the Wan suit cards that are of portraits of
> > personages from the novel 'The Water Margin'.
>
> May be so, but did they have anything to do with Ma Diao? They are
> outlaws.
Not 'may be so'. 1stly, Pan says "the illustrations are all *half
portraits*. The Myriad suit is similar." 2ndly, the names are of those
found in the Tens of Myriads and Myriads suits described by Lu Rong;
he says "There are figures drawn from the *Water Margin band of
outlaws* shown on each card as follows:"
They appear, as a guess, to be designs to adorn two suits where
illustrations of Tens of Myriads of Cash and Myriads of Cash would be
difficult to illustrate. But so far, there is no documentary evidence
that I know of that suggests a reason for why they are there.
So with the half portraits *as illustrations* and so with the "like
the diagram of the taiji".
> > > Taiji diagram is also in a "modern money deck" in Sloperama FAQ #11. . A
> > > whole suit of taiji diagrams in a 4-suited and undated deck in the
> > > Book of the Mahjong Museum (Japan, 1999).
>
> > These are modern decks or undated decks so therefore they do not come
> > before the earliest ma quiao suit names. They are irrelevant for that
> > purpose. The reasons for using them are bogus.
>
> Another reason is that you never noticed them until I pointed them
> out.> [..]
That is a blatant load of rubbish. They were well known to myself and
others. They were not mentioned in this discussion because "These are
modern decks or undated decks so therefore they do not come before the
earliest ma quiao suit names. They are irrelevant for that purpose.
The reasons for using them are bogus."
That is still the case.
> > These are appropriate questions the article was meant to create.
>
> The article injected "string of cash" unknowingly perhaps.
> Nevertheless it is a distortion of fact, because 'tchant' [qian] is in
> fact a thin strip of bamboo for divination use. I have seen it used.
The article did NOT inject it 'unknowingly perhaps'. The
*interpretation* of 'tchant' is 'qian' and in the article it is
followed by a question mark **?** to indicate that myself and others
were not sure whether that was accurate. We noted that Mauger's entire
article relied heavily on Culin and Wilkinson in discussing various
games including three-suited card packs. Wilkinson discussed in his
article that the three suits of the card packs were originally
representations of various quantities of cash. Since Mauger relied
heavily on Wilkinson in his article and Culin relied heavily on
Wilkinson then Mauger's "qian? zi" was interpreted not for bamboo
slips for divination use [only one of various meanings] but in light
of Mauger's reliance on Wilkinson, it was interpreted as meaning
bamboo slips used for gambling and also as a remnant of strings of
cash. Mauger's illustrations showed ordinary 'bamboo' sticks with 2
horizontal lines in the middle as they appear in 1920's sets.
But *even if* it can be sticks for divination, it cannot be used as
evidence of an influence at the earliest time becuase Mauger is early
20th century.
> > > The ** refers to footnote 10 in the article. It says bamboo and cash
> > > are not “incongruous”,
>
> "Not incongruous"; ridiculous is more like it.
Irrelevant. Another typical baseless response of trolling behaviour.
The comment in the footnote was to indicate a possible connection
hence the words "not altogether" and was a piece of information
designed to be researched by others should they so wish. Indeed, that
is why the articles are packed with observations as footnotes.
> Didn't say for how long and by whom for what purpose. That is typical
> Western wisdom in Eastern culture.
These comments are appropriate and are the type of rpsnese that was
hopd to be generated by the notes in the footnotes. The bitterness is
the last comment is very sad. The dislike of Western modes of thought
has been apparent in his other posts.
> > State the *entire wording* of the footnote and try and reign in your
> > troll behaviour for a minute. Once the entire footnote is stated then
> > an answer will be given.
>
> It would even be better to do that yourself. Then nothing to be left
> out of footnote 10.
Another diversionary troll tactic. Every time a claim by the above
poster and the appropriate text is demanded, he produces a
diversionary answer by throwing the burden of proof onto his
questioner.
> I lived in China before 1950, I never heard of money bamboo trees or
> bamboo money trees.
The claim was for 'bamboo discs'. Personal experience is fine up until
the individual was of an young age to remeber such observations.
Before then is another matter. if he does not want to entertain the
notion then he has the freedom not to.
> Fill in what is missing and explain it in full.
It is the above posters initial claim so the burden is on him to
produce the reasons for it (including the entire quote).
> > Note, even though it cannot be used as the best explanation, it can
> > still be used as one of many competing ideas to be kept in case
> > evidence should come to light that it may yet be able to explain.
>
> Kept to explain what? Bamboo trees grow money discs?
[sigh] The above poster's I Ching explanation.
al
> On Feb 19, 4:18 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > That is untrue.
> > > > 1-Cash is a taiji diagram in Ming 4-suited Ma Diao.
I can repeat what I said because I think Pan meant to say that One-
Tong was a Tai Ji diagram and Lo translation reads it "like a diagram
of taiji (grand ultimate).
Whoever put in the "(grand ultimate)" inthe Ma Diao article should be
able to clarify the question.
If Lo did not put "(grand ultimate)" there on his own, then Pan must
had it in his manual that was his writing in Chinese.
"Grand ultimate" has a special meaning in Yi-Jing, Book of Changes.
It's "null hypothesis in statistical tests. "Grand ultimate" means Tai-
Chi which is same as Tai Ji.
By the way, where is that book of Pan's? Where was Lo's reference in
dated documented evidence? That book can answer a few key questions.
Did he see a taiji diagram or not? We want to know. Where is Lo?
>
> > > Wrong. Misleading. There is an illustration on the 1 Cash card that
> > > has an appearance "like the diagram of the taiji". This is not
> > > evidence that the suit was derived from I Ching concepts.
>
Then why the words "grand ultimate" in brackets? What would be a
reasonable explanation for the term there?
> [snip]
>
> > If that was not the diagram of taiji and it only appears like it, why
> > is it there?
>
> [sigh] This is becoming tedious. I will explain one more time. The
> original statement from the above poster was "1-Cash IS a taiji
> diagram in Ming 4-suited Ma Diao." [The 'is' is emphasised by me in
> block capitals]. The above poster is claiming it IS a taiji diagram
> whereas the text does not give that certainty. The diagram may or may
> not be a representation of the Taiji.
That is semantic detail. "May or may not" has a degree of
"certainty".
In a grand scale of things, what would likely be the percentage of
certainty ultimately?
>
> It is curious that the above poster is still using the translations in
> his arguments when he has attempted to distort them, cast unfounded
> doubt on them and cast unfounded doubt on the translators expertise -
> all in an attempt to show that they are not worthy as evidence!
>
How many people have read the article by Lo, do you know? I did not
get to read it for a long time. I had my first impression of it. Then
I had a chance to study it further as I gained more knowledge on
mahjong. I have doubts about Ma Diao as a whole.
The game has two different names and neither is meaningful. But both
names sound the same, typical remnants of oral tradition. Yet mahjong
researchers rely on it as though an ultimate source of reference of
documented evidence.
> >[..]
>[..]
>
> As I have stated, I think it is somewhat probable that it is a diagram
> of the taiji.
>
How did you arrive at that interpretation?
> > > Other illustrations appear on the Wan suit cards that are of portraits of
> > > personages from the novel 'The Water Margin'.
I seem to recall names of heavenly Stars were given to some cards in
that deck.
It looks like another case of results from "artistic license".
>
> > May be so, but did they have anything to do with Ma Diao? They are
> > outlaws.
>
> Not 'may be so'. 1stly, Pan says "the illustrations are all *half
> portraits*. The Myriad suit is similar." 2ndly, the names are of those
> found in the Tens of Myriads and Myriads suits described by Lu Rong;
> he says "There are figures drawn from the *Water Margin band of
> outlaws* shown on each card as follows:"
>
> They appear, as a guess, to be designs to adorn two suits where
> illustrations of Tens of Myriads of Cash and Myriads of Cash would be
> difficult to illustrate. But so far, there is no documentary evidence
> that I know of that suggests a reason for why they are there.
>
> So with the half portraits *as illustrations* and so with the "like
> the diagram of the taiji".
You said it. No documentary evidence that suggests any reason for the
portraits and the taiji diagram to be there in the Ma Diao deck. Yet
the game and its translated text is hung on as the one and only
reference for the "cash-based", "money-suited" origin of mahjong.
What is in Ma Diao consists of mainly oral traditions.
>
> > > > Taiji diagram is also in a "modern money deck" in Sloperama FAQ #11. . A
> > > > whole suit of taiji diagrams in a 4-suited and undated deck in the
> > > > Book of the Mahjong Museum (Japan, 1999).
>
> > > These are modern decks or undated decks so therefore they do not come
> > > before the earliest ma quiao suit names. They are irrelevant for that
> > > purpose. The reasons for using them are bogus.
>
> > Another reason is that you never noticed them until I pointed them
> > out.> [..]
>
> That is a blatant load of rubbish. They were well known to myself and
> others. They were not mentioned in this discussion because "These are
> modern decks or undated decks so therefore they do not come before the
> earliest ma quiao suit names. They are irrelevant for that purpose.
> The reasons for using them are bogus."
>
> That is still the case.
>
I did not say about your remark on using them (taiji present decks). I
said you were not aware of their existence in those decks before I
pointed them out to you.
I posted the second time to detail the direction so you see it in FAQ
deck. I seem to recall that. Check your threads.
> > > These are appropriate questions the article was meant to create.
>
> > The article injected "string of cash" unknowingly perhaps.
> > Nevertheless it is a distortion of fact, because 'tchant' [qian] is in
> > fact a thin strip of bamboo for divination use. I have seen it used.
>
> The article did NOT inject it 'unknowingly perhaps'. The
> *interpretation* of 'tchant' is 'qian' and in the article it is
> followed by a question mark **?** to indicate that myself and others
> were not sure whether that was accurate.
The Chinese character is shown in the Appendix as viii. That is in
CEDICT or any Chinese English dictionary. Its meaning is not related
to money at all. Is that the reason for the question mark?
We noted that Mauger's entire
> article relied heavily on Culin and Wilkinson in discussing various
> games including three-suited card packs. Wilkinson discussed in his
> article that the three suits of the card packs were originally
> representations of various quantities of cash.
Of course, Wilkinson said so. That is why those three suits of cards
must represent various quantities of cash, even when there are taiji
diagrams and sparrows and pictures of bandits on them.
What westerners did not know is the source of Wilkinson's
information.
Since Mauger relied
> heavily on Wilkinson in his article and Culin relied heavily on
> Wilkinson
I know what you mean. There is a term for it which I learned from
Edwin. It is parsimony.
The interesting thing is everybody got dated documentary evidence all
along.
then Mauger's "qian? zi" was interpreted not for bamboo
> slips for divination use [only one of various meanings] but in light
> of Mauger's reliance on Wilkinson, it was interpreted as meaning
> bamboo slips used for gambling and also as a remnant of strings of
> cash.
I have expressed my doubts and issued warning about western
historians' knowledge of Chinese language and culture. I was ignored
time and again. Now here is a case in point.
Mauger's illustrations showed ordinary 'bamboo' sticks with 2
> horizontal lines in the middle as they appear in 1920's sets.
>
Bamboo is a metaphor. It has its subtle and various meanings in
context. Wilkinson, Culin, Himly, Mauger etc. all missed its symbolic
meaning. So did you.
> But *even if* it can be sticks for divination, it cannot be used as
> evidence of an influence at the earliest time becuase Mauger is early
> 20th century.
>
Don't get excited about the timing. There will be evidence found later
on if you can free some to look for it. The important thing is do you
believe in Wilkinson's money story or my taiji theory.
> > > > The ** refers to footnote 10 in the article. It says bamboo and cash
> > > > are not “incongruous”,
>
> > "Not incongruous"; ridiculous is more like it...
> [..]
> [..]
> > [Reference to use of bamboo disc as money] Didn't say for how long and by whom for what purpose. That is typical
> > Western wisdom in Eastern culture.
>
> These comments are appropriate and are the type of rpsnese that was
> hopd to be generated by the notes in the footnotes. The bitterness is
> the last comment is very sad. The dislike of Western modes of thought
> has been apparent in his other posts.
>
It's the arrogance of some westerners in thinking they know so much
about Chinese history and Eastern culture that irritates me sometimes.
I am not bitter. This type of discussion brings out the honest
opinions from participants. I have learned a lot. Thanks to you.
[..][..]
++++++++++++
al
>
> > > > That is untrue.
> > > > 1-Cash is a taiji diagram in Ming 4-suited Ma Diao.
>
> > > Wrong. Misleading. There is an illustration on the 1 Cash card that
> > > has an appearance "like the diagram of the taiji". This is not
> > > evidence that the suit was derived from I Ching concepts.
> > If that was not the diagram of taiji and it only appears like it, why
> > is it there?
>
> > > > Taiji diagram is also in a "modern money deck" in Sloperama FAQ #11. .
> > > > A whole suit of taiji diagrams in a 4-suited and undated deck in the
> > > > Book of the Mahjong Museum (Japan, 1999).
>
> > > These are modern decks or undated decks so therefore they do not come
> > > before the earliest ma quiao suit names. They are irrelevant for that
> > > purpose. The reasons for using them are bogus.
>
> > Another reason is that you never noticed them until I pointed them
>
> That is a blatant load of rubbish. They were well known to myself and
Are you sure? I found this in a post ated Nov. 18, 2007.
++++++++++++
On Nov 18, 2:02 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I just checked again. Yes, Michael the yin-yang taiji diagram is
> there. It is on the middle card in the middle row.
Thank you. I see it now
> The title in FAQ#11 is "a Modern deck of money-cards..."
> A big fish is at the left lower corner. There is a symbol of matrimony
> in double happiness. The taiji sign is on that same row to the right.
I only see the taiji symbol in the center of the 5 cash in the middle
row.
++++++++++++++++++++
I got the impression that was seen for the first time in that deck. It
is understandable. The drawings are so cluttered and the minds all
have been conditioned to see and believe in "money" only.
++++++
P.S. I sent a lengthy reply earlier. Looks like it's lost. It doesn't
matter anyway.
我行我速
> I can repeat what I said because I think Pan meant to say that One-
> Tong was a Tai Ji diagram and Lo translation reads it "like a diagram
> of taiji (grand ultimate).
Al, as you have not read Pan's book, how could you think he meant
"was"? Pan says:
一錢（如太極...）
二錢（如腰鼓）
Do you know what's the relations between 腰鼓 and 《易經》?
msta...@talktalk.net
> I can repeat what I said because I think Pan meant to say that One-
> Tong was a Tai Ji diagram and Lo translation reads it "like a diagram
> of taiji (grand ultimate).
This is very important. The above poster said "because I think" in his
claim that "I can repeat what I said because I think Pan mean to
say...".
So give us the reasoning/argument that the "I think" consists of. Give
us the reasons. Give us the argument.
> Whoever put in the "(grand ultimate)" in the Ma Diao article should be
> able to clarify the question.
> If Lo did not put "(grand ultimate)" there on his own, then Pan must
> had it in his manual that was his writing in Chinese.
As Lo states in the beginning of the article, his comments were in
square brackets [......]. The rest of the text is Pan's. Therefore
'grand ultimate' is Pan's.
[snip]
> By the way, where is that book of Pan's? Where was Lo's reference in
> dated documented evidence? That book can answer a few key questions.
Lo's article is copiously referenced with notes at the end of the
article. The versions of the manual and the dates etc are discussed in
those references.
> Did he see a taiji diagram or not? We want to know. Where is Lo?
Reign in the troll behaviour. This was discussed in a previous
thread.
> Then why the words "grand ultimate" in brackets? What would be a
> reasonable explanation for the term there?
One possible explanation is that perhaps it is to inform that is the
meaning Pan attributes to it - a concept in Taoism - as opposed to
other meanings. In other words, Pan is removing the ambiguity of the
term.
> That is semantic detail. "May or may not" has a degree of
> "certainty".
No it doesn't. 'Certainty' meant 'absolute conviction' as meant by
the 'IS' in the above poster's remark. There is no degree of absolute.
Semantics is important when dealing with troll behaviour of this sort,
where corruption and distortion of texts without any reasoning given
is common with the above poster.
> [snip] Yet mahjong
> researchers rely on it [ma diao] as though an ultimate source of reference of
> documented evidence.
[sigh] Wrong again and again and again. This was answered back in
another thread. Troll behaviour again. The above poster is, by his
postings, demonstrating he is completely incapable of understanding
the role of evidence.
Hence his straw man description of researchers' position.
>
> > >[..]
> >[..]
>
> > As I have stated, I think it is somewhat probable that it is a diagram
> > of the taiji.
>
> How did you arrive at that interpretation?
Because of the reason given above plus the use of the symbol on the 1
cash card in other card packs in Prunner's catalogue. These are
labelled by Prunner as 19th century and 19th/20th century.
Note; I said 'I think it is somewhat probable' - in other words, it is
slightly better than an uninformed opinion.
> > > > Other illustrations appear on the Wan suit cards that are of portraits of
> > > > personages from the novel 'The Water Margin'.
> I seem to recall names of heavenly Stars were given to some cards in
> that deck.
> It looks like another case of results from "artistic license".
It is a case of card makers putting illustrations of the cards from
various literary sources.
> You said it. No documentary evidence that suggests any reason for the
> portraits and the taiji diagram to be there in the Ma Diao deck. Yet
> the game and its translated text is hung on as the one and only
> reference for the "cash-based", "money-suited" origin of mahjong.
This is an utter load of rubbish/nonsense. Pan gives the underlying
meaning of the names of the suits. The rest of this post is just
another uniformed rant of distortion and ignorance.
> I did not say about your remark on using them (taiji present decks). I
> said you were not aware of their existence in those decks before I
> pointed them out to you.
I have had the MJ Museum book for well over four years and was well
aware of all its contents. I had seen the faq deck as well but did not
recall its contents.
> The Chinese character is shown in the Appendix as viii. That is in
> CEDICT or any Chinese English dictionary. Its meaning is not related
> to money at all. Is that the reason for the question mark?
Wrong. Based on Mauger's previous text in his long article the
translator suggested qian and the character for it was placed in the
appendix. If it was qian then one of its meanings was bamboo sticks
used in gambling. This was noted on the fact that Mauger relied on
Wilkinson and Wilkinson hypothesis for the suits.
Further, the footnote says IF and THEN. That is, if the term is qian
zi and one of its meanings is slip or stick of bamboo used for
gambling, then it is the 1st mention of 'bamboo' (in the literature
known up until the playing-card article was written) in connection
with the 'strings of cash' suit. The suit was also called 'strings of
cash' since Mauger also said the other name was saultze which was
translated as suo zi. Suo is one of the names for Pan's Strings of
Cash suit.
> Of course, Wilkinson said so. That is why those three suits of cards
> must represent various quantities of cash, even when there are taiji
> diagrams and sparrows and pictures of bandits on them.
This is a mishmash of nonsense and garbage. See the above for more
information that you can distort at your leisure.
> I have expressed my doubts and issued warning about western
> historians' knowledge of Chinese language and culture. I was ignored
> time and again. Now here is a case in point.
No it isn't. The above poster was answered about his misuse of his own
'experience' by assuming it could be applicable to before the time it
came from. He was warned that he would need documentary evidence of
some sort to claim that but he has ignored the point repeatedly.
What has been repeatedly demonstrated is the above poster's ignorance
of the role of evidence in hypothesis formation. Also he has been
repeatedly warned that if he makes a claim or assertion, he must back
it up by explaining it with reasons and evidence of some sort so that
others can evaluate whether it has worth.
His doubts are no more than assertions empty of any relevant content,
but dressed up to appear plausible. The term for them is 'specious'.
> Bamboo is a metaphor. It has its subtle and various meanings in
> context. Wilkinson, Culin, Himly, Mauger etc. all missed its symbolic
> meaning. So did you.
Let's see a tiny bit of evidence from documents related to the game
for this specious assertion.
> > The bitterness is
> > the last comment is very sad. The dislike of Western modes of thought
> > has been apparent in his other posts.
>
> It's the arrogance of some westerners in thinking they know so much
> about Chinese history and Eastern culture that irritates me sometimes.
What is so sad is that the above poster's bitterness can lead him to
place a person's country of origin above reasons and evidence. In my
view they are paramount over anything else where claims to knowledge
are concerned. He was warned about this specious form of argument.
What we calim we know we should be able to back up with the reasons
for why we know or think it. It is the ability to reason that binds us
all. The amount of knowledge a person has about any subject is
determined by the quality of the reasons and logic he gives to explain
that knowledge.
The above claim of arrogance just highlights the above poster's
inability to divorce his thinking from his emotions such that if HE
believes something, it must be true - irrespective of any solid
evidence to back it up - and if HE doubts (without good evidence)
something then it must be wrong or if HE doesn't 'believe' it, then it
must be false.
msta...@talktalk.net
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> I got the impression that was seen for the first time in that deck. It
> is understandable. The drawings are so cluttered and the minds all
> have been conditioned to see and believe in "money" only.
The above poster's impression is again false. It was not the 1st time,
both decks were well known - the MJ Museum book deck was seen quite
often. The discussion as I understood it was whether I had seen the
decks - not particular emblems on each card.
The reason for not paying any more attention to them is precisely for
what was said earlier these are modern decks or undated decks so
therefore they cannot be used as evidence that comes before the
earliest ma quiao suit names. They are irrelevant for that purpose.
The reasons for using them are bogus.
That is the reason for not paying any attention to them.
Also bogus is the reason for why the symbol was not paid any attention
to.
al
> On Feb 20, 6:37 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > I can repeat what I said because I think Pan meant to say that One-
> > Tong was a Tai Ji diagram and Lo translation reads it "like a diagram
> > of taiji (grand ultimate).
>
> Al, as you have not read Pan's book, how could you think he meant
> "was"? Pan says:
> 一錢（如太極...）
> 二錢（如腰鼓）
>
inaccurate, but it can lead to some understanding.
> Do you know what's the relations between 腰鼓 and 《易經》?
I would have to say 'Bo". I never thought of a possible relationship.
I like to know if you have something on it.
I did not have a picture of what a waist drum looks like. Then after
your question, I googled it. There is one showing a doubled ended drum-
set with a twist at the middle and two drum-face at each end.
Your question implies a meaning of this drum in relation to Yi Jing.
If there is, then possibly it is in the drum construction where two
drums positioned in opposite.
Interesting question...fill in the details.
You should show the description of Pan's manual for the page that
describe the 4 suits, or provide a link to it.
++++++++++++++++++++
Still, what is your answer?
Like tai ji (如太極.)
I could not think of anything looks anywhere near the taiji diagram.
So it is highly unlikely being anything else. Then I thought it was
meant to be a taiji diagram. The reasoning process is something like
that.
Unveil some more insight and knowledge on the topic now. And if know
Dr. Lo, please tell him so.
al
> On Feb 19, 10:37 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > [..]
> [..]
一錢（如太極...）
二錢（如腰鼓）
This is from a post from some one knowing more on the subject.
Let's wait and see if a page of Pan's book will appear.
> [snip]
>
> > By the way, where is that book of Pan's? Where was Lo's reference in
> > dated documented evidence? That book can answer a few key questions.
Some one may have access to that book.
> [..]
> >[..] We want to know. Where is Lo?
> [..]
> [..][..]
> > > As I have stated, I think it is somewhat probable that it is a diagram
> > > of the taiji.
>
> > How did you arrive at that interpretation?
>
> Because of the reason given above plus the use of the symbol on the 1
> cash card in other card packs in Prunner's catalogue. These are
> labelled by Prunner as 19th century and 19th/20th century.
>
What is on 1-Cash in other card packs?
> Note; I said 'I think it is somewhat probable' - in other words, it is
> slightly better than an uninformed opinion.
>
Probability is a continuum with certainty at the far end.
.
> > > > >[..]
> > You said it. No documentary evidence that suggests any reason for the
> > portraits and the taiji diagram to be there in the Ma Diao deck. Yet
> > the game and its translated text is hung on as the one and only
> > reference for the "cash-based", "money-suited" origin of mahjong.
>
> This is an utter load of rubbish/nonsense. Pan gives the underlying
> meaning of the names of the suits. The rest of this post is just
> another uniformed rant of distortion and ignorance.
>
Here is where you show ignorance of Chinese history and culture. Pan
gave as you claimed the names for the suits in the card deck. Have you
ever asked questions like these?
Where did he get those names from?
Is it probable that the source for the names of the suits the same as
the source for the name of the game?
Since the name of the game (Ma Diao) is irrelevant to the game itself,
is it possible that the names of the suits (Cash, String of Cash,
Myriads of Cash) are also irrelevant?
Being irrelevant, they could be all doubtful.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > I did not say about your remark on using them (taiji present decks). I
> > said you were not aware of their existence in those decks before I
> > pointed them out to you.
>
> I have had the MJ Museum book for well over four years and was well
> aware of all its contents. I had seen the faq deck as well but did not
> recall its contents.
>
It matters not how long you had the book. It's how you understand what
you see that matters more.
People heard of apples in bible story, pick apples off a tree. A
falling apple is a non-event. Newton noticed an invisible force
pulling on it and everything else.
Your experience with the taiji diagram here and there is similar to
incidents like the falling apple.
> > The Chinese character is shown in the Appendix as viii. That is in
> > CEDICT or any Chinese English dictionary. Its meaning is not related
> > to money at all. Is that the reason for the question mark?
>
> Wrong. Based on Mauger's previous text in his long article the
> translator suggested qian and the character for it was placed in the
> appendix. If it was qian then one of its meanings was bamboo sticks
> used in gambling.
The word has other meanings. Implication to gambling was chosen based
on the indoctrination that all suits are money quantities as Wilkinson
and others documented.
That is understandable. Wilkinson and others depend on their own
limited knowledge of Chinese language and culture, their interpreters'
education and their primary source was mostly ordinary players of the
day. These players' source of information was the mouths of older
generations.
It is time to open to suggestion that those historians could have
gotten erroneous information from faulty sources.
+++++++++++++++++
This was noted on the fact that Mauger relied on
> Wilkinson and Wilkinson hypothesis for the suits.
>
Parsimony again...one historian can cite the work of the other. In
turn they defend their work and shoot down intrusions. That happens in
history, science and politics or whatever.
> Further, the footnote says IF and THEN. That is, if the term is qian
> zi and one of its meanings is slip or stick of bamboo used for
> gambling, then it is the 1st mention of 'bamboo' (in the literature
> known up until the playing-card article was written) in connection
> with the 'strings of cash' suit. The suit was also called 'strings of
> cash' since Mauger also said the other name was saultze which was
> translated as suo zi. Suo is one of the names for Pan's Strings of
> Cash suit.
>
Regardless, no hint of gambling in the definition of the word.
签 = a sign on a bamboo strip carries a fortune telling message (qian
=pinyin)
签 [qian1] /a note/a stick/sign one's name/
http://i-tjingcentrum.nl/serendipity/uploads/slips.serendipityThumb.jpg
http://www.ynda.yn.gov.cn/uploadfile/jpg/2006-7/2006720105538156.jpg
++++++++++++++
Bamboo strips with signs of fortune/omen divination (strips of bamboo
tied together like a page in ancient Chinese text.
索 as seen here as strings and strips:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:AcoxLUo9zEG3mM:http://depts.washi
For a more meaningful definition of Suo3, check CEDICT. I will repeat
one more time. It is to demand, to ask, to seek, to extract [advice,
guidance];rope;isolate...
]
Pan said it was suo, it got translated to 'string of cash'.
++++++++++++++++++
> >[..]
>
> > Bamboo is a metaphor. It has its subtle and various meanings in
> > context. Wilkinson, Culin, Himly, Mauger etc. all missed its symbolic
> > meaning. So did you.
>
> Let's see a tiny bit of evidence from documents related to the game
> for this specious assertion.
>
There is the fallacy. Any documented evidence is influenced by
Wilkinson, Himly, culin etc. etc. They recorded the evidence from the
Chinese interpreters who in turn got their information from the months
of Chinese players of years ago. What good is "evidence" like that?
Think outside the "box".
++++++++++++
> > > [..]
Julian Bradfield
>> > By the way, where is that book of Pan's? Where was Lo's reference in
>> > dated documented evidence? That book can answer a few key questions.
>
> Some one may have access to that book.
The book is fairly readily available in Chinese-speaking countries, I
think. It's been published many times in compendia of classics.
I have a copy of Pan's books, but since I don't read Chinese, it would
be a slow task transcribing it. However, if you can give me a good
reference (as I presume Lo gives), I may be able to type in some key
sentences.
al
Do you have The Playing-Card Volume 31 Number 2?
Page 86, 87, 88 and 89 have the description for suits of Ma Diao.
References may be 'names and numbers' : 萬 or 万, 铜 or 筒 and 索 and
their denominations.
太 极 (Tai Chi or Tai Ji) is another reference.
++++++++++++
See what you can do. Thanks.
Also, if you have a place I can buy a Pan book, provide the info.
msta...@talktalk.net
> > Because of the reason given above plus the use of the symbol on the 1
> > cash card in other card packs in Prunner's catalogue. These are
> > labelled by Prunner as 19th century and 19th/20th century.
>
> What is on 1-Cash in other card packs?
A very small (in relation to the size of the card) Taiji diagram.
> Here is where you show ignorance of Chinese history and culture. Pan
> gave as you claimed the names for the suits in the card deck. Have you
> ever asked questions like these?
>
> Where did he get those names from?
> Is it probable that the source for the names of the suits the same as
> the source for the name of the game?
> Since the name of the game (Ma Diao) is irrelevant to the game itself,
> is it possible that the names of the suits (Cash, String of Cash,
> Myriads of Cash) are also irrelevant?
> Being irrelevant, they could be all doubtful.
There are several issues in this reply of the above poster that
illustrates his underlying intolerance and ignorance of informal logic
and critical reasoning involving reasons and evidence.
His intolerance leads him to confuse his ignorance and lack of
understanding with his prejudices against Westerners.
The issues center around what are reasonable grounds for doubt.
1stly, it is the case that knowledge was passed down orally and due to
the issue of homophones in Chinese language, it is possible that
specific errors occurred. It is also possible that no specific errors
occurred. We just do not know. Conversely, knowledge was also passed
down in the written form as card manuals and monetary texts testify.
it is possible that card manual writers copied their information from
what they had read. We just do not know because we have no credible
evidence one way or the other.
So, 2ndly, we have reasonable grounds for doubt when we have credible
evidence to the contrary and the mere possibility of error is not a
genuine reason for doubt.
The above poster also confuses possibility and probablility. It is
*possible* (and NOT probable) that the source(s) for the suits is the
same as the name(s) of the game. Probability denotes the influence of
some credible evidence. But we do not know, so therefore it is a mere
possibility.
Similarly with his assertion that the name of the game is irrelevant
to the game itself. There is no credible evidence either way that I
know of and hence his statement is unwarranted.
The mere possibility of error is not a genuine reason for doubt and so
the lack of credible evidence again leaves the above poster making an
incorrect conclusion.
I have stated in many posts that should any credible evidence come to
light, I would be the 1st to modify or abandon - without hesitation -
any explanations or ideas that were contadicted by this new
information.
But we must demand proportional credible evidence that is capable of
casting reasonable doubt on the propositions we hold, that do have
evidence supporting them.
Further, the money derivation hypothesis is only applicable to the
point of Lu Rong's and Pan's accounts of the suits. It does not state
any claim about the origins or meanings of the suits preceding those
accounts since no evidence is available at present.
> It matters not how long you had the book. It's how you understand what
> you see that matters more.
> People heard of apples in bible story, pick apples off a tree. A
> falling apple is a non-event. Newton noticed an invisible force
> pulling on it and everything else.
> Your experience with the taiji diagram here and there is similar to
> incidents like the falling apple.
This is a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black.' The above poster
harangues others for not posting in a manner he can understand and he
then has the gall to do the same.
State the reasoning more clearly.
> It is time to open to suggestion that those historians could have
> gotten erroneous information from faulty sources.
This goes back to the above discussion regarding the above poster's
ignorance of informal logic and evidence. Stating an assertion
repeatedly without any credible evidence to back it up just makes the
assertion a whining rant.
> Regardless, no hint of gambling in the definition of the word.
Interesting. My Chinese Dictionary says otherwise.
> Pan said it was suo, it got translated to 'string of cash'.
This is plain wrong. It has been commented on before about how wrong
it is. The above poster is distorting again to suit his agenda. Pan
describes Strings of cash on page 87. He specifically says a string
holds a 100 cash. The term for a string of 100 cash is suo.
Julian Bradfield
Yes.
I'm afraid I've forgotten what it is you're checking. If you can tell
me exactly which sentences of Lo's translation you want the originals
of, I'll try to pin them down.
> Also, if you have a place I can buy a Pan book, provide the info.
I don't have a place to buy it - I got mine as a photocopy via the
British Library.
I believe that my copy came from the following compilation published
by China Academic press:
书名：欣赏编
丛书名：其他
作者：(明)沈津编
ISBN号：7-80060-846-8
出版时间：1999-07
印数：180
定价：￥680.00
责任编辑：郭强
版次：
开本：16
页数：
pages 1185-1218.
msta...@talktalk.net
In Lo's reference # 2, in The Playing-card V31 #2, Lo states;
"A Late Ming edition of Shen Jin's 'Xinshang bian' has been reprinted,
which includes both manuals. See Shen Jin, Xinshang bian, Beijing:
Xueyuan chubanshe, 1999, vol. 3, pp. 1185 - 1198, 1199 - 1218."
ithinc
> On Feb 19, 10:55 pm, 我行我速 <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
> > Do you know what's the relations between 腰鼓 and 《易經》?
>
> I would have to say 'Bo". I never thought of a possible relationship.
> I like to know if you have something on it.
I have no.
> Your question implies a meaning of this drum in relation to Yi Jing.
You wilfully distorting my statement.
> You should show the description of Pan's manual for the page that
> describe the 4 suits, or provide a link to it.
Why should I? Most members in this group could email me to request a
copy of Pan's book for free, but not for you. You need to pay for more
fodder for your trolling behaviour.
ithinc
>
> 索 as seen here as strings and strips:http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:AcoxLUo9zEG3mM:http://depts.washi
>
> For a more meaningful definition of Suo3, check CEDICT. I will repeat
> one more time. It is to demand, to ask, to seek, to extract [advice,
> guidance];rope;isolate...
> ]
> Pan said it was suo, it got translated to 'string of cash'.
Pan says:
索以貫錢，百文為索。
索子門計九葉，有象肖貫之索而錢圓孔方。
al
You know what you can do with your Book?
I can tell you where to put it.
+++++++++++++++++
al
索以貫錢 to me means "take 索 as (以) 貫 (pieced or strung) 錢 (money). 索 is
considered to be a hundred pieces (whatever 文 is worth).
"String of Cash" is a 19th century term from Himly's time applied to
Ming game.
索 could have been assigned any value. I remember reading Wilkinson had
mentioned 1000.
> Pan says:
> 索以貫錢，百文為索。
> 索子門計九葉，有象肖貫之索而錢圓孔方。
++++++++++++++
Thank you...
msta...@talktalk.net
> > On Feb 22, 3:12 am, ithinc <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 索以貫錢，
> That is just as I thought. 以 is not "IS". 以 = take it as.
>
> 索以貫錢 to me means "take 索 as (以) 貫 (pieced or strung) 錢 (money).
Or 索(suo) 以(yi) 貫(guan) 錢(qian) literally; a string, to use, to
string, cash(in the collective sense of money)? I would be interested
in other views.
百文為索。
百(bai) 文(wen) 為(wei) 索(suo)
Literally; one hundred, coins (as in cash coins), to be/to mean, a
string?
Again I would be interested in other views.
> 索 is considered to be a hundred pieces (whatever 文 is worth).
From numismatic texts I have studied it seems to me that qian is used
a the term for the physical cash coin. Wen is used as a standard unit
for calculating quantities of qian. Other units for calculating
quantities of qian were strings of cash with various names depending
on the amount of qian strung on the string. Such string names were suo
(string of 100 qian) and guan(string of 1000 qian) for example.
If there are other views I would be interested.
> 索 could have been assigned any value. I remember reading Wilkinson had
> mentioned 1000.
Wilkinson's string for calculating quantities of cash was the diao and
was a string of 1000 coins according to him.
Suo was a string of 100 coins.
al
> On Feb 18, 4:40 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 12:01 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > > Not one shred of relevant evidence has been put forward to
> > > substantiate or demonstrate his ideas of a link.
>
> > That is untrue.
>
> Wrong. Misleading. There is an illustration on the 1Cashcard that
> has an appearance "like the diagram of the taiji". This is not
> evidence that the suit was derived from I Ching concepts.
What is the meaning of its being there then? Something looks like a
taiji diagram which represents yin-yang concept in I-Chng gets put
there for no reason at all. You are saying? Is that what you mean? The
resemblance of an I-Ching symbol is totally insignificant on a face of
a Ma Diao card.
However, only the circular outline on that same card while the inside
of that circle looks like taiji diagram is undoubtedly money and is
identifiable as a 1-Cash, even though [grand ultimate] was noted as
the meaning of the taiji symbol!
How stubborn can people be and how thick-skull too?
+++++++++++
Other
> illustrations appear on the Wan suit cards that are of portraits of
> personages from the novel 'The Water Margin'.
>
A scholar should be able to differentiate a novel from a philosophical
work.
The taiji (Tai Chi) symbol describes life as a cyclical movement and
represents one of the fundamental changes in Nature.
The Book of Changes (The I-Ching) survived the Book Burning campaign
during the Chin dynasty (221-206 B.C.).
Yin-yang symbol as represented by opposites (black and white) from
Limitlessness (Void), produced trigram phenomena (Bagua) and
everything in the universe. This is the Chinese 'Big Bang' of some
thousands of years ago.
So, the simple looking fish-like taiji diagram has had a lengthy
influence on Chinese history,culture and philosophical thinking.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Taiji diagram is also in a "modern money deck" in Sloperama FAQ #11. A
> > whole suit of taiji diagrams in a 4-suited and undated deck in the
> > Book of the Mahjong Museum (Japan, 1999).
I remember pointing that out.
>
> These are modern decks or undated decks so therefore they do not come
> before the earliest ma quiao suit names. They are irrelevant for that
> purpose. The reasons for using them are bogus.
>
Before you jump to defend your old weakening money-base, did you ask
how the taiji diagrams found in those other card decks will be used?
Since the Taiji diagrams are shown up on cards in various places and
at different times, there might be something to the fact that they did
appear. Should a true scholar researcher be interested? Why the symbol
showed up where it did?
Denying its appearance of validity without inquiry or examination is
less than scholarly pursuit, in my opinion.
+++++++++++++++
> > There is "reasoning by analogy". too, I just learned.
That was from you.
>
> This is correct. However, for the reasoning and hence argument to be
> robust there must be substantial simialrities between the two things
> being used. This was illustrated in the last article apppearing in the
> Playing-card.
>
What argument? What illustration?
>
>
> > So much emphasis on documented and dated evidence; you asked for it
> > and now you will get it. Let me reveal how and why there has been so
> > much confusion and distortion infused and introduced into the history
> > of mahjong.
People made mistakes and wouldn't admit it. Some tend to do more than
"grammatical alterations".
>
> > Captain Mauger said / wrote and used “Tchantzi or Saultzi or cord” in
> > describing the second mahjong suit, according to what is on pages
> > 28-29 of an article, Mahjong(g) before and after Mahjong(g) Part 2.
>
> > The following is a version with “grammatical alteration”.
> > ““Tchantzi [gian ? zi] or [slip of bamboo? **] or Saultzi [suo zi] or
> > cord [‘stringofcash’ or [‘bamboo’];”
>
> > The evidence Captain Mauger gave has “Tchantzi or Saultzi or cord”.
>
> > The “altered” version also has evidence but with interpretative
> > questions and implied answers? What was “tchantzi”, a bamboo slip or a
> > ‘stringofcash’? What was the documented explanation for a sparrow
> > associating with either bamboo orcash?
>
> These are appropriate questions the article was meant to create.
>
> > The ** refers to footnote 10 in the article. It says bamboo andcash
> > are not “incongruous”, because an authority by the name of Eberthard
> > had written that bamboo discs were used as money sometimes somewhere.
> > So astringof bamboo is like astringofcash. The evidence source
> > was dated 2003.
Hiding behind some kind of "authority" is a common trick to win points
in an argument perhaps, but it does not help to get t the truth.
>
> State the *entire wording* of the footnote and try and reign in your
> troll behaviour for a minute. Once the entire footnote is stated then
> an answer will be given.
>
That is another trick: a long footnote conveys thoroughness. Copious
reference is the impression.
> > How many people believe bamboo disc andcashcoin congruous, I wonder.
> > Although specific place or specific time period were not given, but
> > who can dispute dated evidence such as cited, “Eberthard 2003”?
>
> The absence of a time frame is correct. If the use of bamboo dics for
> money appeared before Mauger then it would be an interesting
> observation of a tenuous connection until more data came to light.
>
> However, the entire footnote must be stated so that everyone may
> understand the distortion placed on it by the above poster's Troll
> inclinations.
>
No distortion. Show it yourself.
> > A tiny bit of remote evidence (strictly speaking, undated) can
> > rationalize or reconcile the difference between a plant bamboo with an
> > inanimate metal. Powerful logic. Is that analysis by induction or
> > reasoning by analogy?
Inductive analysis and analogous reasoning are methods you mentioned.
>
> The above poster left out certain words from the footnote (indeed, he
> didn't even quote the entire footnote) that were used to suggest the
> tenuous nature of the information from Eberhard.
>
Add in all the words and see what difference that would make.
> Also, this is the true lesson to be learned from his bitter and
> condescending final remarks. Even *if* the footnote was incorrect in
> any way, it does not let the above poster off the hook. Two wrongs do
> not make a right.
>
You have been citing my mistakes repeatedly and you kept asking for
dated documented evidence. I am giving you a dose of your own medicine
and showed you what useless dated documented evidence can be.
> It is still the case that the above poster has failed to provide any
> evidence to demonstrate why his imagined explanation should be
> considered equivalent.
>
State what needs to be explained. My "imagined explanation" should not
be equivalent to what?
> Note, even though it cannot be used as the best explanation, it can
> still be used as one of many competing ideas to be kept in case
> evidence should come to light that it may yet be able to explain.
Forget it. There would have been more bamboo than people in China if
bamboo discs were usable as money.
++++++++++++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
[snip]
> > > 1-Cashis a taiji diagram in Ming 4-suited Ma Diao.
> > Wrong. Misleading. There is an illustration on the 1Cashcard that
> > has an appearance "like the diagram of the taiji". This is not
> > evidence that the suit was derived from I Ching concepts.
> What is the meaning of its being there then? Something looks like a
> taiji diagram which represents yin-yang concept in I-Chng gets put
> there for no reason at all. You are saying? Is that what you mean? The
> resemblance of an I-Ching symbol is totally insignificant on a face of
> a Ma Diao card.
What the above poster fails to understand his reasoning is wrong. Just
because two things are together does not mean they are causally
related.
For example;
(1) Mr X's footprint was found in the dirt outside an open window.
(2) Mrs X lies dead on the floor inside the room with the open window.
(3) Therefore Mr X is linked to Mrs X's death.
This is wrong. Just because his footprint is there does not mean he is
linked to her death.
There could be other reasons for why his footprint was outside the
open window.
Similarly, IF there is a diagram of the taiji representing an I Ching
concept on ther 1 cash, it does not follow that the meaning of the
rest of the cards in that suit were derived or was caused by I Ching
concepts.
There could be other reasons why the taiji diagram was put on the 1
cash card.
But we do not know the reason(s). Just because we do not know the
reason is no excuse to jump to the unsupported conclusion that the
rest of the suit was derived from I Ching concepts. It may be the case
as the above poster claims - or it may not.
If a person wishes to jump to such an unsupported conclusion then they
should say so in the wording of their explanation.
> However, only the circular outline on that same card while the inside
> of that circle looks like taiji diagram is undoubtedly money and is
> identifiable as a 1-Cash, even though [grand ultimate] was noted as
> the meaning of the taiji symbol!
The card has the value of 1 Cash, irrespective of the diagram on it.
This is also the case with other cards decks where the aces of each
suit have different iconography on them to the rest of the suit.
[snipped abusive name-calling and rehashed material]
> > These are modern decks or undated decks so therefore they do not come
> > before the earliest ma quiao suit names. They are irrelevant for that
> > purpose. The reasons for using them are bogus.
>
> Before you jump to defend your old weakening money-base, did you ask
> how the taiji diagrams found in those other card decks will be used?
Putting the unsubstantiated assertion aside, the absence of reasons
for their use is again no excuse to jump unsubstantiated conclusions
for their use, unless such conclusions are stated as unsupported.
> Denying its appearance of validity without inquiry or examination is
> less than scholarly pursuit, in my opinion.
Inquiring as to its use is totally different to jumping to
unsubstantiated assertions designed to shoe-horn its use into a
another unsupported argument.
> > This is correct. However, for the reasoning and hence argument to be
> > robust there must be substantial similarities between the two things
> > being used. This was illustrated in the last article apppearing in the
> > Playing-card.
>
> What argument? What illustration?
This shows us that the above poster is completely without knowledge of
how people reason and when they claim something from their reasoning,
their claims are the conclusion of arguments. Arguments consist of a
chain of reasons and logic. It represents the process that people use
when reasoning about some issue.
> Hiding behind some kind of "authority" is a common trick to win points
> in an argument perhaps, but it does not help to get t the truth.
>
> > State the *entire wording* of the footnote and try and reign in your
> > troll behaviour for a minute. Once the entire footnote is stated then
> > an answer will be given.
>
> That is another trick: a long footnote conveys thoroughness. Copious
> reference is the impression.
State the entire footnote and stop the avoidance strategy. State the
entire footnote. Do it. Be specific. Be accurate.
> > However, the entire footnote must be stated so that everyone may
> > understand the distortion placed on it by the above poster's Troll
> > inclinations.
>
> No distortion. Show it yourself.
More avoidance strategy. It was the above poster who made the claims
about the footnote, therefore it is he who must provide the evidence.
Asking others to do his work for him is lazy and wrong. State the
footnote fully. Do it.
> You have been citing my mistakes repeatedly and you kept asking for
> dated documented evidence. I am giving you a dose of your own medicine
> and showed you what useless dated documented evidence can be.
State the footnote. it is the above poster's claim/accusation about it
therefore the burden of proof is on him. Give us the whole footnote.
Let's see it.
> > It is still the case that the above poster has failed to provide any
> > evidence to demonstrate why his imagined explanation should be
> > considered equivalent.
>
> State what needs to be explained. My "imagined explanation" should not
> be equivalent to what?
Should not be equivalent to any explanation that is not imagined. It
ceases to be imagined when it has at least some directly linked, dated
and documented evidence to support its assertions/claims.
> > Note, even though it cannot be used as the best explanation, it can
> > still be used as one of many competing ideas to be kept in case
> > evidence should come to light that it may yet be able to explain.
>
> Forget it. There would have been more bamboo than people in China if
> bamboo discs were usable as money.
The above poster must give us the full footnote and show how it says
what he claims. It is his reponsibility to provide the evidence to
back up his accusation. Let him be specific. Let's see it.
al
> On Mar 8, 5:50 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> [snip]
>
This was in the translation: "(grand ultimate)". Such is not a term
used loosely for anything else but that which is "ultimate".
> > > Wrong. Misleading. There is an illustration on the 1Cashcard that
> > > has an appearance "like the diagram of the taiji". This is not
> > > evidence that the suit was derived from I Ching concepts.
You can argue and deny any connection to Emptiness, Void, Ultimate and
Taiji diagram in Ma Diao. Ma Diao could have been one of the hundreds
of games that got corrupted by the "wine drinking games".
That one taiji diagram is like a clue in a cold case of old murder
mystery.
Actually, if one reads carefully, other signs are there. What about
the Guo fruits in the same suit? the drawings on the other cards were
reduced in size to look like guo instead of full taiji diagrams?
Refer to page 87 of The Playing-Card Volume 31 Number 2. You can
interpret Pan in Lo's translation as you see fit.
You can not ignore the taiji diagrams for the whole suit in photo 79
of Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum. The dates for the two decks
may be different, but the idea is similar. That is, taiji there is
taiji here. Only one "ultimate" taiji anywhere!
> > What is the meaning of its being there then? Something looks like a
> > taiji diagram which represents yin-yang concept in I-Chng gets put
> > there for no reason at all. You are saying? Is that what you mean? The
> > resemblance of an I-Ching symbol is totally insignificant on a face of
> > a Ma Diao card.
>
> What the above poster fails to understand his reasoning is wrong. Just
> because two things are together does not mean they are causally
> related.
>
They are related, but not necessarily causally related.
Try to see the difference.
> For example;
> (1) Mr X's footprint was found in the dirt outside an open window.
> (2) Mrs X lies dead on the floor inside the room with the open window.
> (3) Therefore Mr X is linked to Mrs X's death.
>
Depends what you mean by "linked".
Scotland Yard would bring Mr. X in for questioning. That is for sure,
however "linked" he might have been.
> This is wrong. Just because his footprint is there does not mean he is
> linked to her death.
>
"Linking" does not mean "killing". You jumped to conclusion.
> There could be other reasons for why his footprint was outside the
> open window.
>
That is true. Did you ask what possible other reasons may be?
> Similarly, IF there is a diagram of the taiji representing an I Ching
> concept on ther 1 cash, it does not follow that the meaning of the
> rest of the cards in that suit were derived or was caused by I Ching
> concepts.
>
Did you look for other clues? These terms are mixed in there.
How about the fruits and sprigs of flower,
Trigram kan, trigram gen, trigram qian
"Emptiness forms the base"
"Grand Ultimate"
Each one in the list is a clue to cold case like Mrs. X's death.
> There could be other reasons why the taiji diagram was put on the 1
> cash card.
>
> But we do not know the reason(s). Just because we do not know the
> reason is no excuse to jump to the unsupported conclusion that the
> rest of the suit was derived from I Ching concepts. It may be the case
> as the above poster claims - or it may not.
>
I have given other reasons in numerous occasions. They fell to the
wayside because they didn't amount to Cash of any amount.
I repeatedly emphasized the need to look at the rules of play, not the
symbols drawn by artists and names given by word-of-mouth.
Names and pictures are unreliable. The game itself has a dozen names
and none of them means anything related to the game itself. Symbols of
circles and sticks look different among sets. The character suit
express different preference (e.g. Kings and Flowers", Wan's and
Pin's).
There is constancy in basic rules like '2 and 3'. A pair of 2 cards to
win and sets of minimum 3 cards formation.
Here is the power of correlative thinking. Where else do you see '2
and 3' being the key? Read my 'Q and A' post.
Taiji plus '2 and 3'; the whole game is all about changes in pattern
formation. Do you think I-Ching might be related to it?
That is all equivalent to circumstantial evidence in a case like that
of your Mrs. X.
>[..]
If you feel I misquoted your footnote. Show what mistake there is.
What is the big deal? In essence you used Eberhard (dated) as
documented evidence and I said it may be dated but worthless because
what was said in the "evidence" was invalid for lack of common sense.
Go ahead and prove it otherwise.
++++++++++++++++++++
One more term you can look up. It is correlation coefficient. For
example when Cash can not in any way explain anything about the Winds
(East South West North) and Zhong-Fa-Bai, it has a low correlation
coefficient and your hypothesis is no good. In fact Cash has made no
attempt to explain the rules of play at all.
+++++++++++++++++
Tell me I am wrong again...
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 9, 9:37 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > > > Wrong. Misleading. There is an illustration on the 1Cashcard that
> > > > has an appearance "like the diagram of the taiji". This is not
> > > > evidence that the suit was derived from I Ching concepts.
>
> You can argue and deny any connection to Emptiness, Void, Ultimate and
> Taiji diagram in Ma Diao. Ma Diao could have been one of the hundreds
> of games that got corrupted by the "wine drinking games".
No one is denying anything. There is an illustration on the 1 Cash
card that has an appearance "like the diagram of the taiji". The
connection of the diagram to an I Ching concept is valid.
As to the second claim - it may have happened or it may not have
happened. Until there is credible evidence for either then we just do
not know. If there is any favouring one over the other, as in the use
of "could have", then that is an exercise in biased thinking.
> That one taiji diagram is like a clue in a cold case of old murder
> mystery.
Again, the diagram is just a piece of data. Until there is credible
evidence supporting a link form that time then we just do not know any
more about it.
[snip]
> Refer to page 87 of The Playing-Card Volume 31 Number 2. You can
> interpret Pan in Lo's translation as you see fit.
No you cant. Justification for applying that specific interpretation
must be on the basis of prior credible evidence of a link, or from the
context of the text - the author of the text actually describing
information of a link. Otherwise this is an exercise in relativism
gone mad.
> You cannot ignore the taiji diagrams for the whole suit in photo 79
> of Illustrated Book of the Mahjong Museum. The dates for the two decks
> may be different, but the idea is similar. That is, taiji there is
> taiji here. Only one "ultimate" taiji anywhere!
The dates are totally different and there is a taiji in one and a
taiji in another. So what??
Elephants have knees. Humans have knees. Elephants are humans????????
> > What the above poster fails to understand his reasoning is wrong. Just
> > because two things are together does not mean they are causally
> > related.
>
> They are related, but not necessarily causally related.
> Try to see the difference.
So what is their relationship then???
Let's have a specific and brief answer.
> > For example;
> > (1) Mr X's footprint was found in the dirt outside an open window.
> > (2) Mrs X lies dead on the floor inside the room with the open window.
> > (3) Therefore Mr X is linked to Mrs X's death.
>
> Depends what you mean by "linked".
> Scotland Yard would bring Mr. X in for questioning. That is for sure,
> however "linked" he might have been.
Exactly. We do not know, one way or another, whether he is linked.
This is correct. We must suspend our judgement.
> > This is wrong. Just because his footprint is there does not mean he is
> > linked to her death.
> "Linking" does not mean "killing". You jumped to conclusion.
NO! It is the other way round. No one is implying anything. THAT is
the point of the argument above. The above poster jumped to the
conclusion or assumed that this poster meant "linking" was meaning
"killing".
> Did you look for other clues? These terms are mixed in there.
> How about the fruits and sprigs of flower,
> Trigram kan, trigram gen, trigram qian
> "Emptiness forms the base"
> "Grand Ultimate"
> Each one in the list is a clue to cold case like Mrs. X's death.
No. As above; Justification for applying that *specific*
interpretation must be on the basis of some prior credible evidence of
a link, or from the context of the text - in which the author of the
text actually describes information of a link.
> > But we do not know the reason(s). Just because we do not know the
> > reason is no excuse to jump to the unsupported conclusion that the
> > rest of the suit was derived from I Ching concepts. It may be the case
> > as the above poster claims - or it may not.
>
> I have given other reasons in numerous occasions. They fell to the
> wayside because they didn't amount to Cash of any amount.
Unfortunately the above poster failed to support his reasons with any
form of credible evidence outside of his just stating it was so.
> Here is the power of correlative thinking. Where else do you see '2
> and 3' being the key? Read my 'Q and A' post.
> Taiji plus '2 and 3'; the whole game is all about changes in pattern
> formation. Do you think I-Ching might be related to it?
> That is all equivalent to circumstantial evidence in a case like that
> of your Mrs. X.
This is just one unsupported interpretation based on the presence of
one symbol on one card in an early deck.
Whether I Ching is in any way related to any features of the game-play
design we just do not know, one way or the other. At this time there
is no credible evidence that would enable us to select one unsupported
intepretation over another.
> If you feel I misquoted your footnote. Show what mistake there is.
> What is the big deal? In essence you used Eberhard (dated) as
> documented evidence and I said it may be dated but worthless because
> what was said in the "evidence" was invalid for lack of common sense.
> Go ahead and prove it otherwise.
No. Once more; it is HIS claim therefore HE must quote the footnote
and show what was said in the footnote, that backs up his claim or
intepretation. THEN this poster can refute his claim.
The above poster must stop avoiding the issue and do his own work.
Unless he is not able to do so for lack of a logical argument. Then he
must say so.
> One more term you can look up. It is correlation coefficient. For
> example when Cash can not in any way explain anything about the Winds
> (East South West North) and Zhong-Fa-Bai, it has a low correlation
> coefficient and your hypothesis is no good. In fact Cash has made no
> attempt to explain the rules of play at all.
This is a display of extreme laziness. The above poster is attempting
to get others to do his own work.
HE must define what he means by correlation coefficient. What is it?
How does it relate to his claims?
HE must describe his argument and HE must explain how it is used in
his argument.
Once HE has done that, then we can understand HIS thinking and then
decide whether HIS thinking is wrong or not.
al
> On Mar 10, 8:41 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 9:37 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> > One more term you can look up. It is correlation coefficient. For
> > example when Cash can not in any way explain anything about the Winds
> > (East South West North) and Zhong-Fa-Bai, it has a low correlation
> > coefficient and your hypothesis is no good. In fact Cash has made no
> > attempt to explain the rules of play at all.
>
>
> HE must define what he means by correlation coefficient. What is it?
> How does it relate to his claims?
It relates to your claim. Your money-suited hypothesis can not explain
the presence of all the non-money tiles. Your money-suited hypot has a
very low correlation coefficient in terms of explaining the mahjong
set.
Winds and zhong-Fa-Bai are cosmological aspects of Daoism. Money is
not.
On the other hand, I-Ching symbols can explain all symbols in the 3
suits and the cosmological aspects of Daoism, including rules of play,
namely a pair to win and 3's combination sets and cyclical changes of
Seasons and the Winds.
Open your eyes to see the change in colors and open your ears to hear
the winds. You may not feel it, but your life is changing day and
night year after year in circles!
Mahjong game is a simulation of Life and Nature in continual change.
Divination by hexagrams is Man's attempt to cope with changes.
My I-Ching hypothesis can explain many aspects of the mahjong game
simply even I can understand. So it has a much higher correlation
coefficient. Therefore it is a more fitting explanation than your
money-hypothesis.
Money-cash can not explain the different colors for the circles. Tong
is supposed to be copper. It never touches the unique rules of mahjong
game-play. Your hypot. has a near-zero correlation coefficient,
because it explains nothing about the game.
You believe the money-based suits only because Wilkinson, Himly and
Mauger, Culin etc. wrote and "documented" with a date. Mauger as you
had mentioned went by Wilkinson mostly and I suppose many more go by
Himly, parsimoniously.
Historians tend to do that, so they don't have to risk getting blamed
for making mistakes.
Or just because there might have been real money cards at one time in
the old days, then mahjong symbols must also relate to them somehow.
That is simple causal relationship. The very same accusation you
favored. May be I have forgotten the detailed development of your
money-hypot? You gave it before?
> HE must describe his argument and HE must explain how it is used in
> his argument.
>
Now do you see how I used it?
In the absence of absolute proof in history, that is how new
hypotheses are tested.
My I-Ching hypot may not be absolutely correct, but it is much much
better than your money-hypot. Simple as that...
> Once HE has done that, then we can understand HIS thinking and then
> decide whether HIS thinking is wrong or not.
The thinking is scientific. Why is it up to you to decide if HIS
thinking is right?
++++++++++++++
Allan Lee
March 11, 2009
msta...@talktalk.net
> My I-Ching hypothesis can explain many aspects of the mahjong game
> simply even I can understand. So it has a much higher correlation
> coefficient. Therefore it is a more fitting explanation than your
> money-hypothesis.
>
> Money-cash can not explain the different colors for the circles. Tong
> is supposed to be copper. It never touches the unique rules of mahjong
> game-play. Your hypot. has a near-zero correlation coefficient,
> because it explains nothing about the game.
The above poster still refuses to define correlation coefficient. He
has used the term by stating it but he has not explained its meaning.
What is it? Is it a number? Is it a quality? Is it a property? Is it a
%???
What is it?
Now, he makes a claim to his explanation being a "more fitting
explanation". But what does this mean?
From the examples it appears to mean that it has more scope = it can
explain more things in the ma que game than other explanations.
But it has been repeatedly said to him that the money-derivation
hypothesis (MDH) does not seek to explain the entire game. It only
seeks to explain the three suits.
It does not because there is credible evidence that the game shares
many common features with pre-existing and earlier card and tile
games. There is credible evidence that the tile set evolved over time
- that not all the features were present in the early game and that
some were added over time – for example, there is no compelling reason
at all, for thinking the group ZFB did exist in the three earliest
sets we know of. Indeed, we have documentary evidence that shows the
opposite.
In a response to the above poster’s same claim, that appeared in
another thread recently, it was explained this way below;
---------------------------
> > > 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.
--------------------------
There is no compelling, credible, objective evidence for any of the
above posters claims regarding features of the three suits.
However, his explanation for the extra groups - even the colours on
the tiles etc - may be accurate or it may not. What will decide is
credible objective evidence supporting his claims..
[snip]
> May be I have forgotten the detailed development of your
> money-hypot? You gave it before?
Yes. Many times.
> > HE must describe his argument and HE must explain how it is used in
> > his argument.
> Now do you see how I used it?
It was stated. It was not explained. It was not defined. See above.
> [snip] Why is it up to you to decide if HIS thinking is right?
It was meant to mean ‘reasoning’. Thinking is made up of isolated
thoughts. When these are linked in a logical or illogical manner in
order to make a claim, this process is called reasoning. It results in
what is called an argument.
So in order to understand the use and hence meaning of his term we
need to be able to understand his argument and hence his reasoning.
He is asking us to accept his claim therefore we are entitled to
decide if he is right or wrong. We can only do that if we know his
reasoning.
al
> On Mar 11, 4:29 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > My I-Ching hypothesis can explain many aspects of the mahjong game
> > simply even I can understand. So it has a much higher correlation
> > coefficient. Therefore it is a more fitting explanation than your
> > money-hypothesis.
>
> > Money-cash can not explain the different colors for the circles. Tong
> > is supposed to be copper. It never touches the unique rules of mahjong
> > game-play. Your hypot. has a near-zero correlation coefficient,
> > because it explains nothing about the game.
>
> The above poster still refuses to define correlation coefficient. He
> has used the term by stating it but he has not explained its meaning.
> What is it? Is it a number? Is it a quality? Is it a property? Is it a
> %???
>
> What is it?
>
> Now, he makes a claim to his explanation being a "more fitting
> explanation". But what does this mean?
>
Consult a text book.
> From the examples it appears to mean that it has more scope = it can
> explain more things in the ma que game than other explanations.
>
> But it has been repeatedly said to him that the money-derivation
> hypothesis (MDH) does not seek to explain the entire game. It only
> seeks to explain the three suits.
>
It has been repeated pointed out to the MDH proponents that heir
approach is improper and too narrow when the whole game of mahjong is
not included. MDH ignored 7/36 of the 'population'. Why? because 7/36
is different from the 27/36. They are different and excluded because
they are identifiable in explicit Chinese writing whereas the 27/36
are symbols and open to interpretive choice from an assumption based
on a remote resemblance of a circular shape of a symbol coin.
MDH can only attempt to identify 3 suits or 27/36 of the game, simply
because it has no way to relate with the remaining 7/36 of the mahjong
game.
MDH made the wrong implicit assumption that the game first arrived in
only 3 suits of 9 tiles each. Yet proponents of MDH knew very well
mahjong, according to them when 'discovered', had all pieces in tiles
sets complete with more than the 27/36 which they try to explain.
They admitted unknowingly the best they can do is to give a partial
picture of history. What excuse is that? Should we expect better
effort in research than this?
> It does not because there is credible evidence that the game shares
> many common features with pre-existing and earlier card and tile [games].
This sounds like the *bamboo disc money* reference to Eberhart. Just
because some one had said or something existed, it can link as
"credible evidence" to mahjong?
What is the "credible evidence" and where? Why and who add the Winds
and non-money tiles to the game? And when? Mahjong was only
'discovered' in the 1850's? Show the linkage.
That credible evidence is more like rationalization for a round shape
symbol called by some Chinese players as coin while others called it
container.
> games. There is credible evidence that the tile set evolved over time
The above statement is misleading, perhaps deliberately.
How the tile set evolved over time is important to point out.
Did you or any one see a tile set without the Winds, EAST, SOUTH WEST
and North?
Mahjong evolution from hard evidence found did not rid of the
cosmological elements in the game. Tile sets in Mahjong(g) before
Mahjong(g) Part 2, have all the Winds and Zhing-Fa-Bai. They are in
British Museum, American Museum of Natural History (Laufer) and
Brooklyn Museum of Art (Culin).
> - that not all the features were present in the early game and that
> some were added over time – for example,
That again is a misleading statement. The AMNH set is missing 9 tiles.
That is an incomplete set and can not be compared. It looks like a
corrupted mixed up set. The BMA set also has tiles missing.
there is no compelling reason
> at all, for thinking the group ZFB did exist in the three earliest
> sets we know of. Indeed, we have documentary evidence that shows the
> opposite.
>
No way! What are the compelling reasons?
As I see it, the most compelling reason is too difficult to admit a
mistake. Experts just don't make mistake. The second compelling reason
is ignorance. The third is parsimony.
The ignorance is in unable to recognize the depth of meaning in
Chinese words and their combined usage.
Zhong is in both the AMNH set and the BMA set. Zhong and Bai (4 blanks
below Zong) in the BMA set. Both of these sets have missing tiles. The
Playing-Card Volume 32 Number 4.
The idea and concept of ZFB is in the sets shown in a 4-part series of
mahjong(g) in the Playing-Card.
Luong-Fuong-Bai is = Zhong-Fa-Bai. In addition to comparable
allegorical meaning, the colors are identical, Red, Green and White.
Heaven-Earth-Man in Part 1 (Mahjong(g) before and after Mahjong(g) is
= Bai-Fa-Zhong, a concept of Triplicity. Also there is a link between
Triplicity and Duality (yin-yang).
There is change in one suit at one time. That was Pin or Bin
substituted for Wan. The reason for the interchange was, in my
opinion, was Pin for ten-thousand things as in Dao-De Jing Chapter 42,
how the universe was born and everything. I gave a full explanation in
a recent post. No need to repeat it now.
I should mention one item which involved the tiles for "ranks" in the
royal court. That was probably personal preference and it did not
last.
Giving an impression of major changes to the game over time is at
least an inaccurate assessment.
+++++++++++++
[..] This is tiring.
But most important is the fact East South West and North remained
unchanged. That is the concept of cyclical change affecting everything
and every one in the universe.
Lest we forget, mahjong was supposed to be a scholarly game.
++++++++++++++++++
Hard to believe you actually said this.
"there is no compelling reason > at all, for thinking the group ZFB
did exist in the three earliest > sets we know of. Indeed, we have
documentary evidence that shows the > opposite."
This is a direct quote of yours. Do you actually have documentary
evidence that shows the "opposite"? Or you are just unsure? Do you
really believe the "evidence". I hope it is not like Eberhart's bamboo-
disc money.
What about the winds tiles? Why you omitted them?
+++++++++++++++++
Allan Lee
Narch 11, 2009
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 11, 9:56 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> It is a number varies from -1 to +1.
Then how is it calculated?
> > Now, he makes a claim to his explanation being a "more fitting
> > explanation". But what does this mean?
>
> Consult a text book.
Ah! "More fitting explanation" = "consult a textbook" :)
> It has been repeated pointed out to the MDH proponents that heir
> approach is improper and too narrow when the whole game of mahjong is
> not included. MDH ignored 7/36 of the 'population'. Why? because 7/36
> is different from the 27/36. They are different and excluded because
> they are identifiable in explicit Chinese writing whereas the 27/36
> are symbols and open to interpretive choice from an assumption based
> on a remote resemblance of a circular shape of a symbol coin.
This is nonsense.
These assertions were answered in a previous post which related to the
way 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."
From above, the above poster said "They [7/36] are different and
excluded
because they are identifiable in explicit Chinese writing whereas the
27/36
are symbols and open to interpretive choice from an assumption based
on a remote resemblance of a circular shape of a symbol coin."
This is nonsense. His 7/36 are mentioned in Chinese writings, but it
is HIS interpretation as to why they were used or added to the three
suits. And it is from his I Ching argument that this interpretation is
the conclusion. But the reasons in his I Ching argument are not
supported by any credible evidence. THAT is the weakness of his
argument.
As has been stated, IF he does obtain evidence linking his ideas to
early card games and ma que, then his explanation will be worth using
as the basis for research. It is still kept with other explaantions in
case evidence comes to light that it might help explain.
> MDH can only attempt to identify 3 suits or 27/36 of the game, simply
> because it has no way to relate with the remaining 7/36 of the mahjong
> game.
This is correct! It has no way to relate to the other groups because
there is no evidence that gives us a compelling reason to suggest any
relationship at this point. All the evidence we have accumulated so
far can be accounted for by the explanation of a lineage to previous
and pre-existing card games.
> MDH made the wrong implicit assumption that the game first arrived in
> only 3 suits of 9 tiles each.
No it doesn't.
> What is the "credible evidence" and where?
This was discussed at length in previous subject threads (see Mo hu
pai and peng hu pai). Ma que belongs to the draw and discard family of
games that preceded it (such as the 18th century game of peng hu, mo
hu, shi hu, suo hu). Sets of four of a kind were attained in this
game. The order of players is the same (although the number of players
was not. Three suits were used in these games as well as additional
cards. There is even a description noting a small evolution of the
standard shi hu deck, to which a group of five cards were added.
For more info see Andrew Lo's discussion in Asian games; the art of
contest.
Further info will appear in a fourthcoming article described
previously.
> Why and who add the Winds
> and non-money tiles to the game? And when? Mahjong was only
> 'discovered' in the 1850's? Show the linkage.
There is no evidence as to when, why or who. Therefore there is no
point in speculating and unttering baseless and unsupported nonsense.
> Did you or any one see a tile set without the Winds, EAST, SOUTH WEST
> and North?
There is no evidence as yet. However, the GROUP of ZFB was not present
in 3 of the earliest sets known.
> Mahjong evolution from hard evidence found did not rid of the
> cosmological elements in the game. Tile sets in Mahjong(g) before
> Mahjong(g) Part 2, have all the Winds and Zhing-Fa-Bai. They are in
> British Museum, American Museum of Natural History (Laufer) and
> Brooklyn Museum of Art (Culin).
This is rubbish. The Himly set had NO ZHONG tiles. The 2 Glover sets
of the same period ONLY HAD the ZHONG tiles. 20 years later, the
Wilkinson set is the 1st to show the ZFB group.
> That again is a misleading statement. The AMNH set is missing 9 tiles.
This is a rubbish.
The AMNH set is ONLY missing a 9 cash, a 6 string of cash, 1 season
and 2 'wang' tiles. A total of 5 tiles! We know this becuase Glover
wrote a detailed description of his set that was sent with it in 1875.
He lists the complete number of tiles that were in his set. Since they
were ALL in his set when he sent it from Shanghai to New York, the
missing tiles went missing after that time.
> That is an incomplete set and can not be compared. It looks like a
> corrupted mixed up set.
This is complete nonsense. The set as described by Glover is nearly
complete. We know what the complete set consisted of from his
description.
The above poster is corrupting documentary evidence to distort it to
conform to his agenda.
The BMA set also has tiles missing.
It is identical to the AMNH set. It is missing a 1 cash a four other
tiles. These have been replaced by using four spare blanks that had
the missing tiles' insignia painted on them. They can be easily
spotted in the picture of the set.
> there is no compelling reason at all, for thinking the group ZFB did exist in the three earliest
> > sets we know of. Indeed, we have documentary evidence that shows the
> > opposite.
>
> No way! What are the compelling reasons?
Yes way! There is no carved Fa tile in ALL three of the earliest sets.
Thus, at this point there is no compelling reason for us to think the
GROUP of tiles of ZFB did exist.
There is the issue of selection bias. It may be that the tile sets
uncovered are unrepresentative of what existed at the time. But until
any sets turn up that are different, we have no way of telling. At
this point, the small group of sets is all there is.
> Zhong is in both the AMNH set and the BMA set.
But it is NOT in the Himly set. And Himly also provided a detailed
written description of his complete set.
> The idea and concept of ZFB is in the sets shown in a 4-part series of
> mahjong(g) in the Playing-Card.
No it isn't. The "idea and concept" is in the head of the above
poster.
> Luong-Fuong-Bai is = Zhong-Fa-Bai. In addition to comparable
> allegorical meaning, the colors are identical, Red, Green and White.
??? What does this mean?? State the article and the page numbers where
this can be found.
> Heaven-Earth-Man in Part 1 (Mahjong(g) before and after Mahjong(g) is
> = Bai-Fa-Zhong, a concept of Triplicity.
Where is heaven-earth-man in the article. State the page numbers!
There is no evidence at all to support this interpretation.
[snipped empty rhetoric]
al
> On Mar 12, 2:29 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 9:56 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > It is a number varies from -1 to +1.
>
> Then how is it calculated?
>
> > > Now, he makes a claim to his explanation being a "more fitting
> > > explanation". But what does this mean?
>
> > Consult a text book.
>
> Ah! "More fitting explanation" = "consult a textbook" :)
>
Your Cash hypoth. has a zero (0) coefficient of correlation.
> > It has been repeated pointed out to the MDH proponents that heir
> > approach is improper and too narrow when the whole game of mahjong is
> > not included. MDH ignored 7/36 of the 'population'. Why? because 7/36
> > is different from the 27/36. They are different and excluded because
> > they are identifiable in explicit Chinese writing whereas the 27/36
> > are symbols and open to interpretive choice from an assumption based
> > on a remote resemblance of a circular shape of a symbol coin.
>
> This is nonsense.
>
Why it is nonsense? You have the many nearly complete sets of the
game. Why not study the whole bird. You left out the wings!
> These assertions were answered in a previous post which related to the
> way research is carried out.
>
But it didn't make sense.
> " 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."
>
You are good with words. How can anybody argue with that kind of
logic, eh?
Something does not add up, for the simple reason that money does not
belong with Winds and Zhong-Fa-Bai or whatever Characters.
Did Himly or Wilkinson reasoned it that way? I bet you they did not.
So that is very good rationalization. When you can do such a good job
defending it. I guess you can rest assured Money keeps the Winds go
around.
You do remember the only thing moneyish is the circular shape.
Your string is as strong as that link to a bank note. Those strings
were replaced by bank notes long ago. How old did you say the mahjong
game was? You mentioned a book on coins and Chinese money history. I
read about loads of those strings taken away and replaced by bank
notes. In that case why a game brought back the 'string'?
Ever bothered by the fact Wan is called Myriad? What is it, exactly
ten-thousand or just a huge number and why the ambivalence or
ambiguity? Could you buy a car with a myriad of cash?
Your whole money concept is based on a circular shape which in itself
is doubtful in identity. It is called Cash, Container, Tube/Pipe,
Ping, Beng, Dot and just Circle. And Tong, I forgot.
Yet you can claim you have credible evidence. How come?
Documented. Yes. Credible? No.
I rate it the same as your 'bamboo disc'.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> From above, the above poster said "They [7/36] are different and
> excluded
> because they are identifiable in explicit Chinese writing whereas the
> 27/36
> are symbols and open to interpretive choice from an assumption based
> on a remote resemblance of a circular shape of a symbol coin."
>
> This is nonsense. His 7/36 are mentioned in Chinese writings, but it
> is HIS interpretation as to why they were used or added to the three
> suits. And it is from his I Ching argument that this interpretation is
> the conclusion. But the reasons in his I Ching argument are not
> supported by any credible evidence. THAT is the weakness of his
> argument.
>
> As has been stated, IF he does obtain evidence linking his ideas to
> early card games and ma que, then his explanation will be worth using
> as the basis for research. It is still kept with other explaantions in
> case evidence comes to light that it might help explain.
>
It is true. That I-Ching argument is only HIS argument. Himly or
Wilkinson or anybody never said about it. He has to prove every step
of the way. Otherwise Money stays. Researchers don't want to touch it.
Readers beware.
I forgot to mention another point. Your moneyish circle was taken from
paper cards. Mahjong is bone card. You mixed paper with bone
characteristics in your classical logic.
Mahjong characteristics should be compared with a domino-type of game
like Tien-Gow. The dots or pips on the Tien-Gow dominoes relate to the
constellations. I seem to recall. The circular shapes on Tien-Gow are
cosmological. Do you think that might link to the Winds and
Seasonality in mahjong?
The T-G pips are just blank dips whereas MJ circles are colored. They
are not the same. Although Cash is supposed to be a symbol of Heaven
and Earth. No square Earth on an MJ tile.
Still T-G and MJ are related in their "bones". But nothing in written
history. Where do you get a shred of credible evidence?
It's simpler staying with the Money. The square Earth is changed to a
round shape as well. How is that for rationalization?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > MDH can only attempt to identify 3 suits or 27/36 of the game, simply
> > because it has no way to relate with the remaining 7/36 of the mahjong
> > game.
>
> This is correct! It has no way to relate to the other groups because
> there is no evidence that gives us a compelling reason to suggest any
> relationship at this point. All the evidence we have accumulated so
> far can be accounted for by the explanation of a lineage to previous
> and pre-existing card games.
>
The inherent error in your logic is the assumption of "lineage".
You are assuming mahjong inherited the paper-card symbol and NOT the
other characteristics.
Those referenced paper cards are different from mahjong more than
apples different from oranges.
There are different number of cards in a paper deck than in mahjong
set. Trick-taking is the mode of play in paper cards. Pattern forming
is what is in mahjong. The specific pattern for a winning hand in
mahjong is different from any other game. It has different system of
counting scores than the paper cards in reference of lineage. You can
see mahjong is entirely a different animal. It is like a turtle
compared to a flat fish, just because they have roughly the same
shape.
Think about that Tien-Gow bone-family genealogy. I could use some
help.
++++++++++++
> > MDH made the wrong implicit assumption that the game first arrived in
> > only 3 suits of 9 tiles each.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
Then why study the sting-ray fish by ignoring the sting-ray? What good
is your result in understanding the fish? What distinguishes the fish
from other fish? What good is a hypothesis that says this fish has the
same seeing apparatus as other fish?
+++++++++++++++++
> > What is the "credible evidence" and where?
>
> This was discussed at length in previous subject threads (see Mo hu
> pai and peng hu pai). Ma que belongs to the draw and discard family of
> games that preceded it (such as the 18th century game of peng hu, mo
> hu, shi hu, suo hu). Sets of four of a kind were attained in this
> game. The order of players is the same (although the number of players
> was not. Three suits were used in these games as well as additional
> cards. There is even a description noting a small evolution of the
> standard shi hu deck, to which a group of five cards were added.
>
You can cite a few more games but no credible evidence there. You are
so good with words, why not put it in point form step by step and show
the evolutionary process?
The tong or money symbol is hearsay evidence at the very core. The
rest of your answer may have been written, but not credible evidence
to a standard you demand for any other hypothesis.
I seem to recall your objection to any similarity between the group of
3 cards in Mo He Pai with Zhong Fa Bai in Mahjong. Lineage was evident
only in the 'money' part?
Talking about evolution, I see number decreases rather than increases.
Have you heard of or read about an animal grew more legs as a result
of evolution? Some grow more hairs to keep warm. Mahjong 'grew' more
pieces (tiles vs. paper) from Mo He. Interesting idea.
> For more info see Andrew Lo's discussion in Asian games; the art of
> contest.
>
Boil it down. Essentially what was said?
++++++++++++++
> Further info will appear in a fourthcoming article described
> previously.
>
> > Why and who add the Winds
> > and non-money tiles to the game? And when? Mahjong was only
> > 'discovered' in the 1850's? Show the linkage.
>
> There is no evidence as to when, why or who. Therefore there is no
> point in speculating and unttering baseless and unsupported nonsense.
>
Your answer is nonsense. Who is talking about mahjong lineage?
Isn't such a change part of mahjong lineage and evolution? If the game
is only about 150 years old, (IF), shouldn't there be some kind of
evidence?
Look at it differently, has there been another game known to have
Winds and similar tiles? Why must mahjong inherit its 'money' symbol
from cards that are different in every other aspect?
> > Did you or any one see a tile set without the Winds, EAST, SOUTH WEST
> > and North?
>
> There is no evidence as yet. However, the GROUP of ZFB was not present
> in 3 of the earliest sets known.
>
Disagree. A separate post covered that. Parallel concept should be
considered for ZFB.
But my question is about the WINDS. Where gone the Winds?
++++++++++
> > Mahjong evolution from hard evidence found did not rid of the
> > cosmological elements in the game. Tile sets in Mahjong(g) before
> > Mahjong(g) Part 2, have all the Winds and Zhing-Fa-Bai. They are in
> > British Museum, American Museum of Natural History (Laufer) and
> > Brooklyn Museum of Art (Culin).
>
> This is rubbish. The Himly set had NO ZHONG tiles. The 2 Glover sets
> of the same period ONLY HAD the ZHONG tiles. 20 years later, the
> Wilkinson set is the 1st to show the ZFB group.
>
You are referring to incomplete sets of tiles. How do you know what
are missing in total? I checked the pictures of sets in Mahjong(g)
pages. As I said.
> > That again is a misleading statement. The AMNH set is missing 9 tiles.
>
> This is a rubbish.
>
Count the blank spots.
> The AMNH set is ONLY missing a 9 cash, a 6 string of cash, 1 season
> and 2 'wang' tiles. A total of 5 tiles! We know this becuase Glover
> wrote a detailed description of his set that was sent with it in 1875.
> He lists the complete number of tiles that were in his set. Since they
> were ALL in his set when he sent it from Shanghai to New York, the
> missing tiles went missing after that time.
>
You can call an independent reader to count the tiles include the
blank spots on the right hand corner area.
+++++++++++
> > That is an incomplete set and can not be compared. It looks like a
> > corrupted mixed up set.
>
> This is complete nonsense. The set as described by Glover is nearly
> complete. We know what the complete set consisted of from his
> description.
>
Nearly complete is NOT complete.
You give me the page number and I will review with you set by set.
++++++++++++++
> The above poster is corrupting documentary evidence to distort it to
> conform to his agenda.
>
> The BMA set also has tiles missing.
>
> It is identical to the AMNH set. It is missing a 1 cash a four other
> tiles. These have been replaced by using four spare blanks that had
> the missing tiles' insignia painted on them. They can be easily
> spotted in the picture of the set.
>
There is more to that. I can show you. Take one set at a time. You
choose it.
++++++++++++++
> > there is no compelling reason at all, for thinking the group ZFB did exist in the three earliest
> > > sets we know of. Indeed, we have documentary evidence that shows the
> > > opposite.
>
> > No way! What are the compelling reasons?
>
> Yes way! There is no carved Fa tile in ALL three of the earliest sets.
> Thus, at this point there is no compelling reason for us to think the
> GROUP of tiles of ZFB did exist.
>
> There is the issue of selection bias. It may be that the tile sets
> uncovered are unrepresentative of what existed at the time. But until
> any sets turn up that are different, we have no way of telling. At
> this point, the small group of sets is all there is.
>
Compelling is a subjective word. You are entitled to it.
+++++++++++
> > Zhong is in both the AMNH set and the BMA set.
>
> But it is NOT in the Himly set. And Himly also provided a detailed
> written description of his complete set.
>
> > The idea and concept of ZFB is in the sets shown in a 4-part series of
> > mahjong(g) in the Playing-Card.
>
> No it isn't. The "idea and concept" is in the head of the above
> poster.
>
Not in yours because you can not understand the meaning of the words.
IO have been telling you countless times!
> > Luong-Fuong-Bai is = Zhong-Fa-Bai. In addition to comparable
> > allegorical meaning, the colors are identical, Red, Green and White.
>
> ??? What does this mean?? State the article and the page numbers where
> this can be found.
>
See what I mean? You have a lot to learn about the Chinese language
and culture.
> > Heaven-Earth-Man in Part 1 (Mahjong(g) before and after Mahjong(g) is
> > = Bai-Fa-Zhong, a concept of Triplicity.
>
> Where is heaven-earth-man in the article. State the page numbers!
> There is no evidence at all to support this interpretation.
>
> [snipped empty rhetoric]
Enough for now. I will show you next time.
+++++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 12, 7:22 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 12, 2:29 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:38 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 7:22 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 12, 2:29 am,
[snip]
> It would help. Cash does not relate with Cosmology.
> Your Cash hypoth. has a zero (0) coefficient of correlation.
This term is meaningless in this context. One of the premises in the
CDH is that the early tile set of maque consisted of separate groups
that had different origins. Another premise is that some of the game’s
features were derived from earlier and pre-existing card games. These
premises and the underlying reasons/evidence for them were described
in earlier posts in detail and at length.
One of the groups is identified with a group from earlier 3-suited
card packs. The other groups’ origins have not been identified since
there is no evidence as yet of their existence in earlier or pre-
existing games. Various explanations for their origins have been
proposed. The I Ching and the Tai Ping hypotheses are two examples.
> > These assertions were answered in a previous post which related to the
> > way research is carried out.
>
> But it didn't make sense.
Now the above poster says it didn’t make sense to him! The method was
described and simply listed and point by point using a numbering
system that the above poster suggested in an earlier post would be
beneficial to him. NOW he decides it didn’t make sense to him!
Unfortunately, this poster is NOT going to repeat YET AGAIN those
points when the above poster had ample opportunities to ask about them
much earlier.
> It is true. That I-Ching argument is only HIS argument.
No. It is only HIS interpretation. The problem lies in the fact that
he gives it too much weight.
(cue another sarcastic remark).
The MDH only applies to the three suit names and insignia. It does not
account for other features of the game at this point since there is no
evidence to even suggest that their origins lie in preceding paper
card games.
> You can cite a few more games but no credible evidence there. You are
> so good with words, why not put it in point form step by step and show
> the evolutionary process?
No. It has already been explained so many times that it is now clear
he has a very serious poor long term memory. Until he can demonstrate
that he can remember arguments, points of discussion, facts and
logical points in his head, he is doomed to endlessly forget them
every time and then to endlessly repeat his same question over and
over again.
> Boil it down. Essentially what was said?
No. Get the book. In fact, if anyone is still reading these posts, the
book by Lo is recommended.
> > This is rubbish. The Himly set had NO ZHONG tiles. The 2 Glover sets
> > of the same period ONLY HAD the ZHONG tiles. 20 years later, the
> > Wilkinson set is the 1st to show the ZFB group.
>
> You are referring to incomplete sets of tiles. How do you know what
> are missing in total? I checked the pictures of sets in Mahjong(g)
> pages. As I said.
Check again. Further, both Himly and Glover wrote detailed
descriptions of their complete sets. Checking the tile sets against
their descriptions tells us what is missing.
> > The AMNH set is ONLY missing a 9 cash, a 6 string of cash, 1 season
> > and 2 'wang' tiles. A total of 5 tiles! We know this becuase Glover
> > wrote a detailed description of his set that was sent with it in 1875.
> > He lists the complete number of tiles that were in his set. Since they
> > were ALL in his set when he sent it from Shanghai to New York, the
> > missing tiles went missing after that time.
>
> You can call an independent reader to count the tiles include the
> blank spots on the right hand corner area.
There are TWO TILES missing in the right hand corner area of the AMNH
set.
There are NO TILES missing in the right hand corner area of the BMA
set.
[sigh] The blank areas down the sides of the photos are there because
that was how the museums’ photographers positioned the pieces!!!!!!!!
If this is what he is referring to then this mistake of the above
poster beggars belief!!!!
If he wants to describe what he sees he can choose any picture and
tell us. We will then correct him.
The blank areas on the sides are just the result of the way the
photographer’s arranged the tiles!!!!!!!!!
The only missing tiles are those that have left spaces in the tile
groups in the photos.
****There is no carved Fa tile in ALL three of the earliest sets.
Thus, at this point there is no compelling reason for us to think the
GROUP of tiles of ZFB did exist.****
> > There is the issue of selection bias. It may be that the tile sets
> > uncovered are unrepresentative of what existed at the time. But until
> > any sets turn up that are different, we have no way of telling. At
> > this point, the small group of sets is all there is.
> > Zhong is in both the AMNH set and the BMA set.
> > But it is NOT in the Himly set. And Himly also provided a detailed
> > written description of his complete set.
For those not familiar with these sets, Himly and Glover both obtained
tile sets when they were in China in the 1870’s. Both wrote detailed
descriptions of their sets, listing each group of tiles and in the
case of Himly, even describing the colours and other decorations. Both
Glover sets are identical in numbers of tiles and numbers and types of
suits and extra groups.
When the actual Glover tile sets were laid out in 2004, they were
found to be missing a few pieces when compared to their derscriptions.
The Himly set was reconstructed from the extremely detailed
description given by Himly.
> > > Luong-Fuong-Bai is = Zhong-Fa-Bai. In addition to comparable
> > > allegorical meaning, the colors are identical, Red, Green and White.
>
> > ??? What does this mean?? State the article and the page numbers where
> > this can be found.
>
> See what I mean? You have a lot to learn about the Chinese language
> and culture.
Why is he avoiding the questions?? He must explain what he means.
al
> On Mar 13, 1:38 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 7:22 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 12, 2:29 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 1:38 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 7:22 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 12, 2:29 am,
> [snip]
You said:
> Why is he avoiding the questions?? He must explain what he means.
> State the article and the page numbers where this can be found.
+++++++++++
I can ask exactly that same question.
I raised a few important questions in my last post and you did not
answer.
+++++++++++++
Why hypothesize the origin of only part of an object? I gave a
comparison like studying a sting-ray fish without looking at its
sting. Is that not narrow-minded or is it considered 'focused'?
It was said there is no compelling reason to include the Winds tile in
the money-hypot now, but what is the compelling reason to declare that
the 3 suits are money-based?
Obviously the so-called money-suits are inconclusive. On the contrary,
"money-suited" is a term in use everywhere. Why?
++++++++++++++
The earliest MJ sets have the Winds tiles. Why are they left out of
the Cash-Hypo? By the rules of play the Winds revolve with the earth
and change correspondingly with the seasons, around the sun
counterclockwise . We are informed that these are East, South, West
and North Winds. Yet their existence in the game is ignored because
the Cash-Hypot can not explain it.
Unless other explanation is forth coming, I have not heard.
What good is a theory about birds without an explanation for its
wings?
+++++++++++++++++
The money-hypot concept depends on the sound of 'TONG' which could
mean a 'many splendid things'.
If Tong is real cash money and the game is a money game, why was it
not designed with all money amounts, simply and without all the
confusion from the symbols. Where is the logic for having the circles,
sticks and ten-thousand whatever else?
My simple thinking isn't funny. Those symbols ain't money.
By the way, how much is a Myriad of Cash? This question was never
satisfactorily answered.
++++++++++++++++++++
A simple question is this. Mahjong tile set is drastically different
from paper card deck. That circular shape of Tong is the only DNA
trace for their "lineage" claim?
Tien-Gow, a dominoes game is closer akin to mahjong. Why not look for
lineage there? No answer for this either; not in the Cash-Hypot.
+++++++++++++
There was an answer for excluding Zhong-Fa-Bai from consideration in
the money-hypot. It was not a good reason. Leave it for a next post.
+++++++++++++++++++++
One more question is this. Why the Cash-hypot never even tries to
explain the rules of the mahjong game?
+++++++++++
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 13, 5:23 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 13, 1:38 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> You said:
>
> > Why is he avoiding the questions?? He must explain what he means.
> > State the article and the page numbers where this can be found.
>
> +++++++++++
> I can ask exactly that same question.
>
> I raised a few important questions in my last post and you did not
> answer.
There is only one reason why the above posters questions have not been
answered here - the issues contained in the questions have been
answered elsewhere repeatedly in other threads.
In view of this, it is my sincere opinion that he has serious memory
failings. Hence, it is pointless and a waste of this poster's time to
entertain his memory problems.
Therefore, unless he has something new to discuss that may be of
interest to others, it is a waste of time. But this rests on how to
deal with his seeming forgetfulness.
All of his [snipped] questions have been answered recently. The amount
of time spent on answering his repeatedly stated assertions and
questions is simply not worth my effort.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must also apologise for introducing this individual to this forum. I
am sorry because I believe his behaviour has been abusive to this
forum and to some of its members, as I have tried to explain to him
and others.
I was contacted by him via a friend who thought I would be able to
comment on his ideas.
However, his ideas were of such a nature that I was unable to
entertain them so I suggested that he might like to see what the forum
made of them. I warned him that his ideas would be scrutinised with a
critical eye and he should be aware of that.
I was aware that he was hurt by my answer to his ideas, but I thought
he would have the capacity to understand that one mark of a mature
student, is that they understand that ideas, when discussed, must be
divorced from the people who create them or espouse them. When a
person's ideas are critiqued or discussed, it is his/her ideas that
are discussed/critiqued and not the person. The way that he has
replied - with hurt feelings - suggests that he has not or cannot or
will not understand the difference.
The exception is in the case of his troll behaviour, but his has been
commented on before.
----------------------------------------------------------
This is meant sincerely and it is hoped that he will not misinterpret
these comments and take it as a personal attack and so react in a
negative way.
msta...@talktalk.net
[This edited post was taken from another thread. It is important as
there may be some confusion over the pictures of certain sets in my
articles.]
[mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote]
> > The Himly set had NO ZHONG tiles. The 2 Glover sets
> > of the same period ONLY HAD the ZHONG tiles. 20 years later, the
> > Wilkinson set is the 1st to show the ZFB group.
[al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca wrote]
> You are referring to incomplete sets of tiles. How do you know what
> are missing in total? I checked the pictures of sets in Mahjong(g)
> pages. As I said.
[mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote]
Check again. Further, both Himly and Glover wrote detailed
descriptions of their complete sets. Checking the tile sets against
their descriptions tells us what is missing.
> > The AMNH set is ONLY missing a 9 cash, a 6 string of cash, 1 season
> > and 2 'wang' tiles. A total of 5 tiles! We know this becuase Glover
> > wrote a detailed description of his set that was sent with it in 1875.
> > He lists the complete number of tiles that were in his set. Since they
> > were ALL in his set when he sent it from Shanghai to New York, the
> > missing tiles went missing after that time.
> You can call an independent reader to count the tiles include the
> blank spots on the right hand corner area.
We can discuss this here as it involves a small amount of facts easily
memorised.
(1) There are TWO TILES missing in the right hand corner area of the
AMNH
set.
(2) There are NO TILES missing in the right hand corner area of the
BMA
set.
(3) The blank areas down the sides of the photos are there because
that was how the museums’ photographers positioned the pieces.
(4) The blank areas on the sides are just the result of the way the
photographer’s arranged the tiles.
(5) The only missing tiles are those that have left spaces in the
tile
groups in the photos.
(6) ****There is no carved Fa tile in ALL three of the earliest sets.
Thus, at this point there is no compelling reason for us to think the
GROUP of tiles of ZFB did exist.****
(7) If he wants to describe what he sees he can choose any picture
and
tell us. We want the opportunity to discuss where these NINE missing
tiles are?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > There is the issue of selection bias. It may be that the tile sets
> > uncovered are unrepresentative of what existed at the time. But until
> > any sets turn up that are different, we have no way of telling. At
> > this point, the small group of sets is all there is.
> > Zhong is in both the AMNH set and the BMA set.
> > But it is NOT in the Himly set. And Himly also provided a detailed
> > written description of his complete set.
For those not familiar with these sets, Himly and Glover both
obtained
tile sets when they were in China in the 1870’s. Both wrote detailed
descriptions of their sets, listing each group of tiles and in the
case of Himly, even describing the colours and other decorations.
Both
Glover sets are identical in numbers of tiles and numbers and types
of
suits and extra groups.
When the actual Glover tile sets were laid out in 2004, they were
found to be missing a few pieces (SEE ABOVE) when compared to their
descriptions.
The Himly set was reconstructed from the extremely detailed
description given by Himly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
al
Every one of questions in the previous post is probing question. Each
shows the weakness in the so-called MDH.
Your earlier answers were so lengthy they were easy to forget because
they didn't make much sense at the end of some winding explanations.
You are good with words. You know that.
Now I re-phrase the questions to make therm more pointed and more
specific. But they are more difficult for you to maintain your MDH
position. I know that. I know more about the game.
The real question now is are you going to or are you able to answer
them or not?
+++++++++++++
You should not be sorry for introducing me to the forum. My new idea
may prove to be a real contribution someday. If and when that day ever
comes, you should take a share of the credit. I do not feel I have
harmed the group. Members are free to post.
+++++++++++++
Cheers....al
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 14, 12:07 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > > > Why is he avoiding the questions?? He must explain what he means.
> > > > State the article and the page numbers where this can be found.
> > > I can ask exactly that same question.
The above poster avoided the question again.
Due to his faulty memory - forgetting the many answers already given
to his same questions, and the avoiding of questions - see above - no
more answers will be given to his questions that have been asked and
answered repeatedly.
If he wishes to reply with a negative comment he should remember that
he has done that before, many times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But readers may be interested to know what he makes of the answers
given below? He made new claims (not old repeated ones) and answers
were provided - the interesting points are numbered simply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This edited post was taken from another thread. It is important as
there may be some confusion over the pictures of certain sets in my
articles.]
[mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote]
> > The Himly set had NO ZHONG tiles. The 2 Glover sets
> > of the same period ONLY HAD the ZHONG tiles. 20 years later, the
> > Wilkinson set is the 1st to show the ZFB group.
[al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca wrote]
> You are referring to incomplete sets of tiles. How do you know what
> are missing in total? I checked the pictures of sets in Mahjong(g)
> pages. As I said.
[mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote]
He should check again. Further, both Himly and Glover wrote detailed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
al
> On Mar 13, 9:23 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> [This edited post was taken from another thread. It is important as
> there may be some confusion over the pictures of certain sets in my
> articles.]
>
> [mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote]
>
> > > The Himly set had NO ZHONG tiles. The 2 Glover sets
> > > of the same period ONLY HAD the ZHONG tiles. 20 years later, the
> > > Wilkinson set is the 1st to show the ZFB group.
Let me see if I explain to you this way. Zhong-Fa Bai has been
referred to as Triad, Triplicity, Trio, but always as a three-some. In
the Himly set, a comparable trio is there. Himly called it "san cai"
or the "three Powers" in page 160, TPC-V32 N4. The tiles representing
the "three powers" are Heavenly King, Earth King and Man King. Color-
wise, they would match white , green and red. Chinese is a symbolic
language. In ancient agrarian society, life depends totally on nature,
which consists of heaven and earth. Man coexists in harmony with
nature or perish. That is why the seasons and their winds are so
important to life. Man must change with the cycle of seasons. In
Chinese medicine, human organs are cosmologically related.
The Himly set has 148 tiles; no Zhong, as described on page TPC V32N4.
Based on the description by Himly, I doubt if Himly himself was a
mahjong player. If the 8 blanks were not part of an active set, 140
tiles do not divide evenly for 4 players. And if the 8 blanks were
part of an active set, 148 can not divide evenly for 4 players either.
144 which includes 4 blanks for Bai could be a complete set. Himly
did not say anything on that.
The Glover sets are basically identical, but AMNH set, figure 1, is
incomplete. A mahjong player can tell. 140 tiles can not divide evenly
for 4 players at the table. In addition to the 5 mentioned as missing,
4 Bai or blanks are missing as well. Do you know if Glover was a
mahjong player?
>
> [al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca wrote]
>
> > You are referring to incomplete sets of tiles. How do you know what
> > are missing in total? I checked the pictures of sets in Mahjong(g)
> > pages. As I said.
I am surprised.
>
> [mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote]
> Check again. Further, both Himly and Glover wrote detailed
> descriptions of their complete sets. Checking the tile sets against
> their descriptions tells us what is missing.
>
I rechecked Himly's description carefully, because there is no picture
to look at.
I reviewed Glover's 2 sets as shown in TPC V32N4.
I got the impression these collectors did not play the game.
> > > The AMNH set is ONLY missing a 9 cash, a 6 string of cash, 1 season
> > > and 2 'wang' tiles. A total of 5 tiles! We know this becuase Glover
> > > wrote a detailed description of his set that was sent with it in 1875.
> > > He lists the complete number of tiles that were in his set. Since they
> > > were ALL in his set when he sent it from Shanghai to New York, the
> > > missing tiles went missing after that time.
But his total comes to 140 tiles in the AMNH set, leaving a single
tile for each wall.
> > You can call an independent reader to count the tiles include the
> > blank spots on the right hand corner area.
>
> We can discuss this here as it involves a small amount of facts easily
> memorised.
>
> (1) There are TWO TILES missing in the right hand corner area of the
> AMNH
> set.
>
Only if you can play with 140 tiles in a set.
> (2) There are NO TILES missing in the right hand corner area of the
> BMA
> set.
>
The bottom right-hand 4 tiles move to fill the empty space, making a
set of 144 tiles for 18 stacks at each wall.
> (3) The blank areas down the sides of the photos are there because
> that was how the museums’ photographers positioned the pieces.
>
But there should be 4 more tiles to complete a set of 144.
> (4) The blank areas on the sides are just the result of the way the
> photographer’s arranged the tiles.
>
> (5) The only missing tiles are those that have left spaces in the
> tile
> groups in the photos.
>
I don't think so.
> (6) ****There is no carved Fa tile in ALL three of the earliest sets.
You are right at that.
> Thus, at this point there is no compelling reason for us to think the
> GROUP of tiles of ZFB did exist.****
>
See my explanation above earlier in this post.
More compelling is the reason for the omnipresence of Winds.
Winds correspond with seasonal changes and the cycle of rural life in
China for thousands of years.
> (7) If he wants to describe what he sees he can choose any picture
> and
> tell us. We want the opportunity to discuss where these NINE missing
> tiles are?
>
I have done so above. If you need further clarification, please let me
know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > There is the issue of selection bias. It may be that the tile sets
> > > uncovered are unrepresentative of what existed at the time. But until
> > > any sets turn up that are different, we have no way of telling. At
> > > this point, the small group of sets is all there is.
> > > Zhong is in both the AMNH set and the BMA set.
> > > But it is NOT in the Himly set. And Himly also provided a detailed
> > > written description of his complete set.
>
> For those not familiar with these sets, Himly and Glover both
> obtained
> tile sets when they were in China in the 1870’s. Both wrote detailed
> descriptions of their sets, listing each group of tiles and in the
> case of Himly, even describing the colours and other decorations.
> Both
> Glover sets are identical in numbers of tiles and numbers and types
> of
> suits and extra groups.
>
> When the actual Glover tile sets were laid out in 2004, they were
> found to be missing a few pieces (SEE ABOVE) when compared to their
> descriptions.
> The Himly set was reconstructed from the extremely detailed
> description given by Himly.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have said enough. I did not read further details in your last part
of the post. I only go by experience and background knowledge of my
native culture. There is a subtle disguise of ZFB in the "three
powers", Man-Eaarth-Heaven of Kings for the Himly set, IMO.
+++++++++++++++
Cheers....
Julian Bradfield
> mahjong player. If the 8 blanks were not part of an active set, 140
> tiles do not divide evenly for 4 players. And if the 8 blanks were
> part of an active set, 148 can not divide evenly for 4 players either.
> 144 which includes 4 blanks for Bai could be a complete set. Himly
> did not say anything on that.
Err, 140 and 148 are divisible by 4.
> Only if you can play with 140 tiles in a set.
What's the problem? I have one set with 148 tiles, and some with 140.
> The bottom right-hand 4 tiles move to fill the empty space, making a
> set of 144 tiles for 18 stacks at each wall.
Now they do. How do you know the current wall-building setup was there
in the early game? It plays no role in the game play, so there's no
reason one has to build tiles into equal walls - they could as well be
drawn from a bag.
Julian Bradfield
> mahjong player. If the 8 blanks were not part of an active set, 140
> tiles do not divide evenly for 4 players. And if the 8 blanks were
> part of an active set, 148 can not divide evenly for 4 players either.
> 144 which includes 4 blanks for Bai could be a complete set. Himly
> did not say anything on that.
Err, 140 and 148 are divisible by 4.
> Only if you can play with 140 tiles in a set.
What's the problem? I have one set with 148 tiles, and some with 140.
> The bottom right-hand 4 tiles move to fill the empty space, making a
> set of 144 tiles for 18 stacks at each wall.
Now they do. How do you know the current wall-building setup was there
al
> On 2009-03-15, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > mahjong player. If the 8 blanks were not part of an active set, 140
> > tiles do not divide evenly for 4 players. And if the 8 blanks were
> > part of an active set, 148 can not divide evenly for 4 players either.
> > 144 which includes 4 blanks for Bai could be a complete set. Himly
> > did not say anything on that.
>
> Err, 140 and 148 are divisible by 4.
>
140 divided by 4 gives 35 tiles (17.5 stacks of 2's for each 'wall').
Mahjong games usually start with equal and round number of stacks for
the 4 'walls'. That is the normal or standard way that I know.
Likewise, 148 divided by 4 gives 37 tiles (18.5 stacks of 2's for each
of the 4 walls).
Customarily players can agree to make adjustment to the set by
reducing it to 136 or 144 tiles somehow.
The rules people can add their opinion and knowledge to the question.
I just go my experience.
> > Only if you can play with 140 tiles in a set.
>
> What's the problem? I have one set with 148 tiles, and some with 140.
>
I noticed you said you "have". Did you play games with 3 other players
using the sets you have?
Do you have extra 4 (in a total of 8) blanks?
> > The bottom right-hand 4 tiles move to fill the empty space, making a
> > set of 144 tiles for 18 stacks at each wall.
>
> Now they do. How do you know the current wall-building setup was there
> in the early game? It plays no role in the game play, so there's no
> reason one has to build tiles into equal walls - they could as well be
> drawn from a bag.
This would be a good point for a non-player, but have you actually
played the game? I mean it is not totally a bad idea. A more thorough
mixing is possible. It is even a better way to play a quieter game,
keeping all pieces hidden in he bag and leaving only the discards on
the table.
+++++++++++++
Cheers...
Julian Bradfield
>> > Only if you can play with 140 tiles in a set.
>>
>> What's the problem? I have one set with 148 tiles, and some with 140.
>>
> I noticed you said you "have". Did you play games with 3 other players
> using the sets you have?
I've never played with anything other than a modern standard set (with
or without the flowers and seasons).
> Do you have extra 4 (in a total of 8) blanks?
No. I don't count the spare blanks in my count. But actually, I
misremembered - while I have sets with 140 tiles (the usual tiles plus
only four singapore style extra tiles), I don't have one with 148 - it
has 156.
>> Now they do. How do you know the current wall-building setup was there
>> in the early game? It plays no role in the game play, so there's no
>> reason one has to build tiles into equal walls - they could as well be
>> drawn from a bag.
>
> This would be a good point for a non-player, but have you actually
> played the game? I mean it is not totally a bad idea. A more thorough
> mixing is possible. It is even a better way to play a quieter game,
> keeping all pieces hidden in he bag and leaving only the discards on
> the table.
Precisely. In my experience, the wall-building ritual is a source of
annoyance to people new to the game. Why do you think Japanese
mah-jong parlours use machines that build the walls for the players?
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 14, 12:38 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
> > [mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote]
> > > > The Himly set had NO ZHONG tiles. The 2 Glover sets
> > > > of the same period ONLY HAD the ZHONG tiles. 20 years later, the
> > > > Wilkinson set is the 1st to show the ZFB group.
>
> Let me see if I explain to you this way. Zhong-Fa Bai has been
> referred to as Triad, Triplicity, Trio, but always as a three-some. In
> the Himly set, a comparable trio is there. Himly called it "san cai"
> or the "three Powers" in page 160, TPC-V32 N4. The tiles representing
> the "three powers" are Heavenly King, Earth King and Man King. Color-
This explanation is confusing.
(1) Is it the claim that the ZFB tiles are actually HK, EK and MK?
(2) Or is it the claim that a triad is present in the Himly set as HK,
EK and MK?
(3) Or is it the claim that there is a triad HK, EK and MK and they
represent or symbolise the triad ZFB?
> The Himly set has 148 tiles; no Zhong, as described on page TPC V32N4.
> Based on the description by Himly, I doubt if Himly himself was a
> mahjong player. If the 8 blanks were not part of an active set, 140
> tiles do not divide evenly for 4 players. And if the 8 blanks were
> part of an active set, 148 can not divide evenly for 4 players either.
> 144 which includes 4 blanks for Bai could be a complete set. Himly
> did not say anything on that.
Is it the hidden assumption that this argument is about and involves
the building of a wall?
> The Glover sets are basically identical, but AMNH set, figure 1, is
> incomplete. A mahjong player can tell. 140 tiles can not divide evenly
> for 4 players at the table.
Is it the assumption here that this involves building a wall?
> In addition to the 5 mentioned as missing,
> 4 Bai or blanks are missing as well. Do you know if Glover was a
> mahjong player?
This is very strange indeed. Figure 1 has 8 blanks down the left hand
side. Counting in the missing 5 tiles, the entire set has 148 tiles.
IF we assume that 4 blanks are used as spares and 4 are used in play,
then a playing set has 144 tiles.
That 4 blank tiles were used a replacements can be seen from the
identical BMA set in Figure 2. That left 144 tiles that could be used
for play - assuming the 4 remaining blanks were used in play.
There is no evidence he was or was not a player.
> > [al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca wrote]
> > > You are referring to incomplete sets of tiles. How do you know what
> > > are missing in total? I checked the pictures of sets in Mahjong(g)
> > > pages. As I said.
>
> I am surprised.
I am confused here. Why would someone be surprised by their own
comment?
> > [mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote]
> > Check again. Further, both Himly and Glover wrote detailed
> > descriptions of their complete sets. Checking the tile sets against
> > their descriptions tells us what is missing.
>
> I rechecked Himly's description carefully, because there is no picture
> to look at.
It appears in The Playing-card Vol. 34, No. 4.
> > We can discuss this here as it involves a small amount of facts easily
> > memorised.
>
> > (1) There are TWO TILES missing in the right hand corner area of the
> > AMNH set.
>
> Only if you can play with 140 tiles in a set.
Why assume that 4 blanks (of the 8) were not used at all?
Why assume that a wall was a required feature of the game?
> > (2) There are NO TILES missing in the right hand corner area of the
> > BMA set.
> The bottom right-hand 4 tiles move to fill the empty space, making a
> set of 144 tiles for 18 stacks at each wall.
> But there should be 4 more tiles to complete a set of 144.
This is very confusing. The photo of the BMA set has 143 tiles in it
(one tile is clealry missing). Including the missing tile makes 144.
So where are the other four blanks? They are in the set as
replacements four four missing tiles. The BMA set had 148 tiles.
IF four blanks are used as spares (a purpose for which they clearly
have already been used) then there are 144 tiles in the BMA set that
can be used. But the assumption is that a wall was a feature of the
early game. With out that assumption the argument doesn't make sense.
> > (4) The blank areas on the sides are just the result of the way the
> > photographer’s arranged the tiles.
> > (5) The only missing tiles are those that have left spaces in the
> > tile groups in the photos.
> I don't think so.
Then why not? What are the assumptions being made here. Please
explain.
> > (6) ****There is no carved Fa tile in ALL three of the earliest sets.
> You are right at that.
> > Thus, at this point there is no compelling reason for us to think the
> > GROUP of tiles of ZFB did exist.****
>
> See my explanation above earlier in this post.
Unfortunately, it is not compelling at this point.
> More compelling is the reason for the omnipresence of Winds.
The assumption is in the interpretation that these tiles are 'winds'.
Why not four cardinal directions (as in Himly) or five directions as
in Glover?
> If you need further clarification, please let me
> know.
Please see questions above.
al
How come you are left to do all heavy lifting?
Where is your co-author? Pick his brain.
Judging by your questions, I am not so sure about your experience in
playing the mahjong game.
And you asked "why .... the winds"? If you ever played the game, then
you would know the winds change round and round. Players call it the
East Wind, South Wind, West Wind or North Wind, as the game
progresses. Winds are markers of TIME.
Conceptually, change of winds represent change of seasons. There is
correspondence between winds and seasons in real life nature and in
Chinese cosmology.
How come you are asking this question now? You had some long posts on
"Wind Order" and direction of rotation. In case you missed what I have
found since then, here is counterclockwise for you...
http://www.mrdowling.com/images/601seasons.jpg
++++++++++++
No. My replies are not about building "walls". The number of tiles in
a mahjong set determines the length of the walls. Its a standard
requirement and normal practice to have the four walls of equal-
length.
136 and 144 give 4 walls of equl length (17 or 18 double-stacks).
140 and 148 will not. Each wall will have 17 or 18 double-stacks + one
odd tile.
The experts on playing rules can tell us what to do if they are
reading this. Should this be an FAQ for clarification?
The way Himly and Glover counted their tiles in a mahjong set gave me
doubts about their knowledge of the game itself. That is just my
impression.
My compelling reason is to quit this now and go for lunch.
++++++++++++++++++++
Cheers...
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 16, 9:09 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
Here are the 1st three questions that were not answered. Can you
please answer them to clarify (as you promised) what you meant in your
claims?
> > > Let me see if I explain to you this way. Zhong-Fa Bai has been
> > > referred to as Triad, Triplicity, Trio, but always as a three-some. In
> > > the Himly set, a comparable trio is there. Himly called it "san cai"
> > > or the "three Powers" in page 160, TPC-V32 N4. The tiles representing
> > > the "three powers" are Heavenly King, Earth King and Man King. Color-
> > > wise, they would match white , green and red.[snip]
>
> > This explanation is confusing.
> > (1) Is it the claim that the ZFB tiles are actually HK, EK and MK?
> > (2) Or is it the claim that a triad is present in the Himly set as HK,
> > EK and MK?
> > (3) Or is it the claim that there is a triad HK, EK and MK and they
> > represent or symbolise the triad ZFB?
Are you able to please answer these questions to clarify what you
mean?
> Where is your co-author? Pick his brain.
I do not have one. The articles were researched and written by me
alone. I did all the hard work and paid most of the expenses.
That is why my name appears next to the titles. I had some help from
others, who I acknowledged at the end of the articles.
> Judging by your questions, I am not so sure about your experience in
> playing the mahjong game.
Why? What is in my questions that makes you not so sure?
> And you asked "why .... the winds"? If you ever played the game, then
> you would know the winds change round and round. Players call it the
> East Wind, South Wind, West Wind or North Wind, as the game
> progresses. Winds are markers of TIME.
I never asked that question. Where did you get that? Are you making it
up?
What I said is below.
> > > More compelling is the reason for the omnipresence of Winds.
> > The assumption is in the interpretation that these tiles are 'winds'.
> > Why not four cardinal directions (as in Himly) or five directions as
> > in Glover?
The question is why are you calling them 'Winds'. Why did you not
consider them the 'Four Cardinal Directions'?
Players today or in the recent past called them 'Winds', but if you go
by your assumption that players could have changed these terms, then
why not say that these terms could have been Directions before they
were called Winds?
If you think that the game was designed by a designer, then why to
consider also that he/she intended these to be Directions?
> Conceptually, change of winds represent change of seasons. There is
> correspondence between winds and seasons in real life nature and in
> Chinese cosmology.
Bu there are other explanations involving the Directions. Why did you
not consider those?
> How come you are asking this question now? You had some long posts on
> "Wind Order" and direction of rotation. In case you missed what I have
> found since then, here is counterclockwise for you...
I am asking these questions now so I can clarify what you mean about
what you are talking about in this post.
You said “If you need further clarification, please let me know." So I
took you at your word and expected that if I asked you questions to
clarify what you said then you would answer me honestly and sincerely.
Are you now saying that I cannot ask you questions to get further
clarification? Are you changing the meaning of what you said?
> No. My replies are not about building "walls". The number of tiles in
> a mahjong set determines the length of the walls. Its a standard
> requirement and normal practice to have the four walls of equal-
> length.
I am afraid you did not read all of my answer. If you did read all of
it then you have not understood what I said. I have repeated it below;
> > This is very confusing. The photo of the BMA set has 143 tiles in it
> > (one tile is clealry missing). Including the missing tile makes 144.
> > So where are the other four blanks? They are in the set as
> > replacements four four missing tiles. The BMA set had 148 tiles.
> > IF four blanks are used as spares (a purpose for which they clearly
> > have already been used) then there are 144 tiles in the BMA set that
> > can be used. But the assumption is that a wall was a feature of the
> > early game. With out that assumption the argument doesn't make sense.
Can you see the last 2 sentences? Notice that I am talking about you
making the ASSUMPTION that wall building was a feature of the early
game. My answer was NOT about building walls. It was about *you making
the assumption* that walls were necessary in the 1st place, in the
very early game.
So you have misunderstood my reply or you did not read to the end of
it.
> 136 and 144 give 4 walls of equal length (17 or 18 double-stacks).
> 140 and 148 will not. Each wall will have 17 or 18 double-stacks + one
> odd tile.
> The experts on playing rules can tell us what to do if they are
> reading this. Should this be an FAQ for clarification?
But they will also have to ASSUME that 4 walls were used at the early
period of the game.
> The way Himly and Glover counted their tiles in a mahjong set gave me
> doubts about their knowledge of the game itself. That is just my
> impression.
Only if you assume more than what the evidence allows you to.
> My compelling reason is to quit this now and go for lunch.
That is funny - and a good idea.
After you get back, can you please reply to these remaining points to
clarify that there were in fact 148 tiles in each set and that 144
could have been used? Here they are again.
> > Figure 1 (AMNH) has 8 blanks down the left hand
> > side. Counting in the missing 5 tiles, the entire set has 148 tiles.
> > IF we assume that 4 blanks are used as spares and 4 are used in play,
> > then a playing set has 144 tiles.
> > That 4 blank tiles were used a replacements can be seen from the
> > identical BMA set in Figure 2. That left 144 tiles that could be used
> > for play - assuming the 4 remaining blanks were used in play.
> > > > (1) There are TWO TILES missing in the right hand corner area of the
> > > > AMNH set.
> > > Only if you can play with 140 tiles in a set.
> > Why assume that 4 blanks (of the 8) were not used at all?
Why assume that a wall was a required feature of the very early game?
> > > > (4) The blank areas on the sides are just the result of the way the
> > > > photographer’s arranged the tiles.
> > > > (5) The only missing tiles are those that have left spaces in the
> > > > tile groups in the photos.
> > > I don't think so.
Why not? Why don’t you think so? Can you please
Clarify?
al
> On Mar 16, 4:42 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 16, 9:09 am, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> Here are the 1st three questions that were not answered. Can you
> please answer them to clarify (as you promised) what you meant in your
> claims?
>
> > > > Let me see if I explain to you this way. Zhong-Fa Bai has been
> > > > referred to as Triad, Triplicity, Trio, but always as a three-some. In
> > > > the Himly set, a comparable trio is there. Himly called it "san cai"
> > > > or the "three Powers" in page 160, TPC-V32 N4. The tiles representing
> > > > the "three powers" are Heavenly King, Earth King and Man King. Color-
> > > > wise, they would match white , green and red.[snip]
>
> > > This explanation is confusing.
> > > (1) Is it the claim that the ZFB tiles are actually HK, EK and MK?
Yes.
> > > (2) Or is it the claim that a triad is present in the Himly set as HK,
> > > EK and MK?
Yes.
> > > (3) Or is it the claim that there is a triad HK, EK and MK and they
> > > represent or symbolise the triad ZFB?
They correspond to Bai-Fa-Zhong.
>
> Are you able to please answer these questions to clarify what you
> mean?
>
Yes. I can. I have 4 books on Dao de Jing. I will choose the simplest
translation for you. It's by Xiaolin Yang "He grew up in a small town
in northern China. He received his B.S. and M.S. in 1982 and 1984 from
Beijing University and Ph.D. in 1991 from the Pennsylvania State
University. Since he was young he has developed a strong interest in
Chinese history and philosophy."
This is a simple version for young people to understand, because he
wrote this book for his teenage daughter and with her as his co-author
co-author in 2002, ISBN0-7414-1314-0.
I will quote Chapter 25 verbatum.
"It started in chaos, before the heavens and the eath existed.
It makes no sound and has no shape,
But it is independent and never changes,
It is always functioning and never stops
So it can be the root of the world.
I do not know its name so I name it the DAO.
And I will also call it the BIG.
BIG means broad, broad means far-reaching,
Far-reaching means everywhere.
Therefore the DAO is BIG, the heavens is BIG,
The earth is BIG and people are BIG too.
The universe has four BIGs, and people are only one of them.
People follow the earth, the earth follws the heavens,
The heavens follows the DAO, and DAO follows nature."
The last two lines contain the concept of Zhong-Fa Bai.
Man follows the laws of the earth. The earth follos the laws of the
heavens. The heavens follows the laws of DAO. Dao follows the laws of
its own (nature).
Furthermore, wang is king, a ruler and the law.
+++++++
Isn't that interesting? Those kings of Heaven, Earth and Man now
finally make sense. I bet you never heard that before this. Himly,
Culin, Wilkinson Glover, Mauger or Millington never explained to you
this way. Every suit and every word in the mahjong set is a symbol
with meaning and I don't mean Cash or money.
And you apologize to the group for introducing me to them? Shame on
you, Michael.
There is more to the mahjong game than what you have heard and read
from the non-player historians who just collected folklore, slang and
nicknames of symbols.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Where is your co-author? Pick his brain.
>
> I do not have one. The articles were researched and written by me
> alone. I did all the hard work and paid most of the expenses.
>
> That is why my name appears next to the titles. I had some help from
> others, who I acknowledged at the end of the articles.
>
> > Judging by your questions, I am not so sure about your experience in
> > playing the mahjong game.
>
> Why? What is in my questions that makes you not so sure?
>
Something...I just leave it for now. But since you asked and you
probably press for an answer. Let me tell you. It's what seems to be
the case that you don't really know how many pieces of tiles should be
in a full set.
> > And you asked "why .... the winds"? If you ever played the game, then
> > you would know the winds change round and round. Players call it the
> > East Wind, South Wind, West Wind or North Wind, as the game
> > progresses. Winds are markers of TIME.
>
> I never asked that question. Where did you get that? Are you making it
> up?
>
> What I said is below.
>
> > > > More compelling is the reason for the omnipresence of Winds.
> > > The assumption is in the interpretation that these tiles are 'winds'.
> > > Why not four cardinal directions (as in Himly) or five directions as
> > > in Glover?
>
> The question is why are you calling them 'Winds'. Why did you not
> consider them the 'Four Cardinal Directions'?
>
> Players today or in the recent past called them 'Winds', but if you go
> by your assumption that players could have changed these terms, then
> why not say that these terms could have been Directions before they
> were called Winds?
>
> If you think that the game was designed by a designer, then why to
> consider also that he/she intended these to be Directions?
>
Regardless, there is simple not any argument. If you are an
experienced mahjong player, you would not raise those questions at
all. The fact is players call ESWN both as winds and directions.
EAST SOUTH WEST NORTH have two dimensions, space and time. Beginner-
players learn that from the start.
+++++++++++
> > Conceptually, change of winds represent change of seasons. There is
> > correspondence between winds and seasons in real life nature and in
> > Chinese cosmology.
>
> Bu there are other explanations involving the Directions. Why did you
> not consider those?
>
The seasonality of the winds is more significant to life and
livelyhood. People change diets and medicate with herbs according to
seasonal changes. Their work in the fields are geared to seasonal
changes.
Changes are what the Book (I-Ching) is all about. Interesting?
++++++++++++++
> > How come you are asking this question now? You had some long posts on
> > "Wind Order" and direction of rotation. In case you missed what I have
> > found since then, here is counterclockwise for you...
See animated version below:
>
> I am asking these questions now so I can clarify what you mean about
> what you are talking about in this post.
>
> You said “If you need further clarification, please let me know." So I
> took you at your word and expected that if I asked you questions to
> clarify what you said then you would answer me honestly and sincerely.
>
> Are you now saying that I cannot ask you questions to get further
> clarification? Are you changing the meaning of what you said?
>
> > No. My replies are not about building "walls". The number of tiles in
> > a mahjong set determines the length of the walls. Its a standard
> > requirement and normal practice to have the four walls of equal-
> > length.
>
> I am afraid you did not read all of my answer. If you did read all of
> it then you have not understood what I said. I have repeated it below;
>
> > > This is very confusing. The photo of the BMA set has 143 tiles in it
> > > (one tile is clealry missing). Including the missing tile makes 144.
> > > So where are the other four blanks? They are in the set as
> > > replacements four four missing tiles. The BMA set had 148 tiles.
I did not say the BMA set is incomplete. Only one tile in the top left
corner is missing. Just need to reposition the 4 tiles at the lower
left corner
> > > IF four blanks are used as spares (a purpose for which they clearly
> > > have already been used) then there are 144 tiles in the BMA set that
> > > can be used. But the assumption is that a wall was a feature of the
> > > early game. With out that assumption the argument doesn't make sense.
>
Walls re not an assumption. That is the way the game is played, as far
as I know. You can argue with other historians and rules experts about
the necessity of walls, but I won't waste my time. But that betrays
your ignorance on the game itself.
> Can you see the last 2 sentences? Notice that I am talking about you
> making the ASSUMPTION that wall building was a feature of the early [game].
I didn't read your last 2 sentences. I had read enough when I replied
in my previous post.
Your rationalization now is like Julian's mahjong "bag"? But that is
where you show your lack of mahjong experience in action. Did you ever
play a game without the walls? Or with walls, for that matter?
> game. My answer was NOT about building walls. It was about *you making
> the assumption* that walls were necessary in the 1st place, in the
> very early game.
>
How early 2000 BC? Why don't go check with Wilkinson or Himly? They
are your ultimate credible evidence.
> So you have misunderstood my reply or you did not read to the end of
> it.
>
I did not read to the end. You showed enough for me to know you lack
playing experience already.
> > 136 and 144 give 4 walls of equal length (17 or 18 double-stacks).
> > 140 and 148 will not. Each wall will have 17 or 18 double-stacks + one
> > odd tile.
> > The experts on playing rules can tell us what to do if they are
> > reading this. Should this be an FAQ for clarification?
>
> But they will also have to ASSUME that 4 walls were used at the early
> period of the game.
>
Unfortunately, as you say, that is life.
+++++++++++
> > The way Himly and Glover counted their tiles in a mahjong set gave me
> > doubts about their knowledge of the game itself. That is just my
> > impression.
>
> Only if you assume more than what the evidence allows you to.
>
What you don't know about something you won't admit it, but you turn
around and attack by trying to make it look as though others don't
know. Is that how the strategy works?
> > My compelling reason is to quit this now and go for lunch.
>
> That is funny - and a good idea.
>
> After you get back, can you please reply to these remaining points to
> clarify that there were in fact 148 tiles in each set and that 144
> could have been used? Here they are again.
>
> > > Figure 1 (AMNH) has 8 blanks down the left hand
> > > side. Counting in the missing 5 tiles, the entire set has 148 tiles.
I looked closely the left hand column. I missed the 8 blanks. I took
them as empty space. No tiles before the one's in all other sets. The
other missing tiles are all in blue color. I counted the blue area on
the far lower corner as 4 missing tiles. There were the 9 blue spaces.
That was my mistake.
> > > IF we assume that 4 blanks are used as spares and 4 are used in play,
> > > then a playing set has 144 tiles.
> > > That 4 blank tiles were used a replacements can be seen from the
> > > identical BMA set in Figure 2. That left 144 tiles that could be used
> > > for play - assuming the 4 remaining blanks were used in play.
You are right. 144 is a complete set. In this picture, the blue spaces
are blanks. Not so in Figure 1, the AMNA set. That was what fooled me
with my poor eye-sight.
> > > > > (1) There are TWO TILES missing in the right hand corner area of the
> > > > > AMNH set.
> > > > Only if you can play with 140 tiles in a set.
> > > Why assume that 4 blanks (of the 8) were not used at all?
That is because I did not see the blank column at the far left side.
>
> Why assume that a wall was a required feature of the very early game?
>
I never give it a thought. I just know that is how to play the game
since I knew how.
> > > > > (4) The blank areas on the sides are just the result of the way the
> > > > > photographer’s arranged the tiles.
> > > > > (5) The only missing tiles are those that have left spaces in the
> > > > > tile groups in the photos.
> > > > I don't think so.
>
I mixed up in recognizing blue and white blank space.
> Why not? Why don’t you think so? Can you please
> Clarify?
Yes. My eye-sight failed me. the blanks occupied different colors
(blue and white) in xerox copies.
However, Himly's count for a complete set surprised me. He did not
mention 4 spares.
++++++++++++++++
There may be typo mistakes. But enough...
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Judging by your questions, I am not so sure about your experience in
> playing the mahjong game.
>know how many pieces of tiles should be in a full set.
>If you are an experienced mahjong player, you would not raise those
> questions at all.
>Walls re not an assumption. That is the way the game is played, as far
>as I know. You can argue with other historians and rules experts about
>the necessity of walls, but I won't waste my time. But that betrays
>your ignorance on the game itself.
>But that is where you show your lack of mahjong experience in action.
>Did you ever play a game without the walls? Or with walls, for that matter?
>You showed enough for me to know you lack playing experience already.
Al,
The above quotes from posts of yours seem to me to be totally
inappropriate and I feel the need to express my condemnation of your
behavior.
I think that everyone on this forum is likely to know modern rules for
mahjong, or at least one version of the rules that they play by.
However, nobody has experience playing mahjong’s original rules, and
we do not even know at present what those original rules were! To
attempt to discredit Michael’s questions and point of view concerning
the history of mahjong based on modern play is simply absurd!
As far as I know, we do not even know the complete rules of play that
were used for sets that included wild cards as presented in Michael’s
latest article in The Playing-Card (Vol. 37, #1: “Flowers and
Kings…”). I do not know what rules you play by (and it really is
irrelevant), but I doubt that those rules would allow you to play with
the sets associated with Himly, Glover, Sheng, Nakamura, ‘Beijing/
Tianjin, or ‘Changsha’. To imply that the rules that you play by are
what is important when discussing the history of mahjong would be
arrogant stupidity!
I feel that you owe this entire forum, and specifically Michael, an
apology for your behavior.
Personally, I think that unless evidence is discovered indicating that
the wall was not built in some version of the game’s past, we should
probably start with the assumption that it may have always been a
feature of mahjong once tiles rather than cards were used to play the
game. But this does not mean that the wall was always built the same
as it is today. Actually, today there are several methods for building
the wall as not all players use a square with all four corners
touching. Four unpaired tiles remaining on each wall would not be
particularly difficult to incorporate into play, and could, for
example, be used on top of the wall at the corners to represent
watchtowers, or on top of the center of each wall to symbolize the
four main gates of the four cardinal directions that a city
fortification may have (this is assuming that the wall may have
originally been intended to represent a city’s walls). Alternatively,
one could construct walls of even height with an extra stack on two of
the four sides in order to accommodate 140 or 148 tile sets. The point
is that until historic rules for play are discovered, we simply do not
know how (or if) the wall was constructed in the 1800s.
Dan
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 16, 3:15 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
Thank you for replying so quickly.
> > > > This explanation is confusing.
> > > > (1) Is it the claim that the ZFB tiles are actually HK, EK and MK?
> Yes.
> > > > (2) Or is it the claim that a triad is present in the Himly set as HK,
> > > > EK and MK?
> Yes.
> > > > (3) Or is it the claim that there is a triad HK, EK and MK and they
> > > > represent or symbolise the triad ZFB?
> They correspond to Bai-Fa-Zhong.
I must admit this is a little confusing.
You see, if the tiles HK, EK, MK are actually BFZ, then why is MK
still in the Glover sets in addition to the red zhong tile?
Also, the ‘wang’ tiles (HK, EK, MK and HK) in this set are not a triad
but are in fact a group of four – a quartet. They all four have the
‘wang’ character and they all have green frames. The only other tiles
with green frames are the Direction ‘wang’ tiles. They are the same in
the two Glover sets as well.
[snip]
Thank you for the interesting quotes from your book.
> Isn't that interesting? Those kings of Heaven, Earth and Man now
> finally make sense. I bet you never heard that before this.
I am sorry to disappoint you. You must remember my mentioning the Book
‘Disputers of the Tao; philosophical argument in ancient China’, by A.
C. Graham.?
They are discussed in that book.
> Every suit and every word in the mahjong set is a symbol
> with meaning and I don't mean Cash or money.
Please can you stop jumping from one subject to another when you have
only been talking about one of them? I find it very tiring trying to
figure out what you are talking about.
You were talking about the triad and what it means in terms of ancient
Chinese philosophy and then you jumped to the mah-jong suits.
You were only talking about one group and then you generalised for no
reason to every suit, without giving me any reasons connecting the two
subjects.
> And you apologize to the group for introducing me to them? Shame on
> you, Michael.
I apologised not for your ideas. I apologised for exposing the forum
to some of your behaviour.
I do not regret doing that for one minute. It was sincerely and
honestly meant.
[snip]
> > > Judging by your questions, I am not so sure about your experience in
> > > playing the mahjong game.
> > Why? What is in my questions that makes you not so sure?
>
> Something...I just leave it for now. But since you asked and you
> probably press for an answer. Let me tell you. It's what seems to be
> the case that you don't really know how many pieces of tiles should be
> in a full set.
What full set? Do you mean the modern full set? Do you mean a full set
from the earliest documented ones? Do you mean a full set from the
beginning of the 20th century? Can you please clarify for me?
Did it never occur to you that I am asking questions of you to find
out what you know and what your assumptions are and what your
reasoning is?
Did it never occur to you that I would give you the opportunity to
offer reasons that might allow me to change my mind?
Just because I asked you a question you jumped to the conclusion about
my experience. You jumped to that conclusion because you ASSUMED I
asked those questions for no other reason than because I did not know.
But you have no knowledge of how much I know and of how much material
I have on the historical development of MJ. You just guessed by
assuming something from your interpretation of what I said.
Please do not make accusations about me when you know nothing about
how much I know. If you want to know something about my knowledge then
please ask. If it is not impertinent then I will answer.
[snip]
> > The question is why are you calling them 'Winds'. Why did you not
> > consider them the 'Four Cardinal Directions'?
>
> > Players today or in the recent past called them 'Winds', but if you go
> > by your assumption that players could have changed these terms, then
> > why not say that these terms could have been Directions before they
> > were called Winds?
> > If you think that the game was designed by a designer, then why to
> > consider also that he/she intended these to be Directions?
>
> Regardless, there is simple not any argument. If you are an
> experienced mahjong player, you would not raise those questions at
> all. The fact is players call ESWN both as winds and directions.
I am not talking about players of today or in the recent past. Because
these players happened approximately 178 years after the time we are
talking about (around or before 1870) they are not directly relevant
unless we have some really good connections between them.
The earliest discussions of ESWN that I am aware of involved these as
Directions, not Winds. Hence, why I asked. The presence of Zhong as
the fifth Direction (middle or Center) was one idea, but put aside.
> EAST SOUTH WEST NORTH have two dimensions, space and time. Beginner-
> players learn that from the start.
Did it never occur to you that I am not talking about what players
know in the present?
> > > Conceptually, change of winds represent change of seasons. There is
> > > correspondence between winds and seasons in real life nature and in
> > > Chinese cosmology.
> > But there are other explanations involving the Directions. Why did you
> > not consider those?
>
> The seasonality of the winds is more significant to life and
> livelyhood. People change diets and medicate with herbs according to
> seasonal changes. Their work in the fields are geared to seasonal
> changes.
This is correct. But what of the conduct of the ruler? His behaviour
throughout the year was also governed by the four Seasons. According
to the discussion in Graham’s book; “With each season the Grand
Historiographer announces which of the potencies of the Five Processes
is now in ascendancy, robes are changed to the appropriate colour, and
the ruler occupies the appropriate quarter of the palace, from East to
South to West to North, moving from month to month through the three
rooms of a quarter.”
There are many rituals involving the functioning of the feudal society
that are performed by the ruler depending on and at the beginning of
each Season.
>>> How come you are asking this question now? [snip]
I asked because I wanted to know whether you had considered other
explanations.
[snip]
> > > > IF four blanks are used as spares (a purpose for which they clearly
> > > > have already been used) then there are 144 tiles in the BMA set that
> > > > can be used. But the assumption is that a wall was a feature of the
> > > > early game. Without that assumption the argument doesn't make sense.
>
> Walls are not an assumption. That is the way the game is played, as far
> as I know. You can argue with other historians and rules experts about
> the necessity of walls, but I won't waste my time. But that betrays
> your ignorance on the game itself.
I am very surprised at your answer. Can you please correct me if I
have misunderstood you?
I think you have not read my answer properly. I said “the assumption
is that a wall WAS a feature of the EARLY game.”
You then replied “That is the way the game IS played…”. My answer was
about the very early period which we know about – around 1850 – 1875.
But you answered about the game being played NOW.
Are you telling me you know that walls were used in that very early
period?
If you are, can you please tell me how do you know?
There may be some evidence that they were used(see below), but it
comes from experiences (observations)taken AT THAT EARLY time.
> > Can you see the last 2 sentences? Notice that I am talking about you
> > making the ASSUMPTION that wall building was a feature of the early [game].
>
> I didn't read your last 2 sentences. I had read enough when I replied
> in my previous post.
> Your rationalization now is like Julian's mahjong "bag"? But that is
> where you show your lack of mahjong experience in action. Did you ever
> play a game without the walls? Or with walls, for that matter?
Only with walls. But I don’t understand why you think walls were used
based on your experience today. Is it an assumption?
Why or how does it show my lack of mah-jong experience in action? I
was only trying to find out your reasoning.
> > My answer was NOT about building walls. It was about *you making
> > the assumption* that walls were necessary in the 1st place, in the
> > very early game.
>
> How early 2000 BC? Why don't go check with Wilkinson or Himly? They
> are your ultimate credible evidence.
Please do not get upset. I really don’t understand why you think
experience of one way of playing the game today (using walls), tells
us that it was a feature of the very early game.
Could you please clarify that for me?
It may be that walls were used, but the evidence must come from that
early time.
You could make an argument from analogy. I would do it by saying that
in a modern game, a prerequisite for building walls is turning the
tiles over and shuffling them around. An early game has this
prerequisite. Therefore the early game had walls. Something like that
perhaps.
> > So you have misunderstood my reply or you did not read to the end of
> > it.
>
> I did not read to the end. You showed enough for me to know you lack
> playing experience already.
How have I done that?
Why is playing experience of one way of playing the game today so
relevant to how the very early game was played?
If I have missed something then I would be really grateful if you
could provide me with some clarification.
> > > The experts on playing rules can tell us what to do if they are
> > > reading this. Should this be an FAQ for clarification?
>
> > But they will also have to ASSUME that 4 walls were used at the early
> > period of the game.
>
> Unfortunately, as you say, that is life.
What does that mean?
Could you please clarify for me if that is what you are really saying
– that in the absence of other evidence, the building of walls in the
early game is an assumption?
> > > The way Himly and Glover counted their tiles in a mahjong set gave me
> > > doubts about their knowledge of the game itself. That is just my
> > > impression.
> > Only if you assume more than what the evidence allows you to.
>
> What you don't know about something you won't admit it, but you turn
> around and attack by trying to make it look as though others don't
> know.
I am not really sure what you mean. Can you give me an example,
please, of something that I won’t admit I don’t know about?
Can you please also show me something that I have said that makes you
think it is an attack and makes you think it makes it look as though
you don’t know?
>Is that how the strategy works?
I am not sure what you mean by strategy. But you seem upset about the
‘knowing’ or ‘not knowing’ Since you are obviously upset about that
and since you have asked, and I appreciate that, I will try and
explain it.
You see, it is called applied Epistemology. It is the study and theory
of how we get to know things.
Based on that is Critical Thinking, which is a method (that I use)
that allows us to try to understand and assess other peoples reasoning
and the arguments and claims from their reasoning, to see if we should
accept them or not.
> > > > Figure 1 (AMNH) has 8 blanks down the left hand
> > > > side. Counting in the missing 5 tiles, the entire set has 148 tiles.
>
> I looked closely the left hand column. I missed the 8 blanks. I took
> them as empty space. No tiles before the one's in all other sets. The
> other missing tiles are all in blue color. I counted the blue area on
> the far lower corner as 4 missing tiles. There were the 9 blue spaces.
> That was my mistake.
That is ok. I understand now. Thank you.
> > > > IF we assume that 4 blanks are used as spares and 4 are used in play,
> > > > then a playing set has 144 tiles.
> > > > That 4 blank tiles were used a replacements can be seen from the
> > > > identical BMA set in Figure 2. That left 144 tiles that could be used
> > > > for play - assuming the 4 remaining blanks were used in play.
>
> You are right. 144 is a complete set. In this picture, the blue spaces
> are blanks. Not so in Figure 1, the AMNA set. That was what fooled me
> with my poor eye-sight.
I understand. Thank you for replying.
> > Why assume that a wall was a required feature of the very early game?
>
> I never give it a thought. I just know that is how to play the game
> since I knew how.
Thank you for that answer. It helps a lot in allowing me to understand
your thinking on this matter.
Can you see now that even though that is how you know to play the game
since you knew how, that does not mean that that was how the game was
played in the very early game?
For that we have to know something relevant about the early gameplay.
(see below and above for this)
> Yes. My eye-sight failed me. The blanks occupied different colors
> (blue and white) in xerox copies.
Now I understand more.
> However, Himly's count for a complete set surprised me. He did not
> mention 4 spares.
I have rechecked Himly. His descriptions appear in two articles.
In one article, he says “All in all there are 148 pieces which, once
turned upside down are melded and ‘washed’.” I think this means
shuffled.
This could indicate that a wall was built IMO, because why else would
the tiles be turned upside down and mixed up? It may be that they were
shoved to one side and then used. But an argument from analogy could
be mounted for the walls scenario. (see above)
In another article he says “Of the remaining bamboo chips 8 are
without any design…”
al
> On Mar 17, 3:30 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Mar 16, 3:15 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Thank you for replying so quickly.
>
> > > > > This explanation is confusing.
> > > > > (1) Is it the claim that the ZFB tiles are actually HK, EK and MK?
> > Yes.
> > > > > (2) Or is it the claim that a triad is present in the Himly set as HK,
> > > > > EK and MK?
> > Yes.
> > > > > (3) Or is it the claim that there is a triad HK, EK and MK and they
> > > > > represent or symbolise the triad ZFB?
> > They correspond to Bai-Fa-Zhong.
>
> I must admit this is a little confusing.
> You see, if the tiles HK, EK, MK are actually BFZ, then why is MK
> still in the Glover sets in addition to the red zhong tile?
Ambiguity never ends! By the way, HK, EK and MK are also referred to
as "three pillars".
We don't really know what the idea was with the person who put those
tiles together that way.
Zhong and Bai together only could mean Body (blood) and soul (spirit),
as a description of states of being, possibly.
Or if Zhong without Bai and Fa, it could be part of the River Chart. I
will will more to say about this. River Chart is in the I-Ching.
> Also, the ‘wang’ tiles (HK, EK, MK and HK) in this set are not a triad
> but are in fact a group of four – a quartet. They all four have the
> ‘wang’ character and they all have green frames. The only other tiles
> with green frames are the Direction ‘wang’ tiles. They are the same in
> the two Glover sets as well.
>
I do not know about any significance of the green frame.
The fourth "Wang" is about the 3 Wangs in H-E-M. When M follows E and
E follows H, the universe is in harmony. Or when the 3 K's follow DAO,
all will be 'ho'.
+++++++++++++++
I have stop here for now.
+++++++++++++
> – ...
>
> read more »
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 17, 7:40 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:
[snip]
> > I must admit this is a little confusing.
> > You see, if the tiles HK, EK, MK are actually BFZ, then why is MK
> > still in the Glover sets in addition to the red zhong tile?
> We don't really know what the idea was with the person who put those
> tiles together that way.
This is definitely true for the most part.
But I think that there is still a little information in the Himly and
Glover sets relating to the groupings in these sets.
For example, there are coloured frames around the extra or non suit
groups of tiles in the Himly set.
By taking the group of the four Directions/Winds tiles and also the
group of the four Seasons, we can see that each group of tiles has
identical frames - double red for the Directions and a single blue
frame for the Seasons.
Since these frames are identical within these groups then we can infer
that similarly coloured frames should denote a common relationship,
The tiles so identified can then be isolated into smaller groups based
on the sinograms meanings - hence the 4 Directions wang tiles for
example and the Heaven, Earth, Man and Harmony wang tiles.
We can therefore identify groups of framed tiles. The exception is the
zong wang which was placed in a group purely for photography reasons.
> Zhong and Bai together only could mean Body (blood) and soul (spirit),
> as a description of states of being, possibly.
You are quite right that we do not know about the use of Zhong nor the
use of the four Bai tiles.
We do not even know their meanings.
> Or if Zhong without Bai and Fa, it could be part of the River Chart. I
> will will more to say about this. River Chart is in the I-Ching.
Zhong, on its own, could be a fifth Direction, that is Center.
Curiously, Wilkinson mentions that in a Domino game he collected,
there were 6 blank tablets that served the purpose of Jokers.
I don't know whether 4 of the eight blanks were used for that purpose,
over and above the use of the other tiles as argued in my last
article.
> > Also, the ‘wang’ tiles (HK, EK, MK and HK) in this set are not a triad
> > but are in fact a group of four – a quartet. They all four have the
> > ‘wang’ character and they all have green frames. The only other tiles
> > with green frames are the Direction ‘wang’ tiles. They are the same in
> > the two Glover sets as well.
>
> I do not know about any significance of the green frame.
> The fourth "Wang" is about the 3 Wangs in H-E-M. When M follows E and
> E follows H, the universe is in harmony. Or when the 3 K's follow DAO,
> all will be 'ho'.
It is clear, IMO, that the HEMH is a quartet and not a triad in the
Himly and Glover sets.
> I have stop here for now.
That is ok.
al
>
> [snip]
>
> Thank you for replying so quickly.
>
> > > > > This explanation is confusing.
> > > > > (1) Is it the claim that the ZFB tiles are actually HK, EK and MK?
> > Yes.
> > > > > (2) Or is it the claim that a triad is present in the Himly set as HK,
> > > > > EK and MK?
> > Yes.
> > > > > (3) Or is it the claim that there is a triad HK, EK and MK and they
> > > > > represent or symbolise the triad ZFB?
> > They correspond to Bai-Fa-Zhong.
>
> I must admit this is a little confusing.
> You see, if the tiles HK, EK, MK are actually BFZ, then why is MK
> still in the Glover sets in addition to the red zhong tile?
> Also, the ‘wang’ tiles (HK, EK, MK and HK) in this set are not a triad
> but are in fact a group of four – a quartet. They all four have the
> ‘wang’ character and they all have green frames. The only other tiles
> with green frames are the Direction ‘wang’ tiles. They are the same in
> the two Glover sets as well.
>
Ambiguity never ends! By the way, HK, EK and MK are also referred to
as "three pillars".
We don't really know what the idea was with the person who put those
tiles together that way.
Zhong and Bai together only, [then they] could mean Body (blood) and
soul (spirit),
as a description of states of being, possibly.
Or if Zhong without Bai and Fa, it could be part of the River Chart. I
will will have more to say about this. River Chart is in the I-Ching.
It has 4 sides and a center.
> Also, the ‘wang’ tiles (HK, EK, MK and HK) in this set are not a triad
> but are in fact a group of four – a quartet. They all four have the
> ‘wang’ character and they all have green frames. The only other tiles
> with green frames are the Direction ‘wang’ tiles. They are the same in
> the two Glover sets as well.
I do not know about any significance of the green frame. I would say
the fourth "Wang" is not part of the triad, but it is about the 3
Wangs in the triad. When M follows E and E follows H, the universe is
in harmony.
+++++++++++
> [snip]
> Thank you for the interesting quotes from your book.
>
> > Isn't that interesting? Those kings of Heaven, Earth and Man now
> > finally make sense. I bet you never heard that before this.
>
> I am sorry to disappoint you. You must remember my mentioning the Book
> ‘Disputers of the Tao; philosophical argument in ancient China’, by A.
> C. Graham.?
>
What did he say exactly? I never did read that book.
You don't mean A.C. Graham had given the same interpretation for the
Hk, EK and Mk, do you? I have to see it to believe it.
> They are discussed in that book.
>
I will have to get a copy of it. You would not tell me how it was
discussed?
> > [..] > [..]
> [snip]
> > > >[..]
> [snip]
>
> > > The question is why are you calling them 'Winds'. Why did you not
> > > consider them the 'Four Cardinal Directions'?
>
I use ESWN as place when refer to player positions and I call ESWN as
winds when I refer to the time cycle of the game.
Winds correspond with seasons and timing cycle of nature. That is way
now to-day ansd it was the way in days of antiquity.
> > > Players today or in the recent past called them 'Winds', but if you go
> > > by your assumption that players could have changed these terms, then
> > > why not say that these terms could have been Directions before they
> > > were called Winds?
Why would you think that is possibly so? Any evidence of that?
The first thing a visitor asks is "What wind?" Nobody asks what
position or direction.
A marker tells who is the East position. The rest is relative.
> > > If you think that the game was designed by a designer, then why to
> > > consider also that he/she intended these to be Directions?
That is the give-away sign for an inexperienced player to the game.
Such question does not exist in the mind of a seasoned player.
Who first wrote about the celestial or cardinal directions among the
western historians?
>
> > Regardless, there is [simply not an] argument. If you are an
> > experienced mahjong player, you would not raise those questions at
> > The fact is players call ESWN both as winds and directions.
>
> I am not talking about players of today or in the recent past. Because
> these players happened approximately 178 years after the time we are
> talking about (around or before 1870) they are not directly relevant
> unless we have some really good connections between them.
>
Precisely, a seasoned MJ player does not need any "connections".
> The earliest discussions of ESWN that I am aware of involved these as
> Directions, not Winds. Hence, why I asked. The presence of Zhong as
> the fifth Direction (middle or Center) was one idea, but put aside.
>
It is easy to be misled by the common reference as directions for
ESWN.
Who were all involved?
I learned more about the ESWN concept now.
http://www.mrdowling.com/images/601seasons.jpg
The diagram shows clearly the seasons and winds change
counterclockwise. But Western historians never wrote about it. Thus
credible evidence is there, but unrecognized.
++++++++++
> > EAST SOUTH WEST NORTH have two dimensions, space and time. Beginner-
> > players learn that from the start.
>
> Did it never occur to you that I am not talking about what players
> know in the present?
>
What players know in the present learned from players in the past.
> > > > Conceptually, change of winds represent change of seasons. There is
> > > > correspondence between winds and seasons in real life nature and in
> > > > Chinese cosmology.
> > > But there are other explanations involving the Directions. Why did you
> > > not consider those?
What or which other explanations do you mean? I can say when I found
out the erth revolves around the sun counterclockwise and generate the
seasonal change which is synonomous with wind change. I have no doubt
in my mind. Wind is the winner.
In addition it bears out in actual game-play. Mahjong is a game that
is driven around by the winds. What more do I need to be convinced? I
did not appreciate this concept until recently.
>
> > The seasonality of the winds is more significant to life and
> > livelihood. People change diets and medicate with herbs according to
> > seasonal changes. Their work in the fields are geared to seasonal
> > changes.
>
> This is correct. But what of the conduct of the ruler? His behaviour
> throughout the year was also governed by the four Seasons. According
> to the discussion in Graham’s book; “With each season the Grand
> Historiographer announces which of the potencies of the Five Processes
> is now in ascendancy, robes are changed to the appropriate colour, and
> the ruler occupies the appropriate quarter of the palace, from East to
> South to West to North, moving from month to month through the three
> rooms of a quarter.”
> There are many rituals involving the functioning of the feudal society
> that are performed by the ruler depending on and at the beginning of
> each Season.
>
Well. You have Graham's book. So you know the seasonality significance
in Chinese history.
> >>> How come you are asking this question now? [snip]
>
> I asked because I wanted to know whether you had considered other
> explanations.
> [snip]
>
I don't need other explanations.
> > > > > IF four blanks are used as spares (a purpose for which they clearly
> > > > > have already been used) then there are 144 tiles in the BMA set that
> > > > > can be used. But the assumption is that a wall was a feature of the
> > > > > early game. Without that assumption the argument doesn't make sense.
>
How early you are thinking now. Are you thinking that mahjong is
really older than when the first set was found (1875 or whenever)?
Did you read any instruction that says walls were not used?
By the way, Chinese players do not refer to "walls". We say *epp doo*
or pile the little pieces or something like that. The notion of 'wall'
was introduced by westerner writers (I believe) when they gave the
fort-building story perhaps.
> > Walls are not an assumption. That is the way the game is played, as far
> > as I know. You can argue with other historians and rules experts about
> > the necessity of walls, but I won't waste my time. But that betrays
> > your ignorance on the game itself.
>
> I am very surprised at your answer. Can you please correct me if I
> have misunderstood you?
>
> I think you have not read my answer properly. I said “the assumption
> is that a wall WAS a feature of the EARLY game.”
> You then replied “That is the way the game IS played…”. My answer was
> about the very early period which we know about – around 1850 – 1875.
> But you answered about the game being played NOW.
>
> Are you telling me you know that walls were used in that very early
> period?
> If you are, can you please tell me how do you know?
>
No. Itis still an old habit. I don't have difference in tense as'I
speak in Chinese. 'Is' is like 'was'.
I believe that was the way the game had been played with stacks of
tiles one way or another. For an orderly process, the tiles had to be
arranged, so the right number of tiles are there to start the game. I
seem to recall something about the tiles were stacked differently in
an earlier period.
I never questioned. I did and do just like others.
> There may be some evidence that they were used(see below), but it
> comes from experiences (observations)taken AT THAT EARLY time.
>
> > > Can you see the last 2 sentences? Notice that I am talking about you
> > > making the ASSUMPTION that wall building was a feature of the early [game].
What is your reason for doubting the assumption?
You have heard or read of a different way to put the tiles for a
mahjong game?
>
> > I didn't read your last 2 sentences. I had read enough when I replied
> > in my previous post.
> > Your rationalization now is like Julian's mahjong "bag"? But that is
> > where you show your lack of mahjong experience in action. Did you ever
> > play a game without the walls? Or with walls, for that matter?
>
> Only with walls. But I don’t understand why you think walls were used
> based on your experience today. Is it an assumption?
>
Now I see a straw-man argument. There is no point.
Are you trying a diversionary tactic?
I remember a term used in other post.
This is a redundant" question.
> Why or how does it show my lack of mah-jong experience in action? I
> was only trying to find out your reasoning.
>
We don't start a game until all tiles are there. Even and equal length
of 'walls' is key indicator. Odd tile is a not a no-go.
> > > My answer was NOT about building walls. It was about *you making
> > > the assumption* that walls were necessary in the 1st place, in the
> > > very early game.
For an orderly no-cheating game, 'walls' are necessary.
You will probably ask what you mean by 'no-cheating?'
>
> > How early 2000 BC? Why don't [you] go check with Wilkinson or Himly? They
> > are your ultimate credible evidence.
>
> Please do not get upset. I really don’t understand why you think
> experience of one way of playing the game today (using walls), tells
> us that it was a feature of the very early game.
>
> Could you please clarify that for me?
>
> It may be that walls were used, but the evidence must come from that
> early time.
>
> You could make an argument from analogy. I would do it by saying that
> in a modern game, a prerequisite for building walls is turning the
> tiles over and shuffling them around. An early game has this
> prerequisite. Therefore the early game had walls. Something like that
> perhaps.
That was not meant to be an argument. It was my observation.
You are trying to make it into a big argument, by the look of it.
It's time for me to put my wall up just now. Supper is waiting.
++++++++++++++++++
Cheers...
>
> > > So you have misunderstood my reply or you did not read to the end of
> > > it.
>
> > I did not read to the end. You showed enough for me to know you lack
> > playing experience already.
>
> How have I done that?
>
> Why is playing experience of one way of playing the game today so
> relevant to how the very early game was played?
>
> If I have missed something then I would be really grateful if you
> could provide me with some clarification.
>
> > > > The experts on playing rules can tell us what to do if they are
> > > > reading this. Should this be an FAQ for clarification?
>
> > > But they will also have to ASSUME that 4 walls were used at the early
> > > period of the game.
>
> > Unfortunately, as you say, that is life.
>
> What does that mean?
>
> Could you please clarify for me if that is what you are really saying
> – ...
>
> read more »
pa...@email.unc.edu
> By the way, Chinese players do not refer to "walls". We say *epp doo*
> or pile the little pieces or something like that. The notion of 'wall'
> was introduced by westerner writers (I believe) when they gave the
> fort-building story perhaps.
Al,
Could you please expand on your knowledge here?
By ‘Chinese players’ do you just mean those players in your circle of
acquaintances, or do you have sources of information that generalize
this statement to other regions (e.g. Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai,
Canton, Taiwan, etc.)? Do Japanese players not refer to ‘walls’? What
about Chinese race players born in Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, etc.?
[Is “epp doo” Cantonese? What would the pinyin equivalent be?]
What gives you the impression that western writers ‘introduced’ the
term rather than simply relaying what their Chinese sources told them?
Where have you seen references to a ‘fort-building story’?
When you begin by determining where to make the initial opening in the
‘pile’ in order to begin dealing the tiles for each players initial
hand, what do you use to describe this (I guess that it would not be
‘opening the wall’ or anything similar)?
Dan
msta...@talktalk.net
> On Mar 17, 7:40 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 17, 3:30 am,
> > Also, the ‘wang’ tiles (HK, EK, MK and HK) in this set are not a triad
> > but are in fact a group of four – a quartet. They all four have the
> > ‘wang’ character and they all have green frames. The only other tiles
> > with green frames are the Direction ‘wang’ tiles. They are the same in
> > the two Glover sets as well.
>
> I do not know about any significance of the green frame. I would say
> the fourth "Wang" is not part of the triad, but it is about the 3
> Wangs in the triad. When M follows E and E follows H, the universe is
> in harmony.
That is also my understanding of the relationship (Culin also mentions
it in his 1924 article). However, my point is that in these tile sets
these tiles are shown as a group of 4, as I argued above, and hence
that relationship is seen to be involving all of them. It is that
relationship that is expressed through them being seen and understood
as a quartet.
> > I am sorry to disappoint you. You must remember my mentioning the Book
> > ‘Disputers of the Tao; philosophical argument in ancient China’, by A.
> > C. Graham.?
>
> What did he say exactly? I never did read that book.
“Still avoiding the disputed issue of whether all thinking is at
bottom binary, one may notice that the binary tends to leave out the
maker of the opposition. ‘Left/right’, ‘above/below’, ‘before/after’ …
imply a spatial or temporal centre from which the opposition is drawn,
inviting the expansion of the pair to a triad. Thus in China the pair
heaven above and Earth below grows towards the end of the classical
period to the triad heaven, Earth and man.”
> You don't mean A.C. Graham had given the same interpretation for the
> Hk, EK and Mk, do you? I have to see it to believe it.
I am not sure what you mean.
> I will have to get a copy of it. You would not tell me how it was
> discussed?
See above.
> > > > The question is why are you calling them 'Winds'. Why did you not
> > > > consider them the 'Four Cardinal Directions'?
> I use ESWN as place when refer to player positions and I call ESWN as
> winds when I refer to the time cycle of the game.
> Winds correspond with seasons and timing cycle of nature. That is way
> now to-day and it was the way in days of antiquity.
Perhaps. However, it does not answer my question about whether you
chose to ignore other explanations (see below) and if so, why?
> > > > Players today or in the recent past called them 'Winds', but if you go
> > > > by your assumption that players could have changed these terms, then
> > > > why not say that these terms could have been Directions before they
> > > > were called Winds?
> Why would you think that is possibly so?
Because we don’t know either way. There is no evidence from the time
of the earliest mention of ma que, that ESWN were called Winds by the
players. Perhaps they were and perhaps they were not.
Just because players now or in modern times call them Winds is not
evidence or reason for them being called Winds in the past.
There is evidence that terms (I mistakenly said ‘these terms’ ) used
for the pieces in the tile set were changed over a specific interval
of time and so you extrapolated and assumed that it could have
happened in previous times even though we have no evidence for that at
all.
So if you believe that and to be consistent, then why not apply that
assumption to the term used for the ESWN pieces?
> Any evidence of that?
No there isn’t, just as there isn’t any evidence for them being called
Winds at that time. That is part of my point. There is no evidence in
either proposition’s favour. (Unless you have some from that time?)
> The first thing a visitor asks is "What wind?" Nobody asks what
> position or direction.
So you know this happened back in pre 1870?
Do you mean you know how (you have evidence) the game was played?
> > > > If you think that the game was designed by a designer, then why to
> > > > consider also that he/she intended these to be Directions?
>
> That is the give-away sign for an inexperienced player to the game.
> Such question does not exist in the mind of a seasoned player.
But a seasoned player of TODAY. Do you mean you know about (you have
evidence?) the players back in pre 1870?
Also, I would like to know why you keep banging on about being a
player, as if that has any relevance to the period we are talking
about. Sure, if we were talking about modern times (20th/21st
centuries) then yes, my experience as a player might be relevant,
because we know quite a lot about the game plays of the various types
of game.
> Who first wrote about the celestial or cardinal directions among the
> western historians?
I think it was Himly who mentioned the celestial Directions but the
idea of the Directions is mentioned in Graham, who discusses the
correlation of the Seasons with the Directions and the numbers 1 – 9
with these.
> > I am not talking about players of today or in the recent past. Because
> > these players happened approximately 178 years after the time we are
> > talking about (around or before 1870) they are not directly relevant
> > unless we have some really good connections between them.
>
> Precisely, a seasoned MJ player does not need any "connections".
But it is not about what ‘seasoned MJ players’ of today need.
If you are going to argue that the ‘seasoned MJ players’ of around
1870 called them Winds or Directions or both, then you must give me
some credible evidence to show that was the case. Otherwise, we just
do not know.
Do you have any evidence of what terms they used for ESWN back in
~1870?
Because there is no evidence either way, I am withholding any
judgement on the matter – in other words, I am completely open minded
as far as that goes.
But if you say that one of the terms could not have been used for such
and such a reason, I will be interested in your thinking.
> > The earliest discussions of ESWN that I am aware of involved these as
> > Directions, not Winds. Hence, why I asked. The presence of Zhong as
> > the fifth Direction (middle or Center) was one idea, but put aside.
>
> It is easy to be misled by the common reference as directions for
> ESWN.
Why misled? Can you please tell me? I do not understand what you mean.
> Who were all involved?
I don’t understand your question. Can you please tell me what you
mean?
> The diagram shows clearly the seasons and winds change
> counterclockwise. But Western historians never wrote about it. Thus
> credible evidence is there, but unrecognized.
I am not going to comment about this aspect here as it already has
been discussed before. However, if you wish to restart the discussion,
as a new thread (not subject), then please feel free.
>> > EAST SOUTH WEST NORTH have two dimensions, space and time. Beginner-
> > > players learn that from the start.
> > Did it never occur to you that I am not talking about what players
> > know in the present?
> What players know in the present learned from players in the past.
That is probably true. But what things were learnt is another matter,
don’t you agree?
> > > > But there are other explanations involving the Directions. Why did you
> > > > not consider those?
> What or which other explanations do you mean? I can say when I found
> out the earth revolves around the sun counter clockwise and generate the
> seasonal change which is synonymous with wind change. I have no doubt
> in my mind. Wind is the winner.(can you please see below)
> In addition it bears out in actual game-play. Mahjong is a game that
> is driven around by the winds. What more do I need to be convinced? I
> did not appreciate this concept until recently.
That is good. I am pleased that you are gaining new appreciation and
knowledge.
But do you remember the thread’Winds Order’? There was information in
that about the fact that the counter clockwise rotation of play was
present in the card game Ma Diao, at a time before the earliest
recorded mention of ma que.
It is conceivable that this counter clockwise rotation of play was
inherited from Ma Diao and everything else was superimposed on that.
> > > The seasonality of the winds is more significant to life and
> > > livelihood. People change diets and medicate with herbs according to
> > > seasonal changes. Their work in the fields are geared to seasonal
> > > changes.
> > This is correct. But what of the conduct of the ruler? His behaviour
> > throughout the year was also governed by the four Seasons. According
> > to the discussion in Graham’s book; “With each season the Grand
> > Historiographer announces which of the potencies of the Five Processes
> > is now in ascendancy, robes are changed to the appropriate colour, and
> > the ruler occupies the appropriate quarter of the palace, from East to
> > South to West to North, moving from month to month through the three
> > rooms of a quarter.”
> > There are many rituals involving the functioning of the feudal society
> > that are performed by the ruler depending on and at the beginning of
> > each Season.
> Well. You have Graham's book. So you know the seasonality significance
> in Chinese history.
But you have not commented on my points about the rulers’ seasonal and
directional progression around his palace etc. - as another possible
explanation involving the *Directions*, the Seasons.
I am not for one minute saying that was the case – it is just another
possible idea.
> > >>> How come you are asking this question now? [snip]
> > I asked because I wanted to know whether you had considered other
> > explanations.
> I don't need other explanations.
Even though you have no evidence at all about how the game was played
in terms of positions of players and movement of play?
> > Are you telling me you know that walls were used in that very early
> > period?
> > If you are, can you please tell me how do you know?
>
> No. It is still an old habit. I don't have difference in tense as'I
> speak in Chinese. 'Is' is like 'was'.
That is really helpful. Thank you. It helps me to understand your
thinking.
> I believe that was the way the game had been played with stacks of
> tiles one way or another. For an orderly process, the tiles had to be
> arranged, so the right number of tiles are there to start the game. I
> seem to recall something about the tiles were stacked differently in
> an earlier period.
> I never questioned. I did and do just like others.
> > There may be some evidence that they were used(see below), but it
> > comes from experiences (observations) taken AT THAT EARLY time.
> > > > Can you see the last 2 sentences? Notice that I am talking about you
> > > > making the ASSUMPTION that wall building was a feature of the early [game].
>
> What is your reason for doubting the assumption?
Ok. Let’s see. Your assumption = wall building was a feature of the
early game.
Now I have to ask, what evidence from that early time do you have that
supports in any way, your assumption?
In the absence of any evidence from that time, the assumption is no
better than a guess.
So it’s not about doubting the assumption. It is about whether you
have any evidence derived from something from that time, which gives
you some reason to suppose the stacking was a feature of the early
game.
I am not saying it wasn’t mind you.
> You have heard or read of a different way to put the tiles for a
> mahjong game?
No. I know of Julian’s possibility. But I have mentioned some sort of
evidence below – taken from Himly’s account.
But I don’t know whether you would be interested because he is a
Westerner.
> > > I didn't read your last 2 sentences. I had read enough when I replied
> > > in my previous post.
> > > Your rationalization now is like Julian's mahjong "bag"? But that is
> > > where you show your lack of mahjong experience in action. Did you ever
> > > play a game without the walls? Or with walls, for that matter?
>
> > Only with walls. But I don’t understand why you think walls were used
> > based on your experience today. Is it an assumption?
>
> Now I see a straw-man argument. There is no point.
> Are you trying a diversionary tactic?
Absolutely not. I am politely discussing this subject with you. We
both are asking questions and making points. My question is absolutely
sincere.
What is wrong with my question? Can you please tell me?
I asked you a simple question. But perhaps you have made an assumption
about my knowledge and so you are jumping to the conclusion that my
argument is a straw-man and a diversionary tactic?
Is that what is happening in your thinking?
> I remember a term used in other post.
> This is a redundant" question.
But why?? Can you please explain why it is? Perhaps I am missing
something here.
> > Why or how does it show my lack of mah-jong experience in action? I
> > was only trying to find out your reasoning.
>
> We don't start a game until all tiles are there. Even and equal length
> of 'walls' is key indicator. Odd tile is a not a no-go.
But no one is talking about odd number of tiles. Also, when you say
“we don’t start a game until all the tiles are there” are you meaning
now, in modern times?
I am talking about the game of ~1870.
What I am trying to get across is that we have no knowledge of how the
game was played back then, and so extrapolating back from what you do
now, to way back then is a massive leap with no supporting reasons.
I am saying that without any hint from that time we should withhold
our judgement – unless we say it is an unsupported assumption.
> > > > My answer was NOT about building walls. It was about *you making
> > > > the assumption* that walls were necessary in the 1st place, in the
> > > > very early game.
>
> For an orderly no-cheating game, 'walls' are necessary.
> You will probably ask what you mean by 'no-cheating?'
No, I get your drift. But my objection is still the same about the
massive, unstated assumption you are making.
I am not saying ‘walls’ were not used mind you. I am just trying to
find out how you reasoned from the present back into the past – this
is the unstated part of your reasoning.
> > > How early 2000 BC? Why don't [you] go check with Wilkinson or Himly? They
> > > are your ultimate credible evidence.
> > Please do not get upset. I really don’t understand why you think
> > experience of one way of playing the game today (using walls), tells
> > us that it was a feature of the very early game.
> > Could you please clarify that for me?
> > It may be that walls were used, but the evidence must come from that
> > early time.
> > You could make an argument from analogy. I would do it by saying that
> > in a modern game, a prerequisite for building walls is turning the
> > tiles over and shuffling them around. An early game has this
> > prerequisite. Therefore the early game had walls. Something like that
> > perhaps.
> That was not meant to be an argument. It was my observation.
What was your observation? The 2000BC wisecrack? (It was pretty funny
by the way).
> You are trying to make it into a big argument, by the look of it.
No. Actually, the analogy argument is a pretty good one for why
‘walls’ might have been used.
Or do you mean a big disagreement?
> It's time for me to put my wall up just now. Supper is waiting.
That is funny also. A sense of humour is always an advantage in life.
Thank you for replying.
al
> On Mar 18, 10:24 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 7:40 pm, mstanw...@talktalk.net wrote:> On Mar 17, 3:30 am,
> > > Also, the ‘wang’ tiles (HK, EK, MK and HK) in this set are not a triad
> > > but are in fact a group of four – a quartet. They all four have the
> > > ‘wang’ character and they all have green frames. The only other tiles
> > > with green frames are the Direction ‘wang’ tiles. They are the same in
> > > the two Glover sets as well.
>
> > I do not know about any significance of the green frame. I would say
> > the fourth "Wang" is not part of the triad, but it is about the 3
> > Wangs in the triad. When M follows E and E follows H, the universe is
> > in harmony.
>
> That is also my understanding of the relationship (Culin also mentions
> it in his 1924 article). However, my point is that in these tile sets
> these tiles are shown as a group of 4, as I argued above, and hence
> that relationship is seen to be involving all of them. It is that
> relationship that is expressed through them being seen and understood
> as a quartet.
>
the game-play and in number of players and seating plan.
Could we not consider the H. E. M. as triad, and as quartet also? Take
(1) Heaven (2) Earth (3) Man and (4) Heaven-Erath-Man as a whole in
unity. HU means 'together'. Let's name it HEM.
> > > I am sorry to disappoint you. You must remember my mentioning the Book
> > > ‘Disputers of the Tao; philosophical argument in ancient China’, by A.
> > > C. Graham.?
>
> > What did he say exactly? I never did read that book.
>
> “Still avoiding the disputed issue of whether all thinking is at
> bottom binary, one may notice that the binary tends to leave out the
> maker of the opposition. ‘Left/right’, ‘above/below’, ‘before/after’ …
> imply a spatial or temporal centre from which the opposition is drawn,
> inviting the expansion of the pair to a triad. Thus in China the pair
> heaven above and Earth below grows towards the end of the classical
> period to the triad heaven, Earth and man.”
>
I do not see what Graham was disputing. Do you?
Of Course Heaven-Earth-Man triad is not new. Graham was not first to
have interpreted or translated the concept. I don't think.
You don't mean he had made a link to the Heaven King, Earth King and
Man King in mahjong set, do you?
> > You don't mean A.C. Graham had given the same interpretation for the
> > Hk, EK and Mk, do you? I have to see it to believe it.
>[..]
> > I will have to get a copy of it. You would not tell me how it was
> > discussed?
>
> See above.
I don't see what Graham's dispute is about.
>
> > > > > The question is why are you calling them 'Winds'. Why did you not
> > > > > consider them the 'Four Cardinal Directions'?
As I said, ESWN can be both, compass directions and wind directions.
When refer to compass directions, MJ players say East or whatever
direction and when refer to winds,they would say East-Wind or
whichever prevailing Wind may be.
> > I use ESWN as place when refer to player positions and I call ESWN as
> > winds when I refer to the time cycle of the game.
> > Winds correspond with seasons and timing cycle of nature. That is [the] way
> > now to-day and it was [ I assume] the way in days of antiquity.
>
> Perhaps. However, it does not answer my question about whether you
> chose to ignore other explanations (see below) and if so, why?
>
I don't have a good answer for your question. Somebody else might.
Post it as an FAQ for the experts.
[..]
>[..]
> > The first thing a visitor comes to the house when an MJ game is going on would say] is "What wind?" Nobody asks what
> > position or direction.
Or "who is winning?"
>
> So you know this happened back in pre 1870?
>
No. There is no need to know that.
Are you trying to prove something? Ask the researchers in this group.
> [..][..]
> > Who first wrote about the celestial or cardinal directions among the
> > western historians?
>
> I think it was Himly who mentioned the celestial Directions but the
> idea of the Directions is mentioned in Graham, who discusses the
> correlation of the Seasons with the Directions and the numbers 1 – 9
> with these.
>
They (Himly and Graham) should have all the answers you are seeking.
[..]
> But if you say that one of the terms could not have been used for such
> and such a reason, I will be interested in your thinking.
>
ESWN is dual dimensional applying to space and time.
Time and Space have not changed inthe past 200 years.
> > > The earliest discussions of ESWN that I am aware of involved these as
> > > Directions, not Winds. Hence, why I asked. The presence of Zhong as
> > > the fifth Direction (middle or Center) was one idea, but put aside.
It took some time for me to realize the time dimension of ESWN.
When I recognized and began to appreciate the seasonality of the
mahjong game, that was when I could see the change of the winds and
the meaning of it.
I do not need to go back hundreds of years to confirm the presense of
winds in mahjong. The core concept of the game is about change.
Compass directions do not change (although players' relative positions
change in reference to a 4-sided frame). Winds change by virtue of the
seasons as shown in animation below.
http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es0408/es0408page01.cfm?chapter_no=visualization
>
> > It is easy to be misled by the common reference as directions for
> > ESWN.
>
> Why misled? Can you please tell me? I do not understand what you mean.
>
ESWN has direct reference to directions.
ESWN has indirect reference to winds; ESWN being winds only in
connection with seasons.
> >[..]
> > The diagram [animation] shows clearly the seasons and winds change
> > counterclockwise. [..]
>
> I am not going to comment about this aspect here as it already has
> been discussed before. However, if you wish to restart the discussion,
> as a new thread (not subject), then please feel free.
>
I have no need to discuss. I have no need to convince anybody.
That is how winds blow!
> >> >[..]
>[..][..]
>[..][..][..]
> Even though you have no evidence at all about how the game was played
> in terms of positions of players and movement of play?
>
You sound so much like being in a debate. You have to score some
points.
[..]
>
> > I believe that was the way the game had been played with stacks of
> > tiles one way or another. For an orderly process, the tiles had to be
> > arranged, so the right number of tiles are there to start the game. I
> > seem to recall something about the tiles were stacked differently in
> > an earlier period.
> > I never questioned. I did and do just like others.
Check with the rules experts and historians.
> > >[..]
+++++++++++++
Cheers....