Origin of Mahjong : Invented or Evolved?

On Nov 22, 10:39 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> If we compare with the German board games, we'll see that this is probably
> not a very useful question to ask, just as it is not a very useful question
> to ask about (the more innovative ones among) the German games.

I do not know any German games. I only know something about mahjong.
Also, I was not concerned with usefulness of the question. I was
interested in historical factual information.

What German games you considered "innovative and similar to mahjong?

>
> Mahjong has inherited some elements from other games, but there are
> clear departures from those games such that mahjong could not be born
> without injecting a fair amount of innovation. If we look at the
> bunch of German games which are usually said to be "innovative", each of
> them borrows many of its ideas from other games. The bottom line is,
> after a certain point (which was centuries ago), /every/ game was "evolved"
> so it is a redundant question.
>
Specifically, what are "some elements" inherited from which other
games. Also where are the "clear departures" from those "other games?
I am interested in mahjong only. Your answers would be appreciated.
++++++++
Cheers....al
> --[..]

On Nov 22, 10:39 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> If we compare with the German board games, we'll see that this is probably
> not a very useful question to ask, just as it is not a very useful question
> to ask about (the more innovative ones among) the German games.
>
On the contrary, I consider it an important question to answer.

If mahjong was an invention, it could and should have its own version
of symbols without necessarily inherit the so-called "money-derived"
symbols.
Mahjong's rules of play are very different from matiao for one thing.
It features sub-set formation and not "trick-taking"
Mahjong is totally void of drawings of animate figures on its
instrument. Its symbol design is simple but ambiguous.(No fish; no
guest with missing teeth etc.)

> Mahjong has inherited some elements from other games, but there are
> clear departures from those games such that mahjong could not be born
> without injecting a fair amount of innovation. [..]

The "injection of innovation" makes mahjong an invention. Furthermore,
mahjong has different approach in game-play reflecting a different
intellectual concept from other games, tthen and now. The game is and
was an invention. As such its symbols need not be a conformity of old
"money-derived" symbols. It ought to have been different.

[>] The bottom line is,
> after a certain point (which was centuries ago), /every/ game was "evolved"
> so it is a redundant question.
>
The difference is how much change occurred at one critical juncture in
the history of "evolving"
In the case of mahjong, I believe there was a drastic "departure" from
the old games at one point and that is when invention took place. With
that in mind, we should allow a departure from the old games, (symbols
and all).

> --[..]"
> - Alan Kwan / ta... RemoveThis @netvigator.com
> Zung Jung mahjong official website:http://www.zj-mahjong.info/

++++++++++
Cheers....al

On Nov 22, 10:39 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> If we compare with the German board games, we'll see that this is probably
> not a very useful question to ask, just as it is not a very useful question
> to ask about (the more innovative ones among) the German games.
>
Mr. Kwan, the purpose of my question was to find out what mahjong
scholars like you, and some enthusiasts think how mahjong came about.
And you didn't think it was a useful question. I am still not sure why
you said that was not a useful question to ask. Perhaps you thought
the origin of mahjong is a forgone conclusion?

How can you be so sure? Did you read Lo's translation of matiao
published in The-Playing-Card? Matiao is regarded by historians as an
"important progenitor" of mahjong. The 40-card matiao (with round
taiji diagram and stringy trigrams which were renamed to Cash and
Strings of Cash) was conjectured to have reduced to 30 cards and
doubled to 60. The reasoning behind this idea may be perhaps Mo He Pai
could not ever be created without ancestry and hereditary
characteristics somewhat immutable. To make the numbers fit, somebody
had to have redoubled the cards to 120. As for the fourth and brand
new suit of cards, 16 to 24 of them, nobody says where and why they
came about and no scholars, like you, or historians, care to explain.
Money seems to be the only thing that counts because it was a
recognizable symbol in one of the old card sets.

From this, historians, scholars and mahjong enthusiasts all sing to
the tune of money-based game.

Now II tell you why I think it is an important question to ask:
whether mahjong was evolved or invented (and evolved.)

If mahjong was invented and then evolved, (instead evolved and
evolved), then mahjong would naturally be possible, without question,
to have new features like different symbols, different set-up,
different format, different rules of play, different method of
counting. All differences could even add up to a different
philosophical approach to the game based on some core philosophical
concept (rather than Cash, Strings of Cash and Myriads of Cash which
offer no explanation to the many unique characteristics of mahjong).

In reverse, mahjong has all the uniquely different features, such as
sub-set forming and not trick-taking, 14 cards in a pattern of
2-3-3-3-3 to win through continual changes by 'draw and discard' in
circular directions etc. etc. Then it was an invention (with new ideas
and new features). Naturally it was possible for its symbols to be
different from Cash, Strings of Cash and Myriads of Cash. In other
words, Cash has no base in mahjong by virtue of invention and
innovation.

You noticed I capitalized Cash? The Cash cards in Matiao (the
"important progenitor") have people's names. Cash was personified,
like Johnny Cash.

> Mahjong has inherited some elements from other games, but there are
> clear departures from those games such that mahjong could not be born
> without injecting a fair amount of innovation. [..]

You said it there. I agree with you. Innovation goes with invention.
New invention builds on old invention. A new invention can be
qualified by any true innovation.

> The bottom line is, after a certain point (which was centuries ago), /every/ game was "evolved"

Again, I agree. An invention like mahjong has gone through changes
over time.

> so it is a redundant question.
>
That I disagree. In fact I strongly disagree. My question relates to
and can affect the story told so far about the historical development
of the game, mahjong. And it has not been asked. So, it is definitely
not a redundant question.
++++++
Cheers....al
> --
> "�j�P���ҥH�j�A�N�O�Q�b���m�b�p�P���e�M�P�C�j�[�u�_�M�v�W�w�A
> �p�P����M���ܡA�K�֤]���o�M�j�P�A�S���ƻ�ȱo�}�u���C
> �n�D�j�P�n��m�b�p�P���e�~��M�A�o�~�O�u�����޳N�D�ԡC"
> "The true challenge of skill lies where big hands have to beat small
> hands in speed in order to win. With a Minimum Requirement rule, anybody
> can make big hands with no impediment; they cease to be extraordinary."
> - Alan Kwan / ta... DeleteThis @netvigator.com
> Zung Jung mahjong official website:http://www.zj-mahjong.info/

>"al" wrote...

>Mr. Kwan, the purpose of my question was to find out what mahjong
>scholars like you, and some enthusiasts think how mahjong came about.
>And you didn't think it was a useful question. I am still not sure why
>you said that was not a useful question to ask. Perhaps you thought
>the origin of mahjong is a forgone conclusion?
>
>How can you be so sure?

You jump to conclusions so easily. Another, more likely, hypothesis would be
that he is doing just the opposite. More likely he thinks the origin of
mahjong is unknown and undiscoverable, because it was not documented.

>... historians, scholars and mahjong enthusiasts all sing to
>the tune of money-based game.

They have good reason to do so, as they have shown, and as you refuse to
accept. You keep throwing around your own hypotheses based on ideas you
pulled out of thin air, and you don't understand why nobody is dancing to
YOUR tune!

>My question relates to
>and can affect the story told so far about the historical development
>of the game, mahjong. And it has not been asked.

Not true. Asked, yes. Just not answered definitively. We're not going to
find the answer by means of your "thought experiments" - our best hope is
the serious work the historians and scholars are doing.

Tom

On Dec 10, 12:37 pm, "Tom Sloper" <tslo....DeleteThis@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com>
wrote:
> >"al" wrote...
> >Mr. Kwan, the purpose of my question was to find out what mahjong
> >scholars like you, and some enthusiasts think how mahjong came about.
> >And you didn't think it was a useful question. I am still not sure why
> >you said that was not a useful question to ask. Perhaps you thought
> >the origin of mahjong is a forgone conclusion?
>
> >How can you be so sure?
>
> You jump to conclusions so easily. Another, more likely, hypothesis would be
> that he is doing just the opposite. More likely he thinks the origin of
> mahjong is unknown and undiscoverable, because it was not documented.
>
I have to admit. You have some good points. I did jump to conclusion
too quick on the Sparrow theme. But I maintain the game has a theme. A
theme should be be the starting point of a game. I read in Wikipedia.
A game consultant would concur with that. Theme is now based on Book
of Changes.

A game of such sophistication as mahjong did not come by random
chance. On that basis, I seek and found, with help from people like
you, an underlying conceptual base which so far unnoticed by scholars
and enthusiasts of the game.
Remember the game was played first by olden day Chinese scholars and
educated influential upper class people in China. They probably knew
that the game was philosophical with I-ching principles because matiao
had taiji diagram for its circle-suit of cards, but all that got lost
soon as the game gets to the level of society among commoners. Then
confusion began. People start calling what the symbol look like to
themselves at different places, such as, Cash, Cake, Container, and
pipe for the one circle-shape. When the core concept for the game was
unclear, the names of the symbols have no frame of reference. You can
it a dot or a dish. That happened to mahjong.

I did jump to conclusion in the case of 'Why A Sparrow'. I was
unfamiliar with the discussion group culture. I was used to say just
what I believe and don't say it if I didn't believe in it. That is
state what is in mind and discuss and argue and exchange. But I
appreciate your straight talk. I have given my honest opinion too.

> >... historians, scholars and mahjong enthusiasts all sing to
> >the tune of money-based game.
>
> They have good reason to do so, as they have shown, and as you refuse to
> accept. You keep throwing around your own hypotheses based on ideas you
> pulled out of thin air, and you don't understand why nobody is dancing to
> YOUR tune!
>
No. I can not agree with you here. The Cash-base is far from clearly
shown to my satisfaction. I just looked through Michae 's 4 papers. I
saw no circle with a single square center to indicate that suit was
Cash Coin. Basically I am saying Cash is no cash and Mouse is no
mouse, still.

When people do not follow my way of thinking, they either have a
preconception of their own or they don't understand my idea as yet. It
does not mean I am wrong. Good and bad ideas are all from thin air and
thick skin. Some of the best ideas were labeled as wacky at first.
Some times people would not follow other's new idea for personal
reasons. That is why the world changes so slowly through the ages even
in science.

> >My question relates to
> >and can affect the story told so far about the historical development
> >of the game, mahjong. And it has not been asked.
>
> Not true. Asked, yes. Just not answered definitively. We're not going to
> find the answer by means of your "thought experiments" - our best hope is
> the serious work the historians and scholars are doing.
>
I am not a historian, so I will do it my own way. I leave the
historians to record history and I keep on asking questions in hope of
discovery. Let me ask you this. What have you historians found that is
new in the past 10 years? I read the posts of 5 years back, we are
rehashing mostly the same questions.

I asked you why matiao is considered the "important progenitor" of
mahjong and you could not answer the question. To find solutions, we
have to welcome new ideas and apply historical knowledge in a
cooperative effort. I know there is a pool of information in the
group. But the info is not directed into channels.

> Tom
++++++++++
Cheers.....al

On Dec 10, 12:25�pm, al <a... DeleteThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> How can you be so sure? Did you read Lo's translation of matiao
> published in The-Playing-Card? Matiao is regarded by historians as an
> "important progenitor" of mahjong.

As stated this is wrong. It is wrong because 'madiao' is stated as a
name for a game consisting of many features. But 'historians' regard
only certain features of madiao as important progenitors of ma que.
When stating what the 'historians' position is, be specific and
accurate as to what aspects of ma diao they consider to be important
progenitors.

> The 40-card matiao (with round
> taiji diagram and stringy trigrams which were renamed to Cash and
> Strings of Cash) was conjectured to have reduced to 30 cards and
> doubled to 60.

This contains a gross error and willful distortions. Willful and
distorted because it contains the opposite as to what Lo's article
actually says after it was explained to you. It is also a specious and
distorted description of what 'historians' position is.

1) The descriptions of the suits were discussed and explained to you
at length and detail. The translator was even consulted as to what the
Chinese descriptions, and hence what the translated descriptions
actually meant.

2) Hence, the taiji diagram only appeared on the 1 Cash card. The
descriptions of Cash and Strings of Cash illustrate how their
representations were laid out, on each respective card, with reference
to the shapes of other objects.

3) Nowhere in any literature does it state they were "renamed to Cash
and Strings of Cash". That is plain wrong.

4) It is not 'conjectured'. It is a known fact that the Kunshun 40
card madiao pack was reduced to a 30 card pack by leaving out the ten
Myriad suit but retaining the thousand Myriad card from that suit to
head the Myriad suit.

Lo states that there were games played with this 30 card pack but
there was two of each card then that game was played with a 60 card
pack in which the cards were doubled.

I am not sure whether the actual pack was printed with two of each
card or that two 30 card packs were added together. Either way, it
amounts to the same thing. This principle of duplication to 120 and
150 was clearly evident because various games were played with packs
in which the cards are clearly duplicated.

> As for the fourth and brand
> new suit of cards, 16 to 24 of them, nobody says where and why they
> came about and no scholars, like you, or historians, care to explain.

What fourth and brand new suit?

> [A] Money seems to be the only thing that counts because it was a
> recognizable symbol in one of the old card sets.

Wrong again. This a false and distorted statement of the actual
position that has been repeatedly explained to you.

> [B] From this, historians, scholars and mahjong enthusiasts all sing to
> the tune of money-based game.

Wrong again and again. For anyone interested, this is a classic
example of the straw-person fallacy. [A] is the uncharitable and false
description (the straw-person) of 'historians' et al actually
postion. He concludes by committing a non sequitur with [B]. So by
painting a false picture with [A] he can then conclude or argue,
falsely, that that picture leads them to [B].

> Now II tell you why I think it is an important question to ask:
> whether mahjong was evolved or invented (and evolved.)

But why this distortion? It seems that by attempting to discredit the
'historians' position through distortion, their position then becomes
suspect. If their position is suspect then the asserted scenario
(snipped) thereby has merit by default.

> You said it there. I agree with you. Innovation goes with invention.
> New invention builds on old invention. A new invention can be
> qualified by any true innovation.

Correct. This is a simplied description of the evolutionary process in
card game development. By bringing in new features to an existing
game, then it is, by definition, possible to create a new game through
retaining old features but modifying old or adding new ones

> > The bottom line is, after a certain point (which was centuries ago), /every/ game was "evolved"

> Again, I agree. An invention like mahjong has gone through changes
> over time.

I think you missed the point. (see above)

> My question relates to
> and can affect the story told so far about the historical development
> of the game, mahjong.

Not unless it has some evidential support for its key premises and
assumptions.

On Dec 10, 12:37 pm, "Tom Sloper" <tslo... DeleteThis @DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com>
wrote:
> >"al" wrote...
> >Mr. Kwan, the purpose of my question was to find out what mahjong
> >scholars like you, and some enthusiasts think how mahjong came about.
> >And you didn't think it was a useful question. I am still not sure why
> >you said that was not a useful question to ask. Perhaps you thought
> >the origin of mahjong is a forgone conclusion?
>
> >How can you be so sure?
>
Tom wrote:
> You jump to conclusions so easily. Another, more likely, hypothesis would be
> that he is doing just the opposite. More likely he thinks the origin of
> mahjong is unknown and undiscoverable, because it was not documented.
>
++++++++++
My follow-up reply:
I see why your answer is such as above.
Because I "jump to conclusions so easily, as you admonished, it makes
other people like yourself to do likewise ( jump to conclusion as
well.)

My other question was why be so sure that "origin of mahjong is a
forgone conclusion".

You jumped in and offered your own answer: "likely [..] [based on
unavailable evidence] the origin of mahjong is unknown and
undiscoverable, because it was not documented."

May be so, but not yet conclusive. The least can be done is try to
find some evidence to support a plausible explanation for the mahjong
symbols and the mhjong game-design (structure and concept).

Now, this is just my apophenic question. Do you think it might be
possible that those round things were for use as I-Ching divination
coins in the old days and not cash-money? See? I ask first before I
conclude. But then, I don't know what I-Ching means to you. Anyways...

Divination coins may fit rather well for a plausible explnation: I-
Ching Coins = (tong), I-Ching Lines or tiao = (suo) and I-Ching
[10,000] Things = (wan). In addition, I-Ching cyclical seasons =
(change of life and time) and directions or positions = (changes of
space); just like the good Book says.
Coincidence? unlikely...

BTW, I have an I-Ching Coin (without a hole in the middle). You can
find I-Ching symbols in: http://www.taopage.org//iching/iching_symbols.html
The I-Ching Coins look remarkably alike to the circles in mahjong.
[..]
>
> Tom
++++++++++
Cheers....al

Allan wrote:
> My other question was why be so sure that "origin of mahjong is a
> forgone conclusion".

You're saying I'm sure that it's a foregone conclusion that the origin of
mahjong is... what?

Because I never said any conclusion was foregone (formed in advance or
absence of argument or consideration)... other than the "never asked
questions" that you raise. You conclude, unrightly, that just because you
don't see people asking a particular question, that they've never wondered
about it.

> The least can be done is try to
> find some evidence to support a plausible explanation for the mahjong
> symbols and the mhjong game-design (structure and concept).

Yes. The scholars are trying to do that. You aren't helping. You're just
raising new hypotheses (I'm not even addressing the question of whether
they're plausible), and you aren't trying to find any evidence for your
hypotheses yourself. You expect, you demand, that others examine your
hypotheses for you. It doesn't work that way.

Tom

On Dec 11, 8:32 am, mstanwick <mstanw... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 12:25�pm, al <a... DeleteThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > How can you be so sure? Did you read Lo's translation of matiao
> > published in The-Playing-Card? Matiao is regarded by historians as an
> > "important progenitor" of mahjong.
>
> As stated this is wrong. It is wrong because 'madiao' is stated as a
> name for a game consisting of many features. But 'historians' regard
> only certain features of madiao as important progenitors of ma que.

What feature besides the 1-Cash (a taiji diagram}, Zero Cash and Half
Cash that are not there in maque? Strings of Cash look like rivers
doubling back? No pattern formation, no personification of cards.
Nothing besides the "wan" which could be "ten-thousand-things"?

> When stating what the 'historians' position is, be specific and
> accurate as to what aspects of ma diao they consider to be important
> progenitors.
>
Nothing other than the pseudo-names made up from word of mouth passed
down from generations ago. We are still unsure even now what the
correct original names were. Edwin pointed out elegantly in his last
post.

> > The 40-card matiao (with round
> > taiji diagram and stringy trigrams which were renamed to Cash and
> > Strings of Cash) was conjectured to have reduced to 30 cards and
> > doubled to 60.
>
> This contains a gross error and willful distortions. Willful and
> distorted because it contains the opposite as to what Lo's article
> actually says after it was explained to you. It is also a specious and
> distorted description of what 'historians' position is.
>
I don't remember if I had read Lo's contraction theory of 40 -->> 30.
I can review it if it's in the paper with Ma Diao. But his word is not
and should not be the final proof for me necessarily. I say as I see
it.

> 1) The descriptions of the suits were discussed and explained to you
> at length and detail. The translator was even consulted as to what the
> Chinese descriptions, and hence what the translated descriptions
> actually meant.
>
Why not ask for a picture of the images he was working with when you
spoke to him? The explanation was unacceptable to me. I wanted to know
what the rest of the first suit look like. Were there more circles
2-9? Was there a hole in the Cash?

> 2) Hence, the taiji diagram only appeared on the 1 Cash card. The
> descriptions of Cash and Strings of Cash illustrate how their
> representations were laid out, on each respective card, with reference
> to the shapes of other objects.
>
What was said about Supreme Ultimate? What did the Half-Cask look
like? and what was it? BTW the taiji diagram meant a great deal in
Chinese life and had its influence in every aspect of Chinese culture.
So I was told in my reading.

Why Pan or Peng used I-Ching trigrams to describe patterns on the
cards? Who were the readers of the Chinese manuals? It puzzles me.

> 3) Nowhere in any literature does it state they were "renamed to Cash
> and Strings of Cash". That is plain wrong.
>
If I read it right. You can correct me.
I thought I read in your paper and I got the impression that Himly
might be the one who was referring to the circles as Cash. Who else
before that you know?
Tong to me and many Chinese people is not Cash.

> 4) It is not 'conjectured'. It is a known fact that the Kunshun 40
> card madiao pack was reduced to a 30 card pack by leaving out the ten
> Myriad suit but retaining the thousand Myriad card from that suit to
> head the Myriad suit.
>
I can see the elimination of the suit. The large quantities were
confusing. How that must relate to the 30-card set is not clear nor
certain.

> Lo states that there were games played with this 30 card pack but
> there was two of each card then that game was played with a 60 card
> pack in which the cards were doubled.
>
> I am not sure whether the actual pack was printed with two of each
> card or that two 30 card packs were added together. Either way, it
> amounts to the same thing. This principle of duplication to 120 and
> 150 was clearly evident because various games were played with packs
> in which the cards are clearly duplicated.
>
So, one scenario is '40' first and '30' evolved from '40'. Another
scenario is '30' created independly, '40' copied and reduced to '30'.
You have the time frame references, I suppose.
However, "40' and '30' did not have to relate so close necessarily.

> > As for the fourth and brand
> > new suit of cards, 16 to 24 of them, nobody says where and why they
> > came about and no scholars, like you, or historians, care to explain.
>
> What fourth and brand new suit?
>
the word-cards like ESWN and zhong-fa-bai in mahjong.
The "Cash" hypot did not address the question of its appearance, to my
knowledge.

> > [A] Money seems to be the only thing that counts because it was a
> > recognizable symbol in one of the old card sets.
>
> Wrong again. This a false and distorted statement of the actual
> position that has been repeatedly explained to you.
>
Not acceptable.

> > [B] From this, historians, scholars and mahjong enthusiasts all sing to
> > the tune of money-based game.
>
> Wrong again and again. For anyone interested, this is a classic
> example of the straw-person fallacy. [A] is the uncharitable and false
> description (the straw-person) of 'historians' et al actually
> postion. He concludes by committing a non sequitur with [B]. So by
> painting a false picture with [A] he can then conclude or argue,
> falsely, that that picture leads them to [B].
>
You go and read any history of mahjong page and you will find the same
words like "cash-suited", "money-based" or "money-suited" "Cash-
based". Is that not singing the same tune?

> > Now II tell you why I think it is an important question to ask:
> > whether mahjong was evolved or invented (and evolved.)
>
> But why this distortion? It seems that by attempting to discredit the
> 'historians' position through distortion, their position then becomes
> suspect. If their position is suspect then the asserted scenario
> (snipped) thereby has merit by default.
>
Not by default...but how else a new hypothesis can come in to show its
merit?
Where is the distortion? I want to see if I can show mahjong was
"invented" rather than "evolved". Whatever is true will come up true.
I can not distort it.
The "money base" has been a road-block every step of the way.

> > You said it there. I agree with you. Innovation goes with invention.
> > New invention builds on old invention. A new invention can be
> > qualified by any true innovation.
>
> Correct. This is a simplied description of the evolutionary process in
> card game development. By bringing in new features to an existing
> game, then it is, by definition, possible to create a new game through
> retaining old features but modifying old or adding new ones
>
That is ( to me) how mahjong came about, in view of all the nice new
features mahjong has and the other games do not have. Reasonable
expectation?

> > > The bottom line is, after a certain point (which was centuries ago), /every/ game was "evolved"
> > Again, I agree. An invention like mahjong has gone through changes
> > over time.
>
> I think you missed the point. (see above)
>
On the other hand, I think he missed my point.

> > My question relates to
> > and can affect the story told so far about the historical development
> > of the game, mahjong.
>
> Not unless it has some evidential support for its key premises and
> assumptions.

I think I have it, Michael. It goes back to Cash is not cash...
In my reply to Tom, I gave him info and reference for the I-Ching coin
for divination. Those mahjong circle are not money coins they are
coins used in divination.
That is now a solid evidence at last. The symbols finally make sense
and explain the game and its rules as a coherent whole. Read my Origin
of Mahjong Design.

To sum it up, mahjong was an invention. I-Ching is the thing!
+++++++
Cheers....al

On Dec 11, 11:15 pm, al <a....DeleteThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> What feature [...] are not there in maque?

The point was that madiao contained the money suit system (and was
played by four people). In the money suit derivation hypothesis, the
money suit system is (obviously) the predominant feature. Hence, I
repeat, when stating what the 'historians' position is, be specific
and accurate as to what aspects of ma diao they consider to be
important progenitors. In this case the money suit feature.

That was my point.

> Nothing other than the pseudo-names made up from word of mouth passed
> down from generations ago.

Baseless assertions again.

Since the reference is to madiao, the concern is with the earliest
names - from Pan's descriptions. No evidence given to support the
pseudo-name assetion/claim and no evidence is provided to support the
claim that the names are the result of a change in meaning. (The name
may well change but still retain the money reference under the
hypothesis).

> We are still unsure even now what the correct original names were. Edwin
> pointed out elegantly in his last post.

Wrong again. As I understood it, the discussion was about whether the
terms encountered were faithful to the original meaning, and reference
was made to the need to refer to the earliest examples.

The earliest examples of the suit names and what they mean, are found
in Pan Zhiheng's manuals of the late Ming period[1368 - 1644].

The next examples (mentioned in another post) of different names are,
as far as I am aware, for the name of the 'cash' suit - bing3 'cake'.
It appears as early as1759 in the novel 'Dream of the Red Chamber'.
The next term is Tong2, and that is recorded around 1870 by Himly set
from Ningbo.

The implication from your assertions is that the original names and
hence meanings, were different from the earliest examples. Perhaps
they were and perhaps they were not. But no evidence has been put
forward to support that assertion. Thus the assertion is a blatant
example of the argument from ignorance - all the lack of evidence
shows us is our own ignorance. It doesn't give us a reason to consider
the assertion at all.

> I don't remember if I had read Lo's contraction theory of 40 -->>
30.
> I can review it if it's in the paper with Ma Diao.

Read his article in The Playing-Card Vol.31 No.2 and Vol. 32 No.5. In
the latter, it specifically describes cutting the four suits down to
three to play Kan Hu (also known as Dou Hu).

> But his word is not and should not be the final proof for me necessarily. I say
> as I see it.

Not his word, but the evidence presented, as the original.

> Why not ask for a picture of the images he was working with when you
> spoke to him?

This was also explained to you! The descriptions were from the
original manuals -not from cards!

> The explanation was unacceptable to me. I wanted to know
> what the rest of the first suit look like. Were there more circles
> 2-9? Was there a hole in the Cash?

Nevertheless, the suits represented Cash as in Cash Coins. Pan clearly
describes the Cash coin that is the basis for the denominations of
Cash. As to what appears on the Cash and Strings of Cash cards, he
describes the the arrangement of the Cash coins by relating the shape
the arrangements make to the shaps of other objects.

> What was said about Supreme Ultimate?

Pan calls it 'Grand Ulitmate'.

> What did the Half-Cask look like? and what was it?

Check the illustration (a full three suits of the Tung Kuan Pai three
suited card pack.) at the end of the last article in Vol.31. No.5.

> Why Pan or Peng used I-Ching trigrams to describe patterns on the
> cards? Who were the readers of the Chinese manuals? It puzzles me.

This was explained by someone else in this thread or another thread,
quite recently.

> > 3) Nowhere in any literature does it state they were "renamed to Cash
> > and Strings of Cash". That is plain wrong.
>
> If I read it right. You can correct me.
> I thought I read in your paper and I got the impression that Himly
> might be the one who was referring to the circles as Cash. Who else
> before that you know?
> Tong to me and many Chinese people is not Cash.

We were, and are, talking about the madiao pack and its names. Go back
and reread my last post.

> > 4) It is not 'conjectured'. It is a known fact that the Kunshun 40
> > card madiao pack was reduced to a 30 card pack by leaving out the ten
> > Myriad suit but retaining the thousand Myriad card from that suit to
> > head the Myriad suit.
>
> I can see the elimination of the suit. The large quantities were
> confusing. How that must relate to the 30-card set is not clear nor
> certain.

I presume you mean it is not certain in your mind? The reason for
that, in my view, is that you have not read the articles carefully ( I
admit they are rather heavy going) and you seem not to have seen a
three suited money deck, with the three suits laid out in correct
order. Check the picture of a three suited Tung Kuan Pai deck at the
end of Vol 31 No 5.

> So, one scenario is '40' first and '30' evolved from '40'.

This premise is supported by Pan's description in my view.

> Another scenario is '30' created independly, '40' copied and reduced to '30'.

No. Reduce the 40 to 30. Then packs were printed containing only 30
cards. Then take two packs of thirty cards to make a 60 card deck in
which 30 cards are doubled (obviously).

> You have the time frame references, I suppose.

The comment was about how the 30 card pack was, in practical terms,
doubled to 60. Was the 60 cards made from 2 packs of 30 or was the 60
card pack printed straight off as a 60 card pack.

> However, "40' and '30' did not have to relate so close necessarily.

What does that mean.

> > > As for the fourth and brand
> > > new suit of cards, 16 to 24 of them, nobody says where and why they
> > > came about and no scholars, like you, or historians, care to explain.
[snip]
> the word-cards like ESWN and zhong-fa-bai in mahjong.
> The "Cash" hypot did not address the question of its appearance, to my
> knowledge.

I don't care to explain because I have no documentary evidence from
which I can get reasons for an explanation. As far as I am aware,
there is, as yet, no evidence to indicate why, how and when the
Directions etc were added.

> > Wrong again and again. For anyone interested, this is a classic
> > example of the straw-person fallacy. [snip]
> You go and read any history of mahjong page and you will find the same
> words like "cash-suited", "money-based" or "money-suited" "Cash-
> based". Is that not singing the same tune?

You said "Money seems to be the only thing that counts because it was
a recognizable symbol in one of the old card sets. From this,
historians, scholars and mahjong enthusiasts all sing to the tune of
money-based game."

"Singing to the same tune" is a derisory term used to belittle those
who diagree with you.

Your argument was and is a straw-person fallacy because you think you
know the reason for why those people consider the money explanation to
be the best one at his time. You just wrote up an accusation about ALL
of them without giving any reason(s) for why they consider the money
suits to be the best explanation.

> > But why this distortion? It seems that by attempting to discredit the
> > 'historians' position through distortion, their position then becomes
> > suspect. If their position is suspect then the asserted scenario
> > (snipped) thereby has merit by default.
>
> Not by default...but how else a new hypothesis can come in to show its
> merit?

Not by distorting others views and not putting words into others
mouths repeatedly after it has been explained otherwise.

A new explaantion must have evidential support of some sort for its
key premises.
The evidence should document directly the relationship to playing
cards, the suits etc.

If it doesn't, then it is weakened. Your explanation from the I Ching
is reasonable in my view, in that it postulates a connection because
of assumed actual similarities. But it is weakened by the lack of any
documented early evidence of a connection with either playing cards or
maque. But if evidence comes along, then is will gain strength.

> The "money base" has been a road-block every step of the way.

No it hasn't. It is a competing explanation with evidential support,
so far. It may be refuted by contradictory documentary evidence if any
comes to light.

> > Not unless it has some evidential support for its key premises and
> > assumptions.
>
> I think I have it, Michael. It goes back to Cash is not cash...
> In my reply to Tom, I gave him info and reference for the I-Ching coin
> for divination. Those mahjong circle are not money coins they are
> coins used in divination.

Then jolly well put up some evidence that they are what you say they
are.

Asserting it is not evidence!

Give me the evidence! Put it up on this group. Let's see it.

> That is now a solid evidence at last. The symbols finally make sense
> and explain the game and its rules as a coherent whole. Read my Origin
> of Mahjong Design.

That is what you claimed for the Sparrow idea!

Which one shall I choose?

I have no way of telling!

On Dec 12, 8:52 am, mstanwick <mstanw....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 11:15 pm, al <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
Michael, if anybody is reading the thread, they would be tired of this
repetition by now. Let's cut the B.S. boring stuff) and get to the
key points.
> >[..]
>
> [..]
>
> >[..]
>
> [..]
>
> The earliest examples of the suit names and what they mean, are found
> in Pan Zhiheng's manuals of the late Ming period[1368 - 1644].
>
They are "earliest", but Pan got them from whom and where? How long
did those suit-names existed before Pan came along? The point is that
the names came from 'word of mouth' through years of dialectic
distortion. Therefore the names from Pan are not authenticated. More
importantly, the suit-names are unrelated to the game as they have no
meaning to the play.

> The next examples (mentioned in another post) of different names are,
> as far as I am aware, for the name of the 'cash' suit - bing3 'cake'.
> It appears as early as1759 in the novel 'Dream of the Red Chamber'.
> The next term is Tong2, and that is recorded around 1870 by Himly set
> from Ningbo.
>
> The implication from your assertions is that the original names and
> hence meanings, were different from the earliest examples.

Bing 3 (Cake) in 1759; Tomg2 ( whatever) in 1870; Pipe, Container and
wheel plus whatever else...You and Himly think Cash is the right name?
Yes. I would say all the names above are different from the original
names, because simply the names we have heard so far don't make any
sense in the context of game design, game concept and rules of play.
Neither Cake nor Cash explains any part of the game of mahjong. That's
the critical test.

> Perhaps they were and perhaps they were not. But no evidence has been put
> forward to support that assertion.

The evidence against Cake and Cash is self-evident and is inherent in
the fact that multiple names applied to the same suit.
> [..]
> >[..]
> [..]
> [..] The descriptions were from the
> original manuals -not from cards!
>
"Original manual? Why were trigrams used to describe "String" pattern?
Trigrams used in the translation indicate to me that the "Strings" are
more like Yin-Yang lines and they could have been mistaken for
"Strings of Cash".

Zero-Cash and Half-Cash were Lo's Cash terminology, then?

> > The explanation was unacceptable to me. I wanted to know
> > what the rest of the first suit look like. Were there more circles
> > 2-9? Was there a hole in the Cash?
>
> Nevertheless, the suits represented Cash as in Cash Coins. Pan clearly
> describes the Cash coin that is the basis for the denominations of Cash.

That was Pan's term he got from word-of-mouth, as I assured you
before. He wrote the manual where and when there was none existed
before. verbal or vocal communication was the order of the day.

You mean there was denomination for ten-thousand Cash? That is about
500 years ago. Why should it go with a tenth of a cent. The ratio is
disproportionate.
Regardless what Pan said, it does not make sense.

> As to what appears on the Cash and Strings of Cash cards, he
> describes the the arrangement of the Cash coins by relating the shape
> the arrangements make to the shaps of other objects.
>
Either Pan or Peng described the Cash as GUO, FRUIT. My interpretation
from that is the suit of Cash 2-9 were full of "fruits", an
abbreviation of the round taiji diagram, just like the tong in some of
your mahjong sets. Pan's fruits (round circles and no square holes)
were not to proportions or equal in size.

Well, Michael, let me call your attention to page 87 of Lo. I just
reviewed the part on Cash description. I quote: "Thus from 1 to 9
they are all called fruits (quo)".
(Fruits from 1 to 9, did you ever question why Cash got in there?)

Please note, Michael, Pan or Peng did not say those round things were
Cash. They were called "guo" which meant FRUIT.
Where did the Cash come from then? Not the Chinese manual...

I can stop right here. It just dawn on me. The Chinese manual didn't
say the taiji diagram was Cash. The Chinese document said the symbol
in that suit was called fruits.
[..][..]
> >[..][..][..]
> > [..]
> The comment was about how the 30 card pack was, in practical terms,
> doubled to 60. Was the 60 cards made from 2 packs of 30 or was the 60
> card pack printed straight off as a 60 card pack.
>
That is just an exercise in arithmetic. That is the least similarity
of importance. The game mahjong has a lot more features more unique
that define the game than the arithmetic sum. You might as well say
one animal is like another because they have 4 legs.

> > [..]
>
> > > >[..]
> [snip]
> > the word-cards like ESWN and zhong-fa-bai in mahjong.
> > The "Cash" hypot did not address the question of its appearance, to my
> > knowledge.
>
> I don't care to explain because I have no documentary evidence from
> which I can get reasons for an explanation. As far as I am aware,
> there is, as yet, no evidence to indicate why, how and when the
> Directions etc were added.
>
Precisely, Michael, Cash does not explain this or anything about the
game's nature or feature. The words suit has nothing to do with Cash
even if there were 90,000 or as much as 4 times 90,000 of it.
> > >[..]
> [..]
>
> > > [..]
> [..]
> [..] Your explanation from the I Ching
> is reasonable in my view, in that it postulates a connection because
> of assumed actual similarities. But it is weakened by the lack of any
> documented early evidence of a connection with either playing cards or
> maque. But if evidence comes along, then is will gain strength.

That is all is needed, a connection with either playing cards or
maque? You sound like you have given some encouragement. Before I get
to that stage, read my 9/27/07 post.
>
> > The "money base" has been a road-block every step of the way.
>
> No it hasn't. It is a competing explanation with evidential support,
> so far. It may be refuted by contradictory documentary evidence if any
> comes to light.
>
I have shown you contradictory evidence, Michael.
As I just pointed out in this post. GUO is not cash (page 87 Lo)
What is your real Cash Base support? It is invisible to me.

> > > [..]
> > I think I have it, Michael. It goes back to Cash is not cash...

> > In my reply to Tom, I gave him info and reference for the I-Ching coin
> > for divination. Those mahjong circle are not money coins they are
> > coins used in divination.
>
Mahjong 'tong' has no square hole. It has concentric circles.
I read that coins were used for divination started about 1000 years
ago.
> [..]
>
> Give me the evidence! Put it up on this group. Let's see it.
>
The web site is in my reply to Tom yesterday. Check it out.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg


> > That is now a solid evidence at last. The symbols finally make sense
> > and explain the game and its rules as a coherent whole. Read my Origin
> > of Mahjong Design.
>
Look at the divination coins in the web site.
http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg

> That is what you claimed for the Sparrow idea!
>
That just proves an imaginative mind is needed for solutions to tough
problems. Generally historians by nature are careful and meticulous
(which is good), but they are fearful of making mistakes of their own,
especially as they are used to being critical of the creative work of
others.

I am not afraid to make mistakes, because I am no expert, no
scholar... nobody.

> Which one shall I choose?
>
The I-Ching based design.

> I have no way of telling!

You will. And I will have more to say about the Sparrow, later.
++++++++++
Cheers....al

On Dec 13, 12:40 am, al <a... RemoveThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:

This is my last reply to this thread.

> Michael, if anybody is reading the thread, they would be tired of this
> repetition by now.

Unfortunately, if anyone is reading this then they will be fully aware
that you have clearly forgotten past and recent discussions and need
to be reminded.

> Let's cut the B.S. boring stuff) and get to the
> key points.> >[..]

The boring stuff, as you call it, is at the center of this discussion
and any discussion. How we think about maque is just as important as
what we think about ma que. The latter is the result of the former.
Therefore, is is completely relevant to this discussion.

This is another attempt at ignoring the real problems with your
discussion - the incorrect thinking that underlies it.

It is incorrect because
(1) you clearly ignore corrections to your references from documentary
evidence.
(2) you repeatedly distort what others have said or make claims about
what others have clearly not thought or said.
(3) you repeatedly make claims for which you have no evidential
support whatsoever. You don't even phrase your assertions to hint they
are guesses or assumptions.
(4) you repeatedly select parts of what others have said and take them
out of context so that they appear to support your ideas.

> > The earliest examples of the suit names and what they mean, are found
> > in Pan Zhiheng's manuals of the late Ming period[1368 - 1644].
>
> They are "earliest", but Pan got them from whom and where? How long
> did those suit-names existed before Pan came along? The point is that
> the names came from 'word of mouth' through years of dialectic
> distortion.

Here we go again. You have no evidence of that at all. Not one iota of
any sort of documentary evidence. None.

You have no idea how long the cards existed before Pan's description
(because you have provided no evidence at all). But that doesn't stop
you contradicting yourself by then asserting the cards have been
around for years and that you know how the names were generated during
those years!

Because you have no credible evidence at all then you have no
justification at all, to make the claims about the cards prior to Pan.

As far as I am aware we just do not know, with any credibility (ie.'
with any documentary evidence), about the money cards in the period
prior to Pan. The Ningbo Museum may know but their material did not
have any references at all. Therefore we cannot evaluate it.

If you have any material evidence, then let's see it. Put it up on
this group. Show us. Let's see what you have got.

> Therefore the names from Pan are not authenticated.

The names that Pan reports, were in use during the late Ming period.
These are the among the earliest names documented (although Feng
Menglong's manuals may have predated Pan's). We are therefore
justified in claiming that the suits represented money as referenced
by their names and the discussion of Pan's.

From these manuals we can see the formation of a three suited deck
used for specific games.

> importantly, the suit-names are unrelated to the game as they have no
> meaning to the play.

Here we go again. Failure to remember that this was discussed and
explained before. No reasonable explaantion was offered by you.

The names represent denominations of money that provide a ranking and
value system. The ranking and values are integral to the formation of
tricks and therefore are integral to the game.

> Bing 3 (Cake) in 1759; Tomg2 ( whatever) in 1870; Pipe, Container and
> wheel plus whatever else...You and Himly think Cash is the right name?

Here we go again. There are reasonable explanations for these names
representing money. They can be accounted for via the money
hypothesis. BUT, Himly's set had three suits of tong2, suo and wan.
Suo and wan are names for two of the money card suits.

> The evidence against Cake and Cash is self-evident and is inherent in
> the fact that multiple names applied to the same suit.> [..]

There are reasonable explanations for these names. Again, this was
answered before.

> "Original manual? Why were trigrams used to describe "String" pattern?
> Trigrams used in the translation indicate to me that the "Strings" are
> more like Yin-Yang lines and they could have been mistaken for
> "Strings of Cash".

Are you serious?? I am not going to answer this suffice to say that
your memory appears to be extemely poor. Go reread past posts.

> Zero-Cash and Half-Cash were Lo's Cash terminology, then?

No. They are Pan's. They were translated by Lo.

> That was Pan's term he got from word-of-mouth, as I assured you
> before. He wrote the manual where and when there was none existed
> before. verbal or vocal communication was the order of the day.

Pput up your evidence for these claims. Otherwise, these claims are
innane.

> You mean there was denomination for ten-thousand Cash? That is about
> 500 years ago. Why should it go with a tenth of a cent. The ratio is
> disproportionate.
> Regardless what Pan said, it does not make sense.

Answered with reference to Peng Xinwei's A Monetary History of China.
Denominations does not imply concrete examples. Various huge
denominations were used for transaction purposes and the vast values
were called by denominations of cash. These vast amounts of cash were
used in accountancy. Further, the Cash coin did NOT have a fixed
value. There were coins worth 10, 20 50 cash as I recall. I will have
to check up on that.

> Either Pan or Peng described the Cash as GUO, FRUIT.

Here is 'selection bias' in action. It is also a kind of 'confirmation
bias'. Pan said guo, fruit. But he said the original name for the suit
was 'cash'. This part was left out of your statement.

> My interpretation
> from that is the suit of Cash 2-9 were full of "fruits", an
> abbreviation of the round taiji diagram, just like the tong in some of
> your mahjong sets. Pan's fruits (round circles and no square holes)
> were not to proportions or equal in size.

Completely and utterly wrong. Pan then talks about why they are called
guo, fruits. It has nothing to do with your ideas at all. Nothing. You
have selectively left out the explanations for guo, fruit, given by
Pan.

> Well, Michael, let me call your attention to page 87 of Lo. I just
> reviewed the part on Cash description. I quote: "Thus from 1 to 9
> they are all called fruits (quo)".
> (Fruits from 1 to 9, did you ever question why Cash got in there?)

Oh! If you want to be non selective, then quote the entire description
please!

"The next is called 'the guest wit missing teeth' (ya ke) [x] [Half
Cash]. Incompleteness is represented by the imagery of plums remaining
above a well after a voracious meal. People regard it as the 'sprig of
flowers' (zhi hua) [xi]. A sprig of flowers is one when the flowers
have not turned into fruit. Thus from 1 to 9 they are call called
fruits (guo) [xii], there names coming from the sprig of flowers,
although 'cash' was the original meaning."

> Please note, Michael, Pan or Peng did not say those round things were
> Cash. They were called "guo" which meant FRUIT.
> Where did the Cash come from then? Not the Chinese manual...

It was Pan. Yes, they were originally meant Cash.

>
> I can stop right here. It just dawn on me. The Chinese manual didn't
> say the taiji diagram was Cash. The Chinese document said the symbol
> in that suit was called fruits.

No. The manual says the 1 to 9 cards were called guo, fruits, but the
original meaning was 'cash'. The cards were called guo because of the
symbol or drawing on the 'half Cash' card. The meanings of the cards,
what they represented, was values of Cash. But the cards were called
by another name other than Cash.
> > The comment was about how the 30 card pack was, in practical terms,
> > doubled to 60. Was the 60 cards made from 2 packs of 30 or was the 60
> > card pack printed straight off as a 60 card pack.
>
> That is just an exercise in arithmetic. That is the least similarity
> of importance. The game mahjong has a lot more features more unique
> that define the game than the arithmetic sum. You might as well say
> one animal is like another because they have 4 legs.

What are you talking about??? My answer was to your misunderstanding
about what I said. I was being polite and answering you. But instead
you misunderstand my answer again??

> > I don't care to explain because I have no documentary evidence from
> > which I can get reasons for an explanation. As far as I am aware,
> > there is, as yet, no evidence to indicate why, how and when the
> > Directions etc were added.
>
> Precisely, Michael, Cash does not explain this or anything about the
> game's nature or feature. The words suit has nothing to do with Cash
> even if there were 90,000 or as much as 4 times 90,000 of it.

Well well. Another statement about what I DID NOT say. Also, this is a
straw-person again because the money hypothesis does not seek to
explain any of the features aside from what the 3 suits represent and
how they impart ranking and value.

> That is all is needed, a connection with either playing cards or
> maque? You sound like you have given some encouragement. Before I get
> to that stage, read my 9/27/07 post.

I presume you mean in another thread? I read one about the I Ching
dated for me 28/907.

Your explanation is correlation, not cause. You need to fing some
direct, unequivocal evidence to link the correlations by an actual
relationship.

> I have shown you contradictory evidence, Michael.
> As I just pointed out in this post. GUO is not cash (page 87 Lo)
> What is your real Cash Base support? It is invisible to me.

The invisibility is an error of reasoning called 'confirmation bias'.
All of us are not immune. That is why reasons and evidence are
paramount. To show that our claims are supported and supported
correctly.

> Mahjong 'tong' has no square hole. It has concentric circles.

That is true. However, the tradiition of artistic licence with playing
cards is well supported and was described at length.

> > Give me the evidence! Put it up on this group. Let's see it.
>
> The web site is in my reply to Tom yesterday. Check it out.http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg

I saw it. But where is there any documentary evidence that the 3 suits
represented I Ching concepts and not money?? That is what I was asking
for.

> That just proves an imaginative mind is needed for solutions to tough
> problems. Generally historians by nature are careful and meticulous
> (which is good), but they are fearful of making mistakes of their own,
> especially as they are used to being critical of the creative work of
> others.

Stop putting words and motives into other peoples mouths.

I have no personal stake in the money hypothesis other than an
intellectual one. It offers, in my view, the best explanation of the
three suits. I can use in in my research.

But it could be suported or destroyed by any disconforming evidence. I
will be perfectly happy if that happens.

When ideas are shown to be incorrect, then they should be discarded.

This is all have to say on this subject.

I will not be replying on this subject any more. Please do not bother
to reply.

"al" <alee.TakeThisOut@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
> You said all those things about ... my work

What work? You haven't done any serious work. Thought experiments are not
research, just as twisting of words is not debate.

Tom