Origin of Mahjong : Invented or Evolved?

On Dec 13, 12:51 pm, mstanwick <mstanw....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 4:50�pm, al <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > This is my last reply to this thread.
>
> Unfortunately, against my hopes, [..]
>
> > [..]
> [..]
> But repititious claims empty of new content [..]

Again, let me keep it simple.

"But repititious claims" applies to both of us.

"empty of new content" applies to you only, Michael. I can understand
that. You have based your writing on the history you have from Himly,
Wilkinson etc.

My is new content, obviously. Mahjong from I-Ching? It's an alien
thing!
Besides, I didn't know mahjong history. I just played the game
occasionally.
+++++++++
Cheers....al

"al" <alee.RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
> There is I-Ching divination coin and there are divination cards in
> games. I got all that from my 'search'. That could be the key to a
> puzzle a thousand year old!


You see similarities between I Ching and mah-jongg. So what? Your apophenia
makes you see cause and effect when there's nothing but unrelated
similarities, or universal symbols.

You have no idea what real research is. It certainly isn't "I have a new
idea, look at it, see how logical and symmetrical and beautiful it is!" It
requires patient work over a long time, looking for verification of your
idea in the literature. Then after you've found evidence (not just more
natural or coincidental similarities), you present your work to the
community and give the members time to study it and ask questions. You can't
force it down their throats, and then berate them when they choke on it.
But I don't suppose you'll understand or accept any of what I'm saying.

I'm sorry you've been frustrated with your experience here, and I wish I
could help you understand what you've been doing wrong. I'm afraid that no
amount of explanation will clarify any of this for you, though, and that's
unfortunate.
Tom

On Dec 13, 9:00 am, mstanwick <mstanw... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 12:40 am, al <a... DeleteThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [..]
Michael, this is what you wrote. I will repeat it as a reminder.
+++++++++++
> (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.
+++++++++++++++
>
> > > [..]
>
> > [..]
++++++++++++
Keeping it simple is my guide, I will take an item at a time.
But first let me remind you my question is "Origin of Mahjong Invented
or Evolved?" Obviously we have different view points. I see mahjong
as an invention. You treat it as an evolved product.

I see mahjong as an invention because mahjong has numerous features
not found in older games. ( I have already mentioned them previously).

I can not see mahjong as an evolved product as you supposed, because
the "money-base" does not explain the differences between mahjong and
the older games.

Thus my assumption is "invention", your assumption is "evolution".

My "invention" hypot can explain the unique features of mahjong.
Strong correlation...
Your "evolution" hypot has weak correlation with the mahjong game.
Correlation is a reality test.

Because of our different assumptions, we put different emphasis on
historical details. You rely entirely on documented info from dead
sources. I look for inconsistencies in past history which has not so
far provided adequately to answer the question of mahjong origin.

You value documented evidence, of course. But just remember. The earth
was a "flat" place for a long time. Did people including scientists
and philosophers have plenty of documented evidence? Likewise, the
earth was the center of the universe for 2000 years or so. People
through those years had documented evidence too..

In my argument I have suggested repeatedly Pan and Peng could be
wrong, even though you have their "documented evidence".

I am just trying to talk common sense and I must keep it simple.
+++++++++
Cheers....al

"al" <alee DeleteThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
> But first let me remind you my question is "Origin of Mahjong Invented
> or Evolved?"

That's a classic two-choices question. The problem with two-choices
questions is that they're almost always fallacious. Most of the time, the
answer to a two-choices question is either "both" or "neither" or "it
depends."
In this case, the most likely answer is "both."
There most likely was one or more persons responsible for taking the
money-suited cards and making them into thick small tiles, and adding the
winds (and possibly other designs), making a game very different from matiao
or peng he pai.
But that person or persons was inspired by the money-suited cards, working
from money-suited cards as the foundation - thus the new game was part
evolution AND part invention (revolution).
The mahjong museum in Ningbo ascribes this inventive process to Chen Yumen,
as you know from your in-depth reading of FAQ 11. But none of us has been to
that museum to see what, if any, facts about this inventive process have
been recorded. I suggest that if you want to debate this two-choices
question further, you make a pilgrimage to Ningbo and study up on the
matter. Because in the absence of any actual research into the matter, the
question is superfluous, meaningless, and unanswerable.
This question begs facts, not thought experiments and logical examination.
Tom

On Dec 14, 2:50 am, "Tom Sloper" <tslo....RemoveThis@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com>
wrote:
> "al" <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > There is I-Ching divination coin and there are divination cards in
> > games. [..] That could be the key to a
> > puzzle a thousand year old!
>
> You see similarities between I Ching and mah-jongg. So what? [..]
>
Let me explain and see if I can answer your "so what".
First my hypothesis is that mahjong is an invention. The game
evidently has unique features of its own. For example, what other game
requires a 2-3-3-3-3 pattern to win? What about cards like E S N W and
zhong-fa-bai?

The very unique features of mahjong have strong correlation with I-
Ching and I-Ching is the foundation of Chinese divination.

The circles of mahjong could have been symbols of the coins used in
divination. Since we know there are in existence divination cards,
mahjong could have been an invention with innovative improvement from
the divination cards. No concrete evidential document as yet.But
remember, there is strong correlation.

Put the divination hypot against the Cash hypot. They basically have
the same type of reference: a coin or a round shape symbol and some
other card games.

In the case of divination circle, the other suits could be $B>r(B as seen
in some mahjong sets (Andy's website) and $BK|(B would be 'ten-thousand-
things' as in the Book of Changes (I-Ching). Then the 2-3-3-3-3
pattern can be explained like this:
The 2 is a pair (eyes, so called) for the yin-yang lines. The 3's are
trigrams from the yin-yang interactions. 2 of the 3's form a hexagon
which is a basic divination image. Furthermore, the game-play of 'draw-
discard' is a process of continual change, as what the Book of Changes
is about.

Coherence and strong correlation is what I mean; not necessarily
'cause and effect' or formal methodology.

Now in the case of Cash-circle, you have Cash, Strings of Cash and
myriads of Cash. The String and Myriad are dependent variables. If
Cash is not Cash, then String is not string and your myriad of (X) is
unknown. Furthermore, even if they were all Cash, they can not explain
any of mahjong's unique features. In other words, Cash and mahjong
game-play have weak or no correlation.

I hope you are not choking.

> You have no idea what real research is. ..]

That is true. I am not a researcher. And I see apophenia as creative
thinking.
++++++++++
> Tom
+++++++++++++++
Cheers.....al

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.
>
Let us assume that was the case. It was just as you have projected
that he thought the origin of mahjong is unknown "because it was not
documented.

But did you not jump to conclusion in saying it's "undiscoverable"
because it was not documented?
Is that sensible thinking? you think again about my question.

If Newton waited for documented evidence, laws of gravity may not be
taught in schools yet. Space travel would be apophenia for sure.

When there was lack of documented evidence, Newton created it himself.
So did Copernicus. One famous apophenic model figure is Galileo. The
authorities like you even tried to lock him up. You don't think those
people had to try more than a few hypotheses?

Without hypothesizing, we would be still in the Dark Ages.

> >...[..]
>
>[..]
> Tom
+++++++++++
Cheers.....al

On Dec 13, 9:00 am, mstanwick <mstanw... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 12:40 am, al <a... DeleteThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [..]
> >[..]
>
>[..]
>
Michael, you wrote:

> 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.
>
Let me see if I can find what you referred to and answer you.

> > > 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.
>
Here is what you have no clue of how the social and economic picture
in China was like.There were no libraries, few schools, hardly a
person could read and write. People communicate by word of mouth. I
myself have acquired colloquial expressions that I still don't know
what the words are.
Here is an example of what I mean. I just figured out this means the
other day. It is pinyin in my dialect, "yim-gong", a common expression
of sympathy for some one as the result of an unkind act by some one
else. Yim = shady as yin also. Kong = work. The meaning in common
usage is an extraction and its sound can be misinterpreted and
misleading.

My "evidence" is in my internal "wiring" so to speak. I lived in those
conditions. I have another example. Women in olden day China were
practically nameless except being known as wife of a man. She never
knew how to write it and she never needs to write it. How do people
learn anything, by word of mouth.

The fact Pan and Peng were writing their own manuals indicate to me
they did not have other manuals then (at least no reference made to
existing manuals). They had to rely on others' verbal knowledge which
we have seen to be not so reliable. Examples include ma = horse and ma
= hemp.

A question Just come to my mind. I wonder what Pan and Peng's
education background was. We regrd them as authoritative references.

> You have no idea how long the cards existed before Pan's description
> (because you have provided no evidence at all). [..]

It does not matter how long the cards existed. The educational and
social systems could not have been any better, if not worse; therefor
irrelevant.

I hope that answers your point (1), (2) and (3). That is enough.
>
> [..]
>
> > [..]
>
> > > [..]
>
+++++++++++++
Cheers....al

On Dec 13, 9:00 am, mstanwick <mstanw....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 12:40 am, al <a....DeleteThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> This is my last reply to this thread.
>
Take a look at the divination symbols, Michael.
http://www.taopage.org//iching/iching_symbols.html
> > [..]
You also wrote:

> 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.
> [.]
Now I will try to reply just to your item (4).
>
> > 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!
>
I just read that line and I thought that was clear enough.

> "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."
>
This whole paragraph is confusing to me.
It talks of imagery of plums remaining above a well. What does that
picture look like to you? To me, a plum is a plum, on a tree or above
a well. It looks like fruit.
And what is a sprig of flower to you? To me, it sounds like, by the
description given, tiny head of a fruit, comparable to the tiny bud of
a flower. So my honest interpretation was that they were bunches of
tiny fruits at the ends of twigs.

I saw pictures of 2 cards ( 8 and 9) in a suit full of taiji diagrams.
The clusters look like grapes. BTW the taiji diagrams took the place
of tongs. You know of course. That is one of the games in he
catalogue.

> > 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.

But I read it as Lo's remark. Following the title, Distinguishing
SuitS, Lo noted 'I take my model from Kunshan".

HOWEVER, THE DEFINITION OF PAN AND PENG FOR CASH INCLUDES A SQUARE
HOLE. MAHJONG CIRCLES DO NOT HAVE SQUARE HOLES, ONLY DIFFERENT SIZES
OF CIRCLES AND MAY BE A DOT AT THE CENTER. CASH is not cash
regardless.
>
> > 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.
>
This sounds more like rationalization to me, Michael. Why would the
whole suit of symbol change its name just because one card "half-
cash"?
> > > [..]
>
> > [..]
>
> > Mahjong 'tong' has no square hole. It has concentric circles.
>
> That is true. However, the tradiition of artistic licence ...
>
Not only true...your Cash is not cash. I don't see how you can defend
it.
Again, justification for inconsistencies weakens further your cash-
base hypot.
I stated long ago and restate it again. Names and shapes of symbols
are only secondary to structure and rules of the game as means of
getting to the root of mahjong.
+++++++
P.S. coins of divination can be with or without a square hole.
http://www.taopage.org//iching/iching_symbols.html
+++++++++
Cheers.....al

On Dec 14 2007, 11:07 am, "Tom Sloper"
<tslo... RemoveThis @DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote:
> "al" <a... RemoveThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > But first let me remind you my question is "Origin of Mahjong Invented
> > or Evolved?"
>
> That's a classic two-choices question. The problem with two-choices
> questions is that they're almost always fallacious. Most of the time, the
> answer to a two-choices question is either "both" or "neither" or "it
> depends."

++++ "Almost always ( or not almost always) fallacious"?How is it in
this case? Is this not a two-choice situation?

> In this case, the most likely answer is "both."

++++ Why?

> There most likely was one or more persons responsible for taking the
> money-suited cards and making them into thick small tiles, and adding the
> winds (and possibly other designs), making a game very different from matiao
> or peng he pai.

+++++ Where is your evidence? There is no real cash in mahjong
symbols. The concentric circles are more like King Wen circles of I-
Ching (old and new) where the first circle is the Origin of
everything, the second circle is the Yin and Yang, the next circle is
where the 2-line bigrams are then the 3-line trigrams (bagua) and next
would be he 64 hexagrams.They are represented by concentric circles,
as I see them. Any coins with or without holes would be divination
coins. Look at the sample divination coins here.

http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg

http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html

Who says mahjong has to be evolved from paper cards.Have you not seen
historic carving on bones done long before paper printing? Have you
not seen markings on bamboo strips done long before paper drawing?The
engraving could have been easily done with a knife when bones and
bamboo were more plentiful than paper. Why couldn't or shouldn't
mahjong come before paper cards? Dice came before cards. Chinese
writing (pictograph or ideograph) came before Water Margin figures.

Think about it. Bone, bamboo and carvings of symbols and Chinese
writing all appeared long before paper, printing and historic novel.
Where is the research?
Bone, bamboo symbols and words belong to mahjong. Paper, printing and
novel figures belong to cards. Which do you think had come first?
Think again.

> But that person or persons was inspired by the money-suited cards, working
> from money-suited cards as the foundation - thus the new game was part
> evolution AND part invention (revolution).[..]

Regardless of semantics, mahjong has enough unique and different
features in its external physical characteristics in addition to its
sub-set 2-3-3-3-3 formation pattern to distinguish it as an invention
by any standard anywhere, anytime.

Talking about inspiration and invention, I read that there has not
been anything new since at least 125 years ago after Wilkinson's.

Here is something new for a "change". Suo3 is not "string of cash". It
relates to divination (Book of Changes) if the word's proper meaning
had been taken.
+++++++++++++
Cheers....al

al wrote:
> On Dec 14 2007, 11:07 am, "Tom Sloper"
> <tslo... RemoveThis @DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote:
>
>>"al" <a... RemoveThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>>
>>
>>>But first let me remind you my question is "Origin of Mahjong Invented
>>>or Evolved?"
>>
>>That's a classic two-choices question. The problem with two-choices
>>questions is that they're almost always fallacious. Most of the time, the
>>answer to a two-choices question is either "both" or "neither" or "it
>>depends."
>
>
> ++++ "Almost always ( or not almost always) fallacious"?How is it in
> this case? Is this not a two-choice situation?
>
>
>>In this case, the most likely answer is "both."
>
>
> ++++ Why?
>
>
>>There most likely was one or more persons responsible for taking the
>>money-suited cards and making them into thick small tiles, and adding the
>>winds (and possibly other designs), making a game very different from matiao
>>or peng he pai.
>
>
> +++++ Where is your evidence? There is no real cash in mahjong
> symbols. The concentric circles are more like King Wen circles of I-
> Ching (old and new) where the first circle is the Origin of
> everything, the second circle is the Yin and Yang, the next circle is
> where the 2-line bigrams are then the 3-line trigrams (bagua) and next
> would be he 64 hexagrams.They are represented by concentric circles,
> as I see them. Any coins with or without holes would be divination
> coins. Look at the sample divination coins here.
>
> http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg
>
> http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
>
> Who says mahjong has to be evolved from paper cards.Have you not seen
> historic carving on bones done long before paper printing? Have you
> not seen markings on bamboo strips done long before paper drawing?The
> engraving could have been easily done with a knife when bones and
> bamboo were more plentiful than paper. Why couldn't or shouldn't
> mahjong come before paper cards? Dice came before cards. Chinese
> writing (pictograph or ideograph) came before Water Margin figures.

If the tiles, either on bone or bamboo, are older than paper cards,
where are examples of ancient mah jongg tiles that predate the paper
cards?

> Think about it. Bone, bamboo and carvings of symbols and Chinese
> writing all appeared long before paper, printing and historic novel.
> Where is the research?
> Bone, bamboo symbols and words belong to mahjong. Paper, printing and
> novel figures belong to cards. Which do you think had come first?
> Think again.
>
>
>>But that person or persons was inspired by the money-suited cards, working
>>from money-suited cards as the foundation - thus the new game was part
>>evolution AND part invention (revolution).[..]
>
>
> Regardless of semantics, mahjong has enough unique and different
> features in its external physical characteristics in addition to its
> sub-set 2-3-3-3-3 formation pattern to distinguish it as an invention
> by any standard anywhere, anytime.
>
> Talking about inspiration and invention, I read that there has not
> been anything new since at least 125 years ago after Wilkinson's.
>
> Here is something new for a "change". Suo3 is not "string of cash". It
> relates to divination (Book of Changes) if the word's proper meaning
> had been taken.
> +++++++++++++
> Cheers....al
>


--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-- Galileo Galilei

On Jan 12, 4:16 am, Jon Schild <j... RemoveThis @xmission.com> wrote:
> al wrote:
> > On Dec 14 2007, 11:07 am, "Tom Sloper"
> > <tslo... RemoveThis @DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote:
>
> >>"al" <a... RemoveThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> >>>But first let me remind you my question is "Origin of Mahjong Invented
> >>>or Evolved?"
>
> >>That's a classic two-choices question. The problem with two-choices
> >>questions is that they're almost always fallacious. Most of the time, the
> >>answer to a two-choices question is either "both" or "neither" or "it
> >>depends."
>
> > ++++ "Almost always ( or not almost always) fallacious"?How is it in
> > this case? Is this not a two-choice situation?
>
> >>In this case, the most likely answer is "both."
>
> > ++++ Why?
>
> >>There most likely was one or more persons responsible for taking the
> >>money-suited cards and making them into thick small tiles, and adding the
> >>winds (and possibly other designs), making a game very different from matiao
> >>or peng he pai.
>
> > +++++ Where is your evidence? There is no real cash in mahjong
> > symbols. The concentric circles are more like King Wen circles of I-
> > Ching (old and new) where the first circle is the Origin of
> > everything, the second circle is the Yin and Yang, the next circle is
> > where the 2-line bigrams are then the 3-line trigrams (bagua) and next
> > would be he 64 hexagrams.They are represented by concentric circles,
> > as I see them. Any coins with or without holes would be divination
> > coins. Look at the sample divination coins here.
>
> > http://www.taopage.org/iching/image_4.jpg
>
> >http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
>
> > Who says mahjong has to be evolved from paper cards.Have you not seen
> > historic carving on bones done long before paper printing? Have you
> > not seen markings on bamboo strips done long before paper drawing?The
> > engraving could have been easily done with a knife when bones and
> > bamboo were more plentiful than paper. Why couldn't or shouldn't
> > mahjong come before paper cards? Dice came before cards. Chinese
> > writing (pictograph or ideograph) came before Water Margin figures.
>
> If the tiles, either on bone or bamboo, are older than paper cards,
> where are examples of ancient mah jongg tiles that predate the paper
> cards?
>
They are not found yet.

When something that is not yet discovered, it can still exist and
hidden. For example, just because the volcano was there for ages, it
did not mean a diamond deposit was not there. A diamond mining
operation is going on inside and under an old volcano. I just learned.
Another example, the atom was not seen or known to us for a long time.
I have not actually seen it yet, but it is really there. Why? because
it makes sense.

There was major archaeological find in China (1993). 800 bamboo strips
scattered on the floor of a stone sarcophagus inside a tomb slightly
larger than a coffin dating back to the 4th century B.C.

Who knows if and when an old mahjong set won't turn up in an old tomb
somewhere?
>
As I said...
>
> > Think about it. Bone, bamboo and carvings of symbols and Chinese
> > writing all appeared long before paper, printing and historic novel.
> > [..]
> > Bone, bamboo symbols and words belong to mahjong. Paper, printing and
> > novel figures belong to cards.[..]

Engraved bamboo tiles could have come before printed paper cards. It
took centuries to make paper from bamboo.
>
> >>But that person or persons was inspired by the money-suited cards, working
> >>from money-suited cards as the foundation -[..]
>
The so-called Money-Suited-cards notion is like the "flat-earth" or
geocentric doctrine, a conclusion based on incomplete explanation due
to partial observation and wrong assumptions. It is lasting because it
has sound logic based on faulty information.

Money-suited cards had nothing like mahjong's 4th suit that has the
EAST, SOUTH, WEST AND NORTH (winds / directions) or the Zhong-Fa-Bai.
The simple fact is MONEY cannot account for the presence of these
worded suit which has meaning beyond the power and influence of CASH.

By the way, proponents of "money-suited" said that they don't have to
explain about the suit for ESWN ans Z-F-B in mahjong, because they did
not claim to have included that in their money-suited hypothesis.
Perfectly logical.

> > Regardless of semantics, mahjong has enough unique and different
> > features in its external physical characteristics

Solid blocks of bamboo or bone instead of thin paper. Simple symbols
designs instead of cluttered full-page drawings. Free-standing tile-
block instead of hand-held paper cards. They are different breeds.

> > in addition to its sub-set 2-3-3-3-3 [..] pattern to distinguish
it as an invention
> > by any standard anywhere, anytime.
>
No other game is anywhere near mahjong. Rummy? No. I checked into
that.
I posted a detailed comparison of mahjong to Rummy earlier.

> > Talking about inspiration and invention, I read that there has not
> > been anything new since at least 125 years ago after Wilkinson's.
>
> > Here is something new for a "change". Suo3 is not "string of cash". It
> > relates to divination (Book of Changes) if the word's proper meaning
> > had been taken.

You can look up the dictionary to confirm what "suo3" means. It has a
wide range of meanings, like most Chinese words. Beside meaning a
"rope", it could mean "grope" as well as the following: to search, to
ask, to demand, to exact...What is new is a different interpretation
for "suo3".

Cheers.....al
> > +++++++++++++
> > Cheers....al
> --
> I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
> with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
> -- Galileo Galilei
+++++++++
Well said. Galileo used his sense and reason to reject the geocentric
theory established for 2000 years I am using my sense and reason to
reject the 130-year money-suited hypothesis now.
+++++++++
Cheers....al

On Jan 12, 7:54 pm, al <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 4:16 am, Jon Schild <j....RemoveThis@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> > al wrote:
> > > On Dec 14 2007, 11:07 am, "Tom Sloper"
> > > <tslo....RemoveThis@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote:
>
> > >>"al" <a....RemoveThis@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > >>>But first let me remind you my question is "Origin of Mahjong Invented
> > >>>or Evolved?"
>
I have not raised any question for a while.

> > >>That's a classic two-choices question. The problem with two-choices
> > >>questions is that they're almost always fallacious.
That reminds me of another classic 2-choice situation. It was in
ancient divination answers which used to be "go or no-go", equivalent
to flipping a coin (even before coins were available).
++++++++++
Most of the time, the
> > >>answer to a two-choices question is either "both" or "neither" or "it
> > >>depends."
>
I thought people found it helpful.

> > > ++++ "Almost always ( or not almost always) fallacious"?How is it in
> > > this case? Is this not a two-choice situation?
>
> > >>In this case, the most likely answer is "both."
>
> > > ++++ [..] [..] [..]
> [..][..[
> +++++++++
> Well said. Galileo used his sense and reason to reject the geocentric
> theory established for 2000 years I am using my sense and reason to
> reject the 130-year money-suited hypothesis now.
> +++++++++
> [..] [..]

I can$B!G(Bt help but wonder what scholars and historians of mahjong are up
to these days. Discussion on the subject is dead.

Let$B!G(Bs see if we can get it liven up with new ideas and questions. I
recall I was asked if I had something against Westerners, though I
forgot what I said that prompted the query. Anyway I don$B!G(Bt remember my
reply and even now I have difficulty putting up a proper answer. But
after 10 months in the Discussion Group, I come to revisit the
question, which is to the effect, $B!H(BDo you have something against
Westerners?$B!I(B

My answer, from my learning experience in the group, is $B!H(Byes$B!I(B. Let me
explain.

Westerners tend to be arrogant about their logical scientific thinking
and analytical correctness. That is in contrast with Easterners$B!G(B
intuitive and correlative conjectures. Westerners know that their
modern method is superior, so they tend to be stubborn with their own
ideas, unappreciative of the approach of Easterners who might also
lack eloquence in explaining. Westerners feel justified in so doing.
The evidence of that is in the way Westerners now holding on to
records and misconceptions by Westerners on mahjong from over 100
years ago.

Westerners still tend to be ignorant of Chinese culture and tradition.
They failed to grasp the simple idea that symbol is everything or
everything is symbol. Mahjong game is no exception. Let me explain.

When a language, like the Chinese, was based on symbols and pictures,
the words are also symbols and pictures. Then Chinese thinking is also
in symbols and pictures. Take the word, $BEl(B (east) for example, it shows
a sun $BF|(B coming up and shining through a tree $BLZ(B. Note that wood $BLZ(B is
symbol for the whole tree, $B<y(B. Both $B!F(Bsun$B!G(B and $B!F(Bwood$B!G(B are only abstracts
of the real objects. That is emphatically clear. $BF|(B and $BLZ(B are not the
real objects. They are symbols. Furthermore, symbols can be metaphors
which have different connotative meanings. The sun has different
significance in Japan from what is in China. A coin can mean more than
just a coin; it could symbolize wealth. Just as a tree can mean more
than just a tree; it could symbolize health, growth or prosperity.

Westerners (scholars and historians) like Glover, Himley, Culin and
Wilkinson, made the same mistake. They got hold of a round symbol and
cast it as $B!H(Bcash$B!I(B, a real object; then multiplied the mistake by
extrapolating another symbol $Bh_(B or $BK|(B to mean a quantity of finite
specific value. Those Westerners ignored or were ignorant of the fact
that $Bh_(B or $BK|(B has figuratively $B!H(Bten thousand$B!I(B meanings. Convinced of
their scientific deduction, they concluded that the third symbol must
be also quantitative and settled on an interpretation of one of the
multiple definitions of (suo3) in a dictionary, as a $B!H(Bstring of cash$B!I(B.

So now mahjong history has it down authoritatively that the game is
"money- suited" or $B!H(Bmoney-based$B!I(B. I do not know who the Chinese
mahjong scholars / historians are and where they have been. I expect
Western ignorance and arrogance will keep the $B!H(Bmoney-based$B!I(B notion for
the next 100 years.
++++++++++
Cheers.....al

On Mar 1, 1:57 pm, al <a... RemoveThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:54 pm, al <a... RemoveThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Jan 12, 4:16 am, Jon Schild <j... RemoveThis @xmission.com> wrote:
>
> > > al wrote:
> > > > On Dec 14 2007, 11:07 am, "Tom Sloper"
> > > > <tslo... RemoveThis @DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>"al" <a... RemoveThis @ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > > >>>But first let me remind you my question is "Origin of Mahjong Invented
> > > >>>or Evolved?"
>
> I have not raised any question for a while.
>
> > > >>That's a classic two-choices question. The problem with two-choices
> > > >>questions is that they're almost always fallacious.
>
> That reminds me of another classic 2-choice situation. It was in
> ancient divination answers which used to be "go or no-go", equivalent
> to flipping a coin (even before coins were available).
> ++++++++++
> Most of the time, the> > >>answer to a two-choices question is either "both" or "neither" or "it
> > > >>depends."
>
> I thought people found it helpful.
>
KINGS AND COMMONERS GOT DIRECTIONS FROM DIVINATION.

> > > > ++++ "Almost always ( or not almost always) fallacious"?How is it in
> > > > this case? Is this not a two-choice situation?
>
SIMPLER, THE BETTER...

> > > >>In this case, the most likely answer is "both."
>
THEN EITHER IS OK.

> > > > ++++ [..] [..] [..]
> > [..][..[
> > +++++++++
> > Well said. Galileo used his sense and reason to reject the geocentric
> > theory established for 2000 years I am using my sense and reason to
> > reject the 130-year money-suited hypothesis now.
> > +++++++++
> > [..] [..]
>
> I can$B!G(Bt help but wonder what scholars and historians of mahjong are up
> to these days. Discussion on the subject is dead.
>
> [..]
>
> Westerners still tend to be ignorant of Chinese culture and tradition.
> They failed to grasp the simple idea that symbol is everything or
> everything is symbol. Mahjong game is no exception. Let me explain.
>
PUT IT SIMPLY, THAT ROUND CIRCLE SYMBOL IS A SYMBOL, NOT CASH.

> When a language, like the Chinese, was based on symbols and pictures,
> the words are also symbols and pictures. Then Chinese thinking is also
> in symbols and pictures. Take the word, $BEl(B (east) for example, it shows
> a sun $BF|(B coming up and shining through a tree $BLZ(B. Note that wood $BLZ(B is
> symbol for the whole tree, $B<y(B. Both $B!F(Bsun$B!G(B and $B!F(Bwood$B!G(B are only abstracts
> of the real objects. That is emphatically clear. $BF|(B and $BLZ(B are not the
> real objects. They are symbols. Furthermore, symbols can be metaphors
> which have different connotative meanings. The sun has different
> significance in Japan from what is in China. A coin can mean more than
> just a coin; it could symbolize wealth. Just as a tree can mean more
> than just a tree; it could symbolize health, growth or prosperity.
>
MAHJONG SYMBOLS ARE NOT "MONEY-SUITED"

> Westerners (scholars and historians) like Glover, Himley, Culin and
> Wilkinson, made the same mistake. They got hold of a round symbol and
> cast it as $B!H(Bcash$B!I(B, a real object; then multiplied the mistake by
> extrapolating another symbol $Bh_(B or $BK|(B to mean a quantity of finite
> specific value. Those Westerners ignored or were ignorant of the fact
> that $Bh_(B or $BK|(B has figuratively $B!H(Bten thousand$B!I(B meanings. Convinced of
> their scientific deduction, they concluded that the third symbol must
> be also quantitative and settled on an interpretation of one of the
> multiple definitions of (suo3) in a dictionary, as a $B!H(Bstring of cash$B!I(B.
>
THAT IS THE SHORT-COMING OF LINEAR THINKING IN 2 DIMENSIONS FROM POINT
A TO POINT B THEN POINT C. THE TROUBLE IS IF AND WHEN ONE ASSUMPTION
IS FALSE, THE CONCLUSION IS WRONG.

THE "CASH" ASSUMPTION IS A CASE IN POINT.

THE MAHJONG CIRCLES DON'T EVEN HAVE SQUARE HOLES!!!

> So now mahjong history has it down authoritatively that the game is
> "money- suited" or $B!H(Bmoney-based$B!I(B. I do not know who the Chinese
> mahjong scholars / historians are and where they have been. I expect
> Western ignorance and arrogance will keep the $B!H(Bmoney-based$B!I(B notion for
> the next 100 years.
> ++++++++++
> Cheers.....al
++++++++++++++++++++++++
SINCE NO OTHER GAME HAS THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF PATTERN FORMING GAME-
PLAY AND THREE-CARD SUBGROUPING, MAHJONG IS MORE THAN QUALIFIED AS AN
INVENTION.
JUST THINK. WHAT OTHER GAME HAS A PAIR OF "EYES" IN IT?
++++++++++++++
CHEERS.......AL