On Jan 30, 10:40 pm, al <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Dec 8 2007, 11:28 am, al <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> On Oct 19,
11:11 am, d_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
I asked back in Oct. 10 2007 this question.
"Are there principles in the rules of Mahjong?"
> > > On Oct 14, 8:17 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> [..]
> > > > al wrote:
> > > > >[..]
>
al wrote:
> It looks to be the case. Principle seems to be a new concept for
> mahjong. > No one cares to discuss it.
> ++++++
> Furthermore, is it possible the lack of >
> > > > > principles is due to the game's doubtful origin?
Again, it looks that way, too.
>
> Not only doubtful, but dead wrong.
Cash and strings of Cash have no consideration for principles.
>
> > > > [snip]
>
al:
> I have not read about "commoners" making change to mahjong rules, but
> I know from Lo's translation of Ma Diao, an official (Vice Minister of
> War, 1525-1593) named Wang Daokun reversed the hierarchy of a whole
> suit, making Zero Cash supreme. He also "dismissed the universe". He
> basically deleted the principles.
>
Reader's comment:
> > > I find this discussion interesting because both Al's are using the
> > > word "principles" and it means completely different things to each
> > > of them. If I understand them correctly, one "Al" is talking about
> > > the (possible) "story" behind the game and the other "Al" is
> > > talking about the "rationale" behind the scoring system. [..]
>
> That observation is about right. The theme is in the design structure
> and the principles should be in the rules of game-play, [..]
>
> My contention is that a "cash base" design offers no principles for
> the rules of game-play in mahjong, [mahjong was not even for gambling
but for recreation among the upper class. So why all the Cash and Strings
of Cash?]
Mahjong has been a game of intricate design with extraordinary
symbols.
> Does mahjong look like a game that got its 136 or more pieces thrown
> together by random chance? Of course not. Then how and why? What is
> the possible "story"?
>
Mahjong was created by design. And as the design of today is believed
to be evolved through time, then it simply means the game is much
older than the time when it was discovered and re****ted by foreigners.
> > [..]
> [..]
>
> > "Let us take a basic rule in mahjong like for a winning hand, a player
> > needs to have 14 cards in a typical pattern, 2-3-3-3-3.
>
> This is very unique pattern to mahjong.
It could have been 2.3.3 when and if there were only 60 blocks.
> The "2" has at least 2 levels of meanings in the mahjong theme.
> The first is philosophical, representing yin and yang, the opposite
> polarities of creation of the universe as the Chinese [believed] it
> thousands years ago. The second is mathematical binary system of
> scoring by a power of 2 [for each fann].
>
> Then 3's are similar to the binary combination in I-Ching where 2 to
> power-3 is the 8-trigram [Bagua] and 2 to power-6 is 64 hexagram.
> A winning hand is like yin and yang plus 4 trigrams which is 2
> hexagrams. The correlation between the I-Ching and mahjong is
> undeniably obvious. Furthermore the concept of changes applies in the
> method of play in mahjong, i.e. draw and discard.That is simply a
> process of recurring changes.
This is a principal concept for the game: the universe is in constant
and continual change, the 4 seasons, the wind directions and life as
a whole for all living. A player is making changes to the 13 cards
throughout each hand and the game.
Changes are what the Book of Changes is all about.
The correlation is there amply clear. Readers can decide if that was
accidental or by design. It can not be proven by linear thinking.
>
> > The runs can not exceed 3 cards. A pair must be there.
Trigrams are made of 3 yin-yang lines in I-Ching. 3-some format is
symbolic.
A pair of "eyes" is needed. What other game requires that? But
remember. The apple in the Garden was a metaphor; so are the eyes
here.
>
> > This requirement for a winning hand is probably unchanged from way
> > back.
The unique design and rules of play are more reliable characteristics
of the game than all the names you can dig up from novels and
translated text.
>
> Such game design pattern and method of play are far more reliable
> indicators of mahjong origin than a few round circles and knotted
> sticks called by uncertain names in unknown dialects.>[..]
> > [..]
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
>
Once the underlying principles are understood and appreciated, then
the symbols can be meaningful in a coherent way and related to a
central theme.
> ++++++++++
> Cheers.....al
P.S. I am not talking to myself. I am writing for your interest and
whomever happens to read it.
|
