On Mar 1, 1:57 pm, al <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:54 pm, al <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> On Jan 12, 4:16
am, Jon Schild <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > al wrote:
> > > > On Dec 14 2007, 11:07 am, "Tom Sloper"
> > > > <tslo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > >>"al" <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 ****ning 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
|
