On Apr 2, 8:31 am, al <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
++++++++++++++++++
The following is a quite from the web.
"Currently, the common belief among anthropologists and historians is
of the Asian origins of playing cards. Paper was invented in China a
thousand years before the Middle East, making it a more likely choice
for the origins of playing cards. The Asian origins theory was
rejected for a long time because of the vast difference between Asian
playing cards and the playing cards from the Western world. Today,
the Asian origins are more widely accepted."
These experts place the origins of playing cards sometime around the
10th century, in Central Asia. The Chinese used paper dominoes,
shuffling and dealing them, in various new games."
++++++++++++++++++++
Paper was invented about a 1000 years before the middle age. Expert
anthropologists and historians favor China as the place of origin of
playing cards. The simple reason is based on the fact that cards are
made of paper.
By the same line of logic, I propose Mahjong was invented and not
evolved from playing cards. The simple fact is that bones and bamboo
or wood were there long before paper. It was by far easier to carve or
engrave a block of wood, bamboo or bone than to invent paper, draw the
design with a needle-point pen and print the cards.
An evidential example is the dice. Engraving a dice is like engraving
a mahjong tile. Dice came long before playing cards. By the same
reasoning, I say mahjong came before paper cards.
Therefore, mahjong or Mah-Jongg was an invention via correlative
reasoning which some historians and anthropologists use.
As a reminder, time of discovery is not necessarily the age of an
artifact.
++++++++++
Cheers....al
|
