Re: Winds order
- From: mstanwick@xxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 05:28:11 -0700
On Jul 15, 10:45 pm, al <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
Hello, Michael,
I could not reply direct to your post in "Why a Sparrow", after
earlier attempts, so I now give you that first, then we can discuss
the directions tiles.
Hello Allan. Ok. But 1st, can you please quote only the **immediate
piece of text that contains the info you are replying to**? In your
reply there is a hell of a lot of my reply that you didn't need to
quote. If people want to get a wider understanding of what I said then
all they need to do is go back to my reply and have a look. It would
save me having to trawl through your reply to find your answers. Just
put [snip] in where you have left out parts of someones reply. Thanks.
^_^
[snip]
a simple exercise, Michael? Did you try it? How long did it> > take you?
Yes. 30 seconds at most.
More than that and it does not prove anything, Michael. So why bother?
That was why I wondered what the purpose was.
The purpose was to illustrate a possible explanation for why the
Directions are arranged ESWN. I was not trying to prove anything. I
mentioned it because I know that the Directions have also been called
'Heavenly Directions' . For the purpose of the discussion I
interpreted Heavenly Directions to mean Celestial Directions (a not
unwarranted interpretation as I know the ancient chinese made
celestial observations). Thus, the arrangement ESWN is consistent with
the Directions as seen when looking up - as I illustrated.
The next problem you were discussing was why the anticlockwise
rotation. I offered an additional possible explanation - that
according to the ancient philosophy of wu xing the fours Directions
are paired with the four Seasons thus; east/spring, south/summer, west/
autumn and north/winter. IF the Seasonal pro,gression is SSAW and
since they are linked with ESWN, then the anticlockwise rotation of
the Directions is determined by Seasonal progression.
This accounts for both your observations. That is why I bothered. It
may be right, it may be wrong or it may be a bit of both.
[snip]
To me, this is evidence to support the hypothesis that the game of MJ
had its design begun before 1600 AD. (intellectual evidence, if you
will...
[snip]
If your evidence is solid then all you can say, or claim, is that
**'micro' feature** found in maque had appeared at your claimed time
in the past. You have not established that the **game** appeared at
that time in the past because we know that that 'micro feature' was
also used in earlier games such as the Late Ming game of Ma Diao. It
was not **exclusively linked** with maque.
So exclusivity is the key and only acceptable micro or/and macro
features as evidence?
How has the "money-based " hypotheses perform under the same rules?
Sorry, you misunderstand me. I will explain using part of your own
quote above but with some added words.
"To me, this is evidence to support the hypothesis that [A GAME
FEATURE ALREADY EXISTING BEFORE 1600AD, WAS BORROWED AND INSERTED INTO
THE GAME OF MJ AT SOME POINT IN TIME AFTER THAT DATE.]"
MJ originated during the GEOCENTRIC period.
This is very simple basic explanation. Why is it so difficult to
explore further? Has there been anybody else examined the idea and
discarded by experts? It's a scientific clue.
No. It was also used in the Late Ming game of Ma Diao. There is no
evidence that the **game** of ma que was around at that time.
So, this anomaly of reversed rotation of ESWN has never been explored.
It is a macro feature. Do I get the impression that it is insignificant?
No. This goes to the question of how far do we go in reducing the
characteristics of what we know as the game of maque before it ceases
to be recognisably maque? Cofa has his proposal. By your statements
you would go back to the feature of "reversed rotation of ESWN". Is
that right?
So any game that had this feature was therefore maque??? I would
totally disagree with that claim. That is why I have amended your
hypothesis above.
You just said "it was used in the Late Ming game of Ma Diao."
What do you mean exactly, Michael? Ma Dial used ESWN Directions?
No. The anticlockwise order of dealing and playing was found in the
Late Ming game of Ma Diao. Check out Lo's article in The Playing-card
Vol XXIX, number 3, page 117. It is # 3 of the General Features of
that game.
That is why the order of ESWN is a SEPARATE ISSUE from the
anticlockwise rotation issue. Further, because this feature is found
in Ma Diao we cannot therefore say that it is an indicator of maque,
because if we did then we would have to admit that ma diao was also
maque!!!
[snip]
However, one of the micro-features found in maque, was around at that time.
What was that, Michael?
I was restating your claim/hypothesis. The micro-feature = the
anticlockwise rotation.
It sounds like a detective story here, unless there is a dead body,
there is no homicide. So without a set of tiles unearthed somewhere.
Nothing else matters much.
No. Every feature of the game DOES matter. What matters more though is
how we analyse and draw conclusions from the research into those
features. In my opinion (and I have given you a full explanation
underpinning it) is that you seem to have concluded too much from the
information because you have assumed too much about it.
You admitted it is speculation at this point. It has been in
speculation since the first Westerner whoever that brought it up.
What is your problem with Westerners Allan? Nationality is ****utterly
irrelevant**** at this point.
Westerners tend to project too much interpretation into Chinese
philosophy, because they often lack depth in understanding the
language and they lack breadth in experience of Chinese culture. They
are usually articulate and once their version of an idea gets
formulated and published, it gets repeated and stays for a long time,
if not forever.Tai Chi is an example besides MJ.
OK. Thanks for that baseless accusation. It is baseless precisely
because you have NOT given any evidence to back it up. Please describe
for me evidence that shows where and how "Westerners tend to project
too much interpretation into Chinese philosophy, because they often
lack depth in understanding the language and they lack breadth in
experience of Chinese culture." I don't want Tai Chi examples, I want
evidence that specifically is from the discourse about maque.
If you give me some evidence, I will throw my hands up and will admit
that the ***person*** who incorrectly misinterpreted the philosophy in
question got it wrong. Then you will show me that they got it wrong
because they are a Westerner. I will want to see THE LINK between
being a Westerner and TENDING TO PROJECT TOO MUCH INTERPRETATION into
Chinese philosophy. I am NOT denying that it has happened, only that
you haven't given any examples from the discourse on maque. The
examples will be reasons and argument.
I have spent a great deal of time on this because I dislike
**baseless** labelling of people according to where they come from.
The 5 Processes or Wu Xing or 5 elements
etc is an ancient Chinese cosmological/philosophical idea about how
reality works and events occur. It had its beginnings traced back to
around 250BC and we know of it from the 4th century "Tso Commentary".
If you want to know more, get hold of the text "Disputers of the Tao;
philosophical argument in ancient China" by A. C. Graham.
The speculation I mentioned, was related to whether the Seasonal
progression and therefore Directions progression, was related to
Maque.
In all seriousness, Michael, if you can't accept the reversed
directions of game-play as an indication of time, why would you bring
on something like the 5 processes to add confusion to the question?
Because it may be relevant. It is linked to religious Taoism. It is
not my confusion it is yours. That is why I suggested you might want
to read the book I suggested. It describes what i have been
describing. My description was the content of MY speculative
explanation about the Directions/Seasons and order of rotation.
I agree with you on that. Ironically, your grade school lesson did
nothing to answer the question.
[snip]
Yes it did. It offered an explanation for why the Directions are
ordered as ESWN.
[snip]
That something
was created in the mind of someone who had used the knowledge
available to him in his time. THAT TIME is what our question is about.
The tiles ESWN can indicate to us THAT TIME. I treat the tiles as
"representing something" with a hidden time factor, Michael.
The (1) tiles ESWN, their (2) order as E-S-W-N, and (3) the
anticlockwise direction of rotation of play, are three separate
features.
You conflated all three.
We know of (3) from the Late Ming period Ma Diao game. We do not know
of (1) and (2) in games with maque gameplay features before the early
Qing period.
Michael
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Winds order
- From: al
- Re: Winds order
- References:
- Winds order
- From: Cofa Tsui
- Re: Winds order
- From: mstanwick
- Re: Winds order
- From: al
- Winds order
- Prev by Date: Re: Poll : Do you play Mahjong?
- Next by Date: MarCheuk FAQs
- Previous by thread: Re: Winds order
- Next by thread: Re: Winds order
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
