Re: Numbers of tiles in the Himly and Glover sets.

On Mar 18, 10:24 pm, al <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 17, 7:40 pm, mstanw...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:> On Mar 17, 3:30 am,

Also, the ‘wang’ tiles (HK, EK, MK and HK) in this set are not a triad
but are in fact a group of four – a quartet. They all four have the
‘wang’ character and they all have green frames. The only other tiles
with green frames are the Direction ‘wang’ tiles. They are the same in
the two Glover sets as well.

I do not know about any significance of the green frame. I would say
the fourth "Wang" is not part of the triad, but it is about the 3
Wangs in the triad. When M follows E and E follows H, the universe is
in harmony.

That is also my understanding of the relationship (Culin also mentions
it in his 1924 article). However, my point is that in these tile sets
these tiles are shown as a group of 4, as I argued above, and hence
that relationship is seen to be involving all of them. It is that
relationship that is expressed through them being seen and understood
as a quartet.

I am sorry to disappoint you. You must remember my mentioning the Book
‘Disputers of the Tao; philosophical argument in ancient China’, by A.
C. Graham.?

What did he say exactly? I never did read that book.

“Still avoiding the disputed issue of whether all thinking is at
bottom binary, one may notice that the binary tends to leave out the
maker of the opposition. ‘Left/right’, ‘above/below’, ‘before/after’ …
imply a spatial or temporal centre from which the opposition is drawn,
inviting the expansion of the pair to a triad. Thus in China the pair
heaven above and Earth below grows towards the end of the classical
period to the triad heaven, Earth and man.”

You don't mean A.C. Graham had given the same interpretation for the
Hk, EK and Mk, do you? I have to see it to believe it.

I am not sure what you mean.

I will have to get a copy of it. You would not tell me how it was
discussed?

See above.

The question is why are you calling them 'Winds'. Why did you not
consider them the 'Four Cardinal Directions'?

I use ESWN as place when refer to player positions and I call ESWN as
winds when I refer to the time cycle of the game.
Winds correspond with seasons and timing cycle of nature. That is way
now to-day and it was the way in days of antiquity.

Perhaps. However, it does not answer my question about whether you
chose to ignore other explanations (see below) and if so, why?

Players today or in the recent past called them 'Winds', but if you go
by your assumption that players could have changed these terms, then
why not say that these terms could have been Directions before they
were called Winds?

Why would you think that is possibly so?

Because we don’t know either way. There is no evidence from the time
of the earliest mention of ma que, that ESWN were called Winds by the
players. Perhaps they were and perhaps they were not.

Just because players now or in modern times call them Winds is not
evidence or reason for them being called Winds in the past.

There is evidence that terms (I mistakenly said ‘these terms’ ) used
for the pieces in the tile set were changed over a specific interval
of time and so you extrapolated and assumed that it could have
happened in previous times even though we have no evidence for that at
all.

So if you believe that and to be consistent, then why not apply that
assumption to the term used for the ESWN pieces?

Any evidence of that?

No there isn’t, just as there isn’t any evidence for them being called
Winds at that time. That is part of my point. There is no evidence in
either proposition’s favour. (Unless you have some from that time?)

The first thing a visitor asks is "What wind?" Nobody asks what
position or direction.

So you know this happened back in pre 1870?

Do you mean you know how (you have evidence) the game was played?

If you think that the game was designed by a designer, then why to
consider also that he/she intended these to be Directions?

That is the give-away sign for an inexperienced player to the game.
Such question does not exist in the mind of a seasoned player.

But a seasoned player of TODAY. Do you mean you know about (you have
evidence?) the players back in pre 1870?

Also, I would like to know why you keep banging on about being a
player, as if that has any relevance to the period we are talking
about. Sure, if we were talking about modern times (20th/21st
centuries) then yes, my experience as a player might be relevant,
because we know quite a lot about the game plays of the various types
of game.

Who first wrote about the celestial or cardinal directions among the
western historians?

I think it was Himly who mentioned the celestial Directions but the
idea of the Directions is mentioned in Graham, who discusses the
correlation of the Seasons with the Directions and the numbers 1 – 9
with these.

I am not talking about players of today or in the recent past. Because
these players happened approximately 178 years after the time we are
talking about (around or before 1870) they are not directly relevant
unless we have some really good connections between them.

Precisely, a seasoned MJ player does not need any "connections".

But it is not about what ‘seasoned MJ players’ of today need.

If you are going to argue that the ‘seasoned MJ players’ of around
1870 called them Winds or Directions or both, then you must give me
some credible evidence to show that was the case. Otherwise, we just
do not know.

Do you have any evidence of what terms they used for ESWN back in
~1870?

Because there is no evidence either way, I am withholding any
judgement on the matter – in other words, I am completely open minded
as far as that goes.

But if you say that one of the terms could not have been used for such
and such a reason, I will be interested in your thinking.

The earliest discussions of ESWN that I am aware of involved these as
Directions, not Winds. Hence, why I asked. The presence of Zhong as
the fifth Direction (middle or Center) was one idea, but put aside.

It is easy to be misled by the common reference as directions for
ESWN.

Why misled? Can you please tell me? I do not understand what you mean.

Who were all involved?

I don’t understand your question. Can you please tell me what you
mean?

The diagram shows clearly the seasons and winds change
counterclockwise. But Western historians never wrote about it. Thus
credible evidence is there, but unrecognized.

I am not going to comment about this aspect here as it already has
been discussed before. However, if you wish to restart the discussion,
as a new thread (not subject), then please feel free.

EAST SOUTH WEST NORTH have two dimensions, space and time. Beginner-
players learn that from the start.
Did it never occur to you that I am not talking about what players
know in the present?

What players know in the present learned from players in the past.

That is probably true. But what things were learnt is another matter,
don’t you agree?

But there are other explanations involving the Directions. Why did you
not consider those?
What or which other explanations do you mean? I can say when I found
out the earth revolves around the sun counter clockwise and generate the
seasonal change which is synonymous with wind change. I have no doubt
in my mind. Wind is the winner.(can you please see below)

In addition it bears out in actual game-play. Mahjong is a game that
is driven around by the winds. What more do I need to be convinced? I
did not appreciate this concept until recently.

That is good. I am pleased that you are gaining new appreciation and
knowledge.

But do you remember the thread’Winds Order’? There was information in
that about the fact that the counter clockwise rotation of play was
present in the card game Ma Diao, at a time before the earliest
recorded mention of ma que.

It is conceivable that this counter clockwise rotation of play was
inherited from Ma Diao and everything else was superimposed on that.

The seasonality of the winds is more significant to life and
livelihood. People change diets and medicate with herbs according to
seasonal changes. Their work in the fields are geared to seasonal
changes.
This is correct. But what of the conduct of the ruler? His behaviour
throughout the year was also governed by the four Seasons. According
to the discussion in Graham’s book; “With each season the Grand
Historiographer announces which of the potencies of the Five Processes
is now in ascendancy, robes are changed to the appropriate colour, and
the ruler occupies the appropriate quarter of the palace, from East to
South to West to North, moving from month to month through the three
rooms of a quarter.”
There are many rituals involving the functioning of the feudal society
that are performed by the ruler depending on and at the beginning of
each Season.
Well. You have Graham's book. So you know the seasonality significance
in Chinese history.

But you have not commented on my points about the rulers’ seasonal and
directional progression around his palace etc. - as another possible
explanation involving the *Directions*, the Seasons.

I am not for one minute saying that was the case – it is just another
possible idea.

How come you are asking this question now? [snip]
I asked because I wanted to know whether you had considered other
explanations.
I don't need other explanations.

Even though you have no evidence at all about how the game was played
in terms of positions of players and movement of play?

Are you telling me you know that walls were used in that very early
period?
If you are, can you please tell me how do you know?

No. It is still an old habit. I don't have difference in tense as'I
speak in Chinese. 'Is' is like 'was'.

That is really helpful. Thank you. It helps me to understand your
thinking.

I believe that was the way the game had been played with stacks of
tiles one way or another. For an orderly process, the tiles had to be
arranged, so the right number of tiles are there to start the game. I
seem to recall something about the tiles were stacked differently in
an earlier period.
I never questioned. I did and do just like others.

There may be some evidence that they were used(see below), but it
comes from experiences (observations) taken AT THAT EARLY time.

Can you see the last 2 sentences? Notice that I am talking about you
making the ASSUMPTION that wall building was a feature of the early [game].

What is your reason for doubting the assumption?

Ok. Let’s see. Your assumption = wall building was a feature of the
early game.
Now I have to ask, what evidence from that early time do you have that
supports in any way, your assumption?
In the absence of any evidence from that time, the assumption is no
better than a guess.
So it’s not about doubting the assumption. It is about whether you
have any evidence derived from something from that time, which gives
you some reason to suppose the stacking was a feature of the early
game.

I am not saying it wasn’t mind you.

You have heard or read of a different way to put the tiles for a
mahjong game?

No. I know of Julian’s possibility. But I have mentioned some sort of
evidence below – taken from Himly’s account.

But I don’t know whether you would be interested because he is a
Westerner.

I didn't read your last 2 sentences. I had read enough when I replied
in my previous post.
Your rationalization now is like Julian's mahjong "bag"? But that is
where you show your lack of mahjong experience in action. Did you ever
play a game without the walls? Or with walls, for that matter?

Only with walls. But I don’t understand why you think walls were used
based on your experience today. Is it an assumption?

Now I see a straw-man argument. There is no point.
Are you trying a diversionary tactic?

Absolutely not. I am politely discussing this subject with you. We
both are asking questions and making points. My question is absolutely
sincere.

What is wrong with my question? Can you please tell me?

I asked you a simple question. But perhaps you have made an assumption
about my knowledge and so you are jumping to the conclusion that my
argument is a straw-man and a diversionary tactic?

Is that what is happening in your thinking?

I remember a term used in other post.
This is a redundant" question.

But why?? Can you please explain why it is? Perhaps I am missing
something here.

Why or how does it show my lack of mah-jong experience in action? I
was only trying to find out your reasoning.

We don't start a game until all tiles are there. Even and equal length
of 'walls' is key indicator. Odd tile is a not a no-go.

But no one is talking about odd number of tiles. Also, when you say
“we don’t start a game until all the tiles are there” are you meaning
now, in modern times?

I am talking about the game of ~1870.

What I am trying to get across is that we have no knowledge of how the
game was played back then, and so extrapolating back from what you do
now, to way back then is a massive leap with no supporting reasons.

I am saying that without any hint from that time we should withhold
our judgement – unless we say it is an unsupported assumption.

My answer was NOT about building walls. It was about *you making
the assumption* that walls were necessary in the 1st place, in the
very early game.

For an orderly no-cheating game, 'walls' are necessary.
You will probably ask what you mean by 'no-cheating?'

No, I get your drift. But my objection is still the same about the
massive, unstated assumption you are making.

I am not saying ‘walls’ were not used mind you. I am just trying to
find out how you reasoned from the present back into the past – this
is the unstated part of your reasoning.

How early 2000 BC? Why don't [you] go check with Wilkinson or Himly? They
are your ultimate credible evidence.
Please do not get upset. I really don’t understand why you think
experience of one way of playing the game today (using walls), tells
us that it was a feature of the very early game.
Could you please clarify that for me?
It may be that walls were used, but the evidence must come from that
early time.
You could make an argument from analogy. I would do it by saying that
in a modern game, a prerequisite for building walls is turning the
tiles over and shuffling them around. An early game has this
prerequisite. Therefore the early game had walls. Something like that
perhaps.

That was not meant to be an argument. It was my observation.

What was your observation? The 2000BC wisecrack? (It was pretty funny
by the way).

You are trying to make it into a big argument, by the look of it.

No. Actually, the analogy argument is a pretty good one for why
‘walls’ might have been used.

Or do you mean a big disagreement?

It's time for me to put my wall up just now. Supper is waiting.

That is funny also. A sense of humour is always an advantage in life.

Thank you for replying.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BAP
    ... >>> What is that evidence please? ... >> Western Europe the game still attracts a considerable following. ... >> players to seek their living as professional players. ... >> I have not made any claim that incentivizing draws is integral to ...
    (rec.games.chess.politics)
  • Ok, Id Like To Get Started
    ... play the game with! ... Now, with the Net, it seems like there's no limit to players. ... I really would appreciate some help on coming up with a good, basic plan ... like the guy who jumped on the horse and rode off in all directions at ...
    (rec.games.go)
  • Re: Winds Order Revisited2
    ... for the seating of players around the table (seehttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.mahjong/browse_thread/thread ... ... the design of the game of mahjong. ... "the reversed direction of the players"?) ... Directions order, was a feature imported into the game from the start? ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: BAP
    ... >>> I have been less than impressed by your use of evidence. ... > The USSR is not the only country in which chess is popular. ... > Western Europe the game still attracts a considerable following. ... > players to seek their living as professional players. ...
    (rec.games.chess.politics)
  • Re: Fundamental flaw in "7543" Re: Simplified GOAT Formula
    ... the game back then as 'inferior' b/c of equipment, training, fitness, ... Great players are great players ... ... remarkably robust the game is to technological and population changes. ... evidence we are getting more ponderous. ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)