View Single Post
Old 12-03-2009, 09:23 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900

Ok, I'm going to do my best to address the points raised by ImaginaryIllusion. Given that there as been a ridiculous amount of drama, at this point I seriously doubt anybody really has a clear view of what the actual original point was.

What ImaginaryIllusion is describing is a fallacy of communication, not a fallacy of logic.

So again: The original statement that ImaginaryIllusion pointed out.

Heh. The New Love Without Limits is a book I recommend people avoid because it has far too much New Age fluff crust to truly be useful, in my opinion.
Your comments are echoed to me by many poly people I know Seventh Crow. Fasciniating how a mono mind can look at the same words differently. Not that all monos see things my way. Thanks for giving some more ideas for reading
ImaginaryIllusion then takes note of this:
“Not that all monos see things my way.” is there.
“new-ageyness”, nor any variation of those words were used by Mono.
Spirituality, close-mindedness are nowhere in the post...they were added as assumptions about the meaning later…and some other parts of the conversation. But everything stemmed from this post.
Now ImaginaryIllusion goes on to state where he sees the false assumptions.

Note first: “Not that all monos see things my way.” is not there.
No, it is not there because it is not the statement I took issue with. I omitted it on purpose. Not because it disproves the point I was trying to make but because it was irrelevant.

The basic premise of this interpretation is as follows:
Assumption 1: All three sentences form single statement.
Actually no. I am not assuming that they form a single statement. If I was assuming that, I would have included the additional statement that I omitted. In fact there were two statements that were contradicting each other. I was taking issue one of those statements, not the contradiction.

Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Actually no. When a person says "Funny how a mono mind can read the same words differently" that person is speaking to the nature of monogamous minds. The only assumption I made here was that the words that were written were the words that were indeed intended. If Mono's intention was to describe the nature of his mono mind, then he should have replaced the word "a" with "my".

Now I did actually ask about that in the original thread that the statement showed up. In the original thread, I replied with this:

Honestly, I don't think it has much to do with a "mono mind" reading it versus a "poly mind". I think it just has to do with whether people like to swallow that kind of writing or not.

I also think there's not that much difference between a mono and poly mind.
Mono replied with this:

I think it has everything to do with wiring. Of course mono minds don't want to swallow open ideas....that is undeniable....we're mono wired...we don't want to open up because we have no need to. "We - don't - want - to". I admit it; it has no appeal to me, no greater sense of learning or mind expanding qualities, no more evolved concept. I don't see it as a world sweeping movement or the next stage of evolution in social dynamics. I merely see it as something that some people want and are capable of.
I see nothing wrong with it. I see only people being themselves.

Some people want to open up thinking they are mono. The mere desire to open up indicates to me that they are mono conditioned and not mono wired.
Now here's the first miscommunication. Mono said, "Of course mono minds don't want to swallow open ideas"

Now, there are two break downs here:

First: Mono said "swallow open ideas". If he was only talking about ideas of of open relationships, then it would have better been communicated by saying "swallow ideas about open relationships". And if that was indeed what he meant to say, then of course I'd have no issue with it since that was the point I was arguing. As it happens, he seemed to be talking about ideas in general, thus implying that mono minds don't like to be open to ideas.

Second: The idea of open relationships hadn't even been mentioned. What was being talked about was how a poly person critiqued that the book in question was too new-agey in flavor, and thus didn't recommend it.

Now, let's break down Mono's reply to the original post again:

Your comments are echoed to me by many poly people I know Seventh Crow.
Since the comments he's referring to are about how Crow perceived a book as too new-agey, it thus implies that many poly people that Mono knows perceive the book the same way.

He then goes on to say:
Fasciniating how a mono mind can look at the same words differently.
This implies that the thing that is driving him to see the book differently is his monogamous wiring. Since the issue in question that was being talked about was the perceived new-ageyness of a book it then follows that what he is perceiving differently is the perceived new ageyness of a book. So therefore, it follows that he was claiming that mono minds perceive the new ageyness of a book differently than poly minds.

Now the last part of the statement that I omitted:
Not that all monos see things my way.
So right now, he has just said (or implied) that mono minds see the same words differently while also saying other mono minds see things differently than him.

Now the actual positions of who was perceiving what in what way got jumbled in the translation. This happened because other people started to inject things about "The Ethical Slut" and whatnot. But whether or not it was the perceived new-ageyness of a book or the price of tea in China really doesn't change the basic problem that I have which is that his statement implied that monogamous minds perceive that has nothing to do with monogamy differently than poly minds. Now if he had clarified that monogamous minds might perceive writings about relationships differently, then I probably wouldn't have had a problem with that statement. However, we weren't talking about relationships, we were talking about the flavor of a book that Mono had recommended in the first place.

Reposting the same thing three times will not change that the interpretation was fallacious.
I have just laid out the reasons why I stand by my interpretation. It came out later in the thread that my interpretation wasn't what Mono had intended to say, but according to the words that were there, there were no assumptions I based my interpretation on. I based them on the logical implications that his statements made, but that is not the same as an assumption.

Now ImaginaryIllusion addresses the next reply I made:

First, my own reply:
But the thing is in this wiring vs. conditioning debate, scientists haven't been able to parcel out where one stops and the other begins, so I suspect it's a combination of both for everyone. But I still don't see how a "mono" mind is going to read a book differently because they're "mono wired". That makes no sense whatsoever.

ImaginaryIllusion then says this:
This is where having a common understanding of exactly what was meant by “Wired” might have been useful.

Mono generally talks about his ‘mono wiring’ frequently. I fully expect he believes there are others like him…where the ‘nature’ part of his mind outweighs the ‘conditioned’ part…with specific regards to monogamy. He generally talks about this mind in the possessive. It’s his mind. Since even if anyone here was a brain surgeon they could not tell us specifically how much was wired or not, then that is his view of his mind. I’d call it part of his worldview. He has a right to that worldview the same as anyone else around here…period, end, stop, without contestation.
I will agree that this is where things derailed because people for some reason thought I was arguing about whether a person can be mono wired or not, when, in fact, that whole thing is irrelevant to my argument. Whether or not monogamy is conditioned or wired or some combination of both, monogamy addresses the part of us that dictates how many people we fall in love with, not how we interpret the written word.

(continued in next post)

Last edited by Ceoli; 12-03-2009 at 11:47 PM.
Reply With Quote