View Single Post
  #146  
Old 12-03-2009, 09:29 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion View Post
This is going to be the first of a two part post with regards to the discussion on this and the related threads over the last few days. This one will deal with the discussion surrounding what was said. The other, on the other thread, will deal with how it was said.

The issue of what was said...the source of all the tears, heartache, and acrimony.


That was it…what does it actually say? Read the text. Read the actual words. Take particular note of three things...

“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.

Because it is so often repeated, I will indulge this again, only because while flawed, it illustrates the interpretation that spawned all this:

Note first: “Not that all monos see things my way.” is not there.

The basic premise of this interpretation is as follows:
Assumption 1: All three sentences form single statement.
Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Premise 1: SC said this book is New Agey
Premise 2: Mono says he knows people who say the same. (Intermediate assumption: Mono agrees the book is New Agey)
Premise 3: Mono says that a mono mind sees the words (assumption: He means that book) differently (assumption: by mono mind, he must mean differently than a poly mind)

Intermediate Conclusion:

Premise 4: Mono can’t know what all mono’s think. There are counterpoints that prove the opposite.
Therefore:


Like I said. Basic interpretation. Certainly one way to view it. And since everyone should agree that the intermediate conclusion above would constitute a stereotype, and stereotypes are bad, because it leads to marginalization, then any expression of stereotypes must be taken to task with extreme prejudice.

It’s an understandable interpretation. One that would make some people uncomfortable, especially if they’re passionate about stereotyping, marginalization, etc.

So went the thread on it’s not so merry way.

Reposting the same thing three times will not change that the interpretation was fallacious.
Wait for it...



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.

Also like anyone else around here, if you challenge a worldview, you are in fact challenging the person. You can say you only object to his ‘statement’ all you want. If you think that statement is about mono minds meaning ‘all mono people’, and he thinks the same words mean ‘his mind’...his ‘worldview’...it can be interpreted as personal. (This will probably segway into pt2 later)

Anytime you say, “He made a logically fallacious and factually incorrect statement”
it could be interpreted as follows: “His worldview is fallacious and factually incorrect”
If there was still confusion about how attacking a statement can be mistaken for a personal attack…there you go.


I’m glad you brought this up. It’s not just slang. It’s entire dialects…vast swathes of the language can take on different meanings, or have meanings implied because they’re commonly understood among people in the same area.

I work on different assumptions. Call it Canuck wiring or something...although it tends to be more geographically localized to the team vice the whole country:
1: If someone makes a generalization about a group of people, it is implied or understood that it doesn’t mean ‘all’. Depending on context, it may be some, many, most…but there’s always exceptions.
2: Most people don’t believe in –isms, or stereotypes anymore. Everyone knows they’ve been made wrong.
3: If someone decides to tell you what’s going through their mind as a part of a larger group to which they themselves belong, it can be presumed to only apply to those with a similar mindset.
4. People with a brain can be reasonably expected to know what conclusions would be drawn by other people who think in a similar way on a given subject.

I’ll return to the original post:


Here’s another interpretation, one that I think I wasn’t alone in, even if not all the assumptions were exactly the same:
Assumption 1: These may be 4 distinct and separate thoughts. One does not necessarily follow from the other.
Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means His Mind, and by extension, those mono’s with similar minds/thought processes.
Premise 1: SC said this book is New Agey
Premise 2: Mono says he knows people who say the same. Period. (Premise 1 gives context to Premise 2)
Conclusion 1: Mono has poly friends who agree with SC’s opinion about a particular book.
Premise 3: Mono finds it interesting how his mind interprets things differently. (Possibly from his poly friends in premise 2)
Premise 4: “Not that all monos see things my way.” (He knows that not everyone sees things similarly to him)
Therefore:


Conclusion 2: Two different people can read the same words, and have different interpretations.

Wow…I just realised that Mono proved my point here, and the entire demonstration of a saga spanning 6 days, 3 threads, and probably a couple hundred posts by a dozen members…with the very statement that everyone has been arguing over.
Do I have to fall in love with you too? (just kidding) I loved how well you put that together, how clearly and succinctly and it definately resonated precisely with how I was feeling. I won't break it down to respond-becuase it's so perfect all together (and I haven't even read part 2 yet!).

But somewhere in it you said that you suspect others had a similar interpretation to yours about the FIRST post-and mine was exactly what you said. I wish I could have said what I was thinking and feeling and "hearing" in my reading as well as you did.
Thank you.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote