View Single Post
  #152  
Old 12-04-2009, 09:43 AM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,948
Lightbulb Assumptions and Implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
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.
Right there with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
What ImaginaryIllusion is describing is a fallacy of communication, not a fallacy of logic.
Actually, I'm very much targeting the logic of the argument based on false premise. It was primarily to do with Joreth's argument, and I had thought yours was different but I wasn't sure how, so we can address it here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Now ImaginaryIllusion goes on to state where he sees the false assumptions.

II:
Quote:
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.
This particular point is anything but irrelevant. Mono's words were interpreted to mean that he was speaking about all mono's having the same opinion as him. His statement in the original post is an explicit nod to the fact that he knows not all mono people are like him. This was clarified further down the thread where he indicated that he may be the only mono who thinks the way he does.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Quote:
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".
This is why I presented my interpretation of the text. While I'm sure as far as the actual English grammar is concerned, you are correct. However, if this thread is going to teach us anything, it'll be how words can be misinterpreted based on assumptions of the receiver, that do not match with the intentions of the sender.
I would submit that your interpretation of his meaning was not just the words, but also related to your work in anti-oppression. I would reinforce this by the fact that the same alteration of meaning you make to the text above by changing "a" to "my" is implied by the statement you chose to ignore “Not that all monos see things my way.”
Similarly I submit that repeatedly harping on a statement someone made can lead them to believe they are being personally accused of thinking the wrong way.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Now, let's break down Mono's reply to the original post again:

Quote:
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.
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
He then goes on to say:
Quote:
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.
You assumed that he is still referring to the newageyness. If that assumption is false, that which follows is false.
You assumed because he refers to the poly people he knows agreed with SC, that he somehow disagrees.
You assumed that because he spoke of a mono mind, that he meant all mono minds as opposed to poly minds.
These assumptions above are simply unstated co-premises required to complete the logical progression to your concluded interpretation.

All I saw was an acknowledgement that given the same words, a mono mind (such as his) has a different viewpoint. As far as my interpretation goes, it doesn’t even include a book….just words. My unstated Co-Premises that lead to this here are stated in my original post, assumptions 1-4.
Ironic how this point he was trying to make keep reproving itself through the course of this discussion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Now the last part of the statement that I omitted:
Quote:
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.
Which just disproved your point. If other mono minds see things differently than him, than how could he be talking about all mono minds?! In which case the generalization that leads to marginalization does not exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Now the actual positions of who was perceiving what in what way got jumbled in the translation.
There's an understatement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
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.
I have reiterated some different, and some similar assumptions above. What you say are logical implications of a statement, I say those are based on underlying assumptions which complete the collection of premises required to logically imply one thing from another. Tomato, Tomato, Potato, Potato...say it out loud if the words don’t make sense.
What I’m trying to say is that your logical implications of his statement, are not the only logical implications that can be drawn from the same statements, as I have attempted to show with an alternative interpretation.
As you say, it came out later in the thread (around post 67) the difference between what he intended, and the interpretation.

I think at around that point, there was at least the acknowledgement that what you thought he said originally, and what he meant to say were two different things. Once the miscommunication was cleared up, there shouldn't have been much else to discuss as far as that went.


I want to make sure I'm understood here Ceoli. My post here are directed at all participants. Even though I mostly took issue with the assumptions and logic behind the reasoning that lead to your interpretations, the same erroneous assumptions and misunderstandings between text and intent lead to a very long and not always entirely healthy discussion. The logical counterpoint is directed mostly for Joreth’s benefit vice yours since you and Mono had already mostly sorted out the original issue. While I borrowed heavily from your quotes as well, it is sometimes because it was the better example of the similar case being made by both you and Joreth. Based on a similar (although as I think we can see, not exactly the same) interpretation.

In terms of your original interpretation, I can see how both you and Joreth arrived at your conclusions about what the statement meant. As you have said, you stand by your original interpretation (I'm assuming as it was understood at the time) as far as what's past, and I dearly hope that with the clarification that was sorted out long ago that this is no longer an issue.

In terms of anything you want to argue about marginalization, making generalizations about groups, and how it affects minority's in society...that's your crusade. The value and validity of that work, and your passion that goes with it I don't think were ever in question, and I in no way would invalidate your arguments along those lines. (See point F in the previous post to Joreth)

In terms of anything you bring up here, I don't think there's anything of particular disagreement. You explain your points well, and I hope I've communicated my view on the matter as well.
I'm hoping we can soon put this thread to bed and move on to a more general thread such as Polyamory and Oppression. Speaking of which...I really need to get to bed....again.
__________________
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb

-Imaginary Illusion

How did I get here & Where am I going?
Reply With Quote