Mono wiring vs. poly wiring

If I say the sky is blue and you say "no it isn't", you don't have to use the words "sky" and "blue" to still be talking about the blueness of the sky, that's what the noun "it" refers to and the conjugated to-be verb "isn't" refers to. Mono didn't have to actually use the phrase "new-agey" to be discussing a book's new-ageyness if he was responding to a comment that directly references a book's new-ageyness.

If, however, I say "the sky is blue" and you say "no it isn't" and I say "you are talking about the blueness of the sky" and you then say "no, I was talking about the greeness of the grass", then you're just plain wrong for responding to a statement you are not actually addressing.

When Seventh Crow said the book is too new-agey and Mono said he didn't think it was, he was, in fact, talking about the new-ageyness of a book without ever using the word "new-agey" personally.

In Mono's later concession, he added "in my opinion any person who is wired monogamously ...". Adding "in my opinion" at the beginning of a statement does not actually change one's statement of fact into an opinion statement and does not make it immune to being incorrect. It could be "my opinion" that all redheads have a bad temper, but that opinion would still be incorrect. A statement of opinion would be "I didn't like the book". A statement of fact would be "caucasion people don't like this book" (an incorrect fact is still a statement of fact). This is a falsifiable statement, the type of which has been addressed in this thread.

In this case, "any person who is wired monogamously" would be the incorrect statement, which Ceoli went to great length to explain why one's "mono wiring" is not related to whether or not one reads a set of text and interprets it as new-agey or not, or why one's "mono wiring" does not make one close-minded or not.

There are plenty of people who are "wired monogamously" according to Mono's definition of "wired" who do not feel threatened by that book, or by poly people in general, or by a partner suggesting polyamory as an option, which suggests that it is not the monogamousness that is responsible for the feeling of threat. Whether one feels threatened or not is a matter of one's security in the relationship, not one's ability to love more than one person at a time. His statement would be more accurate if he said "any person who is insecure..." because that is a direct casual relationship between the "wiring" and the outcome of feeling threatened.
 
Last edited:
Nothing to correct :D And thank you for putting so much time into this.
Take care

Totally agree Mono. Imaginary put a lot of thought into this and came up with something that really makes sense to me. Thank you for that imaginary.

There is one thing missing for me and that is the original thoughts of the OP, which was to talk about oppression. A thread on oppression in regards to poly would be a great idea. Its a very valid topic. Perhaps someone would be interested in talking about it on another thread without quoting someone on this forum? I would love to discuss those thoughts from that perspective personally.

I am suspecting I have been "ignored" at this point. If I start a thread on something would the person who has chosen to ignore me see that thread and be able to respond on it? Or does the whole thread simply not exsist to them? Just a thought. :)
 
I am suspecting I have been "ignored" at this point. If I start a thread on something would the person who has chosen to ignore me see that thread and be able to respond on it? Or does the whole thread simply not exsist to them? Just a thought. :)


Ignoring someone on this forum is not like blocking them on Fakebook. Personally I don't think the Ignore feature does jack-shit when people are quoting each other left and right because you can still see what they say when other people quote it.

My advice to anyone is to use the "Ignore" button inside your brain if you want to ignore someone. There is no rule that one has to read every single message or thread.
 
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.

SeventhCrow:
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.

Mono:
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.

II:
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.


ImaginaryIllusion:
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:
Somehow, that translated into challenging Mono's world view. Now if that world view is that having monogamous mind means perceiving things that have nothing to do with monogamy differently than a poly mind, then I will most certainly challenge that because that not only speaks to his mind, but it speaks to how other minds perceive things. Which is exactly what Mono did in reply when I said that his reasoning made no sense:

Again, me:
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.

Mono's reply:
Of course it doesn't to you...you are not mono wired.

I maintain that whether I am mono or poly wired has nothing to do with how I see a book.

If that world view is that being mono wired means that the concept of loving more than one person just doesn't happen like it may with being poly wired, then no, of course I wouldn't challenge that.

Now after Mono rejoined the thread, he clarified that a mono person would be more threatened by a book about open relationships than a poly person. I argued that point later in the thread that I still don't see that as a mono vs poly wiring. You can refer to the thread for that.


ImaginaryIllusion:
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.

Unfortunately, this is a grey area. First, if by attack you mean pointing out things you think as wrong with a statement, then I would disagree with that definition. Second, regardless of why it is mistaken as an attack, it doesn't change the fact that it was indeed mistaken. That does not mean that person didn't see it as an attack.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Ok…so, which interpretation stands up to the following test:

This should be a clearer version. His mind. His opinion. If it extends to anyone else, it would only be those who think similarly.

Here’s the part you’ve been waiting for…

Let’s back track to the first interpretation, and the first basic assumptions:

Assumption 1: All three sentences form single statement.
Read the text, and particularly the last part of his revised explanation (from post 67 by the way) assumption 1 is false.

Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Again, from his revised clarification, assumption 2 is false.

I will only say this once, because can be reread three times or more until it is understood:
The rest of the first interpretation was based on these two false assumptions. If the basic premise or the assumptions they’re based on are false, then so is everything that follows. Therefore the rest of the interpretation that Mono said anything of any sort about “all mono” is itself fallacious.

Perhaps in the future this will serve as a reminder to check your assumptions about what was said, or meant in a post before spending a lot of time and energy arguing over something that wasn’t actually meant. If a key tenant of this environment (a forum) is communication, then we need to communicate.

And there really is no point discussing a fallaciousness of a statement that was never made, particularly where it only serves to cause conflict in the community over something that they all agree on! Stereotyping bad, tree pretty. Let’s move on.

Boiler Plate:
Mono: Apologies if I missed the mark on anything. Feel free to correct me on any items outstanding.
All: I apologize that I couldn’t make this more generic. But I’ve already burned the entire night away (since before the previous post was written) on this digging out posts. I just don’t have the capacity left to remove this from the context of the people involved.

Imaginary-I love you. You are awesome.

My favorite line is this one:

If a key tenant of this environment (a forum) is communication, then we need to communicate.

I tried so hard to figure out how to communicate the thoughts you so succinctly put to words-and failed (obviously).
Thank you for doing a hell of a good job!!!!
 
Totally agree Mono. Imaginary put a lot of thought into this and came up with something that really makes sense to me. Thank you for that imaginary.

There is one thing missing for me and that is the original thoughts of the OP, which was to talk about oppression. A thread on oppression in regards to poly would be a great idea. Its a very valid topic. Perhaps someone would be interested in talking about it on another thread without quoting someone on this forum? I would love to discuss those thoughts from that perspective personally.

I am suspecting I have been "ignored" at this point. If I start a thread on something would the person who has chosen to ignore me see that thread and be able to respond on it? Or does the whole thread simply not exsist to them? Just a thought. :)

I'm reading you... What about oppression and poly would you like to talk about m'dear? :)

I'm so stoked about reading Imaginary's posts I almost want to copy them to my computer to reread tonight!
 
Editing note: I just chopped this off of the bottom of my previous post and turned it into a new post because I feel the points addressed here to be rather important and don't want them to get lost at the bottom of a long post.


Now ImaginaryIllusion goes on to address the larger issues with the differing underlying assumptions:

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.

This is a common misconception about generalizations. When generalizations are made about a group, while "not meaning all" may be implied, it is rarely understood by the people who are subject to that generalization. And even if it doesn't mean all, it is still a generalization and more often than not, generalizations are a tool of prejudice. This is an issue that comes up quite a bit in race and class problems. Now it is true that Mono was generalizing the group that he is a member of, but the effect is the same. When you make a generalization like "Women don't do well in authority", do you honestly think that women hear that thinking "of course they don't mean all of us women, so I have no problem with that"?

I could go further into how being in a position of privilege allows such perceptions around generalizations, but honestly I do a whole weekend training on how to recognize such privilege and how it works in society.

2: Most people don’t believe in –isms, or stereotypes anymore. Everyone knows they’ve been made wrong.

This is definitely not true. -Isms and stereotypes are alive and well in western societies. They may not be as obvious as the stereotypes our societies have held in the past, but they are still there and still inform a great deal of opinions around things. All you have to do is look at what the women who ran for president in the last election faced to see that they are still here.

Now Canada may have a different history and such -isms and stereotypes may manifest in Canadian society in different ways, but I'd be willing to be that they are still there. Given that it's probably hard to be openly poly without paying a big social cost, that would suggest that there are still some -isms and stereotypes about poly people.

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.

This is a bit of dangerous ground to tread on. I am a woman. What goes through my mind about a relationship with a man can be incredibly different than what goes through another woman's mind about a relationship with a man. That type of claim is what generally leads statements like "Women can only have sex if there is romantic attachment." or "Women only want to find a guy to marry".

Now if the group you're referring to is something like "World of Warcraft fans" you might be able to say something like just like other World of Warcraft fans, I like fantasy RPG's on the computer. But that's probably about as far as you can go. Similarly, if I'm polyamorous, just about the only thing I could speak for on behalf of all poly people is that we fall in love with more than one person at a time. I can't even speak to *how* all poly people fall in love, even though I'm a poly person who has fallen in love. The same goes for monogamous people. If I'm mono, the only experience I definitely share with other mono people is that I fall in love with only one person at a time. *How* that manifests from one mono person to another is incredibly varied.

So what goes through one person's mind can only apply to the larger group identity they share in a VERY limited way. (and this doesn't even get into how each of these identities interweaves and overlaps with other aspects of identity, adding even more variation- gay, straight, male, female, rich, poor, white, hispanic, etc....)

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
.

Again, rather dangerous ground there. Again, if you mean that mono people can conclude that other mono people love one person at a time, then yeah. But a mono person cannot speak to how mono people see other poly people, or how mono people may or may lot like a book about polyamory.

Now this is where intersections of identities can confuse matters. It just so happens that most mono people identify in a sort of mainstream culture. So as members of that mainstream, they could speak to how other members of that mainstream culture perceive things (though many would argue that), but it is the mainstream culture that is the common identity in that case, not the monogamy, even though many people will assume them to be synonymous.

ImaginaryIllusion is claiming that I made false assumptions based upon what Mono wrote. My assumptions were only to take that the words written in the posts meant what those words mean. It seems that much of the context got lost in the subsequent conflict, but I still stand by my initial issue and why I posted it.


I've just spent a long time on the first post of this. When I have time, I'll go on to address the second post.
 
Can you imagine how long he took to wade through all that LR? Amazing! :)

Start a thread if you like m'dear... We could see where it goes. this one feels like sucking on a bunch of sour lemons to me. Perhaps a new one would revitalize the topic. I will even allow you to use my name in the title! Just to stay with the theme and in an attempt to create some humour about it.

Names anyone? :D
 
Fallacy of Logic, Pt1 (Revisited)

When Seventh Crow said the book is too new-agey and Mono said he didn't think it was, he was, in fact, talking about the new-ageyness of a book without ever using the word "new-agey" personally.

Joreth.

This is precisely what I mean about checking your assumptions. You have made your point of view well known in over 3 dozen posts on this topic. Go back and reread my post. If you still don't understand, read it again...and again...until you do. I don't have another 8 hours to explain it all over again, and I'd have to get out an easel and my logic textbooks which don't post on here so easily.

Pay attention to the very beginning of my first part, and all of the second part. It shows a reasonable set of assumptions which would lead someone to come to the very same conclusion which you have been kind enough to repeat here. The last part shows exactly where those assumptions can be disproven, and thus are logically false.
Your quote above also indicates to me that you have not actually read the words...only your interpretation...and I'm curious if you are actually able to separate the two. Mono never said he didn't agree with SC about anything. Only that he knew some poly people who agreed with SC.


I want to make something very clear. I understand both your interpretation of the text and the how you arrived there. That does not mean the interpretation is correct. I'll refer to it now as Interpretation J in the following proof:

Unstated Assumption A: All three sentences form single statement.
Unstated Assumption B: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Proposition C: SC said this book is New Agey
Proposition D: Mono's text

If A and B and C and D, then E:
When Seventh Crow said the book is too new-agey and Mono said he didn't think it was, he was, in fact, talking about the new-ageyness of a book without ever using the word "new-agey" personally.

If E and B then J: (aka Interpretation J)
Mono claimed that it was his monogamous nature (biological or learned is irrelevant) that made him agree with a book's new-ageyness.

Proposition F:
Ceoli and I were both pointing out that what makes a person poly or mono is not what makes Mono as an individual agree with or not agree with "new age" spirituality.

If J and F then H:
The statement is incorrect factually and it is a logical fallacy called a non-sequitor. The statement is wrong no matter who says it.
(...same applies to how many times a statement is said.)


So...to review, you're logic is internally valid.
A+B+C+D -> E
E+B -> J
F
J+F -> H



So, Back to my previous post:
Let’s back track to the first interpretation, and the first basic assumptions:

Assumption 1: All three sentences form single statement.
Read the text, and particularly the last part of his revised explanation (from post 67 by the way) assumption 1 is false.

Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Again, from his revised clarification, assumption 2 is false.
Where assumption 1 & 2 are the same as A & B, they are both false as should have been evidenced elsewhere in that post.

C is True...SC said what he said.
D is True...mono said what he said. (and it a moment it won't matter how he worded it)

A+B+C+D -> E
False + False + True + True -> False
E = False


I'm going to focus for a moment on a specific portion of E:
When Seventh Crow said the book is too new-agey and Mono said he didn't think it was.
Nowhere in D did Mono offer *his* opinion of the book. He only said what he had heard from other poly people that he knew. E does not follow...and is therefore also non
Therefore...E is False...twice

E+B -> J
False + False -> False
J = False

F is True.
I'll spend a moment here, and this specific part I will also address to Ceoli. F as I see it, is basically a generally accepted truth that the attributes of a group does not determine the attributes of an individual. This is Fallacy of distribution.
Overcoming this fallacy is a key driver in the progress we have made over the last few generations to oppose racism, sexism, or most of the other -isms. I doubt there would be many, if any (...maybe the Russian Spammer), people on this board who would disagree with this. I also expect that the passion in which this has been pursued would probably be commended or admired by many here, including some of those on the other side of this particular discussion. I'm hoping a more generic and impersonal discussion about F will bare this out, such as this one...I have high hopes.
F = True

J+F -> H
False + True -> False
H = False

If and only if...A and B had been true, and E actually followed from D at all, then you could have proven H.

However, due to False premise, the following applies to E, J, and H:
This is a factually incorrect and logically fallacious statement. Period.



Now, I know there was never any personal malice in your words.
I understand there has been a lot of confusion about your bluntness and personal attacks. And I know you never intended to make a personal attack on Mono, regardless of what may have been perceived. So I expect you'll understand the following:
Not an attack:
Your statement was incorrect.
Joreth...your statements were incorrect.

The bulk of your 40 posts attempting to prove by assertion on this thread has frankly bludgeoned the living tar out of the subject, were based on and contained incorrect statements, (and now cost me no less than 11 hours that I could have been sleeping...and I haven't even got to Pt2 yet) in addition to bogging the thread down in argumentum ad nauseam.


LOL I now have this image in my head of Spock standing there saying "that's highly illogical" and someone jumping up and down, red-faced and sputtering, calling him a loose cannon.
If Spock had reached H as you did, and saw this...he'd be green faced.

The upshot of Vulcan's...they'd at least admit it…and might even go find a more productive, and abstract discussion to have that didn’t involve emotional human names.
 
Assumptions and Implications

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.

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.


Now ImaginaryIllusion goes on to state where he sees the false assumptions.

II:
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.


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.



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.
Agreed
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.
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.



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.
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.

Now the actual positions of who was perceiving what in what way got jumbled in the translation.
There's an understatement. ;)

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.
 
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.

I'm just going to address this point because for me, it's the most important and speaks to how these breakdowns happen.

The issue was in the language used, not the assumptions made. There were no unstated co-premises. The premises were directly drawn from the language used in the original statements, and further supported by additional replies. If a person says one thing but means something else, then it is that person's responsibility to clarify. What I drew were false conclusions because the language that was used was not expressing the intent of the person using it. That is not the same as making false assumptions. And all of that would have been easily solved if things were clarified rather than taken as an attack.
 
Okay. If we are going to be such hot shot communicators and preach that on these forums can we please get to the point?

What do you want Ceoli in order to end this?

What do you need to hear?

I personally need to hear that you are sorry for the mix up, I wish this had gone differently, I hope we can move on with as little damage done as possible and that you are sorry you used Mono as an example of someone who is oppressive in their language.

We get your point at this point. Personally I got it long ago. Its a good point and I believe we have started addressing it on another post even (poly and oppression) so for the love of all things holy can we please end this so I for one can not endlessly get messages about this thread and know its because its put to rest.
 
Okay. If we are going to be such hot shot communicators and preach that on these forums can we please get to the point?

What do you want Ceoli in order to end this?

What do you need to hear?

I don't need to hear anything. I'm just responding to points made about the things I said.

I personally need to hear that you are sorry for the mix up, I wish this had gone differently, I hope we can move on with as little damage done as possible and that you are sorry you used Mono as an example of someone who is oppressive in their language.

I made an apology waaay back in the thread after Mono decided to resign. That apology still stands. But I can't say that I'm sorry that I used Mono as an example because again, it wasn't about Mono, it was about the language.


We get your point at this point. Personally I got it long ago. Its a good point and I believe we have started addressing it on another post even (poly and oppression) so for the love of all things holy can we please end this so I for one can not endlessly get messages about this thread and know its because its put to rest.

You can unsubscribe from this thread in the user control panel so that you don't get any more e-mails if you don't want to.
 
Because this thread is almost completely comprised of my comments being misquoted, misinterpreted and misrepresented over and over again, I do take this personally. Call me a baby, whatever.

Because this thread chose to use my own quote to form it's foundation and is titled with a big "vs" it was received as confrontational because that is what versus indicates. Any one trained in communication/conflict resolution and mediation, which I am, would recognize the flaw in this approach.

Find another way to approach the topic and stop injecting broken record, petty and unproductive arguments please. I've heard it all before, am completely aware that some people simply need to feel right in order to move on, which will never happen by the way so feel free to expend as much energy as you wish. This is a public forum so feel free to publicly beat your head against a brick wall.

It's really too bad because it takes away from the value of other comments which are very productive.

Peace and Love
Mono
 
It's really too bad because it takes away from the value of other comments which are very productive.

Ironically, the thread was getting pretty productive when we were talking about the ideas behind it. If you're hearing a broken record it's because I'm merely responding to the same thing being brought up over and over again. I'm not bringing these things up over and over again. I was trying to stick to the original point the whole time. But that doesn't mean when I'm being accused of attacking that I won't just leave it un-addressed. And I wouldn't expect that of anyone else either.
 
[...]titled with a big "vs" it was received as confrontational because that is what versus indicates.

"Versus" can also indicate a comparison/contrast of two or more things.

Comparison = how two or more things can be similar

Contrast = how two or more things can be different

It does not HAVE to be confrontational. Of course, if a person has been trained as a fighter or as military personnel (according to one possible analogy), it certainly could be RECEIVED as "aggressive" or "confrontational".
 
Last edited:
Lunchroom Trauma

I'm just going to address this point because for me, it's the most important and speaks to how these breakdowns happen.

The issue was in the language used, not the assumptions made. There were no unstated co-premises. The premises were directly drawn from the language used in the original statements, and further supported by additional replies. If a person says one thing but means something else, then it is that person's responsibility to clarify. What I drew were false conclusions because the language that was used was not expressing the intent of the person using it. That is not the same as making false assumptions. And all of that would have been easily solved if things were clarified rather than taken as an attack.

This is an area where you and I may have to agree to disagree.

Language is not an exact thing. The same words can have different meanings depending on context, both in conversation and the larger society. And I really don't care how much training in English you, or anyone else may have. I don't care if this had been brought up by Strunk and White. No single person is the end all be all authority of what the words mean. And no one, and I mean No One, on this board is expert enough at communication, English, and all regional nuances to be 100% sure of what is meant by any non-trivial expression in an environment such as this.

The poster meant what they meant, and wrote a port attempting to express what they meant. English being imprecise, that expression may be interpreted by a receiver as meaning something different.
You read the post, and drew false conclusions from it.

You're placing all the responsibility on the sender to ensure the words express their intent.

If that is the case, then how did your own statements get mistaken for attacks? What words did you use? How should you have written them instead? Why do you still not realize how your words could be taken for an attack, when that was not your intent, even when people have told you over and over and over again that your comments were being hurtful to them? Could it be for the same reason that the poster of your targeted statement did not understand why you came to your mistaken conclusion that was different from his intent, regardless of how many times your said over and over and over again?

By your own statement above, it would be your responsibility to clarify your intent and change your words accordingly.

And if people are harping on you on this it is simply to hold you to the same standard that you yourself put up for them.


Here's my view:
Communication is a two way street, and the responsibility relies with both the sender and the receiver. The sender may have to revise the expression for the sender to understand the true meaning. The receiver has to feedback to the sender to make sure they actually understand what is being said. BOTH have to be listening....and BOTH are responsible.

You wanted the original words changed. They were.
Others have wanted an apology from you...a part of which you've offered, and it's up to them if they accept that as complete.

Mono has express the lynchpin of this and why he took it as personal...part which even I missed in the very title of the thread.
This may be a good lesson to take away from this. If someone wants to discuss an abstract ideas like language, philosophy, etc, that come up as part of a discussion, then maybe it should be removed from the immediate context of the persons involved and the original thread.


I'm going to wrap this up with a parable from my own life:
In Elementary school, I was having lunch on day. At the table across from me was a fellow A, whom I had considered a friend, but lately he had become involved with other kids that I didn't get along with so well, and joining in with them at my expense. So I wasn't feeling so good about A, feeling as if there had been some betrayal he had visited upon me.
When A opened his lunchbox, he took out a banana that was way past prime. Bad fruit, bad apple thought I...and I made a passing remark at him, "hey, it's just like you A, ...rotten". My intent: To let A know that I thought he had been a 'rotten' friend.

I barely had the words out of my mouth when the rest of the table broke out in an outroar about what I had said, and they immediately started hounding on me about my statement mercilessly! I thought I had told A that he was a rotten friend, ...something which would not be out of line, so I couldn't understand for the life of me why everyone else was so upset at me.

All I could do was sit and stare blankly at them, and A sat staring blankly at me. The ruckus was so bad the teacher had to come over right away, and took A and I outside the room to work out our differences.

Now, I'll put the rest of the context back to explain the Table's side...
In my other post I assume that most people do not believe in the -isms anymore. This had a lot to do with going through school when I did when they were erasing -isms from young minds before they'd take hold. I don't know if the timing was related to the country's spanky new 4 year old constitution which included a charter of rights and freedoms, but suffice to say, -ism's were bad. I knew it, and I accepted it, I embraced it. So had all the other kids in the class.

The school I attended was about as diverse as the class you would see watching South Park. There was about 5 kids across 2 classrooms that would be considered visible minorities.
Since -isms were wrong, no one picked on them, they picked on the redread. (This isn't actually cause and effect...the minority kids were well integrated into the social cliques, and the redhead kid was easy to pick on)

By now I think everyone can see the train wreck coming.
The banana that was way past prime had turned brown. I don't know from where, but A's family would have immigrated at some point from India, so his complexion was a similar colour to that of the banana.

Apparently no one heard me say the word "rotten"...they only heard the word "brown" and they immediately jumped all over me for it. They thought I had just made a statement about A's skin colour, so and concluded I must be making a racist comment and they were going to take me to task for it.

Me? I was bewildered because I could not understand them...I did not understand what they were mad at me for. It simply did not make sense to me why they were so upset at my comment. All I said was that A was rotten, as the banana was rotten.

Eventually, when things calmed down, I discovered what they interpreted. Their interpretation was something to the effect of: A is brown like the banana, so therefore A is rotten like the banana.

Speaking about how language is imprecise, I do not yet know if there is a word to describe the depths of my feeling when I discovered what those other kids had interpreted from my words. Mortified, horrified, crushed, none of them even come close. -isms were wrong, and racism was one of the worst IMO. There simply had been no link in my mind between the colour of the banana and the colour of his skin. It was so far out of my mind it took 12 kids yelling it at me to finally realize that they HAD made that connection in interpreting my words. Not only was it unacceptable to think that way for me, but I had 12 kids attacking me for thinking in a way that both they and I considered morally wrong. The accusations of being racist absolutely destroyed me.

Nothing I say here can really do justice to the emotions I felt that say, suffice to say it was one of the most traumatic moments of my formative years. While I believe A accepted my profuse and immediate apology for what was interpreted, I don't think I was ever able to explain it strongly enough how separate the issue of colour was in my mind.


Was my intent wrong? No.

Were my words wrong? No.

Was the receivers understanding of the meaning different from my intent? Yes

Why? They drew (what they thought) were logical implications due to similarities in colour of the nouns contained in the sentence.

Were their objections based on their interpretation understandable? Yes. They would have made Ceoli very proud. And if the interpretation had been correct, I would have been agreed with them.

Were their conclusions incorrect? Yes.

Did I feel attacked? Hell yes!

Did I clarify my meaning to A and offer recompense? Damn right I did!

Did he accept my apology so that we could both move on without hard feelings, or leftover impressions between him or others thinking I was racist? Yes.

Did I ever get an apology from the 12 kids that jumped all over me? No. It would have been nice though. It would have been great value to me, at little cost to them.

Was this an example of effective communication in a safe environment for sharing ideas? Not what happened in the lunchroom.
The one on one with A in the hallway we could speak calmly and explain exactly what each other meant in both directions...yes.

Would I ever want to see this kind of experience revisited on anyone?? Not even if they were my worst enemy!
 
Back
Top