Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old 12-03-2009, 03:55 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,262
Default

Ceoli-

So here's a thought that popped in my head reading this (I do think I grasp what you are saying).

I have a neck injury-its been stated by the doctor that BECAUSE of my breast size I have increased issues with it.

However-there are other people who are large breasted with the same neck injury that do not have increased issues with it.

So logically speaking in the strict sense being used on this thread-his statement doesn't follow correct??

But the reality in my life is that in order to reduce the issues I have with my neck injury-I need a breast reduction because for me the breast size is increasing my issues with it.

BUT I can't say that "people with large breast and C6/C7 herniated disks have increased issues with their injuries."

However-I could say that "people with large breast and C6/C7 herniated disks have an increased RISK of increased issues with it."

Yes?

So where Mono's sentence went wrong is that (forgive me for not quoting it, it's hard to go back and forth between pages)
he should have said "in trying to share with your mono partner that you want to change to a poly relationship there is an increased risk **versus sharing with your already poly-minded parter** that they will not like this book because of the way it portrays non-monogomous relationships being in direct conflict with many of the accepted premises in monogomous relationships."

??

At this point-I'm just asking you out of curiosity. I happened to like the book and happen to not be into the "new age" stuff per se but didn't find anything in the book particularly "new age" AND I happen to think that logic is important-but not more important to me then trying to "meet on even ground" in order to gain respect on both sides in order to create change.

So I only ask you in curiosity-and please-don't worry-I understand having a life outside of hte computer. I just happen to be stuck right now in a horizontal position. I don't watch tv and it gets boring staring at the ceiling-so I'm online more than I normallly would.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 12-03-2009, 05:00 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

It's not really the result that's the issue. There is a direct physical causal relationship between the neck injury and the issues raised by breast size. However, everybody who has that causal relationship may not have the same result because there will always be other variables that also affect the result. For instance, a person with more core strength to begin with will probably be less likely to be affected by that causal relationship. That does not change the basic causal mechanism in place.

When talking about mono wiring, I'm talking about a basic causal mechanism. Mono wiring directly affects the number of people a person falls in love with at a time. How that manifests is very varied. Mono people can be promiscuous mono people with many partners in their life time, they can be celibate mono people with no partners, they can be mono people in lifelong marriages, they can be gay, they can be straight, they can be trans, they can be bi, etc. So even though there is a direct causal relationship, the results are still varied. (same can be said for the varied expressions of being a poly person)

However, your neck injury does not have a causal relationship with, say, a sore toe. It could be that you very well do have a sore toe, but that probably has a different cause than your neck injury and breast size. There might even be an indirect causal relationship. For instance, maybe your toe is sore because you stubbed it because you couldn't turn your head to see where your feet were when you were walking, but that does not mean that people with neck injuries get sore toes.

The issue is that to claim that mono wiring changes how one reads words, it suggests that there is a direct causal relationship between how many people a person falls in love with at a time and world outlook when there isn't such a relationship. That's not to say that there aren't relationships elsewhere. People who have been raised conservatively are more likely to identify as monogamous. But that doesn't mean that being mono causes conservatism. There are all sorts of other aspects of enculturation that come into play there.

So basically, world outlook is not informed by one's monogamous wiring. There is no causal relationship there. Now, the culture in which monogamy thrives might influence a world outlook, but that is not a direct causal relationship. A mono mind is not seeing it differently simply because it's a mono mind.

(and no worries. I've been unemployed for a month and a half so I know boredom)
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 12-03-2009, 05:08 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,262
Default

Well hopefully on Friday we'll get some plans in place with the doctors to get me out of this stage of boredom. Fingers crossed.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 12-03-2009, 05:39 AM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default Short aside

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
(and no worries. I've been unemployed for a month and a half so I know boredom)
I hope you have lots of things to keep you busy, as it could be a long stretch before productive employment happens again. I was laid off in April and had to scramble ever since to remain sane.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 12-03-2009, 05:40 AM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default

That would be a good thing. I'd be bonkers if I were laid up for as long as I've been unemployed--heck, if I were laid up for even a smallish part of that!
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 12-03-2009, 05:41 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

I'm underemployed in a seasonal theme park job that I started yesterday for the holidays, then I get more sexuality education certificates, then I travel around the country before going back to London. It's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 12-03-2009, 10:20 AM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,928
Lightbulb The fallacy of logic: Pt 1

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeventhCrow View Post
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
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
Once again:
Seventh Crow:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
And that was the whole point of the dissent. Mono claimed that it was his monogamous nature (biological or learned is irrelevant) that made him agree with a book's new-ageyness. 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. Mono stood by his word choice and that was the argument.
Premise 4: Mono can’t know what all mono’s think. There are counterpoints that prove the opposite.
Therefore:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
He made a logically fallacious and factually incorrect statement.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
Do I need to start pulling out the quotes again? I quoted the line 3 times (and had 2 of them deleted) and STILL there's confusion.

There was a reason I posted that quote 3 times in a row. Maybe they should have been left alone.
Reposting the same thing three times will not change that the interpretation was fallacious.
Wait for it...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
Interesting that you chose to refer to a dictionary for the definition of a slang word, since slang words tend to be rather fluid in their meaning and change depending upon context and even region.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeventhCrow View Post
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
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
I get it. I get what you are saying. I agree that two people can read the same book and take diametrically opposed viewpoints of it.
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.
__________________
“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
  #138  
Old 12-03-2009, 10:26 AM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,928
Lightbulb The fallacy of logic: Pt 1 (con't)

Ok…so, which interpretation stands up to the following test:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Wow...I'll concede to your point. In my opinion I feel any person who is wired monogamously as I feel it internally, with the ability to love one person intimately/romantically at a time, who is in a mongamous relationship and is presented a book on "opening up" by their partner, would have a tendancy to view the information as a threat to the relationship style they know. The partner looking to open up would see it as a positive with a chance for growth as they define it which is neither right or wrong.

If any referance to "new ageyness" was implied, I apologize, because having never actually used that word, it was not implied or intended.
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.
__________________
“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
  #139  
Old 12-03-2009, 03:36 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Nothing to correct And thank you for putting so much time into this.
Take care
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over

Last edited by MonoVCPHG; 12-03-2009 at 04:04 PM. Reason: Editted because I forgot to say thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 12-03-2009, 04:01 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default Excellent !

Illusion,

Thanks So much ! Very well done. That was a LOT of work and I think it was something that needed to be done but I wouldn't have tackled it (lazy, discouraged?).
I think this is an excellent approach to shedding light on how people communicate and things they need to know ABOUT communicating. I'm one who is definitely guilty of "assuming" that most everyone who has been doing much communicating over their lifetime just recognizes some of these what I call "basic" skills. You learn to not take anything said to literally, reach for the big picture, and keep in mind that the dialect and style of any speaker is always influenced by their culture/worldviews etc.
If I don't feel I get this big picture - I ask ! And there's ways of asking that are both kind & respectful.
I've seen a few threads on here start to take this route and I hope what you've done here will help everyone communicate better in the future.

Again, much thanks !

GS
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
mono/poly, monogamous

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:44 PM.