Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 05-14-2010, 03:32 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
Copy that, and in fact thats what I assume you mean. I would suggest, however, finding a different word. You want to build a foundation or rules so "other" people understand. Symmetry does not convey what you want it to...

I do believe we are on the same page, just in disagreement about verbiage
Sure, got any suggestion? You see how bad I am at finding words conveying my intention..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-14-2010, 03:45 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default Why relax on the ordinary use of the word?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
Polyamory means loving more than one person, beyond that it's all up for grabs. If your personal definition needs to narrow it down further, then that's perfectly legitimate for you, but that doesn't necessarily have to apply universally. I see people doing what they call polyamory that I couldn't have anywhere close to my life, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and it doesn't mean that it's not poly, as far as I'm concerned - it's just not my poly, which is fine - it's not my life, either.

Part of the ebb and flow in poly discussions is finding the people whose variety of poly is most akin to yours, where there are shared values and paradigms, because those are the ones with whom you have the most in common and who are in the best place to "get" where you care coming from. That doesn't make everyone else "not poly", though.

All of the criteria listed here are things that are best for any romantic relationship to work well, not just poly. As Tonberry said, the only difference is the number of people involved.

Edit to add:
Listen, I applaud people coming up with what they regard as necessary things to be in place to make their poly work. And the chances are that many here would agree. My caution and concern is that we not try to see it as some over-arching thing which alienates some folks who think differently, but are still poly by the basic definition. Part of the reason for forums like this is to provide people who feel excluded by society a safe place to come and talk about their polyness - having some sort of extra criteria may work to act against that goal. Does that makes sense?
Lots of sense. But I suggest we call that minimal thing something else, like "multiamory", which would be pure Latin, or "polyerotics", which would be based on Greek. By the very hybrid nature of the word "polyamory", it is a construction with an intention behind it, and not merely something that "means loving more than one person".

Language is not static, and it it surely possible to have influence on the use of words and concepts.

I really don't see any reason for us here to relax on the ordinary use of the word, like it is reflected in Wikipedia
Quote:
Polyamory (from Greek πολυ [poly, meaning many or several] and Latin amor [love]) is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

Polyamory, often abbreviated to poly, is sometimes described as consensual, ethical, or responsible non-monogamy. The word is occasionally used more broadly to refer to any sexual or romantic relationships that are not sexually exclusive, though there is disagreement on how broadly it applies; an emphasis on ethics, honesty, and transparency all around is widely regarded as the crucial defining characteristic.
If people here are not comfortable with the Wikipedia way, I really think they should speak out about it.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-14-2010, 03:45 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
Sure, got any suggestion? You see how bad I am at finding words conveying my intention..
Thats a good question. I can't think of one word that represents a fair agreement based on all the wants/needs of parties involved that does not necessarily represent symmetry.

I am going to need to do some reading today it seems
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-14-2010, 03:50 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

reciprocity - A mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges, especially the exchange of rights or privileges of trade between nations

Since it doesn't mention those terms need to be balanced, but cooperative.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-14-2010, 04:22 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
Capricorny I'm hearing a tone of frustration and aggression in your posts and I'm wondering about it. Do you feel that the discussions you have been having here in some way threaten you? I am finding myself not wanting to engage in conversation with you because I don't want to irratate you further. I too didn't understand your post on symetry and thought perhaps I would wait to see if I was just unable to grasp a concept? Or that I was not the only one. I was afraid you would be sarcastic with me and frustrated as you seem to be with others on here and didn't want to engage because of it. I'm sorry if in some way you aren't getting your needs met. Perhaps you could explain why if you are ready to move on? Or, if you've had enough and don't choice to then I will respect that also. I ask because I understand this space a place to challenge my ideas about things in an emotionally safe environment . Perhaps you see it differently?
It's not about emotions and needs being met, really I get a bit frustrated here at times mostly because of two things:
1. When someone says something that doesn't seem to make sense, there is often preciously little effort invested in finding interpretations where it does make sense. When I say something to you that does not make much sense, like "rules" or "symmetry", the easiest is to respond based on the immediate meaning the words have for you.
That's perfectly natural. But, if that does not make much sense, you are really assuming that someone (me) is talking nonsense/meagersense to you. Maybe the intention was something else? The challenge in communication is not to find interpretations where things said are wrong - that's not communication, that's verbal combat.
The challenge is to find the interpretations where it might be right, at least to some extent, and continue the communication from there. (There are challenges with opinions we agree with, too.)
2. A tendency to "privatization of concepts". Like this very thread. In a thread about foundations of poly, I really believed the standard definitions/understandings were to be presupposed, so that any deviation from that should be made explicit. It's not about not challenging established views, it's about doing that explicitly, and saying clearly why. I guess it it the difference between passive and active tolerance that is the underlying issue for me. Passive tolerance very easily leads to not investing the efforts necessary to find common ground, and for me, that defeats much of the meaning with communication.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05-14-2010, 04:24 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
reciprocity - A mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges, especially the exchange of rights or privileges of trade between nations

Since it doesn't mention those terms need to be balanced, but cooperative.
YES!
Think that's very good - in my mind close to mine really, but not so prone to misinterpretations. And more "relational" - that's all for the good! Thanks!!
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-14-2010, 04:46 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

I am totally happy with the definition:

"Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."

I think that that applies to any and all of the discussions we have had so far. This is the "minimal thing" that you seem to be describing. So maybe you and I are talking about the same thing?

It recommends, but does not require trust, honesty, open communication and all those other good things. But my point is that while I wouldn't want it for myself, I have seen functioning polyamorous relationships (using the Wikipedia definition) where not all of those are in place.

Quote:
Language is not static, and it it surely possible to have influence on the use of words and concepts.
Sure, but what this feels like is that you are saying "What you understand as poly isn't what I understand by poly, therefore we're going to have to come up with some new word for yours, because I already know what it means to me and that's the right way."

Quote:
I really don't see any reason for us here to relax on the ordinary use of the word, like it is reflected in Wikipedia
And I have no issue with using the Wikipedia definition as a reference point - looks like we are in agreement there.
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-14-2010, 05:18 PM
rpcrazy's Avatar
rpcrazy rpcrazy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 171
Default

I love where this thread went

I think the main issue about foundation is that the English language is rather limited in this particular field. Most language handle the concept of relationships and "love" (or rather the feelings that are associated with deep relationships) as very separate concepts. I'll use greek for an example since people like to throw out that language all the time lol. There are 4(some would argue 5) kinds of terms for love, and these loves are defined and spoken in completely different contexts. philia, eros, storge, and xenia.

Philia is a brotherly love, "young lovers", lifelong friends, fellow voyagers or soldier"

Eros is a passionate love, also called marital love.

Storge is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring, or similiar to philia, but not learned through time or experience, but innately felt by circumstance. It often is referred to as the "god love" because it's basically unconditional and comes from nothing but the simple fact that it exists(the fact that you're baby exists or has existed is the only needed for you to love him/her).

Xenia means guest-friendship or stands for a "hospitality" love. Reading the word in the right context in many greek novels and religious texts(i'm a historybuff/anthro major), the word is basically used for the common love for mankind. The love you display when someone is broke down on the road, and you feel OVERWHELMINGLY compelled and stop where you're going and help them, regardless of what going on. that feeling is Xenia.

The point in these examples is that alot of this is a semantics issue. We don't put enough time into really interpreting what others are TRYING to say to us, and english words that have infinite amounts of meanings doesn't help. The dichotomy of love is so vast, that when people makes statements like, "polyamory is the ability to love multiple people.", in reality that statement is not really saying alot. Polyamory and love are so ubiquitous that the sentence becomes moot.

hrm...new post
__________________
---------------------------------------------------\\\
-"There hasn't been a person i've been with that I didn't love for 10 seconds to 10 years." David Duchovny
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05-14-2010, 05:26 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,390
Default

What I find interesting is that "phillia" apparently means brotherly love, which doesn't prevent it from being used for pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, which are pretty much purely about sex.

Goes to show that the origin of words isn't necessarily always as important as the fact that people have an agreement about what they mean right now.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-14-2010, 05:31 PM
rpcrazy's Avatar
rpcrazy rpcrazy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 171
Default

in a quick response tonberry...the greek versions of the english "love" aren't necessarily the root origins. The words describing the feelings involved in relationships big and small used by greeks were used as an example that CONCEPTS or IDEAS which are basically what you're expressing when you use language are complicated. And with such complication comes an inexplicable difficulty when using singular words with infinite defintions. The purpose of the above post was to not bring out any explanation of the root of the english word love.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------\\\
-"There hasn't been a person i've been with that I didn't love for 10 seconds to 10 years." David Duchovny
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
best practices, boundaries, foundations, guidelines, mono, mono/poly, monogamous, monogamy, principles, rules

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 05:59 AM.