![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
To ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
yonmei, in response to her post "Reality is who you argue with":
This makes sense to me.
Argument is a species of conversation. It combines thought and emotion. Of course if I've argued with someone, they're real. I might not respect them--especially if I discover later that they were arguing just to try to get people angry--because some of the real people are obnoxious or stupid. That's true offline, and I wouldn't expect it to be any different online.
Topleonastic, who was writing about what defines polyamory:
You are a wise fish.
That said, I think that there are weird, fuzzy boundary areas--for example, the people whose approach to serial monogamy is to continue with relationship A while shopping for partner B aren't really poly, because they don't actually love more than one person, they just want to hang on to the security, financial convenience, or sex with A whom they no longer love, or no longer love in that way. I'm also inclined to exclude the sort of cheaters for whom the secrecy is part of the allure: the ones who run away when a poly person says "yes, I'm interested, let's talk to my partner."
And I agree that acting on it isn't necessary to being polyamorous: lack of partners doesn't make someone not gay, or not bi, or not het either.
And my comments toelisem's post that sparked pleonastic's post (this version has been modified after thinking about an excellent comment papersky made to me. Addenda in dark blue):
The thing about defining polyamory as zie does there--as the capacity for romantically loving more than one person at a time--is that I suspect that's the default/common human condition, which we are trained not to act on, or to be guilty and secretive about (cheating is far more widely understood than open, honest, polyamory). This doesn't mean everyone wants, or has the energy for, more than one relationship at a time (some don't want any, and some happily choose to focus that energy on one person), but that many, perhaps most, of us can and will love more than one person at a time, though we may not act on all those loves. Given the history of the term, and who's using it, I think "polyamorous" does, and should, carry the meanings of "multiple acknowledged relationships". This doesn't mean you have to be out to the world; it does mean your partners all know about each other.
Communication is, imho, an essential tool for good relationships, poly or mono (and whether or not there's a sexual/romantic component), but I don't think it's inherent to the concept of faithfulness. Trust, consent, and communication connect to each other, and are all powerful, but my model doesn't have a single term for all three.
[At this point, a nod to Whitman's "Very well, I contradict myself".]
In response to a long, thoughtful post bymisia about writing, reading, and the choices made in those processes:
And if facts are like pearls, not only can they lose their luster, but it matters which we pick up, and what order we string them in. (I may have now confused everyone exceptmisia, by continuing with the Le Guin quote.)
In response to a comment byrysmiel to Misia's above-mentioned entry, and the question of how much the writer can, and should, describe/say/explain:
A consistent, coherent narrative, yes--though there are times that reality itself seems to be failing at that aim.
Sorry, where was I? Right. Consistent and coherent, but not necessarily complete. (Paging Kurt Gödel....) As for relevant, there's both "what does the reader find relevant?" and "How much am I prepared to share, or to explain?" With the former, the reader may not care about my aunt's hybrid cat, who lived to the age of 22--though if I mention that Dixie was bred by my aunt's ex-husband who also raised tigers, that may make it more relevant. Or may take us off to a digression on tigers and Duke and lemurs. The latter hits both "None of their business" lines and "I don't want to explain this, because most people already know it and will be bored."
yonmei, in response to her post "Reality is who you argue with":This makes sense to me.
Argument is a species of conversation. It combines thought and emotion. Of course if I've argued with someone, they're real. I might not respect them--especially if I discover later that they were arguing just to try to get people angry--because some of the real people are obnoxious or stupid. That's true offline, and I wouldn't expect it to be any different online.
To
pleonastic, who was writing about what defines polyamory:You are a wise fish.
That said, I think that there are weird, fuzzy boundary areas--for example, the people whose approach to serial monogamy is to continue with relationship A while shopping for partner B aren't really poly, because they don't actually love more than one person, they just want to hang on to the security, financial convenience, or sex with A whom they no longer love, or no longer love in that way. I'm also inclined to exclude the sort of cheaters for whom the secrecy is part of the allure: the ones who run away when a poly person says "yes, I'm interested, let's talk to my partner."
And I agree that acting on it isn't necessary to being polyamorous: lack of partners doesn't make someone not gay, or not bi, or not het either.
And my comments to
elisem's post that sparked pleonastic's post (this version has been modified after thinking about an excellent comment papersky made to me. Addenda in dark blue):The thing about defining polyamory as zie does there--as the capacity for romantically loving more than one person at a time--is that I suspect that's the default/common human condition, which we are trained not to act on, or to be guilty and secretive about (cheating is far more widely understood than open, honest, polyamory). This doesn't mean everyone wants, or has the energy for, more than one relationship at a time (some don't want any, and some happily choose to focus that energy on one person), but that many, perhaps most, of us can and will love more than one person at a time, though we may not act on all those loves. Given the history of the term, and who's using it, I think "polyamorous" does, and should, carry the meanings of "multiple acknowledged relationships". This doesn't mean you have to be out to the world; it does mean your partners all know about each other.
Communication is, imho, an essential tool for good relationships, poly or mono (and whether or not there's a sexual/romantic component), but I don't think it's inherent to the concept of faithfulness. Trust, consent, and communication connect to each other, and are all powerful, but my model doesn't have a single term for all three.
[At this point, a nod to Whitman's "Very well, I contradict myself".]
In response to a long, thoughtful post by
misia about writing, reading, and the choices made in those processes:And if facts are like pearls, not only can they lose their luster, but it matters which we pick up, and what order we string them in. (I may have now confused everyone except
misia, by continuing with the Le Guin quote.)In response to a comment by
rysmiel to Misia's above-mentioned entry, and the question of how much the writer can, and should, describe/say/explain:A consistent, coherent narrative, yes--though there are times that reality itself seems to be failing at that aim.
Sorry, where was I? Right. Consistent and coherent, but not necessarily complete. (Paging Kurt Gödel....) As for relevant, there's both "what does the reader find relevant?" and "How much am I prepared to share, or to explain?" With the former, the reader may not care about my aunt's hybrid cat, who lived to the age of 22--though if I mention that Dixie was bred by my aunt's ex-husband who also raised tigers, that may make it more relevant. Or may take us off to a digression on tigers and Duke and lemurs. The latter hits both "None of their business" lines and "I don't want to explain this, because most people already know it and will be bored."
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
colouring
From:
no subject