From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:48:48
Organization: savage hackers
	<1992Dec11.194314.14772@microsoft.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec11202447@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec12.113603.25819@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: mbr2@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Sat, 12 Dec 1992 11:36:03 GMT


In article <1992Dec12.113603.25819@midway.uchicago.edu> mbr2@quads.uchicago.edu (Curious Of All Natures) writes:

> >I've never met anyone who found the term "monogamous" ambiguous.  Again,
> >please tell me how it is that it is ambiguous.

> Compare:

  Note: the fact that you can use a word in multiple contexts does not
mean that it is ambiguous; ambiguity arises when you cannot reliably
differentiate its meaning from the context.

> "I don't think multiple relationships are acceptable for me."
>   to
> "I don't think multiple relationships are acceptable for any partner of
> mine."

  It's hard to say what you've proven a word is ambiguous by example if
in your example pair of sentences you don't even use the word.

> "I'm in a relationship that has a declared monogamous contract."
>   to
> "I am by nature a monogamous person."
> "I say I'm a monogamous person because anything else makes me unhappy."
>   to
> "I say I'm a monogamous because that Way feels best for me.  Of course,
> other Ways feel really good too, and I'm open-minded enough to pursue
> whichever Way makes the current situation work best for all concerned."

> I don't think the whole realm of this ambiguity can be exhausted.

  Once you start modifying a word with redefinitions, new or unusual
situations and personal feelings, then any word can be used in a
different way from it's generally accepted meaning.  All you showed
above was that the word monogomous could be used to describe different
(but similar) things, depending on where/how it is used.

> Similarly, Vicki has chosen to call herself monogamous, because that
> best articulates for her the unique way she is inside.  And she goes on
> to elaborate that, for us and all.

  If I choose to call myself a horse, regardless of how descriptive that
may be to parts of my anatomy, because I feel that is the best way to
articulate what I feel that I am, then I'm free to do so.  But, since
I'm actually human, if I start referring in my posts to myself as
trigger, secretariat, man-o-war, whatever, and how great my tail and
hooves are, then you might be right to point out that the way I'm using
the term isn't consistant to the general definition of the word.  From
what I understand of her situation, I don't think that vicki's actions
are consistant with the label she chooses for herself.  It might be that
she chooses to avoid the poly label because she feels that monogomy is
somehow superior, or perhaps she just wants to believe that she is
monogmous, for whatever reasons.  Indeed, I don't really care *what* she
calls herself, but if she starts posting about it, and using the word in
a way that I find incorrect, I'll say something about it, no matter how
much she elaborates about her personal usage and meaning of the word.

 -- d