i think i'm a bit misunderstood on this point, or at least the stress i have in mind isn't clear. i use “not purely” rather intentionally to negate without positively identifying with assumed opposite

triangles are not my strongest shape. i kinda suck at geometry in general. the attractive part of the concept is the connections and overlap i can observe relatively independently, almost this one-sided non-dyadicism. there’s a reason i also made this post, and don’t see them as contradictory:

i’m still being confusing, so i think an example might help. i am comforted by the continual overlap in music for *o and *, despite them never being in direct contact. the affinities i note are this sprawling and blooming thing, and the density is gratifying and lovely.

i really mean to say that my loves are contextualized with all my other loves, and yes this often means i want to share those noticings and reflections with the beloveds! nonetheless there is some preferred separation there, at least for the satisfaction of this specific type of desire to flourish.

i also like “non-dyadic” because it can also imply “less than 2 (but not quite 1!)”, which fits nicely with the related schizoid-style fantasy indulgences.