C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire

[Jack Spencer Jr]

While this theory is interesting and all, I can't help but think it's dead wrong.  At least in one or two respects.

You see, a love seat is little more than a short sofa, so it really belongs under sofas.  By this I define a sofa as a piece of funiture where more than one person can sit or one person can stretch out and take a nap.

Oh sure, your legs will hang over the edge of a love seat and you can nap in a chair, but you have to nap sitting up in a chair.  That doesn't count.

OTOH I think there's another lobe to the model in Recliners.  Recliners do appear to be chairs.  Aha! and so they do to the untrained eye.  But a recliner can lean back and has optional heat and massage.  It is clearly for people who have more on their mind than just sitting.  Theirs is a total recliner experience.  They are one with the recliner.  The ball game may be on the TV, but they don't care because they are sitting in their recliner and little motors are kneeding their tender flesh.

SO I'm calling this the CSR model and as soon as I think of a lame joke to go with those letters I'll use it.

BTW, before someone brings it up, there is no such thing as a bench.  In theory they may exist, but in practice, in actual sitting benches just aren't practical.

Unless you're a wino at the bus station.

[Blake Hutchins]

Two observations:

1.  The theory means the whole world is a sofa.

2.  This model implicitly discriminates against those individuals who stand or lie down, but do not sit, such as the ass-challenged among us.  What is so bloody superior about sitting?

B.

[John Wick]

You all are missing the point.

Yes, there are benches and ottomans and even weird Sweedish furniture you can only find in fascist furniture stores that insist everything you buy be disposable.

But in the end, it all fits the theory. Despite their own individual uniqueness, they are only Chairs, Loveseats and Sofas. They fit the theory, therefore, the theory is valid.

Those who propose that the 3 categories I proposed are so broad that anything could fit within them is also missing the point.

Take care,
John

(By the way Jared, I play a mean set of punk trap drums. But you already knew that, didn't you?)

[333Chronzon]

My concern lies not so much with the specific manifestations of devices used to 'sit' ( or lay, recline, squat - really any bodily position at all when I think about it) upon but how each such specific device *serves* the ostensible purpose of their creation.

Does it succeed or fail in supporting by ass?

Scott B.

[Mytholder]

Jared is a bad man, and made me laugh.

Anyway, I think there's a second set of factors, or more accurately stances. These would be Perching, Lounging and Lying. (P/L/Ly)...

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Actually, isn't "Lying" an absence of Stance?

Oh, and for the record, my next pulp RPG character will be a wrestler named "Arms" Akimbo.

[unodiablo]

Dude,
I am totally there with your black metal band. Can you get me a full set of voltage converters for my preamp/amp?

And can you see to it that Radiopuhelimut get back together? I always wanted to see them, just didn't know when I'd be in finland...

Or better yet, we got John Wick, Mike Holmes and myself to start an instant punk band next GenCon. And we'll only write songs about Lord Cthulhu. Keg Party in Mikes' basement!!!

:smile: Sean

p.s. what is this triangle model thing of which you whackos speak? it sounds like the end of civilisation approaches!

[Laurel]

I find it very disturbing that C/L/S as presented doesn't take into account the different ways in which men and women sit.  Some may argue that in an ideal situation, attractive nubile females would only sit in men's laps while men assume the C/L/S of their choice.  Nevertheless, not all women meet the definition of attractive and nubile and therefore they must be represented as unique obstacle to unilateral genderless C/L/S adoption. I'd like you all to take a step back from your current analysis and look at gender issues and how they affect the use of C/L/S in everyday life.  

[Mike Holmes]

Wow. Good job Laurel. Bring up the feminist angle and you have the whole Forge stymied. :smile:

Mike

[Gordon C. Landis]

We've done a pretty good job beating up on the model, but you know what?  The other day, I sat down in a Sofa, all by myself.  It felt really wierd for a while, but then I thought about the model.  This might be a Sofa, but I'm just sitting in it by myself, so for all practical purposes, it might as well be a Chair!

When I stopped thinking about it as a Sofa, my Seating experience was very much improved.  I think John may be onto something here.

Gordon C. Landis

[Jared A. Sorensen]

How about the floor?

Technically, it's a sofa (more than 2 people can sit on the floor in most situations). However, it can also "seat" a chair, loveseat or sofa.

Which means it's really a Meta-Seat. And because people can also sit on the bare ground, the Earth is a Meta-Seat that can support Floors and the standard C/L/S.

- J

[Le Joueur]

Is this where I post a long, somewhat unrelated, counter-theory?

Jared A. Sorensen wrote:

How about the floor?

Technically, it's a sofa (more than 2 people can sit on the floor in most situations). However, it can also "seat" a chair, loveseat or sofa.

Which means it's really a Meta-Seat. And because people can also sit on the bare ground, the Earth is a Meta-Seat that can support Floors and the standard C/L/S.

I believe you have a point there.  You are right to point out the 'boxes' within which the 'boxes' of the Sitting Theory reside.  In thinking about it, several things came to mind.  Being a bit of a deconstructivist, I have my own theory.

Resting

John mentions that "everything in the world falls into" his Sitting Theory.  While this is true, it actually excludes the world (and as Jared points out, the floor) itself.  What about sitting on the floor or the ground or the world?  It is the oldest form of Sitting.  I hardly think that Sitting on the ground, in primitive times, really equates to what is done on modern Sofas.

I know John's theory reduces everything to sitting, but I believe the most basic act here is 'coming to rest.'  Since there are plenty of things you can do in Chairs and et cetera that are not directly related to 'sitting' (or 'seating' as some have called it).  I think ultimately, everyone who engages in Sitting actually desires at least to 'come to rest.'

In the spirit of 'coming to rest,' I would like to propose a twin axis theory.  The first axis is Unity, either you have 'come to rest' alone, or with others.  Even a group of chairs (as sectional sofas are likened to) can be employed for 'coming to rest' in Unity.  Likewise, Loveseats and Sofas can also be used employed for 'coming to rest' alone (as Gordon so rightly pointed out).

The second axis is the manner in which one 'comes to rest.'  Like Mytholder suggests there are many ways that you can 'come to rest.'  Instead of breaking them down into specific 'stances' (or would that be 'positions'), I would stretch them over a range from what one does when they 'come to rest' only for a moment, all the way to long, relaxed, extended periods of 'coming to rest,' up to and including sleeping.  (This is another reason I have a problem with John's model of 'beds as sofas' because in my experience people tend to sleep - a form of resting - one to a bed.)  This also lets me differentiate regular Sitting from things like 'Sitting in a class,' which is only arguably restful.  Everyone here always talks about Sitting for the pleasure of it, overlooking how many times people are Sitting for practical or functional reasons 'in the real world' (which I'm sure some here would say - in an effort to redefine the meaning of the word Sitting - was not Sitting at all¹).

I think that Sitting on another person's lap (formerly called Dramatic Seating² per Hamlet and Ophelia, "Lady, shall I lie in your lap?"), while actually a form of 'coming to rest,' is really on the fringe and should not be considered an important aspect in deconstructing the 'coming to rest' idea.  (It can be really cozy and a lot of fun with the right person, but it is far removed from the simple act of 'coming to rest.')  I might even go so far as calling it a degenerate form of Sitting, depending too much on Unity and almost nothing on 'resting.'

I am going to examine 'coming to rest' using Sitting Theory terms for those more comfortable with them:  'Coming to rest' alone is the same thing as Sitting in a Chair, but you can also be Sitting alone on both a Loveseat and a Sofa.  'Coming to rest' together with others in Unity is like Sitting on a Loveseat or a Sofa, but can also be done on the floor or with a cluster of Chairs (or a sectional).  Perching is 'coming to rest' only for a moment and Lying is 'coming to rest' for an extended period.  Note that 'position' is not as independent of seating as might be assumed.  (It is a quite likely that people will change their 'position' several times during one period of 'coming to rest,' or when 'coming to rest' in Unity they can have differing positions simultaneously, something not discussed adequately in the theory of 'stances.')

Fang Langford
[Who apologizes for being gone so long and missing this really great debate.]

¹ I also have a problem with this One-Word-Terminology.  I think it is at the heart of the Ottoman argument.  Wouldn't it be simpler (and more accurate) to refer to objects in the Sitting Theory as 'one occupant,' 'two occupant,' and 'three or more occupant' 'places to come to rest?'  I say we toss out all the confusing terminology.  (I mean, sure, as John points out, a desk fits his theory, but a person who is not versed in the theory will never think of desks for sitting on.  On the other hand a desk clearly can be used as a 'one or two occupant place to come to rest,' right?  Just like an Ottoman can be a 'one occupant place to come to rest' even though it appears to be an adjunct to the Chair, like a recliner's footrest.)

² Say, does anyone know what the theory was back in the newsgroups?  Before it was CLS?

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-11-15 10:53 ]