Topic: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
Started by: John Wick
Started on: 11/12/2001
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 11/12/2001 at 9:46pm, John Wick wrote:
C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
I have a theory. I call it "The Sitting Theory."
As far as I can see, everything you can sit on falls into one of three categories: Chairs, Loveseats and Sofas.
A Chair is designed for one sitter.
A Loveseat is designed for two sitters.
A Sofa is designed for three or more sitters.
All seating design falls into these three categories.
Well, you may ask, how about a stool? A stool is not a chair, loveseat or a sofa. I retort: but only one person may sit on it. Therefore, it falls into the Chair category.
Likewise, you may inquire about which category a bed falls into. Many people may sit on a bed. However, since three or more people may comfortably sit on the bed, it falls into the Sofa category.
In fact, if you really think about it, everything in the world falls into my Seating Theory. Desks, rocks, turtles and even other people (who, depending on their girth, may be Chairs, Loveseats or Sofas).
However, it is important to remember that C/L/S also teaches us not to use Seating Implimentations (see Glossary) improperly. True, more than one person may sit in a Chair, but then we are not using the Chair in the way it was designed. This, of course, is the fault of the Chair, not the Seaters.
I have more to say about my Seating Theory, but I'm sure the rest of you have much more to say about it. I eagerly anticipate your feedback.
Winking all the way,
John
On 11/12/2001 at 10:10pm, Marco wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
And then ... there are sectionals, those "sofa-like" objects that configure into one and two person seating arrangements (and more)!
They are sold with false claims of supporting *all three* CLS requirements to naieve furniture seekers in search of the Ultimate Seating Arrangement. This henious fraud is perpetrated across numerous furniture outlets on thousands of unwary victims, all of whom claim to have bought the one-true-seating arrangement. They are of course, idiots! Where does the rest of the sectional go when it ISN'T. BEING. USED.!? And how can it claim to be the ultimate end-all-be-all seating arrangement when it clearly fails to match all Decore Themes (see Glossary).
Don't be fooled. :wink:
-M.
On 11/12/2001 at 10:24pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
My only objection to sectionals is that they are in reality actually just three, four, or five Chairs lined up together to give the illusion of a single sofa. This doesn't change the fact that they are still actually Chairs and that when atop them we're all just sitting alone (though in close proximity).
But we've missed something really important. Ottomans. Sure you can sit on one alone, but isn't an Ottoman usually used as a Chair that one puts their feet on while resting in another Chair? This half-a-person occupancy has yet to be addressed by Mr. Wick's CLS model, and threatens to discredit it entirely.
Mike
On 11/12/2001 at 10:40pm, Marco wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
I am not now and have never attacked sectionals. Sectionals are just fine (if they make you happy in your twisted little world). Many of my best friends are sectionals. I just point out that they are marketed fraudently (defined to mean misleadingly) and their users claim to have (and wrongly believe they have) the Ultimate Sitting Device. As you point out, they are merely a string of chairs and as soon as the sitters try any love-seat hanky-panky the sectional will separate and they'll fall right through the cracks! (I know).
-M.
On 11/12/2001 at 10:46pm, John Wick wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
But we've missed something really important. Ottomans. Sure you can sit on one alone, but isn't an Ottoman usually used as a Chair that one puts their feet on while resting in another Chair? This half-a-person occupancy has yet to be addressed by Mr. Wick's CLS model, and threatens to discredit it entirely.
Mike
With all due respect Mike, you're arguing outside the point. Just because an ottoman isn't designed to be fit in doesn't mean it doesn't fit within the Theory. _Because_ it can be sat on by only one person, it falls into the category of "chair" despite what the actual designer of the ottoman had in mind when he designed it.
Tongue still firmly in cheek,
John
On 11/12/2001 at 11:04pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
With even more due respect, John, you could shoehorn an Ottoman into your Chair group, but, c'mon, really, have you ever seen one used in that fashion. In all my days of sitting on things I have maybe only once seen ssomebody sit on an Ottoman. The vast majority of times it has instead been used as a foot rest. What your model does is to relegate the potential functionality of footrest furniture to a role for which said furniture was not designed. Do you actually propose that footrests be used as seats during actual sitting? They are not well designed for the purpose. Instead they are well designed for resting the feet, a use in which the sitter actually uses two pieces of furniture simultaneously.
So, while CLS as a model does speak well to single, double, and tripple capacities of furniture in an abstract manner, it fails to address actual seating as it occcurs in situ. So we have to consider the practicality of such a model. Sure I can describe an Ottoman as a Chair, but will that help me employ it in a manner befitting it's design? No! Only by accepting the furnitures optimal partial capacity can we employ it in a manner that makes full use of its best features.
This is a classic synechdoche, John. Not all furniture that can be used to seat only one is a Chair. Only furniture that is designed (successfully I might add; we're talking practical use here, not theoretical seating requirements) for a single occupant should be designated a Chair.
And lets not get started on the Throw Pillow and Cushion angle again, you know how upset that gets me. I am willing to talk upholstering, however.
Mike
On 11/12/2001 at 11:10pm, jburneko wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
On 2001-11-12 18:04, Mike Holmes wrote:
Instead they are well designed for resting the feet, a use in which the sitter actually uses two pieces of furniture simultaneously.
And that my friend is exactly the point. The Ottoman is in fact PART OF a chair or perhaps PART OF a love seat rather than a seating vessel itself. Without some acompanying member of C/L/S it is in fact wholey useless. It does not deserve its own category because without being paired with something within the model it is functionally pointless.
Jesse
On 11/12/2001 at 11:20pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
This whole discussion is so lame.
I think your whole C/L/S Triangle sucks. How can you label me like that? How dare you? I'm an individual and I can sit on whatever I want, whenever I want.
Me and my whole group are totally going to tell all our friends how useless this is.
Buck Futt
******
(Oh, John? Eat me. -R)
On 11/12/2001 at 11:27pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
No, now you're arguing against Mr. Wick. His contention would be that the Ottoman is a chair all by itself. You say it is nothing by itself (though obvioulsly one could sit on one by oneself inf one wanted to). I say that it is something by itself, but not a Chair. Consider that, while the Ottoman is used in conjunction with other furnitiure that (given similar parrerns of material especially) it could be used with several different pieces of furniture, possibly every one in the room. So while its traditional use is functionally dependent on other furniture it is not dependent on any other single type.
Would you say that the Ottoman was part of a Chair while being used by a Chair sitting footrester? And then that it is part of a Loveseat while being later used by a Loveseat sitting footrester? Preposterous! And you would not say that it is nothing, would you? Certainly you admit the existance of footrests in general? Then why should a model of things sat upon neglect the footrest (which the prepounder of the model already agrees to)? No, footrests exist and they are half-occupancy devices. F/C/L/S.
Mike
On 11/12/2001 at 11:32pm, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
Greetings from Finland!
I am the member of the IKEA LAP-school of chair design (called Seatajyist). Perhaps you would be interesting to join our discussion lists where we discuss the virtues and nature of IKEA LAP, which emphasize strict-adherence to the concepts of SIT. LIE. SLOUCH. We do not encourage or promote using footstools of any kind for that is against the nature of true Seatajyist thinging.
I am also looking to require a guitarist for my black metal band //HEXENHAMMUR\\. We are primarily influenced by Mozart and Bach, as well as classic Finnish black metal such as DARKWOODS MY BETROTHED, ENOCHIAN CRESCENT and BLACK SWAN.
- EMPEROR GRYMMTOOTH DARKSPIRE
On 11/12/2001 at 11:32pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
On 2001-11-12 18:20, Ron Edwards wrote:
This whole discussion is so lame.
I think your whole C/L/S Triangle sucks. How can you label me like that? How dare you? I'm an individual and I can sit on whatever I want, whenever I want.
Me and my whole group are totally going to tell all our friends how useless this is.
Buck Futt
******
(Oh, John? Eat me. -R)
Please Ron, you can't deny that the model as a whole has the ability to predict seating goals? You yourself are practically obsessed with Chairs (specifically stools, but that's for another discussion). You've noted how the Chair form in general gives you an unparalleled autonomy of seating. How can you sit there (ahem) and tell us that you can't be labeled when you are practically the posterchild for one of the four branches of the model.
(By the way, I've never been able to nail down your footrest proclivities. I'm guessing that given your tendency to use stools that you also like barrails. Or am I out of line.)
Mike
On 11/12/2001 at 11:37pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
Finland, Finland, Finland, it's where I'd most like to be.
So everyone is aware I am in general down with the whole S-thing that the Fins do. I do not, however, pretend to understand their problems with footrests.
BTW, Jared, I can play a bit of Malmsteen (I am a Viking, etc). Can I get a tryout?
Mike
On 11/13/2001 at 1:49am, John Wick wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
I just looked up the definition of "good sport" in the Webster's. I found Ron's picture there. Go figure.
Take care,
John
On 11/13/2001 at 6:16am, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
On 2001-11-12 18:04, Mike Holmes wrote:
With even more due respect, John, you could shoehorn an Ottoman into your Chair group, but, c'mon, really, have you ever seen one used in that fashion. In all my days of sitting on things I have maybe only once seen somebody sit on an Ottoman.
Mike -
Not to invalidate your whole argument - as you do make some good points about the model needing a place for an ottoman AS OTTOMAN, and not merely as a stand-in for a chair (or worse - as a mere APPENDAGE of a chair) - but you're making a claasic mistake here: equating your experience with that of the whole ouvre of Seating.
I have, in fact, seen many ottomans used almost exclusively as chair-substitutes in my day. I myself have fond memories of the green, wheeled ottoman in my parents' family room, upon which I sat watching many of the great events of my youth. I even have dim memories of my father resting his amazing, high-tech(!) Poloroid camera next to me as I sat upon it, watching through blearly eyes as some guy named Neil Armstrong walked around in a funny suit.
Sitting on ottomans has a long and noble history, as far as I'm concerned.
Gordon C. Landis
On 11/13/2001 at 6:26am, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
Having pointed out some issues with Mikes' rebuttal, it's only fair that I bring what (to me) is the most GLARING error in Johns' thesis to light.
On 2001-11-12 16:46, John Wick wrote:
However, it is important to remember that C/L/S also teaches us not to use Seating Implimentations (see Glossary) improperly. True, more than one person may sit in a Chair, but then we are not using the Chair in the way it was designed. This, of course, is the fault of the Chair, not the Seaters.
This is absurd - the "Chair" can't possibly be at fault for anything. But you're not really talking about the Chair, are you? You're using the Chair as a stand-in for the Chair Designer - a practice you've occassionally admitted to being interested in yourself.
And I can see that you plan to design a Chair that no Seater could POSSIBLY use for any but its' intended purpose, and then sell it to us for a premium due to its' "superior C/L/S properties".
I ain't buyin' it. Oh, and bad news for your model - a Seater can ALWAYS find a way to use a C as an L, or often even an S. Just like some people only allow one person on a Sofa. You're trying to control the Seaters, and (as Ron pointed out, in his somewhat obnoxious but none-the-less accurate way) that just isn't possible. Sorry.
Gordon C. Landis
On 11/13/2001 at 6:28am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
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.
On 11/13/2001 at 7:54pm, Blake Hutchins wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
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.
On 11/13/2001 at 7:55pm, John Wick wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
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?)
On 11/13/2001 at 8:17pm, 333Chronzon wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
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.
On 11/13/2001 at 8:41pm, Mytholder wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
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)...
On 11/13/2001 at 8:50pm, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
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.
On 11/13/2001 at 9:10pm, unodiablo wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
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!
On 11/13/2001 at 11:46pm, Laurel wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
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.
On 11/14/2001 at 9:28pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
Wow. Good job Laurel. Bring up the feminist angle and you have the whole Forge stymied. :smile:
Mike
On 11/15/2001 at 2:20am, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
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
On 11/15/2001 at 3:29am, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
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
On 11/15/2001 at 3:29pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire
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 ]