So an exercise in philosophical rhetoric, basically? Contribute if you want to critique?

A chair, or not a chair? That was HG Wells' question:

In co-operation with an intelligent joiner I would undertake to defeat any definition of chair or chairishness that you gave me. — First and Last Things

Running with the idea, Max Black imagined an even more ambitious project:

... an exhibition in some unlikely museum of applied logic of a series of "chairs" differing in quality by least noticeable amounts. At one end of a long line, containing perhaps thousands of exhibits, might be a Chippendale chair: at the other, a small nondescript lump of wood. — Vagueness: an exercise in logical analysis

Such is the now familiar approach of fuzzy logic: instead of the either-or question, ask, "whereabouts is this or that object located on the chair spectrum"? And this seems in much the same spirit as when we say, "there is no black and white, only shades of grey".

There is an opposite current of thought: we hear about the dangers of slippery slopes and relativistic thinking, and about the desirability of "zero tolerance" in many areas. But the reality of borderline cases, when faced up to intellectually rather than swept aside dogmatically, tends to leave Black and White looking very much the less well-funded party in its propaganda skirmishes against the Shades of Grey.

I want to support the underdog, and argue that the absolutist intuition that seems, quite often, to separate black from white, in some way that resists deflation of their status and territory to that of extreme greys, is essential to properly understanding human language. The challenge is to be able to look at fuzzy borders head on, but in some way that doesn't result, as is more usual, in us losing our sense of absolutism, and allowing the fuzziness to create a slippery slope from one category (say, black) to another (white). I fancy the way to achieve this is through a technical feature of Nelson Goodman's analysis of 'notationality': a notion closely related to the property known more widely as that of being 'digital'.

"Chair" has no immediate antonym or 'anti-chair': whereas, for example, black has white. Indeed, one suspects that Wells may have chosen it as a case-study precisely for that reason. An adventure of successive expansions for the extension of "chair" doesn't seem headed for any natural denouement. We could perhaps invent a plausible concept of anti-chair: even by that very name, and exemplified by any (distinctly unhelpful) device designed to stop people sitting down. However, to explain my proposed adaptation of Goodman's principle, it will be just as feasible for me to square up to Wells' teasing example of,

chairs that pass into benches, chairs that cross the boundary and become settees

Wells is quite right that he and his joiner might realistically hope to so influence usage that any sense of mutual repulsion between the extensions of "chair" and "bench", or even between those of "chair" and "settee", were significantly reduced. Not that there wouldn't remain enough underlying tension to distinguish the extensions: there might well be examples of each category that were certainly not examples of the other; just that there would be an overlap. Objects that were both.

But we can equally well imagine a usage becoming entrenched, even if only or mostly within the furniture trade, according to which there is reliably no overlap, and being able to call something a chair is sufficient to imply that it isn't a settee, and vice versa. Specifically, and adapting Goodman's notation-based principle, calling something a chair (within the limited specified discourse) then indicates zero probability of it ever (within the discourse) being called a settee. To someone who protests, like Humpty Dumpty, that they can point a word at whatever they like, we simply insist that they are not speaking the specified language: where 'language' is to be glossed as 'discourse' or 'interpreted language' or 'language in use', to clarify that competence with meaning as well as syntax is assumed. In the present example the discourse is relatively circumscribed, and particular to the furniture trade, but the principle scales up: as where we can for example comfortably deny that someone may, within the larger English language as spoken and interpreted literally, succeed in pointing the word "black" at white. (Or point the word "chair" at a device for preventing sitting.)

This way, the borderline examples of "chair" that we, as speakers, actually dispute and agonise over are far from the similarly borderline cases of "settee" but are our present best data about the whereabouts, on a gradual scale like Black's, of the edge of the possible extension of "settee". This is because the borderline cases that we dispute and negotiate are ones that are on or near the border of current data or samples of use, not the border of the background population or theoretical 'support'. However, with antonyms or with discrete categories in a conceptual scheme, as also with any two distinct characters in a syntactic alphabet, being in one means definitely not being in the other. So 'data' about the one limits the theoretical reach of the other. So 'chair' means 'definite non-settee' and 'settee' means 'definite non-chair'.

Assuming that reference (what I've called 'pointing') isn't a matter of fact (is 'inscrutable'), then neither is the background population nor the foreground sample of acts of reference (pointings). But agonising over borderline cases is how we maintain the fiction in such a way that it keeps discrete categories discrete. Agonising and allowing disputes over borderline cases of, say, "chair" (=> "definite non-settee") and of "settee" (=> "definite non-chair") causes the 'actual' extension of each - its 'observed' incidence of usage - to thin out to nothing well clear of that of the other. The fuzzy border where an object may be variously judged "chair" and "non-chair" is kept well away from the fuzzy border where objects are judged both "settee" and "non-settee".

Example.

Personally speaking I’m doing this to improve my writing and critiquing. I’m interested in seeing what people come up with and I’ll comment about their ideas too if I feel like it, but my main focus is on how not the what. Communication skills and such. Rhetoric? I guess so if you want to put it like that. I just call it practice :)

A couple of people here have said they want to collaborate and exchange critique and so do I. This seems like a reasonable stepping stone toward something that could possibly be a lot more than it starts out as.

I’ve tried before. Maybe 200-1000 words would be more reasonable to encourage more people? Fewer words is usually harder I find.

If 200-1000 words is ~1000-5000 characters then I think that's about perfect.

The only other thing I can think of is that theme words may need to have a minimum syllable complexity.

@Zophie

7 days. Go nuts! The word is ‘Chair’ go with it any you see fit :)

Honestly I’m just going open my dictionary every week and slap my finger down (just did it for a laugh and got ‘duodenary’). It doesn't really matter much what the word is really. The point is to write something and give and/or receive critique regarding how well written it is and/or debate the ideas embedded.

The point is to write something and give and/or receive critique regarding how well written it is and/or debate the ideas embedded. — I like sushi

In seeking critique regarding how well written something is, are you asking for objective criticism or subjective criticism? How well something is written can be subjective. Why would you want to know how well written something is for a specific person unless you intended on communicating your idea to just that person? Something is well written if it gets the idea across.

If what you mean by "well written" is that it covers all the bases and leaves no questions to be asked or clarifications to be made, then it seems to me that what we would actually be doing then is critiquing the embedded ideas by applying logic.

All, any, none or whatever. Join in by writing and/or critiquing how ever you can.

I’m sure people will have different ways of doing things and this will trigger debates and discussions. If you just want to offer critique rather than write a piece that’s fine by me. I’ve just come up with an idea of what to write about now I just have to decide how I want to present it so people can possibly get some use out of it - if not, back to the drawing board no biggie! (There is always next week).

Do you think the quality of criticism offered by someone who has, in turn, offered their own work for criticism is the same as someone who is critiquing from a completely external standpoint?

Depends on the person. You’ll get the same from me either way :)

I imagine critiques will vary depending on how serious people are about it. Some people may not feel comfortable exposing themselves, but if they do they have to accept whatever cones their way - at least it’s practice if the critique they get isn’t useful to them.

This is an open forum where anyone can critique anyone as and when they please. This is merely an exercise for direct and sustained criticism over several weeks/months if there is enough interest.

You’ll get the same from me either way — I like sushi

Perhaps like saying, "I would say this, even if you put a gun to my head"? Some contexts dictate results in ways we might not anticipate.

Join in or don’t join in. Your choice :)

Thanks for clearing that up! :)

A chair, or not a chair? That was Max Black's question. At least, it was the question he felt bound to refashion, along the now familiar lines of fuzzy logic: whereabouts is this or that object on the "chair spectrum"? — bongo fury

Curiously, Max Black is also an adult entertainment store in Newtown, New South Wales.

Sorry, I'm unlikely to have the time, energy, or self-esteem to participate in this. (Same situation with that video game fandom... I've barely had time to even play anyone else's projects for 20 years, since I barely have time to even play-test my own, much less work on it, much less play anyone else's, much less work on theirs...)

Just finished the rough draft. Not read it through, checked anything or edited it in any way. Feel free to comment and I won’t look at your criticism/points/whatever until I’ve done a rewrite and posted the second version and ideally cut down the word count to 500-600 words (interested to see if I spot the same problems others see). I may also try to write critique for this rough draft too - already doing it in my head! Haha!

Critique: What you think aim of this piece is something I’m curious to hear about. Anything else is more than welcome. As mentioned above this is an open site so you obviously don’t have to write something yourself to offer critique.

The First Chair

A small
Rickety
Wooden chair

Sits in
The shadowy
Corner.

It is not
For sitting,
Nor ignored.


What would it have been to a human to create the very first chair? Not merely to select a spot and sit down, but to actually fashion an item meant for the sole purpose of planting one’s posterior on.

We could imagine a scene, millennia ago, where humans congregated at the day’s end to partake in social relations. They undoubtedly rested in this period, and therefore likely sat rather than stood. Would they have always sat in the same position or order relative to their fellows? Would that day’s achiever have had first choice of spot? Was there a strong social hierarchy involved that was symbolically reflected by each person’s position within the group? Given the sparse dispersion of prehistoric humans around the globe it seems reasonable to assume that different cultural habits would’ve emerged where some tribe’s members attached social value to ‘sitting positions’ as a marker for status, and others would’ve perhaps have been mostly, if not completely, unconcerned with such habits and rituals of daily social life.

Such daily social occasions are clearly of high import to human society merely due to their frequency with the position of hunter, cook, elder, shaman, singer or orator impacting the physical position of such gatherings for practical reasons practical reasons alone - be it to tend to the fire, prepare a meal, or narrate the days events. It could’ve been that in some cultures elderly story-tellers, adept and honed in their craft, were highly revered, and had their position, literally and figuratively, ‘elevated’ - perhaps a rock was designated for them to spin their tale from in fuller view of the whole tribe where standing was too much of a burden on their wisened body. This ‘rock’ would still not be a ‘chair’ in the sense initially outlined, as this would merely be a spot designated so that all the members of the tribe could better see, listen or even contribute. So, we now have at least the precursor of our imaginary ‘First Chair’.

Note: many rituals and gathering are seen to be ‘active’ unlike the modern dynamic of a ‘passive’ audience. For instance during ritual ‘plays’ the ‘audience’ would often join the performance rather than simply observe.

A chair is something that can be moved from one place to another. A nomadic lifestyle would mean prehistoric tribes would likely have only carried what was deemed ‘necessary’. A Chair would probably not have been deemed ‘necessary,’ but soft materials to sit on and possibly a piece of material for support (be it a tool/weapon of some description) may have supplemented said soft materials to form a more ‘purposeful’ sitting space. Still, not a ‘chair’. To have meaningfully constructed a ‘chair’ would require more than a movement of parts to establish a space to sit. A chair is something quite different.

A chair is the space, the space is not a part of the chair - it is not a collection of non-fixed parts around any particular space. A chair is a space in-itself, placed within a social space, where a sitting place is ever present within a social space and designated by the position of humans and perhaps where they place their arbitrary possessions (soft hides and tools).

At first it seems that sedentary life would be essential to predate the First Chair. It could have progressed from a palanquin though, where a figure of authority was carried from place to place in a ceremonial manner, or individual/s were held aloft due to a ritual of marriage, some other coming-of-age ritual or injury. I would argue that no matter the use of the First Chair it would have been made for a significant purpose in terms of social standing, be this to support an important aged and wise figure or to draw the focus of an audience, rather than being a mere instrument of ‘comfort’ which today is generally how we ‘see’ a chair as they are hardly paid much attention accept when we wish to possess one for a private moment or to merely find a ‘spot to sit’ for a better view, or more convenient overall location - in a theatre, restaurant or on a bus. What is unique about the chair is its ability to be shifted to suit the sitter. A ‘fixed-chair’ is just a seat! A ‘real chair’ transcends space and carries itself, with its space, to suit the whim and will of its owner. It is an instrument that can be used to challenge the authority of other people sitting in the same area, a means of taking centre stage or initiating your own circle of interest. Was any of this in the mind of our ‘imaginary’ maker of the First Chair? Why would it be or why wouldn’t it be?

If we go with the palanquin route, I don’t think we’re really talking about ‘a chair’ rather nothing more than a means of holding someone aloft for ritual means and celebration. A ‘chair’ is necessarily a ground-bound object I hope we can agree. What really solidifies The Chair is sedentary life. An enclosed space furnished with practical items spaced out for functionality. A mere stool would’ve been the go to sitting device I feel. Easy to move, rotate and applicable to many daily tasks and craftwork. It seems again the ‘chair’ still has its prominence its social symbolism, as an object of status designated for use by particular members of the community at a gathering. In the modern world this is certain seen today, in offices and boardrooms, in courts of law and political meetings (often a person is literally given the title of ‘chair,’ like some overseer of the proceedings about to take place).

I don’t really think there was some ‘First Chair,’ a eureka moment with an inspired carpenter rushing to their workshop to change the dynamics of human’s social interaction with their ‘genius chair’ motif - such is merely a flight of fancy to highlight how humans have explored the space they’ve found themselves a part of (or apart from), and extract and contain this space in varying states of permanence through which a common, yet unconscious, need expressed in culture has perpetuated.

Note: Replaced first rough draft because some of the sentences, well ... they weren’t sentences! So I have briefly read it through and corrected SPAG but haven’t ‘edited’ yet.

Chopped a little and rearranged. Will either completely rewrite next or just try and edit down to 600-700 words (currently at 1063 words)

The First Chair

A small
Rickety
Wooden chair

Sits in
The shadowy
Corner.

It is not
For sitting,
Nor ignored.

What would it have been to a human to create the very first chair? Not merely to select a spot and sit down, but to actually fashion an item meant for the sole purpose of planting one’s posterior on.

The ‘First Chair’ here is, funnily enough, a means to furnish a narrative that reveals something intrinsically human about our modes of thinking and how they adapt. No one really thinks there was some ‘First Chair,’ a eureka moment where an inspired carpenter rushed to their workshop to fashion their furniture idea - such is merely a flight of fancy to highlight how humans have explored the space they’ve found themselves a part of (and/or apart from), and extracted and contained this space in varying states of permanence through which a common, yet unconscious, need expresses itself and perpetuates through variegated cultural iterations.

We could imagine a scene, millennia ago, where humans congregated at the day’s end to partake in social relations. They undoubtedly rested in this period, and therefore likely sat rather than stood. Would they have always sat in the same position or order relative to their fellows? Would that day’s achiever have had first choice of spot? Was there a strong social hierarchy involved that was symbolically reflected by each person’s position within the group?

Given the sparse dispersion of prehistoric humans around the globe it seems reasonable to assume that different cultural habits would’ve emerged where some tribe’s members attached social value to ‘sitting positions’ as a marker for status, and others would’ve perhaps have been mostly, if not completely, unconcerned with such habits and rituals of daily social life. Such daily social occasions are clearly of high import to human society due to their frequency, with the position of hunters, cooks, elders, shamans, singers or orators impacting the physical position of such gatherings for practical reasons alone - be it to tend to the fire, prepare a meal, or narrate the days events. It could’ve been that in some cultures elderly story-tellers, adept and honed in their craft, were highly revered, and had their position, literally and figuratively, ‘elevated’ - perhaps a rock was designated for them to spin their tale from in full view of the whole tribe where standing was a burden for their wisened bodies. This ‘rock’ would still not be a ‘chair’ in the sense initially outlined, as this would merely be a spot designated so that all the members of the tribe could better see, listen or even contribute*. So, we now have at least the precursor of our imaginary ‘First Chair’.

(*many rituals and gatherings are ‘active’ unlike the modern dynamic of a ‘passive’ audience. For instance during ritual ‘plays’ the ‘audience’ would often join the performance rather than simply observe.)

A chair is something that can be moved from one place to another. A nomadic lifestyle would mean prehistoric tribes would likely have only carried what was deemed ‘necessary’. A Chair would probably not have been deemed ‘necessary,’ but soft materials to sit on and possibly a piece of material for support (be it a tool/weapon of some description) to form a more ‘purposeful’ sitting space: still, not a ‘chair’. To have meaningfully constructed a ‘chair’ would be something quite different.

A chair is a space in-itself, placed within a social space, where a sitting place is ever present within a social space and designated by the position of humans and where they place their arbitrary possessions. A chair is the space, the space is not a part of the chair - it is not a collection of non-fixed parts around any particular space.

What other factors would proceed the First Chair? At first it seems that sedentary life would predate the First Chair, but it could have progressed from a palanquin or cot, where a figure of authority was carried from place to place in a ceremonial manner, or individual/s were held aloft due to a ritual of marriage, some other coming-of-age ritual, or even ill-health or injury.

I would argue that no matter the use of the First Chair it would have been made for a significant purpose in terms of social standing, be this to support an important aged and wise figure or to draw the focus of an audience, rather than being a mere instrument of ‘comfort’ which today is generally how we ‘see’ a chair as they are hardly paid much attention - accept when we wish to possess one for a private moment or to merely find a ‘spot to sit’ for a better view, or more convenient overall location: in a theatre, restaurant or on a bus.

What is unique about the chair is its ability to be shifted to suit the sitter. A ‘fixed-chair’ is just a seat! A ‘real chair’ transcends space and carries itself, with its space, to suit the whim and will of its owner. It is an instrument that can be used to challenge the authority of other people sitting in the same area, a means of taking centre stage, or even initiating your own circle of interest for others to join. Was any of this in the mind of our imaginary-maker of the First Chair? Why would or wouldn’t it be?

What really solidifies The Chair is sedentary life. A ‘chair’ is necessarily a ground-bound object. In an enclosed space, furnished with practical items spaced out for functionality, a mere stool would’ve been the go to sitting device; being easy to position to suit many daily tasks and craftwork. It seems again the ‘chair’ still has its prominence, its social symbolism, as an object of status designated for use by particular members of the community, yet the degree of privacy changes the symbolic function. In the modern world, publicly, this is certainly seen today, in offices and boardrooms, in courts of law and political meetings (often a person is literally given the title of ‘chair,’ like some overseer of the proceedings about to take place).

Did the maker of the First Chair even reflect upon how the ‘chair’ would change human life? Did they find the task engaging or ridiculous - I mean, it’s just a place to plant your posterior ... isn’t it?

Anyone bothered?

Plato talked highly about chairs and tables. All his best times were spent on chairs. Then he created the perfect chair because he loved chairs so much, and then Aristotle stood up and shouted, I'm done with sitting.

In a restrictive manner a chair is not an object. A chair exists as an object on which one can sit on. It's rudimentary role was elevated to such exhalation that when philosophers felt like they touched on something important, they would promise not to sit down for a couple of days. Some philosophers even declared that chairs are evil, and propounded sitting on the ground instead on the grass or to get their butts soggy.

Only managed to cut it down to 850 words, but time’s up!

The First Chair

A small
Rickety
Wooden chair

Sits in
The shadowy
Corner.

It is not
For sitting,
Nor ignored.


The ‘First Chair’ here is, funnily enough, a means to furnish a narrative that reveals something intrinsically human about our modes of thinking and how they adapt. No one really thinks there was some ‘First Chair,’ a eureka moment where an inspired carpenter rushed to their workshop to fashion their furniture idea. Such is merely a flight of fancy to highlight how humans have explored the space they’ve found themselves a part of, and apart from, and managed to extract and contain this space in varying states of permanence through which a common yet often unconscious need has expressed itself and perpetuated through multiple cultural iterations.

What would it have been to a human to create the very ‘First Chair’? Not merely to select a spot and sit down, but to actually fashion an item meant for the sole purpose of planting one’s posterior on.

We could imagine a scene, millennia ago, where humans congregated at the day’s end to partake in social relations. They undoubtedly rested in this period, and therefore likely sat rather than stood. Would they have always sat in the same position or order relative to their fellows? Would that day’s achiever have had first choice of spot? Was there a strong social hierarchy involved that was symbolically reflected by each person’s position within the group?

Given the sparse dispersion of prehistoric humans it seems reasonable to assume that different cultural habits would’ve emerged where some tribe’s members attached social value to ‘sitting positions’ as a marker for status, and others would’ve perhaps have been mostly, if not completely, unconcerned with such habits and rituals of daily social life. Such daily social occasions are clearly of high import to human society due to their frequency, with hunters, cooks, shamans, or orators impacting the positioning of such gatherings for practical reasons alone - be it to tend to the fire, prepare a meal, or narrate the days events. It could’ve been that in some cultures elderly story-tellers were highly revered, and had their position - literally and figuratively - ‘elevated’. Perhaps a rock was designated for them to spin their tale from in full view of their captive audience. This ‘rock’ would still not be a ‘chair’ in the sense initially outlined. It would merely be a spot designated so that all the members of the tribe could better see, listen or even contribute*. So, we now have at least the precursor of our imaginary ‘First Chair’.

( *many rituals and gatherings are ‘active’ unlike the modern dynamic of a ‘passive’ audience. For instance during ritual ‘plays’ the ‘audience’ would often join the performance rather than simply observe.)

A nomadic lifestyle would mean prehistoric tribes would likely have only carried what was deemed ‘necessary’. A Chair would probably not have been deemed ‘necessary,’ but soft materials to sit on, and possibly a piece of material for support (be it a tool/weapon of some description), to form a more ‘purposeful’ sitting space: still, not a ‘chair’. To have meaningfully constructed a ‘chair’ would be something quite different.

A chair is a space in-itself, placed within a social space, where a sitting place is ever present within a social space and designated by the position of humans and where they place their arbitrary possessions. A chair is the space, the space is not a part of the chair - it is not a collection of non-fixed parts around any particular space.

What is especially unique about the chair is its ability to be shifted to suit the sitter. A ‘fixed-chair’ is just a seat! A ‘real chair’ transcends space and carries itself, with its space, to suit the whim and will of its owner. It is an instrument that can be used to challenge the authority of other people sitting in the same area, a means of taking centre stage, or even initiating your own circle of interest for others to join. Was any of this in the mind of our imaginary-maker of the First Chair? Why would or wouldn’t it be?

What really solidifies The Chair is sedentary life. A ‘chair’ is necessarily a ground-bound object. In an enclosed space, furnished with practical items spaced out for functionality, a mere stool would’ve been the go to sitting device; being easy to position to suit many daily tasks and craftwork. It seems again the ‘chair’ still has its prominence, its social symbolism, as an object of status designated for use by particular members of the community, yet the degree of privacy changes the symbolic function. In the modern world, publicly, this is certainly seen today, in offices and boardrooms, in courts of law and political meetings (often a person is literally given the title of ‘chair,’ like some overseer of the proceedings about to take place).

Did the maker of the First Chair even reflect upon how the ‘chair’ would change human life? Did they find the task engaging or ridiculous - I mean, it’s just a place to plant your posterior ... isn’t it?

time’s up! — I like sushi

Haha, I'm rubbish at deadlines. (I asked for an extension, but not so you would notice - my bad.)

Anyway, I reckon we might be interested in each other's efforts. Expect copious opinionating on your style and content, and I will (in principle, haha) likewise be glad of the stimulation to improve mine for a possible future (much shorter) OP. 1058 words (as yet).

The ‘deadline’ obviously isn’t strict. Post as and when, the ‘time’s up!’ was more for me than anyone else (kind of a boot up my own arse rather than delay, followed by delay, and delaying more delays!)

I’ll try and give myself a bit of tough love with this thing and see if I can cut out a decent self-critique.

Cool, it's up there in post #3, but I'll post subsequent edits down here. Reading yours now. Hopefully respond tomorrow.

Oh shiiiit! Completely missed it! Haha

Will have read and comment as soon as I have time :)

Have started another thread for next Friday btw.

The First Chair

A small
Rickety
Wooden chair

Sits in
The shadowy
Corner. — I like sushi

Sure, a poem why not... but, given the title, should you be calling it a chair, already?

And then, the adjectives... are they wise? Don't they sound a bit childish? Couldn't you "show not tell"? (E.g. "below their knees" for "small"; "swaying" or "moving" for "rickety".)

Hey, criticism is fun! I wonder if receiving it will be quite as much so...

The ‘First Chair’ here is, funnily enough, a means to furnish a narrative — I like sushi

"Funnily enough" as in, "what a coincidence"? I don't quite follow. And, a means for you, here, or for people generally?

that reveals something intrinsically human about our modes of thinking and how they adapt. No one really thinks there was some ‘First Chair,’ a eureka moment where an inspired carpenter rushed to their workshop to fashion their furniture idea. — I like sushi

Cool.

Such is merely a flight of fancy to highlight — I like sushi

Again, a means by which you in particular or people generally may highlight...?

how humans have explored the space they’ve found themselves a part of, and apart from, and managed to extract and contain this space in varying states of permanence through which a common yet often unconscious need has expressed itself and perpetuated through multiple cultural iterations. — I like sushi

... Ok, I think I get the abstract stuff about extraction and re-forming to express unconscious needs, but I ought to check: the multiple cultural iterations are tools and furniture getting made and replaced...?

What would it have been to a human to create the very ‘First Chair’? Not merely to select a spot and sit down, but to actually fashion an item meant for the sole purpose of planting one’s posterior on. — I like sushi

Cool.

We could imagine a scene, millennia ago, where humans congregated at the day’s end to partake in social relations. They undoubtedly rested in this period, and therefore likely sat rather than stood. Would they have always sat in the same position or order relative to their fellows? Would that day’s achiever have had first choice of spot? Was there a strong social hierarchy involved that was symbolically reflected by each person’s position within the group? — I like sushi

I get this. :up:

Given the sparse dispersion of prehistoric humans it seems reasonable to assume — I like sushi

Fair enough, but you mean "infer" from the given, not assume?

that different cultural habits would’ve emerged where some tribe’s members — I like sushi

I think you mean some members of some one tribe but it's coming over like all members of some one tribe?

attached social value to ‘sitting positions’ as a marker for status, and others would’ve perhaps have been mostly, if not completely, unconcerned with such habits and rituals of daily social life. — I like sushi

Not sure whether you mean different tribes or a single tribe is dispersed, and whether the seating conventions were or weren't acknowledged throughout the tribe. Also the extra "have".

Such daily social occasions are clearly of high import to human society due to their frequency, — I like sushi

You mean their being "daily"? In which case is that called "redundant" and to be trimmed? "Such social... due to their being daily", or something?

All cool down to...

A nomadic lifestyle would mean prehistoric tribes would likely have only carried what was deemed ‘necessary’. A Chair would probably not have been deemed ‘necessary,’ — I like sushi

I'm not sure why you might expect a reader to buy that.

but soft materials to sit on and possibly a piece of material for support (be it a tool/weapon of some description) to form a more ‘purposeful’ sitting space: still, not a ‘chair’. To have meaningfully constructed a ‘chair’ would be something quite different. — I like sushi

Do you mean, not a "chair" in our sense of the word, or do you mean, not something clearly enough individuated (if that's the word) to be indicated by a general noun?

Ok, the next two paragraphs suggest (I think) the former: before the "chair" we had the "sitting space" or "seat" or "seating layout" and the innovation recognised by the etymological ancesters of "chair" was an object that helped to facilitate the moving of a whole seating layout (with of course all of its attendant social symbolism)? Is that what the "space in-itself" stuff is saying?

Not sure if I can read the last two paragraphs on that basis or not. So, interested to hear if I'm on track...

:cool:

As a brief critique of my own piece ...

It seems stretched between two different approaches. The ‘mood’ is sometimes whimsical, but sometimes the tone and word choices really oppose this initial approach.

Example - The poem could probably stay, but a little explanation regarding the point of it being there would likely help the reader guess what where this topic is focusing its attention.

Also, the ‘posterior’ remark is one whimsical point as is the pun on ‘furniture,’ which sets a less than serious tone. This followed by ...

Such is merely a flight of fancy to highlight how humans have explored the space they’ve found themselves a part of, and apart from, and managed to extract and contain this space in varying states of permanence through which a common yet often unconscious need has expressed itself and perpetuated through multiple cultural iterations. — I like sushi

Which requires a reasonable amount of unpacking compared to the slightly glib introductory sentences - maybe a paragraph that highlights the importance of ‘permanence,’ ‘extraction/memes,’ and how the unconscious mind can direct ‘culture’ (perhaps even a brief attempt to outline what ‘culture’ means in this setting).

After this the most obvious thing that bothers me is the historical narrative structure. It could do with a clearer layout - meaning, to have a paragraph for different conceptual epochs of societal evolution (hunter/gatherer, sedentary living, the shift from oral to written traditions, educational institutes, and modern habits and symbols surrounding the term ‘Chair’.

Lack of planning is apparent and no real use of philosophical jargon for the reader to grapple with and ponder - not necessarily a bad thing, but given the audience it may not have hurt to throw in some clear sign posts.

Felt like this lost way a little around the midpoint. The introduction was great and gave a very clear picture of what was to come.

I would, personally, have liked to have seen more written about ‘notionality’ in terms of Goodman (because I’m not very familiar to me). Maybe dropping in Hume’s ‘is or ought’ would’ve be a nice springboard into nominalism and language in general?

I want to support the underdog, and argue that the absolutist intuition that seems — bongo fury

This was where my interest started to seep away a tad. The ‘I’ is always something, I believe (irony I know!), that should be used as sparingly as possible as it distances the reader from the text - I’m not strictly against any personal pronouns, but I think they can shake the reader from their revelry in a subtle way: something that is generally more apparent, imo, during the opening sections of any piece of writing (more a case of ‘where to’ put the ‘I’ than to avoid it at all costs).

"Chair" has no immediate antonym or 'anti-chair' — bongo fury

I don’t wish to go into ‘content’ too much, but I feel like an opportunity was missed here (again, a personal thing, because my interest has focused in this area before). It would’ve been interesting to see a brief comparison of antonym types and where ‘chair,’ or some proposed ‘anti-chair,’ fit in - or not!? As well as a more concise point about language ‘use’ and its ‘practical’ evolution.

Last point for now ...

So 'data' about the one limits the theoretical reach of the other. So 'chair' means 'definite non-settee' and 'settee' means 'definite non-chair'. — bongo fury

I think this could’ve been hammered home more strongly. For me this seemed to be a critical point you were making in ‘defense’ of an ‘absolutist attitude’ (so to speak), but it was left hanging. (Note: I see that you tried to do this in the next paragraph, but I strongly feel that this should’ve been contained within the same paragraph AND less packed-in - given the word limit a near impossible task!)

To sum up, a strong spine of ideas, but an unfitting end - crammed in! The tone of the piece was nice (in comparison to my attempt you surpassed me - mine felt too, er ... whimsical, if you know what I mean).

Thanks for participating! I often find more use in offering critique than receiving it, because it makes me think more clinically about my own writing if I turn my words back on myself - I’ve always found it useful to see my critique of others as essentially a critique of my own shortcomings merely recognised in others (whether they have made the ‘mistakes’ I see or not it helps me understand what I find important and what ‘mistakes’ I am making by association).