When they pulled you from the wreck, you still had on your shades
Since today is Opposite Day* and all, I thought it would be interesting to turn to a subject about which most people have at least some questions, namely, hats. What is—what might be—the opposite of a hat?
Comments
on 2005-06-12 21:24:59.0, ogged commented:
You know, we've had this discussion. I find your dismissal inadequate.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 5:30:47.0, tammy commented:
I think your consideration of the topness and bottomness of socks and shoes needs some refinement.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 7:30:38.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
The opposite of a hat is a convex doodad that lodges in the hairy inner cavity of a cranial involution.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 8:17:56.0, Craig commented:
I think we do bettter to look at the emotional and social qualities of the hat rather than its mere physical and topological properties. Once we've identified these properties we can envision a sort of ur-hat whose opposite will become apparent. What are these qualities? A hat is:
-formal. It is true that there are party hats, beach hats, and trucker "caps" and so on, but these should be considered anomalies. The reason why silly hats are amusing, why informal hats so pleasantly surprising, is that they transgress against the inherent nature of hatness, which is stolid and serious.
-masculine. Consider H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds, in the early chapters. Male characters who have been unmanned (or melted) by Martian heat ray attack are invariably described as hat-less. The narrator in fact loses his hat, much to his dismay, whilst fleeing from a tripod. And if we cannot trust Victorian socialist utopian science fiction authors to get at the buried gendered roots of hat-ness, we can trust no one.
-mournful but resolute. A hat does not cover for the sake of covering. Rather, it covers to keep out sun, wind, and, especially, rain. It is a bulwark against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (especially if made of metal) and against the wild forces of the natural world. A hat is man's felty act of defiance against the vagaries of fate.
The ur-hat, then, would be a brown felt bowler, worn by a sad-eyed banker with an elegant mustache in the City of London in 1892. It's opposite is feminine, informal, joyous. In short, the sun dress.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 8:20:06.0, Craig commented:
I note with shame that I have completely discredited myself by using it's as a contraction. I only slept three hours last night, but I am aware that that is no excuse.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 8:20:28.0, Craig commented:
I note with shame that I have completely discredited myself by using it's, the contraction, where its, the possessive, was actually required. I only got three hours of sleep last night but am aware that That Is No Excuse.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 8:43:09.0, ben wolfson commented:
A hat is an inessential accoutrement added to one end, shaving one's toes is an inessential cosmetic removal at the other.
If shaving one's toes were essential, you'd be on stronger ground, I think. Also, note that here you've switched from your original suggestion—shaven feet—to an action. I really don't think that the activity of shaving one's toes can be the opposite of a hat. You need to lay out exactly what you mean in greater detail.
Craig, my ancient nemesis, I'll deal with you later.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 9:36:05.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
I would find the sundress theory compelling, were it not that women also commonly partook of the chapeau. Indoors, no less.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 10:08:45.0, Craig commented:
Do not men sometimes wear both hats and sandals? Similarly, one might expect women to wear hats indoors, even though this runs against the basic nature of the hat. Opposites can be near each other and qualities diluted in this fallen world of dross. We are not dealing here with the mere vagaries of worldly facts but with platonic essences.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 10:32:41.0, ben wolfson commented:
Fancy writin' don't make compellin' arguin', Craig.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 10:42:42.0, Craig commented:
It's just that the quality of my thought is so high. What I'm saying is, the mere fact that women have been known to wear hats indoors speaks to the inherent qualities of women, not of hats.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 10:44:09.0, ogged commented:
If shaving one's toes were essential, you'd be on stronger ground
Ok, this is a fair point. (The thing/action distinction is easily avoided by rephrasing.) Certainly though, one can imagine certain peer circles in which hairy feet are unacceptable.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 11:38:25.0, ben wolfson commented:
You can rephrase it, but then you're still stuck with the fact that a hat is an article of clothing, and having shaven toes is a state of being.
Craig: It's already been established (and by such a one as Standpipe Bridgeplate Standpipeself, no less) that women wear hats and that, therefore, you attribution of masculinity to hats is illegitimate. The speciousness of "when women wear hats, it's because of their woman-nature, and not because of their hat-nature" is so obvious I won't even bother to point it out. As for formality, the fact that you think this shows that you are mired in a romantic misconception of hat-nature. It may be that in this fallen age, black-clad adolescents with a penchant for anachronism (such as yourself) harbor a yen for the days of shirt collars and felt bowlers, but we must understand that their own understanding, which, in its modish rejection of all things youthful and fun, seems invested with authority, is merest phantasy. One notes that your analysis can be turned around: Why, one might ask, does the formal hat please you so much? Simply because it denies the true essence of hat, which is having fun. The ur-hat on this understanding is a yarmulke: worn with utmost formality to conceal oneself from the gaze of god. (And don't think I don't detect the weensiest trace of Jewish guilt in your analysis.) But I believe that the hat is many and various, capable of embracing formality and frivolity. When our first ancestor covered over his or her head to escape the gaze of this earth's yellow sun, questions of formality were not operative.
Further I note that a sun dress and a hat can both be both clothes for sunny weather. In fact, I bet a brown felt bowler would go pretty well with a sun dress of an appropriate color.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 11:46:36.0, Matt Weiner commented:
The ur-hat on this understanding is a yarmulke: worn with utmost formality to conceal oneself from the gaze of god.
Making its opposite the foreskin. PWNED!
and, further, on 2005-06-13 0:09:21.0, dave zacuto commented:
Didn't we have a conversation about this once? I seem to remember it being inconclusive.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 0:19:32.0, tammy commented:
Standpipe Bridgeplate Standpipeself Are you trying to irk me, Ben?
I take issue with your arbitrary notion of what oppositeness entails, viz., that the opposite of a hat should be an article of clothing but should have a certain number of other characteristics not-in-common with a hat.
We need, as you say, rigor here. What is the opposite of a thing? It is possible that opposite of a thing is that thing that is unlike the thing in every way. This thing, however, is hard to find, if indeed it even exists.
More likely, the opposite of a thing is that thing that is like the thing in every way except one important way. In this sense, your left hand is clearly the opposite of your right hand.
The hat, then, must have an opposite that would be a hat, were it not hat-deficient in a certain way. A hat that you wear on your feet would be a good candidate. I think that a shoe (not a pair of shoes) is very much akin to a hat that you wear on your feet and is therefore likely to be the opposite of a hat.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 0:28:01.0, ben wolfson commented:
I think your consideration of the topness and bottomness of socks and shoes needs some refinement.
Socks: radial. Shoes: I admit that they have tops and bottoms, but a true shoe has a covered top. There are some shoes, mostly women's but also formal varieties of men's, that have open tops, but I think these are properly considered dressy sandals.
(As for "Standpipeself": Blame Weiner.)
and, further, on 2005-06-13 0:29:07.0, Matt Weiner commented:
He's just following my obiter dicta.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 0:47:21.0, tammy commented:
Your understanding of socks and shoes verges on incomprehensibility. What are you talking about, shoes have closed tops? How are you going to get your foot into a shoe with a closed top? Your ankle no more makes the top of a shoe closed than your head makes the bottom of a hat closed. Furthermore, socks very definitely have a top and a bottom. The way they are oriented in space when in use is an important part of their sockness and certainly dictates where the top is. Socks, like shoes, have open tops. Q.E.D.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 13:18:04.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
You can rephrase it, but then you're still stuck with the fact that a hat is an article of clothing, and having shaven toes is a state of being.
If there were a Nair-type product that worked only on toe-hair, would that satisfy you? Or would you still object that hairless toes aren't essential enough?
and, further, on 2005-06-13 13:18:59.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
The Nair-type product being the opposite of a hat, of course.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 13:21:43.0, Matt Weiner commented:
The product wouldn't be worn--but is that just another aspect of its oppositionality?
and, further, on 2005-06-13 13:22:29.0, ben wolfson commented:
A product that one wore to cover up toe hair would be the closest to acceptability that I can currently conceive.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 17:17:08.0, ac commented:
I was thinking, as I was reading, before I got to the comments and its clarifications, that the opposite of a hat would be a speculum.
and, further, on 2005-06-13 21:20:29.0, apostropher commented:
According to this paper by Chudnovsky and Seymour:
Let n >= 0. Let A = {a0, a1, ... , an}, B = {b0, b1, ... , bn} and C = {c1, ... , cn} be three cliques, pairwise disjoint. Let G be the graph with vertex set A[B [C and with adjacency as follows. For 0 <= i, j <= n, let ai, bj be adjacent if and only if i = j > 0, and for 1 <= i <= n and 0 <= j <= n let ci be adjacent to aj, bj if and only if i 6= j 6= 0. Let X ` A [ B [ C with a0, b0 /2 X; then the strip (G \ X, a0, b0) is called an antihat strip.
and, further, on 2005-06-14 6:31:18.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
There once was a gyno named Glenda With opposites on her agenda. Each patient disrobing Got 'stead of a probing A stetson upon her pudenda.
and, further, on 2005-06-14 10:50:28.0, ben wolfson commented:
There's a problem with your limerick, SB: the last line scans.
and, further, on 2005-06-14 11:14:44.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
I am dirt.
and, further, on 2005-06-14 16:17:54.0, Standpipe Bridgeplate commented:
Obligatory ligature: discussion continues here (to Ben's consternation).
and, further, on 2005-06-14 17:39:20.0, apostropher commented:
This comment, however, can only be read here. Exclusive!!! Must credit Waste!!!
and, further, on 2005-06-14 17:54:51.0, ben wolfson commented:
A++++ WOULD READ COMMENT AGAIN