“If the nineteenth century was the age of the editorial chair, ours is the century of the psychiatrist’s couch. As extension of man the chair is a specialist ablation of the posterior, a sort of ablative absolute of backside, whereas the couch extends the integral being. The psychiatrist employs the couch, since it removes the temptation to express private points of view and obviates the need to rationalize events.”

-p5

An early foray in UM into literalizing “extensions.” If these extensions seem a stretch, I would suggest considering them a prosthetic, which I’m sure MM eventually gets around to. Considering something like a chair a prosthetic and not merely an object or tool helps to move toward the meaning which is that every tool is a type of prosthesis(an assumption easier to consider with a wrench and tougher to consider as with a television)

Thinking of the chair specifically, Gabrielle Belle’s graphic short Cecil and Jordan in New York comes to mind. A story in which after many social disappointments the protagonist decides to become a chair. The surrealism here may work specifically because of the symbolism of objectification toward prosthesis.

While I agree that the chair and the couch obviate separate cognitive modes, I would add something to this distinction in direct relation to psychiatry. While the supine posture extends the integral being, it would also be said to nullify the body. Taking MM’s surgeon metaphor, a supine body is a posture prepared for intervention. Sitting to supine is a gesture that moves from active to passive.