A Book and A Table: a question of place and identity

It began with a simple question, “why is the sentence, ‘the book that is on the table’ sounds more acceptable than ‘the table that is under the book’?” that I posted on my facebook wall, and it turned out to be one of those interesting discussion I had with my friends. It seemed to be a meaningless question that was asked out of the blue that needs no answer. We always accept it as it is, without ever asking why at one point in our life we thought and decided that the first sentence is more logical than the other. We took it for granted our own process of understanding and building conception of things.

The first thing to think about is: is it about the identity of a book? What if the question was, “which table is it?”. Would the answer be, “the table that is under the red book”?. The answer would likely be, “the table that has a red book on it”. So, in a way, it is still the same statement as, “the book is on the table”.  So, even if the question is about an identity of a table, the book is still ON the table.

The second thing to think about is: is it about a hierarchy of power? That visually thinking, the table is bigger than the book, so the bigger has to support the smaller? What would come into our mind if the sentence was, “The table is on the book”? How big is the book? Is it still smaller than the table? We might picture a one leg table that has a book as its pedestal, and think that it would be as weird as having a table standing on a very big book. This weird picture won’t even come into our mind when the sentence is, “the book is under the table”. We would picture a book that lay on the floor, in the space under the table. In our mind ethically, the stronger should support the weaker, whether as something to stand on, or to hide under.

The other one that I can pull from that brief discussion is that it might be a question about place and mobility. The book is easier to move anywhere than the table. The table can be a place for the book, but the book cannot be a place for the table. The table can be a point of reference when we look for the book, but it cannot be a point of reference when we are looking for the table. If we are looking for the table the answer might be, “The table that is in the centre of the living room”, or “the table that is on the porch”, or “the table is in the truck”. We would refer to something that can become the place of the table, something that would contain the table or would not move easier than the table.

Back to the first thing that came into my mind, what if the question was about identity? If the question was about the identity of a book, or a table, can we answer it by assigning it to the character of a place? The book in question would still have its physical character wherever it goes. What does really change when we take the book from the top of the table and put it on another table or in a bookshelf or under a table? Will it change the book? Will it change the table? What will it change?