“The Rücksichtslos itself is the issue of another kind of fanaticism: that of the specialist...

>“The Rücksichtslos itself is the issue of another kind of fanaticism: that of the specialist. This vessel here is a Toiletship, a triumph of the German mania for subdividing. “If the house is organic,” argued the crafty early Toiletship advocates, “family lives in the house, family’s organic, house is outward-and-visible sign, you see,” behind their smoked glasses and under their gray crewcuts not believing a word of it, Machiavellian and youthful, not quite ripe yet for paranoia, “and if the bathroom’s part of the house— house-is-organic! ha-hah,” singing, chiding, pointing out the broad blond-faced engineer, hair parted in the middle and slicked back, actually blushing and looking at his knees among the good-natured smiling teeth of his fellow technologists because he’d been about to forget that point (Albert Speer, himself, in a gray suit with a smudge of chalk on the sleeve, all the way in the back leaning akimbo the wall and looking remarkably like American cowboy actor Henry Fonda, has already forgotten about the house being organic, and nobody points at him, RHIP). ”

What's this shit about the house being organic?
What's the joke here? I don't get it.
They're saying the family organically needs a house, and a house is a reflection of the family's inside made outward, but because there is a toilet in the house that means the family is shit?
But where does this whole house being organic concept come from? I can't find it in any of the guides or wikis. Why are people such as the blonde-faced engineer and Albert Speer expected to know/remember this?

Attached: 1492232153788s.jpg (125x114, 2K)

this from Gravity's Rainbow btw

anyone?

I will keep bumping until someone says something helpful sorry

help please

anyone?
googling the term comes up with nothing!
WTF PYNCH??? Why write something like this if it doesnt make sense???

I don't get it either.

Okay now i think I get it.
It's a meeting discussing how the Nazis came up with the idea for the fictional toiletship.
Their idealism/pragmatism (of which I assume this house-is-organic idea stems from) leads to this logical conclusion about its necessity.

but wait that doesn't make sense because you would think the "house being organic" would be a good thing, why does the toilet's organic quality require it to be put outside?

>if the house is organic, family lives in the house, family’s organic, house is outward-and-visible sign, you see,

>and if the bathroom’s part of the house— house-is-organic!

Maybe if i phrase it like this the joke will make sense.
Nope.

I'm open to any other interpretations.
any.
please.

HELP!

Bump

Okay maybe this next part explains it:
>"Then the Toiletship is to the Kriegsmarine as the bathroom is to the house. Because the Navy is organic, we all know that, ha-hah!" [General, or maybe Admiral, laughter.] The Rücksichtslos was intended to be the flagship of a whole Geschwader of Toiletships. But the steel quotas were diverted clear out of the Navy over to the A4 rocket program.

But why is the navy considered organic?

bump

does anyone who read this book even have an opinion?

i won't give up.
someone has to have an opinion.

I just recently reread this part and I wish I had an answer. Last time I read this I used the companion, which im pretty sure had an answer. It's actually been bugging me since I came upon it last. I'd buy/pirate/borrow a copy of the companion and see what it says.

it doesn't have an answer.
I have checked every site and guide that I am aware of.
In the last thread some guy mentioned something about not understanding a particular scene about a toad in the toilet.
If I remember correctly this is some sort of outdated expression referring to having to pee, possibly cuz dicks are kinda froggy (with the balls and squishiness) or because it's not uncommon in someplace for frogs to climb up into toilet bowls during the dry season.
I'm thinking this whole "house is organic" thing has a similar case, but I'm not finding much about it online (and surprisingly, not the for the frog thing either).

does anyone who did not read this book have an opinion?
There's very little more context than this so you're not missing much.
Have a go.

bump

bump

Is it about Heidegger?

elaborate, please!
why do you say that?

>If the house is organic, family lives in the house, family’s organic, house is outward-and-visible sign, you see, and if the bathroom’s part of the house— house-is-organic!

then they laugh, as if the joke is obvious.

>"Then the Toiletship is to the Kriegsmarine as the bathroom is to the house. Because the Navy is organic, we all know that, ha-hah!" [General, or maybe Admiral, laughter.]

Kriegsmarine was the German Navy, if the toiletship is to the battleship what the bathrooms are to the house, wouldn't that imply that, like the house which is organic, the bathrooms logically would not be seperate from the battleship?
Why are they alike if they are different?

They're salesmen in a pitch meeting. They make the top-dogs feel insecure in pointing out some error in their logic, comparing their idealistic German conception of the function of the "organic" house with that of a functional Navy.
I think they might also be saying the Navy is shit.
I don't get it really.

Maybe this?

>the house is organic, = a
>family is organic = b
>family lives in house, an outward-and-visible sign = c

>the house is organic = a
>shit is organic = b
>bathroom (shit) is in the house, an outward and visible sign = c

>Navy is shit = a
>Navy is Organic = b
>Navy needs a bathroom, an outward and visible sign = c

a + b = c

but why is the navy organic?

bup

Someone has to have an opinion

In my opinion I don't know

My opinion is that it's a pisstake of faux-analytical speech. Declaring that something must be e.g. "organic" or "holistic" or whatever. Also, in the 40s, most European households had outdoor toilet shacks. An inside bathroom would have been weird.

The Speer stuff is clear. There's a blonde engineer who doesn't get it and feels embarrassed, but Speer - who's taken for a badass who's got everything in his grip - is barely even paying attention and has forgotten that anyone even used the word.

>Also, in the 40s, most European households had outdoor toilet shacks. An inside bathroom would have been weird.
Can anyone verify this?
If so, this might be the explanation I needed.

I think it might be just an elaborate joke conflating the idea of organic structure with the inherent shitty-undercurrents that are often ignored by idealistic viewpoints.

There has to be more than 3 people that have opinions or have read this book.

i think they're saying that to have a healthy house, you need a toilet, and toilets are shitty, but organic/healthy, so it's important to have them and because the navy is shitty, and also important to have, it is organic/healthy, and so needs a toilet.

by the way this whole thread with the exception of:
were all me samefagging, arguing with myself as I worked this out.
I see almost every week people claiming they've read this book, have opinions about it, and can't even give a simple interpretation because they're probably retarded and so have no right to even say they read it.

bump

bump

i just want one more opinion from someone whose read the book.

I always kinda read it like organ-ic i.e. posessing organs, organs are associated w/ shit because the whole point of organs is energy-absorption and thus waste-creation. Therefore, if humans are organic and output waste, a house with a bathroom (where waste is output) also outputs waste so the house is organic, the house literally shits for the whole family hence the laughter, it's absurd to think of a house as possessing organs and actually shitting. Also explains the navy bit. The navy is broken up into different specific functions, like organs, so it makes sense it'd have a specific waste-facility: the Rüchsichtslos.

>energy-absorption
is that all organs are used for?
what about the the brain, heart?
>it's absurd to think of a house as possessing organs and actually shitting
I agree with this. So why is the blond faced engineer so ashamed about forgetting it?

I like the idea though, about a functioning body being a subdivided one, with different specialized organ, or a sum of its parts.

Oh yeah youre right I shoulda said organs are associated w/ compartmentalization and some of those compartments absorb energy
But on the other hand, dont we have brains and hearts to drive the energy-absorption in that the brain locates energy and the heart disperses it? But I suppose that's not specifically "energy-absorption" in the strictest sense.