Picking up on the thread of our discussion in class today, I thought I would give you one more chance to wrestle with Borges. Thus answer the following question:
"We all know the sound of two hands clapping but what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
One blog entry this week--and one question..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This is a tough question, but I will try my best.
There is literally a way to clap with one hand, (the proof is on YouTube).
For the purpose of this, I will ignore the literal.
The idea is that the action of clapping requires two hands. With one hand, there is nothing to hit against, there is no sound, or rather there is a sound that is silent. I spent about 2 hours trying to think about this before I started writing, clapping and then pretending to with one hand, (before checking YouTube), and yes I know this is weird.
I got mixed messages from this quote. If you are clapping with one hand, you are just beating against air. It is a silent sound: an action that should yield a sound yet does not. A single hand alone cannot make a sound (well yes it can but that is not the point) you need two for sound. Yet when someone claps, it is an action done by one person alone… so are two really needed for one person to express oneself? If the sound is silent but the action is present, then why need a sound. These messages are opposites that I am struggling with here. So this would be duality because beating on air does not produce a sound, but at the same time, when the actions exist, the sound they make is not important. I can just feel the opposing forces grinding against each other and it is kind of making me a little frustrated because I am unsure myself which is the answer, yet I know there is one. Then, just as I typed that, I realized, that is the answer. There is a sound when one hand claps, although it cannot be heard, we must each find out for ourselves what the sound of our own single hand clapping is. Clapping is an action meant to be heard, but even if the sound is silent, if you hear it yourself that is what matters. Clapping with one hand is a selfish act. It is not for someone else, but for the self, because no one else will hear it. Even if no one else hears it, even if it is meant to be heard, the point is that the action is something that is controlled solely by and for the one who is clapping. Kind of like the control of destiny idea, even if it is futile, you still work anyway, the crack up idea. It is a balance.
I know I have just been hitting my head on walls with this idea, but this is as far as I could get with this idea.
Like Beth, I've been thinking about this for a while trying to piece it together. I keep thinking about the monster in the movie (I think I just need to see the rest of that movie considering it's basically coming into all my blog entries) and how it needs two hands to see. I remember in class we brought up something how he needed both hands to do things, not only see but also grab things and now to clap. As I type, you also need two hands to type (well to type well). It's the idea that we need both things to succeed. Then when you think of things in general, you can never do things with half "the supplies" to the best you can or else you fail to succeed or "make noise.” If you can't succeed with what you are doing, you can't get anywhere and make a difference and we are stuck in our labyrinth wondering around (to connect it to one of Borges fav things). I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need both hands to get anywhere and to move forward. We would never move to the center of our labyrinth. You can try as hard are you want to do this “half handedly” but in the end you need both hands to do anything and to move forward in life. If we don’t, there’s no sound or progression. The monster needed both of his hands to see and make it around in Pan’s third world and we need both or our hands to see and help us get through life and without it we aren’t going anywhere and we fail creating no sound. That’s really all I can come up from the quote and the only meaning I can really see.
Ah, such a philosophical question! Well, right now in Humanities we are reading Discourse on Method and Meditations by Rene Descartes. Descartes discusses, in Meditation Two, a piece of wax. He examines the wax and all of its characteristics as it is taken freshly from the hive. He observes “its colour, its figure, its size are apparent: it is hard, cold, easily handled, and if you strike it with the finger, it will emit a sound” (76). Descartes recognizes that it is wax through the use of his senses. However, when he brings the wax close to a fire, its properties change. “The taste is exhaled, the smell evaporates, the colour alters, the figure is destroyed, the size increases, it becomes liquid, it heats, scarcely can one handle it, and when one strikes it, no sound is emitted”(76). With all of these changes, we still understand that it is wax because our senses are being stimulated. Descartes questions the reliability of the senses. With a change in its physical state, the wax defies the preconceived ideas that we attained from the senses. Yet, it is still wax. Descartes would say that how we perceive the wax comes from our minds and our knowledge. He argues that “ When I distinguish the wax from its external forms, and when, just as if I had taken from it its vestments, I consider it quite naked, it is certain that although some error may still be found in my judgment, I can nevertheless not perceive it thus without a human mind” (78). The wax is interpreted through our mind and our knowledge; we only receive a false idea of knowledge through our touch, taste, sight, smell, and hearing.
Clap:
1) To hit the hands together repeatedly to express approval.
2) To hit the hands together quickly and loudly
Our senses will tell us that if you are able to make the noise of a clap, even with just one hand, then it is a clap. The definition of a clap is to hit the hands together repeatedly. Although my touch, sight, and hearing senses may tell me that clapping with one hand is a clap, my preconceived knowledge tells me that that is not truly a clap. You need two hands to clap. A one handed clap would just be stimulating our senses, giving us false perception.
OY VEY! I apologize if that didn’t make any sense. Maybe the kids in Humanities can relate a little better? Good luck!
I haven't been in class for a few days, and there may have been some discussion on this one-handed clapping idea that I didn't hear, so this is just me flying blind here, but here it is.
As I’m sitting here actually trying to clap with one hand and feeing a little foolish, I realize that, in order to make some sense of this question, I first have to understand what it means to clap with two hands. A round of applause indicates approval, while a standing ovation implies emphatic admiration. A slow clap can be either congratulatory, boredom, or mockery. A high five is a sign of respect or friendship. All in all, clapping is a public display of some sort of emotion. A one-handed clap, therefore, may involve the same sentiment, but is lacking the courage or desire to express those feelings openly. So what does a one-handed clap sound like? I think it must sound like hesitation or fear.
As a kid, I was exceedingly shy. I was awkwardly clumsy and tall and, while I had a small group of solid friends, was too afraid to talk to most of my classmates. No matter how much I learned to love or laugh or embarrass or approve, I spent a good part of my childhood fearing rejection and judgment and clapping with one hand. I had just as much to say as the most talkative person in my grade, but was too afraid to say any of it out loud. Perhaps the sound of one hand clapping is the sound of the thoughts running through the mind of a timid little second grader who both fears and hopes to be recognized.
During those “growing up” years, mixed signals were sent. While the ability to express oneself was encouraged, we learned that strength and independence meant coping with our emotions on our own and hesitating to lean on the people around us. I left behind old fears, overcame others, and adopted new ones. The question was no longer what to say, but who to say it to or whether or not to say it at all. The question became whether to clap with one hand or with two.
We’ve spent a good deal of time throughout the past few weeks contemplating to what degree our past experiences have shaped who we are. I have made the argument that they are our primary shapers, and I’ll make it again here. After living for ten or twenty or fifty years, we’ve learned what scares us and what makes us smile. We’ve learned what to say and what to keep inside. We’ve learned when to perform a standing ovation and publicize our emotions and when to clip silently and single-handedly. Sometimes I feel, though, that I wish I could stand up and applaud but let memories of past experiences tie one hand behind my back. In the time I have left before I leave this school and these people, maybe I should focus on forcing myself to clap out loud. The sound of one hand clapping is the sound of hesitation and fear and, while I’m not sure exactly what that sounds like, I know I’m sick of hearing it. People will judge me if I talk or if I keep quiet, so I might as well clap loudly.
I think this question could lead anywhere. The reality is that two hands clapping create a sound that can be heard, but there are millions of possibilities of what one hand clapping could sound like. This is where imagination and the third world come into play. Maybe clapping with one hand creates a noise that we just can’t hear. I mean technically when clapping with one hand we are hitting something due to the fact that air is composed of atoms. Maybe at some other "time" when one was clapping with one hand, they were clapping with two, or not really clapping at all. It's the idea multiple things could be going on at different times which could complete the clapping. Maybe what counts is the effort put forth in the attempt to clap, since moving one hand is an action. What's the definition of sound anyways? If one's clapping with one hand and there is no sound, the action is said to be silent right? But, if something is silent that means there is an absence of noise/sound... Couldn't it just be that the sound level is just zero, like that there is sound but isn't sound. That doesn't really make sense I don't think, but my mind is racing right now trying to grasp a concept I can run with. So wouldn't the sound of one hand clapping be silence... wait, I'm pretty sure I just went around in a circle. Then again, going back to the possibilities, it's not stated in the question whether or not that hand is clapping against anything. With two hands clapping, a person is limited to the noises they can make. With one hand, one can clap against almost anything to create separate and unique noises. This only being true if the one hand clapping could be clapping against something else. Which really would be happening if it was clapping against nothing anyway because when it's clapping against nothing technically (as stated above) it is clapping against something and that something being the atoms which create all matter and air is part of that.
That was definitely all just stream of consciousness... hopefully some of it makes sense. I don't even think I really reached a conclusion.
Of course I’m loving this question only because I can take the Humanities approach to it, even though we haven’t actually talked about it. So basically I’m trying to hint that in the future I would enjoy even more non-analytical questions like this. And Hannah, I understand all the things you said in your entry so it does make sense to someone.
When we clap with two hands, it’s easy for us to get lost in the physical action and the senses involved instead of focusing on the emotions behind that clap. I clap all the time and don’t think about why. I do it in assembly because everyone does and I have absolutely no emotion behind it. I don’t care about the freshmen who just performed, but I clap along with everyone else because it is implied that by doing this it means I somehow value their performance. It’s just another thing I subconsciously do that follows the system, because clapping with two hands represents going along with the system, a kind of obedience. For these reasons I don’t think that clapping with two hands actually means a lot, and I’d have to say I disagree with people who say that two is better than one in this case, because clapping with one hand means much more internally.
Clapping with one hand is the sound of rebellion, the sound of 2x2=5, and not giving in to the system and the “natural laws” of things. Obviously no one’s going to be like, “I KNOW THE SOUND OF REBELLION,” (but then again, if Pocahontas can paint with all the colors of the wind, then maybe we can hear the sound of rebellion?) but that just means it can be many sounds. I realize that clapping with one hand can be many sounds, but in it being able to represent many sounds it is equally able to be no sound. People think that’s a negative thing though, but it’s not. Does one hand clapping need to make a sound? No. You can show emotion without the senses masking it. You can express appreciation, admiration, etc. without making the sound associated with clapping. We only do that so our senses can easily identify the emotions behind that act, because it’s implied that we cannot all scream “WE ENJOYED THAT, WE APPRECIATE YOUR PERFORMANCE!” at the end, so we clap because it simplistically sends the same message.
This has a lot to do with how we all get too caught up in the senses, and identify ourselves as humans by these things, instead of identifying ourselves as human through our mind. We bore our mind and make things easier for ourselves to comprehend by substituting emotion with senses, but that doesn’t allow us to fully experience these emotions, and clapping is a good example. It’s the same way with many things we do to simplify our emotions, because we think somehow it helps us express them better, but it really doesn’t make the emotions any more real. We grunt when we’re mad, or maybe we see people smiling and assume they’re happy; we express our feelings through actions. But are these feelings created in the actions? No, they are caused by the brain and processed by the mind. Why do we think that turning a feeling in to something physical somehow justifies it and makes it more realistic? I wish I knew, but to be honest I don’t know because I only recently realized that this is the case. We are a society continually trying to convert thought in to action, and that’s why clapping with one hand, which doesn’t look like a possible action, is a perfect form of rebellion against society.
This issue leads to the problem that people of thought have, because it appears that they cannot be understood well unless they become people of action. What this world understands is action, and the senses, but we do not often process the emotion and true feelings that cause the actions. Just look at ourselves, we are the perfect example of that. We all read this question and our very first thoughts are something like, “well, it’s impossible to clap with one hand, so there’s really nothing to say.” We are the perfect images of people molded by society, who unless we cannot justify that 2x2=5 by using “natural laws”, can never accept it to be true. In this way are we really examining this one handed clapping, or anything, for what it is, or are we just observing the action?
I think the best way to clap is with one hand, and I think it is the only way to show the emotion behind it. If I clap with one hand then I am no longer letting the world hear the sound of two palms slapping together, but instead I’m letting the world know that maybe I care about something, or that I’m happy. In the bigger picture, if we all “clap with one hand”, then we can allow others to understand our emotions and thoughts instead of throwing out an action for them to observe.
I’m going to end with something like what Mr. Fletcher said a few days ago in class: that those people who don’t examine anything or express their free will might as well be cats. Cats can clap with two hands/paws, so if you want to just clap with two hands, then you might as well be a cat.
So keep on clappin’ on single hand, do work (mental work that is, because it needs to be a thought not action). Maybe now in assembly I will stage a silent protest and clap with one hand, only if I really care. Yeah, we’ll see how long that lasts…
Post a Comment