The Stranger Blog Post #2

Meursault is a most interesting study in duality. Reading the Stranger, I find myself reading two characters of one mind. There is Meursault the past, always thinking of the way he used to be, the way he used to live life, reflecting on what once was. Then there is Meursault the present, constantly content with the world and adapting to what is thrown his way. Sometimes this difference between Meursault's mind is highlighted while sometimes they work together in near unison.

I think that Meursault is most interesting in the time after the murder, where he feels the struggle between his two selves disappearing, with Meursault the past slowly disappearing s he becomes engulfed in the predicament that he is in. For example, the entirety of Chapter 2, Part 1, is Meurault talking about every little thing he does and how it makes him feel, however he does so in the past tense, implying reflection of himself. Later on in the book however you notice a change in the voice of Meursault's narration and he in fact says in Chapter 1, Part 2, that he "had lost the habit of analyzing myself", which had the been the majority of his self-being in the first half of the book. I think that this is very interesting in that Meursault acknowledges that he feels different now and that he isn't quite the same, yet he cannot really place a reason for why. The reason for this being that he has "lost the habit" of analyzing himself so he could not see a reason for his change.

I think that this is a key statement by Meursault that has fallen upon deaf ears, if only because the lawyer he says it to does not know him prior to the murder. Even to those "close" to him, such as Marie or Raymond, this statement still would not have the same affect that it does on the reader, who knows in full how Meursault sees the world. Marie, Raymond, the lawyer, and everybody else only sees the Meursault that he projects, a character he plays based on how he sees the situation unfolding or how he wants things to go. Meursault is in a way a reality alterer for doing this. In his "Meursault the past" state, he changes the course of people's action by changing his own for the desired outcome. Following the murder, we see this on a much lesser scale, such as when he is questioned and asked why he shot the Arab man four extra times, he is stone-faced and does not know how to respond to the question, showing signs that "Meursault the present" is the one in the situation and he cannot think outside of the now. Later though in the same chapter, Meursault enters this altered state and tried to manipulate the judge to shut him up but it does not work as it has for him in the past, showing that his duality is fusing or is unable to work together to the same effect that it once was.

Why does this matter though? Why does the dual nature of Meursault matter, and does it even exist or is he just flaky and inconsistent? What makes this matter is that Meursault is unable to even understand or narrate his own life, so why does he feel like he can alter people's course by trying to manipulate them to his way? What about Meursault is different that he can act this way and nobody calls him out for it? Is Meursault called the stranger because we don't know him or because he is stranger than others we see him interact with and is always somebody new, no matter what the situation? Why does he change in so many ways so easily?

Who is this guy?

I open up the Stranger, eyes darting through the book, going through the motion of reading, not caring about what transpires in the book. This guy, this Meursault guy, he's such a punk. He's all "blah blah blah, I'm detached, blah blah blah". What is up with that, man? Oh wait, he's giving me insight into his mind now. Oh wait again, I'm starting to understand. Uh-oh, I'm starting to get along with the guy. I'm starting to read between the lines and the motions are no longer just gone through, but rather I want to read about Meursault.

So this Meursault character. I pity him. You see, he lives a rough life. He lives life outside of this plane of existence, instead he is on his own, isolated and alone. I think that this is not exactly the best way to live life, I mean, how is anything supposed to affect you, how are you supposed to live your life if you are in the back seat just watching cars go by? I sometimes can connect to this though, observing things from a purely objective state and trying to gather information on something rather than experiencing it. This is a state I only enter when I'm doing a project or researching something, I try to keep an open mind and look at the facts in this state and be an observer, much like Mersault does in the Stranger. As a result, I found the chapter with Meursault looking out his window and watching people walking around living life to be quite engaging because it helped me observe his world in the same way he does and I could gather my own opinions on everything going on without his being thrown onto me.

I think that is why Camus wrote Meursault in that styling. He wanted us to be able to look through Meursault's eyes and see our own sights, to view the same facts as his world but truly imagine them however we wish to. I think that this is a very interesting technique for writing, seeing how most writers go into detail about how the main character views everything, which Camus does do with Meursault, but he styled the character in a way so that he has no opinion of his own in some cases which allows yours to take over and you get to live the story which I find to be very engaging and much more interesting than most books I find myself reading.

I can understand what it is like to a be a stranger as a result of all of this. I know what Meusault is experiencing because he is observing and I can place myself into the shoes of an observer easier than I can an active participant. And that may very well be the saving point of the story, because being able to live a story, even if it is simple and uneventful (As the Stranger has been thus far) is always better than just reading another.

Huckabees and Me

Philosophers have long questioned what the meaning of life is. Some of these philosophers have questioned what a meaningful life is. However, none of this matters if life isn’t meaningful or if it doesn’t make sense. Many people will argue that life isn’t meaningful, but to the contrary, I find that life is very meaningful and that if you follow through, everything makes sense.

Growing up, I had a few little theories jumbling in my mind that as I grew older I realized were real things and that I was quite ahead of my time (Toot-tooting my own horn there). One of these theories was that for everything I did, there was a result, and from that result came another result, and from that came another, and so forth. This theory is what people call the butterfly effect, that for one little action a big reaction can occur. If you take this and apply it to everyday life, it all begins to connect and make sense. I mean, if I do my homework on time for example, I get a better grade. If I get a better grade I feel happy. If I feel happy then I smile at somebody on the street and his or her day is brightened. It might sound stupid, but it’s true. If I don’t do my homework, then I’m not happy, don’t smile, and that person goes home in a bad mood and proceeds to have a miserable night. Isn’t this fun? Now this connects to Bernard, a great upbeat character from I Heart Huckabees who says that “Everything is connected and everything matters.” This is in many ways how I look at life. I try to make every action an action for a better tomorrow, a happier tomorrow, so that maybe it can make somebody else feel the same way and we can all gather around the campfire and make something great out of our lives.

I hate people who think life is meaningless. I even hate people who think that people aren’t worth having faith in. In fact, I got into a big debate about how life can exist without trust in people. I mean, I am a firm believer that everything connects, that if you follow the trail of events then you can see how everything became. From this, I led down a train of thought that went dark quickly, if I were to follow another person’s mentality that people aren’t worth trust. If you don’t have faith in others then people don’t matter so you push them away out of your life so you live alone so you have no impact so you have no purpose so you have no reason to live so die. Now, that might sound a bit harsh, but it all makes sense if you follow it through. According to Bernard’s blanket theory, everything is the same, even if it is different, so all of that is just the same thing, said a different way. To think that people are not worth having faith in is the same as saying you should go die in my book. Faith is a key component to life and everything connects so make the best of those connections.

On a final note, any one life is not meaningful to everybody. Meaningful is a subjective term, impossible to define and determine. A life can be meaningful to one person and not to another. This is not exactly news. However, everybody can live a meaningful life. Everybody has the potential in them to live the life they want to, to be happy and find their way so that they can feel fulfilled. A meaningful life might not always be easy to come by, but it is there in the depths of a tsunami rather than the shallows of Coney Island as we might hope. If life is meaningful then, is not the world? If everybody has the potential to live a meaningful life, don’t they have to chance to make the world a meaningful place, to make something better? If Wall-E teaches us anything, it is that even the smallest of events can have a world of meaning and can change everything. All lives are meaningful, life is meaningful, and most of all, our world is most definitely meaningful.

Comments on Banach Part 3

Hayley:

Hayley,

I thought that you started your piece very well, it had a strong intro that showed how the way you feel now is not the way you always have and it is not the way you will always feel, which I thought was a perfect way to show how interpretive the entire subject is.

Basically it seemed to me as though you were talking about how in contrary to what Banach theorized, happiness is not entirely found from oneself, but rather from interactions with other people too. Happiness according to you is still based on oneself, but it can also have to do with how other people see you.

In an earlier post, you said that you felt that freedom came from within, eluding to happiness as well in some parts of your post. I feel that since you changed your opinion here, saying it is not solely from one source, you are partially contradicting yourself, but also revising your thoughts. Now you have a better sense of the way that concepts such as this can be explored

I agree with your view on happiness, that it cannot be truly from oneself. If it were possible, then everybody would live alone, isolated. I am reminded of an episode of Scooby-Doo from my childhood. In the episode, the gang is looking for clues and run into an old hermit who lives alone in a cave. He is crazy, craving the attention of everybody. Not particularly happy now, is that? In contrast, good ol' Mystery Inc. is close nit and help each other, and they seem happy 99% of the time, even having some fun while running away from ghastly ghouls. This supports your proposal and disposes Banach's, all at one time.

This makes me think about my own friends and family in addition to everybody else I interact with and how they all affect my happiness. You know how sometimes just being with one person can be better than a whole party of people, so how does that connect? I think that quality of relationships should always come before quantity, much like how the "popular" kids can have so many friends and be so upset while the "unpopular" kids can have better friends and be way happier as a result.

As always, thank you for the words of wisdom,

Henry

Ali:

Ali,

I really liked your introduction, it was a great rebuttal to Banach's statement and was a great dismissal of his very point in writing this lecture and even his being.

Basically you dismiss everything Banach says about happiness, saying that it is for the individual to determine what makes them happy, and I agree with you there. You also argue that individuals cannot do this on their own, that the interactions they have determine mood as well, instead of complete self-reliance.

I can see the gradual trend in how your opinion starts to veer away from Banach's since the beginning of the lecture. Where Banach proposes contradictory arguments that effectively say nothing, you stay on one path that leads to one conclusion, that everybody can decide for themselves how they feel on all of these subject Banach is talking about. I think that this is a solid conclusion, and it also ties into the arguments Banach made in the earlier sections of his lecture.

I think that you could extent this though, or come up with situations in which happiness is shared between people, like a shared experience causing happiness for multiple parties.

This makes me think about my own life and how people are trying to constantly press their opinions onto me or make me feel the way they think I should, or even put me in a certain direction. I feel as though your argument and opinion here is somewhat like the kid yelling at their parents about their freedom using the parents argument against them, which is always the perfect touch. This makes me think about freedom and individuality a lot, and what they mean and how we are each our own person to come to any conclusion we see fit.

Thank you for the posting,

Henry

HW 5- Banach Parts 3 and 4

At the beginning of his lecture, David Banach talked about individuality and freedom and what they mean to every single individual. Many of his ideas were logical, thorough, and I agreed with them. However once Banach reached the third part of his lecture, I found myself on the complete other side of the room, disagreeing with nearly everything he said.

We as a species often raise the questions “What is happiness?” and “What is the meaning of life?” Well according to Banach, the true value of happiness is found in oneself, that to be a true existentialist, one must discard “the promise of external value” and “find a more real happiness”. Now I must go back and state that I did NOT disagree with EVERYTHING Banach proposed in parts III and IV of his lecture, this being one such exception. By looking inwards and finding happiness in oneself, we can never lose this happiness, as Banach later states, and I think that this is a goal many people do not find themselves accomplishing. However, I must say that even this is no easy task, for finding true happiness from within is very tough to do and even harder to know. How would one know they did this? I mean, couldn’t somebody look in the mirror, see a tattoo saying “me” encased in a heart and be happy with this? Or can this too be taken away? Do we try and think of a trait we love about ourselves, like if somebody could do a hundred push-ups? What does internal happiness truly mean? I think that this is even harder to determine, and it can also lead to another state that Banach avoids but is quite similar to this view of happiness. Narcissism. Being in love with oneself is not too distant from what he proposes here, which most would agree is not healthy. I think that happiness cannot be determined by one source, that’s impossible. What if something happens to change that, then you are left a blob of melancholy. I think that happiness has to have many sources, almost acting as reserves so that if one source fails you, there is another in waiting for you

Also discussed by Banach is the concept of meaning. Here Banach kept things much more vague, proposing contradicotory arguments as he had before, but in a new way so that they seemed more gloom and doom than before. Banach calls life pointless and meaningless, since everybody dies down the line anyways. He references the myth of Sisysphus, a man who the Gods condemned to an eternity of pushing a rock up a hill, at which point it would fall right back down. This little story inserted in the context of the lecture gives the impression that life is pointless labor, with no point. By the end of the lecture, he has explained the relevance of this in that he found happiness and that happiness comes from struggle. However he never really explicitly states his views on how life should be lived, instead proposing that maybe struggle can lead to a good life, to making the best out of a bad situation.

I hate when people call life meaningless. It quickly causes things to degrade to the conclusion of “Well, why don’t you just kill yourself then?” Now, many people might not agree, but in some ways this is right, that life has no meaning. That we don’t get anything out of life for all we do with it, other than some temporary joy or sense of accomplishment extinguished as our flame burns out. I never liked this view though, even if it is right in some regards. I must say, that with all of life leading to nothing for us, why do we even bother? Because giving up never got anybody anywhere. To just give up and accept death, accept that you cannot have meaning is the easy way out, you might as well kill yourself. To keep going, fight the inevitable, and try to make a better tomorrow for not just yourself but the world is meaning. A meaningful life, for me at least, can be achieved in two ways. The first, being true to oneself. Don’t hide who you are, just be yourself. The second way to live meaningfully is to leave the world better than you came to it. Fight for a better tomorrow, help people out, do what you can. If you give up, all you’re doing is condemning the future generations to give up too, and nobody should ever wish that on another.

My idea of a meaningful life ties in with Banach’s views on freedom then. Banach states that people should live for one another, similar to many religions that believe that people should treat others as themselves. Stating that people should live for society is something that is a common thread in many cultures, simply because it provides limits on us and has people live responsibly. But we don’t HAVE to, which leads me to my next point, whether or not people are truly free, if we can live life our way.

All in all, I think that humans are most definitely free, despite society, despite the TV screen of images, despite living for others. Nobody has to confide themselves to any life for eternity, everybody has the right to choose their own path and make their own decisions and be as they see fit, despite what everybody says. There are restrictions, but they are strict and defined, like not being able to fly right this second on my own. It is not to say that I cannot fly ever on my own , there is a way. I could find a way somehow, combine this or that, attach wings to my arms. Something. But right now, right this second I cannot. But I’ll tell ya, there is a way I can fly and I intend to find it, because I am free to do so.

HW 4- Comments Round 2

Hayley:

Hayley,

I really liked your inclusion on song lyrics to help get your point across. Referencing something in addition to stating your argument really helps to solidify it and make the point more solid, or if not, then it adds additional worth to your ideas, which is always great to see.

You seem to believe that we exist before we have an essence, an existentialist view on life. You supported your opinion well, talking about how we get to choose the way we live our lives, for instance, choosing to rebel against society or follow it, but I really liked how you said that people are "stronger and more in control of your life if you create your own ideals, stick to them, and don't allow outside forces to largely change your character." I thought that this was a very well thought out way of explaining how people are more of an individual if they choose to live life their way, and much more eloquently put then my little summary could make it.

To connect your idea to an earlier idea you proposed, that everybody is an individual. By coupling this with your current theory that people are stronger the more independent they try to be, you can see a gradual trend on a way to find individuality.

Those who chose to see the TV screen in front of them and do not rearrange or shift images out of the way, are more likely to share very similar ideals with people like that, and as a result, will be less of an individual. I agree and suggest that the more we shift our views on what we see, the more unique we become and the stronger our sense of character becomes.

This post makes me reconsider my own life and sense of self. I feel that sometimes I can be too accepting of the screen in front of me and don't fight to have a stronger sense of self. At the same time, I take into consideration how often people merely take the easy and popular path and end up as copies of one another, with different faces in different places (Representing slight differences in how they act at different times). I think that your ideas are the kind that are often hidden in plain sight by the world at large and that people become too accepting of things in their lives simply because they are told it is good, or because it is shoved down their throats to the point where they cannot regurgitate it.

Once again, I liked your ideas and I found that I had to do a double-take on my life and view of things, and I think that thoughts like the ones you provoke help lead to a stronger sense of who I am and what my ideals really mean to me.

All the best, keep it up,

Henry

Ali:

Ali,

All it took was a paragraph for you to hook me in. After talking to you in class about some of the ideas Banach has proposed, I found that I was immediately taken aback by your opening statement and I was intrigued to read more.

Basically it seemed that you were questioning the concept of freedom, and by extent, authenticity. You in fact hit this point over the head to a degree, drilling into my skull so that it will haunt me in my dreams that to be be authentic is impossible to truly determine, due to the many different ways that people may interpret the word. Webster defines the word as "being really what it seems to be", but what you are saying that not everybody can reach that same definition and therefore freedom is thrown into question.

Connecting this with the concept Banach proposed earlier in his lecture, that we are in fact watching a screen of images, Banach contradicts himself when faced with your argument. How can one be free if they are confined to their mind, if they have to watch a screen and sort the images, how can that be free OR authentic? I can see where a possible train of thought led from the screen concept to the proposal that we are all free, but there is still quite a strain there.

Doesn't it seem though, that your idea that we are incapable to determine if we are free is also strained? To be fair, Banach proposes that our inner self is free to sort out the images we see as we deem correct, which would be freedom. I feel as though it is impossible to truly know if we as a species are free, or then, if ANY species or being is free or authentic. I think that in order to know what our true nature is in terms of freedom, we would need to be a higher power, which leads to a whole different topic of religion.

End of the day, your questioning of Banach makes me think about my limitations as a person and what I can and cannot do, with society guiding me, with reality restraining me, with my mind limiting me. These thoughts tend to be the thoughts that overload the super-computer in old cartoons, and right about now your questioning makes me think that my head will explode if some steam doesn't start shooting out of my ears.

First time reading your thoughts as you write them, I was caught off guard but very much enjoyed your proposals and how you see the concept of freedom. I look forward to more from you.

Thanks for the knowledge,

Henry

Banach's Lecture, Part 2

I existed before my essence found it's way to me.

Something you should know about me, I have read a comic or two in my day. And not to be cliche, but I'm a firm believer in "with great power comes great responsibility". Now you might be saying to yourself, why does this matter? How is this relevant? Well, Peter Parker wasn't truly Spider-Man the second he was bitten by that radioactive spider on that fateful day. No, he wasn't. But he did EXIST as Spider-Man, he just lacked the essence of the man he would need to become to be Spider-Man, or the ESSENCE of Spider-Man if you will.

David Banach proposes two contradictory arguments to what comes first, existence or essence, providing no definitive proof of either one, instead leaving it up to oneself to determine which they believe in for themselves. The two arguments are both well presented though, and determining one that you believe in takes a lot of self-analyzation. Like a scissor "which has been made by an artisan whose inspiration came from a concept [Quoted from Sartre], Banach proposes that things have a purpose that comes before they exist, so for this case the scissors are meant to cut paper and are created to do that. Banach later compares that "the artisan in the case of Humans is God." I feel like this does apply to an extent, but while scissors are not sentient and are intended to be controlled and used for a purpose, humans are free of such constrictions and can do as they please. The idea that we have every move planned for us and every detail of life is already set out for us makes life seem no more important or significant than a movie, and that scares me and I can't believe that our entire existence as an organism is for a purpose such as that.

The second possibility for the relationship between essence and existence is that existence comes first and then essence. That "man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself". Essentially this is stating that everybody has the chance to be who they want to be and that nobody has a straight path set before them. This is much more comforting to me, because it shows that people can be who they want, that nothing is impossible. I feel as if this is the "American Dream" of views on life. This one is much more comforting to me, because like I said before, knowing that my life is laid out before me is very scary to me, I need to know that I have the freedom to be who I want. It's almost like the kid who comes from a family where everybody is a farmer and wants to be an artist. According to Banach's 'essence comes first' theory, he would have to be another farmer, his path is set for him. However with the latter theory of existence first, he can choose to be an artist and live his life as he sees fit, not according to some higher power.

I feel like somewhere in there is the true nature of people. I don't think that either theory can be proved, it's just a matter of what sounds correct to the individual and what helps to keep them sane concerning life. For me, my sanity dictates that I have the freedom to be who I want and that I choose my essence, it is not stamped on me from birth.

And if it is stamped on me from birth, I'm sure I could find somebody that could remove it from me so I can just be me.

HW 2- Comments 1

Hayley-

Hayley,

First off, I found that your piece was interesting because of one idea, that everybody lives their respective lives for their own moral satisfaction as you worded it. I thought that this was an interesting concept that I will expand upon later.

You talk about the concept of an "absolute individual" quite a lot in this piece, which I feel is only right, seeing how it is such an encompassing topic. What took a minute to sink in for me was that you state that different parts of your mind go unaffected by the outside would and do not change accordingly. I think this is another interesting point, in that it is almost as if you are suggesting that there is a second person inside of a sealed room that will do things as they see it, and everybody else in your head (Metaphor of course, not crazy voices) can be influenced by the interactions they have.

What is worth noting is that your idea as I see it completely defies many other people's ideas. For example, Kate said that nobody is an absolute individual, according to Banach. This is true in many respects, in that if nobody were to be influenced by the outside world, they would just be as they truly are. You are suggesting that our true self remains the same no matter the interactions we have.

I think that your idea of the true self can be explored further. For instance, I feel that we are our true self no matter what, however it may only be a certain aspect or two, and much of the rest of us is malleable by the world. Like a person may have one trait remain a constant throughout their entire life, and that could be a reflection of their true self. The part of your piece that talks about moral satisfaction is also interesting because morals are hard to satisfy. To me, they are more like guidelines of living which can be followed more than satisfied, which to an extent I guess could be satisfaction, but I feel that goals are more of a satisfiable thing then morals.

Your post has made me think about my own life and how the outside world influences me and my actions and who I am. I think that there is a certain part of me that does not change, and oddly enough those are my morals (Irony yay). I think that a lot about me is in flux though, changing according to what I see and hear, such as my feelings towards people and my perceptions of certain things in the world. Things that were not drilled into your head as a child or things that can act on their own or are tangible things are constantly changing and your perception of them changes with them.

Thank you for posting this, it has made me think about how my life changes as time passes and how the world around me is never seen the same twice, even by me. I think that your idea or a second true self is very true in many ways, and is something that will stick with me and dominate my thoughts and self-awareness for quite some time.

Kate-

Kate,

Your post is nice and concise, everything I need to know in a nice little handy package, something many people try to do but fail at, but you manage to do and maintain actual intellectual content with.

You generally seem to agree with Banach that people are individuals, but argue his reasoning in that he contradicts himself, which upon reflection, he does do. People are absolute individuals to you and everybody is different as a result of how they experience the world around them. What I don't fully grasp though here is how you really feel about the subject, since most of what you say seems to be your interpretation of Banach's lecture rather than your ideas on the subject matter.

I think that you brought up a good point towards the end of your post about where the line between individuality and society lies, and how it is often hard to distinguish. I think that this is quite a common question about one's self, although at the moment I cannot come up with a direct reference to refer to.

I think that the idea that people are largely their environment is true, which is one of the reasons that a person cannot be cloned and be the same person, as they experience things differently. This ties into the whole society vs. self discussion, because society has such a grand impact on people. Unfortunately, this is nearly impossible to observe in reality. The only way to do this would be to have 2 people live the exact same life in controlled environments and then have them experience something different and see how society affects them from then on.

Your post makes me think largely about how people project themselves onto society, appearing as a little blip in a sea of plankton, having just making a large impact as everybody else does the same. Self vs. society is a very difficult topic to clearly observe, and I think that it makes people question who they truly are.

Overall, though just 2 paragraphs of analyzing Banach's lecture, you challenged my thinking of what I previously considered a relatively clear concept (Society) and made me think about the real role it plays and how our roles reflect that.

Home Work #1: Response to Mr Banach Pt.1

"The modern conception of man is characterized. more than anything else, by individualism."

- David Banach

David Banach declares man an individual. Not much of a surprise when you consider everybody lives their own life, has their own friends, their own family. However, at least for me, I have always heard of the concept of man being 'mankind', the idea that we are all united and share experiences and similar hardships. David Banach clearly disagrees.

I have to say, after reading over the first section of a lecture given by Mr. Banach, I have to agree with him, but under conditions. Now he does state some things that I agree with. When I was a little kid, I couldn't fall asleep. So I would lay in bed and think about stuff to try and fall asleep. Not normal things people use to sleep, like sheep or counting them, but rather I would think about my body turning blue or being an alien or even developing tentacles in place of my arms. When I wasn't thinking about being deformed beyond belief with tentacle arms, I would think about how I had no idea if the world I saw was the same as the world everybody else saw. I would think about this in the most extreme of possibilities though, and I would think about it in every aspect imaginable. I would think about how I hear the word "Hello" and I see my friend Cole with a clear, normal, human body. From there, BOOM, I thought about ho he could be experiencing things as a five armed, one legged alien named Glee-Borp telling me he wants me to explode into little larva chunks (Because to him I'm just a little larva). And this FASCINATED me.

I couldn't stop thinking about how I will never know what he saw, and he would never know what I saw either. David Banach talks about this in a very similar way, albeit less drastic (And let's be honest, less fun). It is for this reason that I agree with much of what he says. The concept he proposed that nobody can experience what anybody else experiences intrigues me. In reality, we can't. This reminds me of a fatal flaw in cloning somebody like say, Einstein, and getting the same person. Every factor of the outside world affects a person and unless every single experience with every single person, looks, sounds, smells, and so forth exactly the same, the resulting feeling is not the same. The experience itself is not the same then. So every person is a unique individual who experiences things nobody else can.

Another concept that he David Banach talks about is best summed up as people have to have no outside influence in order to be a true individual. To be an "absolute individual" we have to be trapped in our minds, with no distractions at all. I take this as earplugs in, mouth closed, eyes shut, no smells, suspended by wires in the air so we can't touch anything. This is clearly not a suitable way to live life, and I think that we don't have to go to such extremes to be an "absolute individual". As he himself said, everybody experiences things differently, no two experiences the same. There is an old saying saying your experiences shape you and I feel that holds true and coupled with the prior statement of experiences being unique can lead to everybody being a unique individual, free of enclosure in ones mind.