"Get A Picture Of A Cat" -- Mental Exercise by EMail With John

My words are in blue.  John's words in black. The messages are as sent by eMail, starting October 13, 2002, arranged below in date order with the first message at the top.  The purpose of publishing this for a very limited readership is to demonstrate what MIGHT happen in trying to disseminate Scientology by using this technique.  Prior to starting this process John and I had very extensive interchanges, including his reading my article about my being a Scientologist, HERE.

The series starts with a message in which John, after many back and forth, accepts my statement that I had been wrong in writing that "red blood cells" reproduce by themselves.  They do not.  I had not known that data.   John disagreed with what I had written, gave me data, I accepted, changed some of my web pages, and that put us back on the same team.  I had, previously, told him of LRH's experiment blowing steam, then tobacco smoke on "cells."  He accepted my story about the cells, but commented that some cells, then it was later red blood cells, don't reproduce. LRH does not describe what type of cell he worked with.  It could not have been a red blood cell.

In this first message John is acknowledging my admission of error about red blood cells.

-----Original Message-----
From: JohnT6020@aol.com [mailto:JohnT6020@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:30 PM
To: karl@karlloren.com
Subject: Re: Stem Cells

 

Flossmoor IL 02-10-12 @ 2303 CDT

Friend Karl Loren:

You bounce back quickly. Thank you for the prompt reply.

We are on the same team and have the rules down pat. Grind on.

"Everyone" knows that red blood cells do not divide; but, "Nobody" bothers to mention that fact when they write about reproduction [multiplying] as a condition of being alive.

Incidentally, there are a few recently revealed "facts" about cell reproduction. Some nerve cells, heretofore presumed not to duplicate, have been found to reproduce after traumatic injury. I cannot cite that reference from memory now.

After the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep there was some reporting that her cells were already aged and not those of a young lamb. I think the jury is still out on that one.

The big legal fuss about stem cells involves, among others, religionists who maintain that the stem cell is an individual person whose rights are being compromised when the stem cell is manipulated in the laboratory.  Others are simply fearful that researchers will learn to do something with stem cells that will lead to irreparable harm to the human race. I, for one, have not crystallized an opinion regarding research with stem cells. I lean toward the feeling that a great deal of benefit can come of continued research and I cannot see any real difference between the stem cells that are "permitted" and new strains that may be isolated after the sources were frozen [no pun].

If Dolly, the sheep, can be cloned, and many other animals have been cloned since, there is no reason why a human cannot be cloned. Passing laws to prohibit it will only keep the most competent researchers from working on it. Meanwhile, I am sure that someone, somewhere, is trying and may well have succeeded to some degree.

A cloned child raises many legal and ethical questions but also the question we have been leading up to; the function and identity of spirit.

It's time for me to log some sleep time. I may dream of it all. Sooo o o o . . .

73,
JET

Dear John,   You wrote:   A cloned child raises many legal and ethical questions but also the question we have been leading up to; the function and identity of spirit.
    No questions raised for me -- and perhaps you will see this soon, from the new series just begun.   Cordially,   Karl

October 13. 2002

8:40 AM, PST

Dear John,   Let the Fun begin.   I now start with you a "series" of questions and comments considering the nature of the spirit.   An important part of my efforts here are to NOT give you my conclusions, but to help guide you so that it is YOU that has the conclusions, not me.   I may tell you that such and such an object is a "tree" == if you lacked the symbol/sound/word for that object, but that is a type of teaching I do not use in this series. I would call that "authoritarian" teaching.   So, some rules for this exchange.   I will ask you to "do" something.  Since I cannot see you I have to hope that you "do" the thing.   I will ask you to "do" some things and then to write to me about what you have done and what happened.   It is YOUR experience you will observe, not my data.  I try not to give you MY data on which you might have an opinion, but lead YOU to observe and have an opinion on what it is that you observe.   I consider this a very different type of "teaching."   A large part of my side of this is to ask you questions about what happened, or what you thought, or what you observed, etc.   This whole series is a "mental" exercise -- not being now very tidy about what that word may mean.   I am intensely insistent that you use words in "correct" ways -- it even gets to grammar and vocabulary.   The dictionary is our authority for "correctness" of definitions.   So, the fun begins.   I am going to ask you to "do" something -- below.    After you have done this thing, taking about a minute or less, then you immediately write to describe what happened.  I will often respond almost instantly, if I am here.   The "do" may seem so tiny, and you wonder??  But, I do this in very tiny steps so that the course you follow is well controlled.   Ready?   So, Close your eyes and get a picture of a cat.   That's it.  I say nothing more for this step.  I will probably ask questions about your response.   You do that, then write to tell me about it.   Cordially,   Karl Loren

 
-----Original Message-----
From: JohnT6020@aol.com [mailto:JohnT6020@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 10:14 AM
To: karl@karlloren.com
Subject: Re: Greetings

 

Flossmoor 021012 @ 1210 CDT

Friend KL:

Your faithful student replies:

I have done what you ask: I closed my eyes right after reading your instruction, while still seated before the monitor, and thought of a cat. At first I had trouble sorting out a particular cat. My mind's eye went through an album of cats. I finally settled on one, a silver point Siamese tom cat that I once had, He was hit by a car but not killed. I found him immobile. That was the picture I recalled.

73,
JET

Dear John,

My next questions are below.  First, some guidance.

To "think" of a cat is not what I asked you to do.

I asked you to "get a picture of a cat."

You see how demanding I am??

I applaud your integrity for writing exactly what you did.  This process depends, as I have said, on your doing what I ask.  If you do not do it, but do not tell me, then it easily winds up not working and I don't know why.  I ask you to continue to write exactly what happened, even if, in retrospect, you may realize that you "did" something beyond or other than, what I asked.

The term "mind's eye" is not one I think I could find in a dictionary.  Having done this before, with others, and having warned you that "vocabulary" is important, and that "dictionaries" are our authority, I suggest that your "mind's eye" is not a useful term unless you go to some trouble to define it.  You may do that.  I checked my dictionary and did not find "mind's eye" there.

But to "GET" a picture of a cat does not put any special words there.  It leaves to you how to "get" a picture.  Or how to do it, or what to expect.  It leaves for you which of many definitions of "get" is the one for you to use.

I say all this in hopes to demonstrate how disciplined this process is.

I accept the fact, nonetheless, that you "got" a picture of a cat.  It is even fine to give me those other details.  You did "get" a picture of a cat, and even told me about that cat/picture.

You describe this cat as a "silver point Siamese Tom cat."  You described the cat as "immobile" in the picture.

This is very well done.  Do not be too perturbed at my pedanticism.

You could have answered, "I did it."

That would have been an answer to the request.

I did not ask for more ----  yet!  This process, done face-to-face, would go very rapidly.  The slowness of eMail does not, however, suggest that you need anticipate what more I might ask and try to provide that information, when not asked.

It is not wrong at all to give more, but I note for you the simplicity of this process.

Now, your having done well on this step, the next step.

 

Questions:

1.  You mention "immobile."  So, the cat was not moving in the picture.  However, was this picture in two dimensions, or three?

2.  You mention "silver point."  However, it is not clear, was this picture in color or black and white?  It is the PICTURE which is the desired source of data, not some other type of memory or recall.  So, I don't suppose the phrase "silver point" is data from the picture?

3,  You mention that the cat got hit in an accident.  Nonetheless, what would you say was the age of the cat in the picture you looked at?  Not especially precise, but "old," or "young," or "at the time of the accident" or any such "date" will do. (It is not immediately apparent that the "picture" was at the time of the accident.)

You may certainly close your eyes again and "get the picture back" to look at it, if you need to, to answer these two questions.

I was away for breakfast and exercise, but should be close at hand for some hours.

Good going!

Regards,

Karl Loren

Flossmoor IL @ 1740 CDT

Friend KL,

Thank you for your prompt reply and your patience with me.
My cat picture is in color. The cat is motionless but alive. He was about two years old at the time.

I did not pick up your considerate reply right away. I was busy doing some of my "housewifely" chores. Then I went out to my "swimming hole" [health club] for a bit of refreshment.

73,
JET

Dear John,

Well done!

I have a feeling this seems easy to you, so I'm going to skip a few more of similar requests and go to the next level.

I will, below, again ask you to "get a picture" of something.  You may tell me what you wish about the picture, but I will probably have some questions about the picture that I'll send in response to your answer.

Now,

Get a picture of the earliest birthday party, of your own, that you can.

Let me know.

Cordially,

Karl Loren

Flossmoor @ 1753 CDT

Friend KL,

Wow! You are fast.

I have a picture. It is not really sharp. A room full of friends and family. I am sitting on the floor next to the Christmas tree. I am not sure of my age.

73,
JET

Dear John,

Not any faster than you!

Good!

I have several questions.  Rather useful to take them one at a time, and then write about that question even though you may have already glanced over the other questions.

 

1.  There is some girl in the room?  One you know well?  What color is her blouse/shirt?

2.  Is your mother (father) in the room?  What is she doing?  (sitting, standing, ??)

3.  Your "best friend" is there?  Who is he/she?

4.  That best friend?  What is the color of the pants/skirt?

5.  Do you hear any sounds?  What?

6.  Do you see a cake, or some food item?  Move a bit forward or backward, do you taste that food NOW?

7.  How old are you in this picture?  You said "not sure."  That is not an answer from the picture I suspect, so look around in the picture.  How old?  Perhaps how big?  Not from any other type of memory, just the picture should be your source of data.

8.  What time of day is it in this picture.

9.  This is a Christmas picture.  Presents under the tree?  Pick one and tell me how big it is and the color?

10.  Take a sniff, at the picture.  What do you smell?

 

That should be enough for now.

You can re-look at the picture as much as you wish.

 

Regards,

Karl Loren

 
-----Original Message-----
From: JohnT6020@aol.com [mailto:JohnT6020@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 8:20 PM
To: karl@karlloren.com
Subject: Ten questions

 

Flossmoor @ 2209 CDT

Friend KL,

Your questions get harder. My picture is not so clear. I'll try.

1) There are no girls in the room near my age. The nearest are my half-sisters who are 15 years my elder. I do not get a clear image of their blouse colors.

2) My father is in the room. He is sitting in his favorite chair.

3) I am sort of a loner and this is strictly family. No, my best friend is not here.

4) He isn't here.

5) No sounds.

6) No cake, No food.

7) I am still not sure but think I am early grade school.

8) It is evening, after dark.

9) Yes, presents under the tree. I see a big one and the wrappings are red.

10) My sniffer is dull, no particular odor. In fact, not cognizant of smell.

The picture fades in and out of focus.

73,
JET

Dear John,

One of the liabilities of doing this by eMail.  It is slow, even with this speed.

I should have given you the easy option of dropping this picture, in favor of another.  It is OK to say you can't or didn't see or get something.

Also, the more you do this the easier come the pictures.

And some pictures are easier than others.

You did well enough on this.

I could push, or ask you to get another, different picture, but let's go back to the first, easy one.

The principles at work here do not depend on how skilled you are or how easy these pictures are for you.

You had a picture of a cat, previously, in color.

I quite assume that the color was not bright orange.

Get that picture back, eyes closed is best, and "turn the cat from whatever color he is to an bright orange cat."

Then,

to give you more to do,

Take the orange cat and put blue spots on him.

Then, have the cat look at you and wave his paw.

There is no particular harm in not being able to do these.  Partly I am testing to see what you do get.

So, do the cat stuff and let me know how each one goes??

It must be late for you??

Good night,

Cordially,

Karl Loren

Dear John,   It is to see the paw wave, but to MAKE the cat wave the paw.   It is OK to say you couldn't do it, but the below is not quite clear on this point.   Regards,   karl
 
-----Original Message-----
From: JohnT6020@aol.com [mailto:JohnT6020@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:15 PM
To: karl@karlloren.com
Subject: Cat questions

 

Flossmoor IL 02-10-14 @ 1410 CDT

Friend KL:

Going back to the cat picture.  For some reason it is not so clear this time but I can see it. I did make the cat bright orange. The blue spots seem to make the image more of a blur. I do not see a paw wave.

73,
JET

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: JohnT6020@aol.com [mailto:JohnT6020@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:13 PM
To: karl@karlloren.com
Subject: Incident Picture

 

Flossmoor IL 02-10-14 @ 2255 CDT

Friend KL:

An incident pops quickly to mind but I have a feeling it is not what you have in mind. It was certainly memorable. The outcome was pleasant. There were people present and active but I did not know them personally.

As a youngster I spent my summer vacations in a farming community in Northwest Iowa, A very small town named Larrabee.  I was blessed with having a pony. On this occasion I was out on a country road about a mile from town. The railroad ran at an acute angle to the road and crossed the road a few rods from where I was riding on my pony. The afternoon train approached and, as required by law, the engineer whistled for the crossing. This was in the days of steam locomotives and that steam whistle was designed to be heard at least a mile.  This scared my pony who took off in a panic run in the direction that appeared to him to be away from that awful monster but it was actually toward the crossing. I could not control him at all. We made it to the crossing less than seconds ahead of the train. Part of my memory was the feeling of the heat of the locomotive as we made it safely across the track. We went on a dead run all of the way home. I was told later that the railroad engineer vomited when he got to the station and got stopped.

You can be sure I will never forget that "incident."

73,
JET

Dear John,   This is basically quite fine, but I'm now going to be more of a nag.   I am after PICTURES.   There is a tremendous difference between what you "remember" and what you get when you "get a picture."   Part of what I am doing with you is to get you realize this very large difference.   it is not at all clear that the above is a picture or a memory.   The word "memory" is NOT what I want you to get, but a picture.   This same incident will work, but you should close your eyes and GET A PICTURE of some scene at this incident.   When you do this well, you are "IN" the picture, experiencing it as if it were in present time.  You are NOT remembering something that happened years ago.  It is NOW, in the picture.   YOU SEE THE TRAIN coming toward you, right now, in the picture.   It is not a matter of "remembering" some previous experience, no matter how vivid that "memory" might be.   There is a whole new mental experience I am asking you to have -- it is called "recall" and it relates to PICTURES.   The word memory is too slippery, and not understood.  You may well "have" a memory, but that is not useful in what further I want to do with you.   The word "PICTURE" is useful.  A picture, almost always easiest with your eyes closed, is NOT a memory.  It is a picture.  Some pictures have color, some don't' some have three dimensions, some two; some have sound, some don't; some have smell, some don't; there are MANY MANY characteristics of pictures -- I've not begun yet to give you the requests that I want to get to. These requests do NOT WORK with memory, but will work with a picture.   Yes, some pictures are fuzzy.  Get a clear one. Can't?  Let me know.  Most people can get pictures and it is a revelation to them that there is a difference between a picture and a memory -- I try to teach this by YOUR experience, rather than my lecture.   Ah!   You can have the picture and then, with my questions, LOOK around in the picture for things which you may not have noticed before.  I don't want to "give away" all the expected goal, but believe me a picture is very different from a memory.   So, GET A PICTURE.  This incident or another, and tell me what you SEE, not what you SAW!   See that very large difference.   You will be SEEING this picture as if it were NOW, not THEN!   I have tried to "coax" you into this, but it is a bit slow.   So, just get a picture.  do not remember, or get a memory.   Picture.   Tell me about it.   Also, whatever someone else may have told you about the incident?  NOT part of the picture YOU GET.  I am not interested in someone else's memory, but your pictures.   If the above is a picture, fine, then re-word it in that format -- what do you SEE in the picture???   Regards,   karl Loren
-----Original Message-----
From: JohnT6020@aol.com [mailto:JohnT6020@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 10:26 PM
To: karl@karlloren.com
Subject: Incident picture

 

Flossmoor IL 02-10-16 @ 0013 CDT

Fried KL:

OK, I think I get the idea of "Picture" Vs memory. I get a clear picture of the incident I wrote about. I can look around in that picture and see a lot of things not in my write-up. Some of these are things that I was not looking at and was not concerned with even when the incident occurred.  I this what you had in mind?

Just read your Wednesday Letter without any of the "click" side shows. You have given me a different view of oral chelation [previous to this letter].  I just placed an order for Super Life Glow.

73,
JET

Dear John,   Wow!   My goodness!   You looked around. That is a good act.   But, you saw "stuff" not connected with the incident?  Or, that you had not seen.   But you realize that "within the picture" you could look around.   Like what?   Like the color of a building a couple hundred feet away?   Tell me that you "are seeing" and I'll then give you some further direction.   It is OK for you now to start realizing that you are "doing" something with your mind that you may have never done before?  And, that is quite easy?  And that very few others have done? And that you could now go out and get another to see pictures in the same way?   Tell me more about the picture.   Super Life Glow?  My goodness.   You are helping to pay the rent as well as giving me a fine intellectual ride.   Regards,   Karl Loren
-----Original Message-----
From: JohnT6020@aol.com [mailto:JohnT6020@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 10:52 PM
To: karl@karlloren.com
Subject: Picture details
 

Flossmoor IL 02-10-16 @ 0042 CDT

Friend KL:

Don't you ever sleep? I know that I often "work" on into the night. You bounce back with your replies so quickly almost any time of day or night that I get the impression that you work 24/7.

OK, about the picture. I see that the road is a dirt road, not paved nor gravel. There is a wooden trestle over a small creek just a few rods from the RR crossing. On one side of the road just a few rods back is a pile of junk. The place is sort of an unofficial town dump. On the ride home I pass the yellow brick schoolhouse. I ride my pony bareback. These things I can see in my picture, sort of a moving picture rather than a snapshot.

73,
JET

 

Dear John,   I do sleep, but I far more enjoy answer eMails, muchly yours, and doing my web publishing.   So, well done on this picture -- continuing.   We are getting close to another "level."  
  YOu have said "I see . ."  That is the type of "grammar" factor I early-on made reference to.   If it comes "naturally" that is a good sign.  If I have to nudge the person into that viewpoint, that is OK.   Much of this process involves me NOT giving you hints, but asking you to, perhaps, flounder a bit.  When you do that the sudden realization is more real to you and more satisfying.   Now, you have described a "scene."   I ask you to go back, get the picture, "SEE IT in present time, and tell me:   1. You ride your pony.  What color is the pony?   2.  You go by the school house.  Is the American Flag flying?   3.  Is there water in the creek?  Zoom in if you need to, HOW DEEP is the water?   4.  Any other people in the picture?  Any you know?  Name one?   5.  In the junk yard.  Look and see if there is a wooden box or crate?  What markings on it?  You can, if you wish, zoom right up on that wooden thing, to within a few feet, and read the markings.   6.  Probably no elephant in the middle of the junk area.  PUT an elephant there.  What is he thinking??   Let me know.   Cordially,   Karl Loren  
-----Original Message-----
From: JohnT6020@aol.com [mailto:JohnT6020@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:39 PM
To: karl@karlloren.com
Subject: Looking at Scene

 

Flossmoor @ 2326 CDT

Friend KL:

Gotchur e-mail and further questions. I will see what I can see:

1. The pony is white and black, mostly white with a big black spot on his left flank.

2. The flag is not flying at the schoolhouse. It is summer and it is all locked up.

3. There is water in the creek but it is not running. I guess it is about two feet deep in the deepest part under the RR trestle.

4. I am alone. The only other people around are the trainmen. I do not see them clearly.

5. I do not see a wooden box in the dump; just metal rubbish and old tin cans. They are rusty with no labels intact. I can zoom up on the cans and can see that some appear to have been opened with an old fashioned opener so the cover is still attached. Weeds are growing up through most of the things.

6. The elephant is uncomfortable and cannot seem to get a solid footing. He is thinking that he would like to be elsewhere, maybe on the solid roadway.

Again, I just rolled in from school and about ready for some sack time.

73,
JET

Dear John,   You are guessing at two feet?  How about zooming in and looking??  Or measuring with a tape measure which you can create about as easily as you created the elephant??   Very well done on all this.   Let me introduce the next level   You have proven to yourself, have you not, that you can see pictures of past incidents, that you can create objects (elephant) in those pictures and that you can move around in these pictures, seing "things" that may not have been apparent from the first viewpoint.   Next, take a look at the Christmas scene, where you reported that you "saw yourself" sitting on the floor.   And,   At this pony scene where the viewpoint you were assuming moved around.   Just for practice, go back to the Christmas scene and "look out from the eye balls of yourself" at the tree, for instance -- "look around the room" from the viewpoint of your body.   Then, shift viewpoint to what you originally described -- somewhere, apparently, above your body.   Can you see these things, and confirm that you can also change the viewpoint from which you view the picture to some "ceiling" type point, or exterior point, and from the body point??   School?  My goodness -- you still go to school? Or, you teach??   Finally, give me your "feelings" about the experiences so far.   I'm now going to send another message, but ask you to reply to this before you read that one....   Thanks,   Karl Loren

 

Dear John,   Here is this next message.   I am putting the next question a bit below so that it won't show in your preview window?  So, respond to the earlier message, then open this next "lesson."     f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f   f f   Here is it.   "Who is looking at the pictures?"   Think well on this.   Regards,   Karl Loren. 

Flossmoor IL 02-10-17 @ 1315 CDT

Friend KL,

I am beginning to see the importance of vocabulary in these descriptions.

OK, let's revisit the Christmas scene I previously described:

I can see the party assembled. As I look around the room I can see the Christmas tree. It is a real one. It is trimmed with glass ornaments, electric light and tinsel.
There are wrapped gifts under the tree. From a higher viewpoint I can see myself sitting on the floor near the tree getting ready to pass out the gifts.

In the original scene some of the guests were behind me. From a detached point of view I can see the all and get a view of their faces. Everyone is happy.

As to your question about school; my answer is "both." As a teach I presently have a class called Business 101, an introduction to modern business, with 20 students. In other semesters I have taught Economics 201 and 202, macro and micro economics; Biology 100, 211 and 212 and a few others. I teach whatever comes along. 

As a student I have taken all sorts of courses and actually earned an associate degree in Computer Science which is now completely obsolete. My present courses are in photography. This semester it is color negative photography which involves processing our own film and prints; all new to me.

As to my "feelings" in our work together so far; I feel interested, somewhat enlightened and very curious. You have given me a viewpoint I had overlooked for my own way of thinking and a tiny insight into you . . . with a great and expanding mystery unrevealed.

 

Flossmoor @ 1336 CDT

Friend KL:

As per your instruction I did not open this message until I had sent my reply to the previous.

As to "Who is looking at the pictures?" I know it is not my physical eyes but it is "Me" in a wider sense. As I see me as being a body, a mind and a spirit, all are involved. Each needs the support of the other to function.

I previously used the term, "my mind's eye" which you jumped on. I did not mean the term literally but, as I see it, the mind is where memory and images are stored. Without spirit there would be no life and the mind and body would not work.  I do not fully understand the function of spirit. It has to be there for me to see any pictures.

73,
JET

Dear John,

Ah!  They mystery is to yet to be revealed.  It will be revealed only by your own recognition, not by my "teaching."

So, now we are into this new level.

You are clear that your "viewing" of the Christmas picture, when "detached" did not function through your body.

Yet you suggest that viewing may still depend on the body, even so?

You suggest that the spirit needs the mind and body.

The mind needs the spirit and body.

The body needs the spirit and mind.

This is so?

Partially this whole process was started on the assumption that we (you) would become more familiar with the nature of "spirit."

You have arrived at a complexity and this will move slow or fast depending on how much the complexity, itself, needs to be made simple.

For instance, let's start with what might be a simple one, you are clear that "you" could see the Christmas scene without going through the body's eyes.

1.  Trying to keep it simple, can you imagine how the body helps "you" (whatever that may be) to see the picture when you are not using the body to see??

2.  Could it be possible that the body is NOT a necessary part of seeing this picture?

Cordially,

Karl Loren

Flossmoor 02-10-17 @ 1659 CDT

Friend KL,

I see what you are getting at. I did not use my body's eyes to see the scene at Christmas or to look around at the site of my train incident. Did I need my body at all?

That leaves me with a dilemma. I have always presumed that memory was in my mind and therefore I needed my mind to allow me to see something that took place in the past. Then you sprung that elephant in the junk pile idea. But, how did I know what you meant by an elephant? That seems to need my mind and my mind needs a functioning body.

If I now suppose that all I have attributed to what I call mind is really a function of spirit, where is mind? Or, are they one and the same?

If the spirit is doing all this, does it need the body? What I see is that the spirit does not need the body except as a resting place and a communication medium. Right now I cannot separate the operation of spirit from mind.

Back to your description of a seed as a potential life: A viable seed contains something that distinguishes it from a dead seed. Does it contain an "embryo" spirit that must also develop in order to achieve the full power of a spirit? A human embryo has the capacity to develop into a human being with a body, mind and spirit but is not much more living than the embryo in a seed.

Right now I am on my way out to the grocery store to obtain some of those articles that allow the three bodies that comprise this household to continue. Many seeds, fish and animals have given up their functional spirits to provide these things. Does our spirit need to be nourished by consuming, absorbing or adsorbing some of this spirit?

I ramble.

73, JET

Dear John,

Well, you are moving along, as Socrates was supposed to have said, from unknowing ignorance to knowing confusion??

The seed thing, for me, would be to follow a distracting path.  I would come back to that, later.

You begin to wonder.  Can the spirit see without a body?  Yes?  Where did the elephant come from?

I'll let you ponder a bit more before I ask any "helpful" questions.

Well, this one question:  Do you think the mind is the brain????  Or, are you doubting that?

You don't have to be certain during this time, but do express further your curiosities and tentative conclusions.

I look forward to your continuing explorations of your own existence.

Regards,

Karl Loren

Flossmoor IL 02-10-18 @ 1111CDT

Oh Great Guru:

You ask, "Do you think the mind is the brain?"  Simple answer, "No."

I have always thought that the brain had a role in the operation of what I have perceived as the mind.  I see the brain as sort of a machine, a control center that manages many of the functions of the body and does the bookkeeping and maintains the library.

You put a twist on this that I have not pondered much. What is the role of the spirit in these matters? I do not know.

The brain as bookkeeper records experiences so bad ones can be avoided and good ones put into the individual's repertoire to be repeated and built upon.  The librarian function organizes the information for recall when needed.

How spirit is related to mind and body other than providing a unifying and defining function for the individual I do not have even a hypothesis.

As a youngster I was exposed to the religious teachings of a parochial grade school. With later learning it became obvious that they had no evidence for much of what they taught as truth. In many instances they did not even know what they were talking about and contradicted themselves

"Can the spirit see without the body?" I don't know. I do not know what is doing the seeing we have been dealing with here. 

73,
JET

Dear John,

I have done this "exercise" or "drill" with many people.  Let me compliment you by saying that "I don't know!" is a very fine answer at this point.

You have heard the phrase "my soul?"  Surely.

The word "my" is a possessive pronoun.  If it is "John" who is speaking, it would be like John saying, "It is John's soul."

That puts the proper noun there, instead of the pronoun.  OK. But the "possessive" aspect to that pronoun can now be examined.  (And, of course, "it" is not yet defined.)

John might say about "soul," keeping only to the grammar of it all, "It is a 'thing' that belongs to John."  We still have not identified "John."  We have not nailed down whether the "identity" called "John" is a body made of meat or a spirit we can't see or some combination.

But would it be fair to surmise that the "body of John" does "own" a soul?

Would it be more likely and logical to say that "John is a spiritual being who occupies a body made of meat."  ??

You can get into opinions but hardly anyone says that the body is immortal.  So, if the body "owns" a soul, and the body dies, what happens to the soul? Who owns it now?  What is the "name" of this soul???

Since we know the body dies, would it seem more logical to say that the soul, probably immortal, doesn't die, but he occupies a body for a while. The body dies, the soul goes on.

What does the soul "take with it?"  It can't take the brain -- all made of meat.  So, if that is the data base of memory, then a soul could not "recall" a previous existence, or life.  Would it interest you, in the meat body now called "John," to recall pictures of a life time, not of the meat body now called "John," but of a body (with any name) where the pictures certainly include "YOU?"  (with whatever name??)

What was my ending thought about my dog, Chester, after the death of his body?  "HE" was in some anger toward me because I was still considering him as a "dog" when only the dead body was a dog.

Is there a soul for a dog? Would it be different from the soul of a man?

Interesting questions!

Your explanation for the working of "mind/brain" is a good one to start with.   The brain is some sort of control mechanism, you suggest.

Let me give you an analogy.

You have two armies.  They are not in physical contact but they coordinate their battles and help oneanother.  In fact, they have never "seen" each other. They have been in communication through a telegraph line.  Neither of them knows this, but the truth is that the telegraph lines goes through a switchboard.  So, a message leaves Army A, goes to the switchboard, and is switched to Army B.  When Army B receives the message (coordinating a battle or some such) Army B could well consider that it had received a direct message from Army A.

Then, there is a lot of enemy bombing in the area. The bombs knock out the switchboard. The dust settles.  Army A frantically tries to send a message to Army B.  No response.  Perhaps Army B was all killed during the bombing.  Army B frantically tries to send a message to Army A.  No response. Army A considers that Army B was wiped out.

The switchboard is a vital part of the communications, but the switchboard is NOT the source of any message or intelligence in any message.

As far as Army A can figure, Army B is dead.  Likewise the other way.

The switchboard was vital, but not a source of intelligence.

Now, this analogy leaves unanswered the possibility that the switchboard also has a database of memory.  It may.  But, in such a database there was probably never a Silver Point Cat that turned orange and got blue spots on it.

In that data base there was probably never an elephant standing in a junk yard.

Do we think of the ordinary database, or memory, as having imagination? Where would imagination come from.

Army A gets a message from Army B.  Is it possible that the switchboard has "added" some new data, some invented data, to the message?

I'm now beginning to lecture a bit.

I suggest that the spirit probably communicates with the body through the brain.  I have not yet covered the subject of mind.

If a spirit gets in "bad shape" he may well think that he IS the body. 

But, once the spirit realizes that he can perceive stuff without the body that may well be a very liberating experience for him.  Have you had such an experience?  Are you still doubting that reality?  No doubts?  You said you didn't know.  Do you have more certainty now, just with logic?  There are more drills I can do with you, but mostly they are not very possible by eMail, but only in person.

He might then wonder if there are ways he could do more of this -- develop this faculty of "exterior perception without using a body?"  Perhaps he could even develop the faculty of communicating without the body?? 

For now I leave you with these questions:  How much of what I have written seems like it is "claims with no proof?"

How much of it might be "a working hypothesis that provides a better understanding than any I have had?"

Cordially,

 

Karl Loren

Flossmoor 02-10-18 @ 1913 CDT

Oh Great Guru:

We have not previously used the word "Soul" rather than spirit. Since we are trying to be careful of vocabulary usage, are they the same?

My childhood religious education used the word soul and put it in the context of "my soul." My soul was said to be an immortal spirit that lived on after the death of my body and was punished or rewarded for my acts as a person in life; in hell, purgatory or heaven forever. I was never specifically told that my soul was identified by any designation other than my personal name when living. In effect I continued to live in a spiritual life.

According to the Catholic version we living in a body could send one-way messages to souls of departed persons. Saints were souls who could be communicated with and they could be influential in getting things to happen in our bodily world. I do not recall when, but there was a time not long ago that the Pope decreed that this belief had gone too far and should be moderated. I am short on details.

It does not seem fair to surmise that my body owns a soul; rather, I as a person have a body and a soul. The Catholic teaching is that the soul lives on forever after the body dies and it remains forever "Me."

You ask, "What does the soul take with it?"  As I have been taught and never have had any information to the contrary, the soul takes on the whole personality including all of the mental capacity and [rather strangely] the ability to feel and be punished or rewarded and made happy.

I understand that some religions teach that the soul is reincarnated as the spirit in other people, animals or even inanimate objects. I have not studied any of these.

You leave me a bit puzzled when it comes to the database. The switchboard of your analogy could manage a database that it uses during mortal life but the soul takes it over at death. The database as I imagine it seems to be located in the brain somehow. Memories can be obliterated through accident, surgery or damage from illness. This could just mean that the wires were cut but the "recording" continues to exist in a form we [I] do not fully understand. Maybe it was in this form all along.

Imagination seems to work like an Erector set. We have all kinds of parts that we can reassemble into different ideas; some of which may have never existed before.

You threw me when you refer to the spirit getting in "bad shape" which implies that the spirit is changeable, a concept which feels possible but I have not pondered it much.  If a good person can become evil it seems logical that his spirit changed in some way. I don't know.

I cannot say you have made claims without proof because you have carefully avoided making any claims that you might be called upon to prove. Likewise, I have reiterated what I have been taught with no evidence to prove that it is true, false or in between.

Is there life after death? This proposition cannot be proven or disproven with the facilities we have, can it?  We can form a hypothesis and test it only to the extent that it fits what we "know."  This allows all forms of religious hypotheses to be put forth as true but unproven.  We fall back on a proposition like, "If the Pope says it is true, then it is true." . . . full circle.

Thanks a bunch for what you have been able to convey to me.

73,
JET

Dear John,

My general observation is that you are repeating the system of the Catholic Church without appearing to endorse it.  In any event, I don't really hear John Thompson's ideas here -- but his comments about what he has been taught.

I don't think it can be helpful for us to try to dissect the teachings of the Catholic Church, but only to examine your own beliefs, and how you arrived at them -- how much based they are on factual observations and logic -- assuming you are willing to say that the criteria should be observation and logic.  After all you have had some observations, during these drills, that you have not previously had.  If you apply logic and accept your own observations as valid, you should be able to draw some conclusions.

Instead I see you being puzzled, and withdrawing into a belief system taught to you by your Church. 

It's as if John says, "Father, I don't understand why the trees move."  Father says, "John, it is because there is a god of the trees -- he makes them move."

Without any better understanding of wind and trees, John may have nothing better to believe than "father's" word.  The scientist, however, would not accept "belief" as a part of science, I suggest, but would seek, as did St. Thomas, to explain God with observations and logic.  (I think he failed at that, but that was his mission, as I understand it, and as I wrote about in my article on Christ vs. Rockefeller.)

How many years was it that the Church taught that the world was flat, or the earth the center of the universe, or as Galen taught, that the blood flowed and ebbed, while Harvey proved that it circulated, etc.  Religious belief has ever fallen in the fact of advancing science -- now perhaps the lines are so drawn that the religions can no longer stand any scientific look at what is left for belief?

You carefully put the responsibility elsewhere, but repeat that it was your understanding that the body had a soul, etc.  What do YOU think?

If that is so, I would then ask the same question.  Who is "you" who owns a soul?  Are you a meat body that "owns" a soul?

Or do you cling to an improvable belief in the face of an observation that does not fit within that belief?

It is startling to think you can conceive of both a spirit and a soul, as separate and different.  I don't know where that teaching might have come from.

Is this a strong resistance to abandoning the Catholic teachings about soul, but a willingness to speculate about "spirit" because that is somehow different.

Now it is my turn to be puzzled.

It is my turn to ramble.  I guess I can only say, again, that I would be interested in YOUR observations and logic, and even beliefs, but not interested in what you say the Church taught you.  If YOU believe those teachings, fine, but then I ask you to explain them in some way that is based on your observations and logic.   To explain them in some way that satisfies YOU.

At an early point in the history of the Catholic Church (St. Thomas Aquinas) it was well accepted in the Church that man should believe without understanding.  Are you in that boat now?  Would that carry over to an observation that violates the belief -- that observation then being denied as having happened? Or some other explanation?

I have certainty on issues where you are still puzzled.  My certainty has not arrived by fiat, but by observation and logic.

I sense we may have come to the end of the lessons I can give in this way?  Were you saying "goodby" in your last lines?

Regards,

Karl Loren

 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: JohnT6020@aol.com [mailto:JohnT6020@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:44 PM
To: karl@karlloren.com
Subject: Body & Soul II

 

Flossmoor @ 2254 CDT

Friend KL:

It was not my intention to appear more puzzled than I am nor to poll parrot a church line.

I said early in our exchange that I believe I consist of a body, a mind and a spirit. For this purpose I equate spirit and soul.

I cannot accurately define mind. It is what I think with. It is what motivates me. It allows me to do things that an automaton could not do. I do not know where mind stops and spirit begins.

I believe that both spirit and mind leave the meat body when it dies. While the body is alive I believe that the brain is involved in a bigger way than just being a switchboard handling messages from and to parts of the body. It keeps a record of its calls and it censors calls.

I believe that mind is the source of imagination, image formation. That's how I could put an elephant in the junk pile. It facilitates invention by assembling pieces of the Erector Set in ways that the body's senses never did receive them.

I believe that I have a spirit that makes the whole thing work together but I do not understand how nor just where the jurisdiction breaks off. I believe my spirit is related to other spirits in a relationship I call love for lack of a better word.

My vocabulary will not supply a unique word for overall management of existence that I know is true. I adopt the word God but certainly not the church image of a superman. Man is such a tiny part of existence in time and space. My God manages a lot more than humanity; so much more that I cannot comprehend the extent. I do not have enough Erector Set pieces or the right pieces to form an image.

Life after death [of the meat body] as described by the church or any religion is unacceptable to me. You intimated that my experience should tell me something. I am listening but I do not hear. So long as I have a mind and memory I feel an ongoing relationship with people, animals and events that have passed into the past. Where does "feeling" come from, where is it and what controls it? Is this spirit?

I am lost for words to describe any belief I have for a life after bodily death. How can I believe something I cannot verbalize? I feel it. I say again . . . full circle.

I want to learn more and will sincerely apply my faculties to what you communicate as long as your patience with me holds out.

73,
JET

Dear John,

I haven't responded in my usual quick style.  I am still puzzled about how to proceed.

I have no lack of patience, but I do have a desire for results.

I'll ponder this more today, expect to get back to you sometime, probably today or tomorrow.

When you say "I believe," I cannot quarrel with that.  I certainly know the phenomenon of people "believing" in things for which they have no proof.

But, some seem more willing to question, even discard, "beliefs" in favor of some hypothesis that better seems to explain observations.

You may not regard some of your experiences as being as astounding as I would think would appear.

When you "zoomed in" on the items in the junk yard, that is a mechanism of "seeing" that is not normally experienced, yet it can be experienced by almost anyone.  You have done it.  I have never heard any religion or technology that can explain "how" that phenomenon can occur.

Yet, I asked you to do it -- having great confidence that you could do it.  I presume that no one else has ever suggested that you could do this.

You looked at items from a position exterior to your body.  I asked you to do that.  You have done it.  Most people can.  This, too, should have been an experience you have never before examined.  I have not heard of any (other) technology that can confidently ask you to do this, expecting success.

Thus, your observations, your experiences, should suggest that you seek an explanation.  Finding none, I presume, within your current set of knowledge or beliefs, I would expect you to start doubting some part of those beliefs, or wondering if there is not some "other" technology you do not know about??

To me an observation is very senior to a belief.  A belief could be self-generated, I suppose, but generally comes from some authority figure -- whether God, the Priest, Mother or another.

Well, enough for now.

Cordially,

Karl Loren

'