Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00057)

prmoliveira wrote:

> Identical twins are the outcome of a 
> natural reproductive process and
> even astrology (sorry to mention it 
> again on this list) regards them
> to be two completely distinctive 
> individuals as far as their
> psychological make up is concerned.

(Bart)<<It's still a cloning process.>>

But isn't there a significant enough 
difference between "copies" and 
"originals" ... Seems to me that the 
word "cloning" might do with some 
defining as to how it might relate in 
terms of how "copies" and "originals" 
are defined in terms of "cloning." I 
suspect that the word "cloning" in 
reference to humans might be misleading 
inasmuchas the nature of "the originals" 
in question haven't been defined other 
than in terms of "copies" which, in the 
case of "human copies," might do with 
some defining as I see it. Twins, for 
example, in my HSO, could be said to be 
either "copies" or "clones" (depending 
on how one defines those terms more 
specifically), but in my experience they 
are not identical, or not identical 
enough to be called the same person. In 
other words, as it tend to see it, an 
attempt to clone HPB from DNA might, at 
best, result in some sort of essentially 
non-identical twin (outwardly similar 
person). Such a twin might, I suspect, 
take an interest in Theosophy, or, on 
the other hand, the incarnating person 
in the body might have very different 
karmic influences. But I tend not to see 
how one can "clone" (if that's meant as 
"bring back") an "original" human 
whether the body of that "original" is 
alive or dead. My original comments on 
that topic ("cloning HPB") were meant in 
a hypothetical, speculative, day-dreamy, 
tongue-in-cheek sense.

Speculatively,
Mauri