X-Message-Number: 6150
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 01:52:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Interesting Perspective

Yesterday I sent Arel Lucas a piece of mail in which I expressed regret
that she wasn't able to help us a week ago at Timothy Leary's house. This
mail was addressed to her alone, and I considered it strictly personal. So
far as I know, no one else saw it. Subsequently I sent an entirely
separate message to CryoNet and other distribution lists formally
announcing TL's decision not to pursue cryonics. Arel has now replied to
my personal letter, but has sent her reply to the wide distribution lists
of my general announcement. This is very unfortunate, since it turns a
mild private disagreement into a public flame war. (Just another hazard of
email, I guess.) For the record: 

On Mon, 6 May 1996, Arel Lucas wrote:

> You and Mike are the reason Timothy has renounced cryonics,

In what way did I achieve this miraculous conversion? I visited TL four
times, total, during which I clearly promoted cryonics. Others, who
clearly dislike the idea of cryonics, have been living with TL for months.
Does it not seem more likely that their influence would have been greater
than mine? 

> Now you and Mike have your scapegoat--me of course--since I 
> couldn't bend Timothy to your will, throw everybody else out of his 
> house, and smuggle you in.

What we begged you to do, Arel, was to create a bridge between the people 
in the house and the cryonicists. Since you are a one-time assistant to 
TL, and you are also a cryonicist, we hoped you could bring both sides 
together at a time when we sensed (correctly) that TL was being advised 
against cryonics. 

Instead, as you told me yourself, you hung out at the house and "had a
good time." So far as I could tell, you didn't try to act on our behalf. I
asked you, twice, if you could bring me with you to the house, so that I
could have a chance to talk to the people there. This you did not attempt
to do. After your third visit you said that "Tim needs a Mom" to encourage
him to eat and take his medicines. Then, having delivered your verdict,
you went home to San Francisco. Frankly, Mike and I were very
disappointed.  We had hoped that your visit might open up the possibility
of getting 24-hour nursing care and installing monitoring equipment that
would have enabled early warning of TL's death. This would have
facilitated a proper cryonics standby where we would have had an excellent
chance of acting swiftly. Mike and I concluded that this was not going to
be possible, which was one reason why we pulled the standby equipment out
of the house. 

I don't blame you for the way things worked out, because I think TL and
his associates were following a path that led inexorably to rejection of
cryonics. But please don't blame US for it. Mike in particular tried
repeatedly over many months to improve TL's quality of care and quality of
life, and to insure a good cryopreservation. Steve Harris made similar
attempts. All these attempts (with the exception of the Fentanyl analgeic
patches that Steve persuaded the primary care physician to allow) were
rejected by TL. 

> if you do go back there, you'd better 
> have some respect for him and his friends, and I wish you could see the 
> love there.  But I doubt you will.  

To be frank, I saw some hero worship but not love as I understand the
word. If people around TL love him so much, why do they not take proper
care of him instead of allowing him to go away to Malibu for the weekend
without pain medication, fall out of bed and cut his forehead, set fire to
his bedroom, and starve to death (literally)? 

> PLEASE TAKE ME OFF THIS LIST.  I'm deleting any further messages I 
> receive from any of you.

I can see you have a certain perception of the Leary home that's precious
to you. I regret that other well-informed perceptions trouble you so 
much, you refuse even to read them.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6150