X-Message-Number: 1599
From:
Subject: CRYONICS Various replies
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 02:42:10 PST
This is a hodgepodge from the last week. I have been much to busy to
reply more often.
Mike Darwin wrote:
> Keith Henson's inappropriate remarks discouraging involvement in
>Greg's efforts, my efforts and the efforts of a growing number of others
>to achieve this end is not the kind of response we need.
I have asked in private email what I posted which set off this. If I
get a response, I will try to answer Mike.
************
After denying certain ideas he has been promoting are his, Saul wrote:
>What I find disturbing is Keith's notion that my (or anyone else's)
>"ideas" are a threat to Alcor. On the contrary, I believe that the open
>expression of ideas is critically important for Alcor's success.
I am not even slightly opposed to the open expression of ideas, even
ones which are likely to lead to disaster when implemented. But I do
recognize (along with others who posted) that ideas can lead to very
dangerous outcomes, as well as good ones. We have to be very careful
analyzing the ideas which take root in our minds, and our biases make
that *very* difficult.
>I have two additional questions for Keith:
>
>1. Do you know of anyone else on The Alcor Board who believes
>that my continued active involvement in Alcor is a threat to the
>organization?
Yes. The obvious ones. You might directly ask Steve Bridge what he
thinks.
>2. Do you know of any other Alcor member who believes that my
>continued active involvement in Alcor is a threat to the organization?
Yes.
**************
In #1583 Paul Wakfer wrote:
>I am very disturbed and astonished that two Alcor Directors, Keith
>Henson and Dave Pizer believe that "ideas" can be a threat. To believe
>that any ideas, at any place, at any time, constitute a threat to
>anything, is a philosophically fundamental misunderstanding of the
>nature of freedom. These individuals have thus demonstrated once again
>why neither of them are fit to be members of the Alcor Board.
See above. Ideas such as communism or nazism were as much at the root
of millions of people dying as the bubonic plague was at the root of
the black death. If anyone has not seen the articles I have written
on the topic of memetics, ask and I can send you email copies. Kevin
has some or all of them in his archives.
**************
As usual, I greatly appreciate Steve Harris's (msg 1584) excellent
exposition on the source in the human evolutionary background of the
problems we have in presenting neuro suspension. Right on, Steve!
>Gosh, if people would just understand cognitively that a taran-
>tula is far less likely to bite you to death than a St. Bernard,
>they'd be just as ready to pet one. Yep.
I cracked up over this! A long time ago, the 9 year old son of a
friend of mine handed me his pet tarantula. Heh, guys gotta be (well,
look anyway) macho, so instead of freak'n out, I had to take the
thing. (Actually, they are kind of nice--after you get over the heebe
jeebies.)
> So-- back directly to our subject: is there any way to
>completely defuse emotionally the neuropreservation issue? I
>suspect not. This is very deep psychology here.
I agree. But treating it with some degree of humor might help. See
Minsky on some of the functions of humor.
******************
In msg #1585 replying to Dave Pizer Saul Kent wrote:
>Dave's attempt to place the blame on me for his failure to raise enough
>money to purchase the building in Scottsdale, Arizona is inappropriate
>since I initially supported the purchase of the building and never
>opposed it. ^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^
Saul, I am going to call you on this. (I should have jumped you on
the claim you made a while back that your attack on Carlos was not
"self serving.") I suppose you can make a narrow case that your
letter of May 19, 1992 was not in direct opposition to Alcor
purchasing a building, but it sure had that effect. (You are welcome
to post the whole thing if you think I have quoted parts out of
context.)
[after a section where Saul states his opinion that raising money to
purchasing one building over another was illegal because it "changed
the terms of" a board resolution.]
"My second concern is that I think it is a mistake for Alcor to
own the new building. One of the reasons Symbex [the group which
owns the current building] was set up was to protect Alcor from the
possibility of government action and/or civil judgement, which could
lead to seizure of the building. It was felt, and I think rightly
so, that private ownership of Alcor's facility--which is Alcor's
principal hard asset--reduces Alcor's liability and helps to protect
the organization and the patients Alcor is responsible for from
hostile government agencies and individuals. To unilaterally
"decide" that Alcor should own the new building outright, without
the consent of The Alcor Board and input from the membership is, in
my opinion, both illegal and irresponsible.
"As an Alcor member, I request an emergency meeting of The Board
to discuss the issues raise in this memo. Please let me know as
soon as possible what action The Board will be taking with regard to
this matter. I can be reached at . . . . ."
>From what I understand (though I know I do not have the full story and
might have some critical details wrong) this letter quickly went
beyond the board to a former Alcor member well known for irresponsible
activities. According to accounts I cannot verify, the former member
used the contents of Saul's letter to hassle at least one major
potential contributor--to the point of threatening lawsuits if he
donated to Alcor. The potential donor's lawyer was, in fact, the
person who pointed out to Carlos that the tax conditions which
obtained at the time Symbex was put together were no longer current,
and that it would be better for his client to simply donate a large
amount of money rather than put it into a Symbex type vehicle. As
Carlos pointed out later, he does not need a board resolution to
accept donations, and the logical conclusion of Saul's argument is
that Alcor should own nothing at all!
> His characterization of my opposition to Carlos
>Mondragon's presidency as my "war on Carlos" is also inappropriate. My
>decision to help Paul Wakfer document in writing the opposition to
>Carlos was as a direct result of Dave's request that such documentation
>be submitted to the Alcor Board.
Dave and I did ask you to submit *your* objections in writing to the
board. We expected a one or two page list from you which we could
discuss with Carlos and you since the complaints you made were vague.
We never expected you to solicit and stir up the membership, nor were
we expecting a hundred and forty page document, nor did we expect you
and Paul to pad it out to 233 pages and send 175 copies of it out to
surprised Alcor members.
Re the term "war," the two of you must have spent close to $10 a copy
(mailing alone was $2.40 if I remember right). What's that? $1750 in
out of pocket cost for you and/or Paul? Plus how many hours of work
to solicit the letters and find addresses for people as far away as
Manitoba? You may have spent as much time and more money tearing down
Carlos than I put into Alcor in the last 5 years. It is a shame that
effort was not put into something constructive.
> His suggestion that he would have
>been able to raise the money for the building if I had postponed my
>"war on Carlos" is thus nothing more than an evasion of his
>responsibility in the matter.
In view of Saul's May 19 memo which was *widely* circulated in his book
(see page 102), I think Dave is being accurate.
It might be an interesting exercise to estimate and add up what the
internal fighting over the last year has cost Alcor in terms of
membership and money.
Keith
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1599