[MD] Julian Baggini interview

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Fellow MoQ'ers, Ant, Mark, ... it's appropriate to re-inforce a  very
important point here concerning development of the MoQ as  a
philosophy, distinct from any individual interests.

(I've said many  times, editorial control in the hands of individuals
is deadly. LISTEN UP.  Ant has abused that privelidge. Mark is pointing
this out to us. Mark,  someone who until recently I would have counted
as a close friend of  Ant's.)

Ant McWatt  strangely, said
"Hello Ian. :-)"
In response to  Mark

Mark therefore responded
"Hello Ian? Hello Mark surely?"

A  freudian slip by Ant methinks, since I have tried to be a prick in
Ant's  conscience for quite some time over this, Clearly I need to be
more than a  prick.

For me any doubts as to Ant's propriety in such matters go back to  his
response to the hoax (Still linked on my site, but see Rich /  Glenn's
site directly.) I publicly expressed my dismay at both some aspects  of
the hoax, and at Ant's "airbrushing history" response to it.
 
 
Mark 2-11-06: Hello Ian and Anthony.
Immediately after the 2005 conference i went on a month's holiday to  
Scotland and Wales.
The first i heard about the hoax paper was on a visit to an artists studio  
with Anthony and Dave Boyce about two or three weeks after my return.
Since that day i can count the number of times i've met or even  corresponded 
with Anthony on my hands. Most of that was me sending Anthony music  files 
and Anthony responding.
The last time i met Anthony was with Ian and a friend of Anthony's at the  
Everyman Bar last Spring to hear about an idea of Ian's. My attendance there was 
 more by accident than design.
In short, i've been out of any loops which may have been spinning.
Right out.
It's important to get this clear because of what follows.
Just lately i've begun the final preparations for completion of my MA. It's  
a different world now - i'm more on the inside of academia and i'm able to  
express my interests and ideas with openness and enthusiasm. I'm not an  
undergraduate anymore, i'm being encouraged to challenge others and express my  
interests.
Well, a happy man, i didn't need a second invitation. This is what i had  
been looking forward to for years. I get to have a say.
And that's when the ghost of impropriety began whispering about the  place.

 
Given
Ant's personal anguish at having his PhD celebration day "ruined"  I
personally cut Ant a huge amount of slack, and tried to advise  him
off-board of my opinions as to his best actions. As a result  I
practically became "mediator" between Ant and Glenn / Rich / Struan
for  some months. (I had little history of Ant prior to the conference
and hoax,  and none of Glenn / Rich / Struan at that time, and was in
no position to  "take sides". When mud is slung, some sticks to
everyone.
 
Mark 2-11-06: This is all news to me. The only thing i recognise is Ian's  
public responses, because i'm not privy to any private mediation or advice Ian  
gave.
I didn't give a public response to the hoax.
Rather, i quietly offered Anthony my view on what he could do next.
Anthony's a big boy. He's a bright lad. You tell him once he understands. I  
told him once and left it at that.

On more than one occasion since, Ant  has done editorial things with
his site (or asked me to do them with mine)  and I have responded with
the "I'm not about to air-brush history" riposte.  Perhaps that phrase
echoed in Ant's head when he read Mark's recent  post.

Offline, I took Ant to task about his approach to the  Baggini
interview. He had indeed organised it, and promised on his own site  to
post the "transcript" (A collection of e-mail questions and
responses).  When the full transcript was published by TPM, a Q&A about
the conference  hoax was included. I suggested to Ant that by an
appropriate public response  to this he could set the record straight,
without any (further) loss of face  to himself, and we could all move
on. An oppoertunity. But no. Ant failed to  post the transcript, posted
his own "Pisrig approved" summary, and didn't  even post a link to the
transcript or even Baggini's own article based on the  interview. I
despaired. There was a fair bit of correspondence led by Matt at  the
time about more fair minded critical debate of that stuff. It  remains
on MoQ.Discuss, and I have several linking posts on my site.  (There
are no such links on robertpirsig.org )
 
Mark 2-11-06: Again, this is all news to me. I am not privy to private  
correspondence between Ian and Anthony.
But my experience completely upholds Ian's concerns: for Ian it was a  matter 
of pragmatic advice; for me it's embarrassing first hand  experience.
I wish i had done more to badger Anthony, but i trusted him to do the right  
thing.
Friendship is based on trust after all. Without trust there is  nothing.

Anyway, depite public advice, and private advice behind the  scenes, we
now have the situation Mark describes. Only a filtered public  record,
which leaves at the very least a bad taste, as far as anyone  taking
MoQ seriously in academic circles. Mark, is rightly concerned  about
this and so should we all, inlcuding Ant.
 
Mark 2-11-06: I am a big boy (too big some would observe) and i'm  
bright-ish. You tell me once i understand. I observed Anthony's choices and left  it at 
that.
The next time my advice would be public.

My motive ? As ever is to  get public facing material which represents
a fair record of critical debate,  AND to ensure that any public MoQ
materials accessible outside academic  circles, and edited for such
audiences, are edited transparently on our  behalf, and not by any one
individual. (Any individual is of course free to  publish "his or her"
view anywhere anytime.)

Ant, as Pirsig himself  pointed out, is "very determined".
Ant, my friend, please clean up your act,  for all our sakes.

Mark, I hope you manage to sort things out at  Liverpool.

As Marsha said, leave it to a bunch men to f*ck it  up.
Sincerely
Ian

Mark 2-11-06: I'll do me best.
Love,
Mark