[MD] Julian Baggini interview

[ian glendinning]

For the public record, I'd like to confirm Mark's gist here.

There has been no collusion whatsoever between Mark and I over this,
outside public view of MoQ.Discuss. Mark was extremely uncomfortable
with my contacting him off-line during the course of this recent
thread. Good on 'im.

Mark points out the lesson here.
If anyone says or does anything you disgaree with (or even consider in
some sense immoral) then point it out publicly, and politely. Offering
friendly advice is never appreciated.

Ian

On 11/2/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
> 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
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>