[MD] Nest of Diapers

[Ant McWatt]

Ian,

I'm glad to see you have decided to "clean up your act" and respond to a 
philosophical issue first (such as Case's excellent "Sin part 1 & 2" debate 
with Platt) and not to more gossip on your return to MOQ Discuss...

Anyway, talking of interviews with Robert Pirsig, I nearly forgot to mention 
that one is due to appear in tomorrow's (Sunday) Observer with Tim Adams.

Best wishes,

Anthony



>From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Nest of Diapers
>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:40:14 +0000
>
>I very much doubt I "asked you not to inculde it" Ant ?
>
>I probably expressed my disapproval at your posting the "edited"
>version without also posting a copy of (or a link to) the "as
>originally presented" version.
>
>The issue that remains from what is now history as far as I am
>concerned, is what DMB characterises as "effectively calling you a
>liar". Economical with the truth, in ways that could be misleading,
>I'd say.
>
>All I can say, before trawling back through the two weeks of mail I've
>missed, is that you still seem to be defending your actions in
>response to what I called a general request to "please clean up your
>act". Not sure the specifics of the hoax are much relevant to the
>debate anymore. Mark's points concerned the handling of the Baggini
>interview. I linked your handling of the hoax with your handling of
>the interview, since the interview does in fact mention the hoax.
>
>Ian
>
>On 11/18/06, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > Dave Buchanan stated to Mark Maxwell November 17th:
> >
> > >You are, in effect,
> > >calling Ant a liar. As with the last time you pretended not to 
>understand
> > >the nature of your own actions, you have repeatedly implied that 
>excluding
> > >any reference to the hoax from his site constitutes some kind of 
>deception.
> > >"Why hide it?", you asked. Not only does that imply dishonesty on Ant's
> > >part, its also a really stupid question. The question is, why would he
> > >include a intentionally hurtful piece of crap on his site? It would be
> > >foolish and pointless to put it there. Your accusations are not unlike 
>the
> > >hoax; intentionally hurtful nonsense.
> > >
> > >And your moral posturing only adds hypocrisy to the slime.
> >
> > Ant McWatt comments:
> >
> > I was happy to have a version of the "hoax paper" at robertpirsig.org 
>(just
> > a version without the weird bits) but I was asked not to include it by 
>Horse
> > and Ian Glendinning and, anyway, as a senior lecturer at Liverpool 
>pointed
> > out to me later on, Glenn Bradford disqualified his own paper from 
>inclusion
> > as a genuine contribution to the Conference by claiming it was a hoax.
> > However, after about fifty minor amendments correcting the grammar and
> > removing the star-f*cking by myself and its reader David Boyce (as the 
>paper
> > was supposedly written by an author with a condition similar to 
>dyslexia),
> > it's difficult (if you're not an eye specialist!) to see why the version 
>of
> > the paper read out at the Conference would be considered a hoax paper.  
>As
> > Scott Roberts and Stephen Mills (the person who had the original idea 
>for
> > the Conference) also observed _afterwards_.  Talk about storm in a 
>teacup.
> >
> > >From what I gather with speaking to Mark, I guess the underlying 
>trouble is
> > that he is still concerned with impressing the establishment/status quo 
>at
> > Liverpool University's philosophology department which I'm far beyond 
>caring
> > about.  I therefore apologise if he was embarrassed in front of anyone 
>at
> > this department because of the lack of reference to the Philosophy 
>Magazine
> > (re: the MOQ Summary) at robertpirsig.org or moq.org.  However, as I've
> > already noted to Mark, Pirsig and myself didn't like Baggini's overall
> > attitude underlying his interview questions and encouraging the 
>obsessive
> > behaviour of people such as Glenn "Stalker" Bradford (for instance, he
> > evidently monitors the changes on robertpirsig.org more closely than I 
>do)
> > is not the (Zen) way to go.  In the long run, similar to a kid with
> > attention deficiency disorder, this kind of attention doesn't help him 
>or
> > anyone else.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> > N.B. The MOQ Summary _is_ a damn good summary btw and is 99% gossip 
>free.
> > It is available at the following address:
> >
> > www.robertpirsig.org/MOQSummary.htm
> >
> >
> > "Anthony McWatt comes closer than anyone to being a dharma successor of 
>my
> > own work on the Metaphysics of Quality. By 'dharma' is meant a duty that
> > transcends one's own personal self. It was this sense of dharma that 
>made me
> > write Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance over a period of four 
>years
> > when no one, including myself, thought it would ever be published. I 
>think
> > it's this same sense that has caused Mr. McWatt to study for so many 
>years
> > to produce this clarification and expansion…"
> >
> > Robert Pirsig, from his introduction to the "MOQ Textbook", April 2003.
> >
> >
> > .
> >

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! 
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb