[MD] Julian Baggini interview

[ian glendinning]

Hi Horse et al,

Sorry I left this one hanging for two weeks, I see a lot of water has
passed under the bridge. In terms of why I say what I say, my motives
are already clear (and as you say I hit the nail on the head on the
key points).

The sad conclusion would be if you believe that "We should just let
him get on with [getting the MoQ promoted] however the fuck he
pleases".

As you say that is his right (and his personal motivation). The fact
as you state it suggests there are no academic or moral standards
involved in his promoting the MoQ as a philosophy. (That was / is
Mark's concern ?)

Who am I ? Like any individual I'm entitled to express disgust at that.

I'd like to think I know you better than to think you literally
believe the statement you made. I've certainly never had any reason to
express concerns at your own editorial standards.

As for my own web-site ... the manifesto is clear, and means of open
unedited feedback clear on every page. I have no qualms there.

Regards
Ian


On 11/6/06, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> ian glendinning wrote:
> > Hi Horse,
> >
> > I have only one "grievance" here.
> >
> > The fact that Ant's site passes for authoritative philosophical
> > material on Pirsig's MoQ, whereas there is a distinct policy to
> > present a positively edited bias, and not link (refer even in any
> > academic sense) to any negative materials and criticise them
> > constructively.
>
> And why should he? I'm not sure what you mean by 'passes for
> authoritative philosophical material' cos that sounds a bit derogatory.
> Ant's site is full of good articles and essays showing the MoQ in a good
> light. Which is a lot more difficult than slagging off the MoQ as
> certain others have been known to do. It's a lot easier to be
> destructive than constructive.
>
> >
> > It's Ant's right to do that, it's his site, but the public impression
> > is important.
>
> You've hit the nail on the head there Ian. It's Ant's site and if he
> chooses to represent the MoQ in the way he does then it's up to him.
> It's not like he's trying to damage the MoQ is it? Not like Glenn or
> Struan and how much time have you spent trying to persuade them not to
> do what they've done? And in Glenn's case continues to do.
> I would have thought that the public impression of Ant's site was
> nothing but good. It looks great, it has great articles, links etc. and
> it _is_ authoritative. Along with moq.org it's also endorsed by Bob,
> which is more than can be said for most other sites.
>
> >
> > (Quite independent of this thread, I have been pressing for more
> > transparent "editing" of public facing materials, where considered
> > necessary to "promote" MoQ for public consumption beyond critical
> > philosophical debate. I will continue to pursue / support such
> > initiatives.)
> >
> > The only other points I've made are my own personal frustration at
> > trying to point out privately to Ant over a long period, that he would
> > be better to "clean up his act", than leave the misleading impression
> > on his own site.
>
> You've lost me here. What 'misleading impression' and why does he need
> to clean up his act? What's to clean up? And more to the point, who
> appointed you as the one to do this? Ant and myself run our respective
> sites as _we_ see fit. We started them, we administer them, we pay for
> them and we maintain them. How's about I tell you how to run Psybertron?
> To be honest, given what's been going on over the last few days I'm more
> than a little concerned about giving permission to publish new material,
> as discussed a while back, on moq.org. If this is the sort of hassle I
> can expect if I don't agree to do what others want then I'm out.
>
>  > When Mark made the same concern public of his own
> > initiative, I have simply supported Mark on the objective points he is
> > making. I did point out from the start that publicly linked copies of
> > the full Baggini interview were in fact always available. Mark has his
> > own motives.
>
> I'm sure he does and now I hope that we can see an end to this and let
> me and Ant get on with doing what we do in our own way. Ant does a hell
> of a lot to get the MoQ promoted and personally I reckon we should just
> let him get on with it however the fuck he pleases. He's got a lot on
> his plate at the moment and the last thing he need is to be given shit
> for not not complying with other peoples wishes. As you've said the
> Baggini interview has been available from other sources and is now
> available again from moq.org. There is no need for Ant to link if he
> chooses not to.
>
>
>
> Horse
>
>
> 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/
>