[MD] Nest of Diapers

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

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
 
Mark 18-11-06: Hello Anthony,
Ian and Horse may request; it is you who determine the content of your  site.
 
Anthony:
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.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
Is this a senior lecturer at Liverpool University's philosophology  
department or your Uncle?
 
Anthony:
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.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
Both David and myself, Stephanie Omste and David's guest at the  conference 
could see immediately the paper was dreadful.
 
Anthony:
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.
 
Anthony:
(Mark 18-11-06: Note the '>' at the beginning of the  following)
>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.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
There is no need to guess when you've been clearly told: Mark is concerned  
to be able to prove the moq is being taken seriously.
If i were concerned with, 'Impressing the establishment/status quo at  
Liverpool University's philosophology department' as you put it, I would  not have:
1. Written three, 'full on moq' essays as you described them at  
undergraduate level,
2. Written an moq presentation for the IDF to be presented in the  philosophy 
department, and which you wish to attend,
3. Begun researching an MA thesis on the moq to be presented as my main  
piece of work for my MA,
4. Plan to do a PhD on the moq.
There is nothing in our recent phone conversation (the first in a year)  
which suggested to you i am concerned with impressing anyone.
If you continue to make these suggestions it must be understood you are a  
liar.
5. There are many in the University of Liverpool philosophy department who  
explore new ideas and publish them. That is not philosophology.
Many of these people support interest in the moq, so give it a rest with  the 
biting the hand that supported you.
 
Anthony:
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.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
1. The people in question were fellow philosophy MA students.
2. There were a couple of lecturers present, one of whom i respect and  
supports my interest in the moq.
3. I was not initially embarrassed, i was damn angry at the lack of  
reference.
 
Anthony:
However, as I’ve 
already noted to Mark, Pirsig and myself didn’t like  Baggini’s overall 
attitude underlying his interview questions
 
Mark 18-11-06:
Irrelevant.
 
Anthony:
and encouraging the obsessive 
behaviour of people such as Glenn  "Stalker" Bradford
 
Mark 18-11-06:
dmb has been bandying the word, 'slander' about most incorrectly of late,  
but this comment of yours IS potentially slanderous.
 
Anthony:
(for instance, he 
evidently monitors the changes on robertpirsig.org  more closely than I do)
 
Mark 18-11-06:
You better archive evidence to support this.
 
Anthony:
is not the (Zen) way to go.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
Why didn't you simply state when i asked were the Baggini interview was:  
'encouraging obsessive behaviour is not the (Zen) way to go.'
 
Anthony:
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
 
Mark 18-11-06:
So the bottom line is:
'Help, i'm being stalked by a loony and that's why i said his paper, 'makes  
a good argument that the MOQ perceives the world
in a better way than any  framework that we have had previously' and NOT 
because i actually believe this  to be so.

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  quotes:
“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.
 
Mark 18-11-06: I am beginning to suspect you very often have your own  
personal self very much in mind.
You can begin to dispel this suspicion by starting to present the  truth.
Appealing to the authority of Robert Pirsig won't get you anywhere for very  
long; you have to stand by your own decisions.
Love,
Mark