[MD] Nest of Diapers

[ian glendinning]

Mark, Ant,

Well said again Mark, I share pretty much the same concerns.

(One point of order - already refuted in another post - I did not
request Ant not to post the hoax paper - I urged him to post, or at
least link to, the "as originally presented version", with whatever
editorial response he chose. It was ignoring or re-writing history
that disgusted me.)

Your final para sums up my "clean up your act" view of Ant's position too.
"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.

Ant, my advice is that you stop "defending" historical actions, by
whatever means, and focus on what is in the best interests of the
future of the MoQ.

Ian

On 11/18/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> 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/