Also, if any of you would like to attend and report back to me your experience, I'd be happy to feature it in this blog.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Gangadean Event at PVCC
A reader made me aware of an upcoming (tonight) event which features Gangadeanian speakers. It's open to the public and is supposed to feature discussions as well so it might be a good place to raise some of your critical objections! RSVP here.
Also, if any of you would like to attend and report back to me your experience, I'd be happy to feature it in this blog.
Also, if any of you would like to attend and report back to me your experience, I'd be happy to feature it in this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I attended. It was... well, I'm not sure I want to say 'okay' so I will just say not awful.
ReplyDeleteBasically, Burton, Anderson, Goodrich, and Gastelum all told their stories about how they came to PVCC and how it changed their lives. (To be honest, I zoned during Goodrich's, so I'm not sure how much he went into that.) Then Gangadean took the podium and gave a long speech about where philosophy has been, where it is now, and where it is going.
It was actually a good speech, though I seriously doubt that Gangadean has kept up with the literature to really know where Philosophy is now or where it's going. Further, I was suspicious of the way he presented the history of Philosophy. He seemed to give his own subtle spin on things, which I suspect are actually important misrepresentations. One thing stood out: he seemed to say the famous "linguistic turn" occurred when Wittgenstein divorced language from concepts. This is not my understanding of the linguistic turn. How would you characterize it?
After the talk there was Q & A time. This is where it got good for me. I asked Gangadean whether he agreed that alongside there being a general human nature which all humans shared, there were also individual natures. He agreed. I then asked him if this allowed for a limited ethical relativism- that what's good for one person might not be good for another person, and vice versa. He agreed. I then brought up the possibility of sexual relativism, and what he would say to a member of the LGBQ community. He said he would go back to origins, and that being male and female are more than just bodily, they are internal, and that we don't understand male and female very well (i.e. as a society; not him, of course!), and I think (I emphasize THINK) he said something that amounted to a person might not know their sexuality.
The Q & A went on and finished. I want to say, it seemed to me at the time Gangadean was even more confident than I remember, but I thought later that maybe I just hadn't been exposed to him in a while. But yes, utter confidence. Knowing God exists is available to anyone seeking to know. Knowledge is possible. And then combine this confidence with his characteristic charisma, and you get a Gangadean machine. He's got all his stock answers well rehearsed, and he knows how to put on the charm, and I think this combo allows him to avoid having a serious conversation about hot topics.
Anyway, after the Q & A, I approached Greg (Goodrich), who is an old friend of mind, and angrily mocked Gangadean saying, "Oh, isn't it amazing we know essences and yet we're confused about what male and female are." I was corrected by Mr. Marsh (I think it was him) that it's society that is confused about it- Gangadean was not saying he didn't know the essence. Mrs. Marsh then sort of made me go talk to Surrendra.
When I did eventually get to talk to him, he was very nice. He asked how I was, if I was doing something in music (one of my undergrad majors). I told him I had done therapy, and, hoping to get him to contradict himself, asked what he thought about therapy. He thought it was fine if you found the right therapist. (This is a problematic statement on his part, because in his book he derides therapy.) He then said, genuinely, that it was good to seem me again, and then got pulled to leave be Kelly.
So that was my experience (I left out parts about talking to others). Make of it what you will.
Mysterio
Mysterio,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the report!
It may be that Wittgenstein did divorce language from concepts--but it remains to be seen whether that was unmotivated and ultimately bad. My guess is that Gangadean likes the "old way" of doing things for the sake of tradition, more often then he likes to admit. But it's hard to remark on passing comments of that sort--unless he actually gave reasons for maintaining what was once status quo.
I generally operate from an assumption that words (qua linguistic entities) are analogous in some important ways to concepts (qua psychological entities). So that much of what I say about for instance, 'knowledge' could with little work be translated into talk about the concept KNOWLEDGE. Of course, linguistic entities and psychological entities will have obvious differences.
As to the confidence that you observed. It would be incredible if he lacked said confidence. After all, he thinks he can't possibly be wrong about his basic beliefs. He surrounds himself with his followers who are expected to memorize and parrot his views. And he labels anyone that fundamentally disagrees with him as someone that "neglects or denies or avoids reason."
Among those that you mention, there is one person that I always liked a lot. I recall when I was going through my period of doubts and challenges, that this person reached out to me with good intentions. But we had only one conversation and they honestly didn't have answers to my challenges. No doubt, after checking in with Gangadean, this person was directed to no longer talk to me...and this while I was still a member of the church! This kind of culture is frightening to say the least.
I'm curious about what you think of Gangadean's niceness. He seemed genuinely nice and caring toward me. It's difficult to hate a man who treats you that way. Do you think it's a ruse? Or do you think the man is actually a nice guy, but deluded so that he can't see thru his own bad arguments?
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt that he genuinely cares about people and is nice at times --perhaps more often than not. But myself and others have experienced the not-nice side of him--namely, when he feels that his teaching and/or ministry is being threatened. I think his behavior there even if understandable, is ultimately inexcusable. It's fairly easy to be nice to people during the good times--but I don't think such instances reveal anything deep about one's character.
DeleteJust speculating here, but it could be that you're not being viewed as a threat and so there's no reason to be other than cordial with you.
There could be reasons Gangadean was nice to me at the time, but I think he genuinely cares about me.
DeleteI wonder what he would say to you if he saw you again, or how he feels about you. It seems to me that despite the harsh words (and I've had a taste) Gangadean says toward a person, he does still genuinely care about that person. But I could be wrong.
I wonder how he or Owen or whoever would respond to an open invitation to debate. What do you think?
Best,
Mysterio
There is much to be said here--like it seems to depend on what your theory of 'caring' for another is... Some people have sufficiently mistaken notions about what it means to care for another person, in which case, their brand of "caring" is not a virtue. But the fact is, this is neither here nor there. Nothing I've said in this blog would change if I learned that he genuinely cared about you or me, or anybody else for that matter. He's deeply mistaken in his fundamental beliefs. These beliefs lead to certain actions, and thus some of his actions are fundamentally mistaken.
DeleteI highly doubt they would engage in any sort of debate. Gangadean held a debate many years ago with a philosophy professor at ASU and following it said he wouldn't participate in them again. My assessment at the time (when I was still a Gangadeanian) was that he performed rather poorly--I might have a copy of it still on my computer.
A couple of years ago, a former friend (currently a member of WF) asked me if I would meet with him and Surrendra and to discuss our disagreements. My former friend was getting overwhelmed by what I was telling him and what Surrendra was telling him--and so was hoping to get us in the same room for his own benefit. I agreed, but Surrendra made the following stipulations: 1) the meeting would have to be recorded (so as to keep me "honest") and 2) I had to apologize on my blog for a post where I referred to Gangadean as a "semantic chauvinist." I agreed. I posted an apology and waited on Surrendra to pick the time and place--but Surrendra, without any explanation ultimately decided against such a meeting.
I would think Owen is one of the Gangadeanians that refuses to be in the same room as me. It wasn't that long ago that I was contacted by ASU police because Owen had falsely accused me of stalking him (despite the fact that, since my departure many years ago, I haven't once tried to contact him--save for replying to one or two emails he's sent to me about getting together sometime--yeah you read the correctly, he initiated contact with me more than once asking if we could chat sometime, and then suddenly one day alerted the police to say I was stalking him!). Obviously the police investigated the matter and found absolutely no basis for his accusations.
After rehearsing some of this, I can't help but think that maybe the question you should be asking is whether I would care to debate either of them.
Well, if you were to debate them, it would be for the benefit of others, not for yours or theirs.
DeleteI know of the debate between Gangadean and Guleserian. I didn't attend at the time, maybe because by that time I was no longer attending WF, or maybe I was out of town at school. I'm not sure. But I would totally love to look at that debate if you have it. So if you have a copy, please send one my way.
You said you apologized for calling Gangadean a "semantic chauvinist". May I ask where in the blog you do that? I ask so that if it comes up in my conversations with people at WF, I can point it out.
Best,
Mysterio
I deleted that apology post once Gangadean changed his mind.
DeleteAll of this business about me apologizing is noise. A way for team Gangadean to not engage with the arguments. This is a consistent pattern. I go to Gangadean with fundamental challenges, and he tries to find a way to disqualify me from discussion. This is more of the same. Either his arguments are good or they are not just as my objections to his arguments are right or they are not...that's what matters to me.
DeleteI was also surprised that Kelly was nice to me, which challenges the idea that people at Westminster will shun you if you get kicked out.
ReplyDeleteIt would be good to be mindful of our quantifiers here as well as issues of time. I certainly don't think that being kicked out entails that you will be shunned--but that's perfectly compatible with the fact that sometimes (perhaps often), people who are kicked out are effectively shunned. Moreover, I don't believe that being kicked out at one time and being effectively shunned at one time entails that you will always be effectively shunned. So your experience doesn't present any sort of challenge to the views I hold.
DeleteSpeaking from my own experience, I would say that I was effectively shunned to varying degrees since my departure. Indeed it started while I was within the fold--but questioning (less people interacted with me in part because they were directed to abstain by Gangadean). It got worse when I departed the congregation though not complete. Once I went public with this blog and certain of its articles (following my departure), the shunning was full-fledged.
So I hope you haven't taken anything I've said about their shunning practices as if it follows categorically from one's departure from the congregation. Now I know for a fact, that the core at WF refuses to be in the same room as me--but that's largely because of the contents of this blog and not a mere result of my dismissal from the congregation.
Having said that, there's much to say about the sad fact that at least a core group of Gangadeanians can't bear the thought of being in the same room as me simply because I write publicly about our philosophical and theological differences. But that's a topic for another day.