Josephine Kalieda

My name is Anubhav Monga aka Josephine Kalieda (preferred name), a student of Psychology Department at IGNOU as well as Critical Philosophy program at New Centre for Research and Practice. I am a 23 year old still closeted transwoman from an increasingly politically precarious nation of India, which is of course a large part of the motivation for my interest in these fascinating subjects and their relevance to political, historical, anthropological and metaphysical paradigms of thought.

Thinkers belonging to traditions of speculative strands of modern thought such as of materialism and vitalism including Deleuze and Guattari, Bergson and Simondon have had a very stark influence on my mode of philosophical thinking and work.

Overall focus of my work is on the speculative possibilities of critical thought, particularly a search for a ‘meta-binding’ theory of concrete (material, actual, finite, immanent, cybernetic etc,) and conceptual (abstract, virtual, infinite, transcendental, mathematical etc.) affects in a Bergsonian dualist panvitalist comprehension of them, where the actual and the virtual, material and the abstract and so on are filters over the same body of affects (extension) or affects of body (intension). Such a project finds its apogee in the Christian trinitarian theology which binds the universe into a speculative comprehension of God as a Spinozist immanence, as an über-haecceity of affects filtered through the father, the son and the holy spirit.

I engage with cybernetics, allagmatics, thinkers such as Spinoza, Bergson, Simondon, Catren and ideas in speculative realism, neo-materialism and neo-vitalism to uncover a notion of God as the meta-binding principle precipitated in the processuality of ritornellos, rhythms, recursions, repetitions, rituals and their subsequent surface tensions, existential territories and precarious metastabilities.

TG: https://t.me/ontoviolence and Substack: https://ontoviolence.substack.com/

Research

Duality of Dualities in the Pleromatic Garden Overall focus of my work is on the speculative possibilities of critical thought, particularly a search for a ‘meta-binding’ theory of concrete (material, actual, finite, immanent, cybernetic etc,) and conceptual (abstract, virtual, infinite, transcendental, mathematical etc.) affects in a Bergsonian dualist panvitalist comprehension of them, where the actual and the virtual, material and the abstract and so on are filters over the same body of affects (extension) or affects of body (intension). Such a project finds its apogee in the Christian trinitarian theology which binds the universe into a speculative comprehension of God as a Spinozist immanence, as an über-haecceity of affects filtered through the father, the son and the holy spirit.

I engage with cybernetics, allagmatics, thinkers such as Spinoza, Bergson, Simondon, Catren and ideas in speculative realism, neo-materialism and neo-vitalism to uncover a notion of God as the meta-binding principle precipitated in the processuality of ritornellos, rhythms, recursions, repetitions, rituals and their subsequent surface tensions, existential territories and precarious metastabilities.

Such a notion of God is not an ontological presumption but rather an intuitive idea (yet grounded in formal reason) that there must a binding principle which holds the existence together persistently and expansively for the abstract formal structure of reasoning to problematize it in the first place, discoverable in terms of inescapable symmetries inherent to the given reality. My work, therefore, an exploration of speculative evaluation of theology and metaphysics in a diagrammatic form for the meta-binding principle that is God if we consider him in his immanent, material and cybernetic dimensions as opposed to just transcendental, abstract and mathematical dimensions.

In the post-enlightenment and postmodernity of 21st century, religion and theology at large is dismissed as being source of stupidity and strife in the world, in terms of the ontotheological hypertranscendent "man in the sky" in whose name people kill each other, wars are waged and general strife is spread, as is often repeated by the new atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins and their followers.

This is but a very parochial notion of empiricism which does not respect the ontological and pragmatic value of abstractions as such. "God is an abstraction, and hence, fighting is pointless!" Except they are not entirely wrong, if we look at what abstractions are in a subjectively constructed sense, they are fundamentally deductive or to be more blunt, substractive. We substract from the overwhelming entirety of what we encounter to navigate through a charted maze of abstractions put together using schemas we inherit or invent.

Therefore our correspondingly subjective and constructed gods have stories, names, faces, temperaments. Because they are our schemas which are constituded by our more abstract intuitions. We had to take that route to rediscover God while we are already in his kingdom which overwhelms us so, for we are but ephemeral and finite nodes of tension. But that need not be the only way, we had encountered God before the web of symbols was woven.

On the other hand, objective abstractions are not constructed, they are eternal objects of universal comprehension which 'ingress' into actual objects as Whitehead beautifully and rigorously illustrated. The corresponding God is a capital-G God, a name given to the unitary and singular Geist outside of time, the atemporal Absolute.

When we open our eyes for first time, it is a revelation of an overwhelming unbearingly complete pleroma. Nothing has been substracted yet and there is no schema to put abstractions upon. The God has not presented himself to the visitor, nor is it that the visitor "recognizes" God because new visitor has not yet been polarized away from the pleroma by the I-function. There is no "I" and "not-I" to speak of for the visitor yet as all there is, is. and you do not recognize that which has not been differentiated.

With no conception of the not-I, there is no foundation for the first lies, there is no deliberation towards any deception as there is no one to deceive, all there is, is. if all there is, is, there are no games to be played, no factions to be volunteered into and no flags to hoist. no flavor of God to be selected from the menu since the menu itself is an subtraction the visitor has no reason to make. why substract? when everything is already here in haecceity. yes, there is trauma of the birth, and the hunger and the thirst but nothing in contrast to the pleroma's exuberance but as one with it.