DeLanda reading group started up

This happened yesterday, right after I finished my post of links, which means I couldn't add it to that. Anyway, the DeLanda group is up and running. Go take a look.

I've been working on a long post about Esposito's Third Person for a while now, I had expected to be done with it by now, but I'm not. And I am starting my labor day weekend now-ish, so I don't think I will post for the weekend. If that's the case, see everyone Tuesday.

DeLanda

Levi has organized a reading group around DeLanda's A New Philosophy of Society. I had thought of joining, but I'm a little worried of over-extending myself. However, it looks to be really interesting. I read DeLanda's book when it first came out, and I will probably occasionally add things to the discussion. A very early encounter of DeLanda's War in the Age of Intelligent Machines (I read it either the summer before my junior year, or the summer before my senior year of undergrad) was part of a weird mixture of things I was reading as an undergrad that really lent itself to my general anti-anthropocentric realism. DeLanda is also the reason I read Braudel's Capitalism and Civilization series, which are a lot of fun and very useful.

This also reminds me that there is a DeLanda book I haven't read yet, Deleuze: History and Science. If anyone here has already read it, I'd be interested in hearing feedback. I'd also be interested in a table of contents... . Also, at one point DeLanda was writing a book on the phenomenology of animals (what I saw looked very inspired by Uexkull), anyone know any updates on that front?

Speaking of Uexkull, Wolfe's Posthumanities series is going to be releasing shortly his A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans with his A Theory of Meaning. Both of them have already been translated and released into English, but it will still be nice to have them together in one affordable and in print volume. I've said it before, Uexkull is important and interesting, but I also would like for philosophers to maybe know something about the more contemporary scientific work, rather than going back a century for basis of their thought.

Flat Ontologies

Peter Gratton has a funny and interesting post on his hesitation surrounding the concept of flat ontologies. In it Peter explains that the term always reminded him of Thomas Friedman's terrible book The World is Flat. If that had been my association, I don't think I would have ever gotten over it. Luckily for me, I came across the term in its original articulation in Delanda's excellent Intensive Science & Virtual Philosophy. I know Levi has never obscured the roots of this concept, and I want to encourage anyone interested in this concept to make sure they read Delanda's book (likewise, if you like Delanda, make sure you follow Levi's work). Also, while I am here, does anyone (including you, Levi, if you are reading this) know if/where Levi distinguishes his work from Delanda's?

The other point I wanted to make concerned this line of thought from Peter, namely:

[W]hich in turn made me think of how our common ideology uses the idea of equality and flatness to hide grave inequalities[.]

I completely understand what Peter is saying here, but I think this is a case where I find myself closest to the position of Ranciere, namely that there is an important political fact on insisting upon this equality. Inequality is never an ontological fact, and that is a politically powerful and useful idea. No matter how evil Friedman's mustache is (and it is pretty evil).

A question regarding DeLanda

I know some of the people who follow this blog know DeLanda personally. If there is any chance, could you drop me an email at thescu@gmail.com

The question itself is vaguely time sensitive, so within the next 24 hours would be ideal. Thanks for any help, in advance.