Next week there’s a so-called book-sprint at V2_, and a team with a.o. Michael Dieter, Nat Muller and David Berry will have a week to write a book on, I think, politics and the new aesthetics.

I might in turn report on it, and in preparation I get entangled in the recent discussion on the a-politicalness of OOO. See for instance these posts:

Alex Galloway on Graham Harman: itself.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/a-response-to-graham-harmans-marginalia-on-radical-thinking/,

David M. Berry on OOO and politics:
stunlaw.blogspot.no/#!/2012/06/new-bifurcation-object-oriented.html, and
stunlaw.blogspot.no/#!/2012/05/uses-of-object-oriented-ontology.html

Interesting, but I’m not sure I agree with either of them. Harman is clearly not a political philosopher – did anybody assume he was? OOO is very much hardcore ontology (in the hands of Meillasoux or Harman), and sometimes pretty hard to grasp in its theoretical rigour (for a non-professional who hasn’t got a proper understanding of, for instance, Husserl) – and that is where it becomes interesting. It’s made easy-going and simple sometimes, especially on all the blogs, but that is where I get uncomfortable…

Something like that… I’d need a day to properly explain. And well, I do not have that day.

Ah, a good response to Galloway is in the comments: http://itself.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/a-response-to-graham-harmans-marginalia-on-radical-thinking/#comment-27766.

Etc.