1. Here’s a faslanyc interview with Levi Bryant where he carefully goes through his version of OOO.
2. Benjamin Noys has a paper up on Academia.edu about Guy Debord’s work on time and politics.
3. Paul Kahn has a response up at Immanent Frame over criticisms of his Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. I’ve been following the posts (with my book on sovereignty dropping this month, why not?) but I think once one follows Schmitt into the abyss of his decisionism, there’s never getting out. Kahn’s response starts with this canard:
I knew that my new book, Political Theology, would be controversial. It covers a lot of ground; it produces odd conjunctions; and its rhetoric can sound extreme. It pays little attention to academic conventions and often cuts against popular, political expectations…
Let’s just say, I think his critics, whom he invariably finds “offensive,” etc., are not worried about his ducking supposed academic conventions (really? Read the work and you’ll see it’s not exactly an assault on the form of the academic monograph) and the criticism is that it accepts “popular, political expectations…” I’d want to do a thorough reading of the text before I say more, but I never have much sympathy for defenses of one’s work that begin with “you pedestrian fools just don’t get my outré stylings…”