I've been perusing Kvond's wonderful Spinozist blog Frames /Sing, which synthesizes in-depth readings of Spinoza alongside a broad interest in ontology, biology, semiosis (including biosemiotics), Deleuze, Latour, Heidegger, and much else, and generates insightful discussion with a coterie of other bloggers. For anyone interested, here's a short list of some possibly entry points into his thinking, which resonate with some of what I've been trying to get started here:
Why Spinoza? A historical, sociological argument - A good place to start.
Deleuze on Spinoza and Plotinus and luminosity
The problem with Spinoza's panpsychism - I'm working on figuring out the relations and distinctions between panpsychism or panexperientialism (in their different forms, including Whitehead's), pantheism, panentheism, poly-isms of various sorts (polytheism, polypsychism), and systems theories ranging from Gregory Bateson's semiotics, Joanna Macy's (and others') Buddhist ontology, Manuel DeLanda's Deleuzianism, et al., so expect more on all these topics.
Is Latour an Underexpressed Spinozist
Latour's inconsistency, "Start in the middle"
In praise of scholarly enemism: People are animals too
Balibar's Spinoza and Politics: The braids of reason and passion
« trusting Obama or not | Main | 'After 1968' & the blessedness of the Buddho-Spinozan »
kvond's Spinoza
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://aivakhiv.blog.uvm.edu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/76
Search
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 11, 2009 11:06 AM.
The previous post in this blog was trusting Obama or not.
The next post in this blog is 'After 1968' & the blessedness of the Buddho-Spinozan.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.34
Movable Type 3.34
Comments (2)
Thanks for these very kind remarks. I look foward to anything you come up with in your own rhizomes of thought, in partcular those on panpsychism, but really any direction you head.
Posted by kvond | April 11, 2009 8:59 PM
Posted on April 11, 2009 20:59
As a dilletant I think that Frames/sing has become the most challenging blog to read on the philosophical blogosphere. Kvon´s spinozian influence gives him a very privileged point of view over others philo-bloggers that like to be spotted and that are only regurgitating their ontological terminologies. I think Kvons dissertation about speculative unrealism is convincing, but sometimes I think that he gives too much attention to what Harman or Levi write about. As I guess, they dont quite get any satisfaction with vitalism, and while mortifying their lives, they dont quite know what to do with Spinoza, Nietzsche, or Deleuze. I think Kvon has already realized that struggling with them leads discussion to a sad nowhere.
Posted by Naxos | April 11, 2009 9:14 PM
Posted on April 11, 2009 21:14