Uexküll is probably the coolest part, just so you know.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 10.13.05 - 6:40 pm | #

I totally take Uexküll. I'm even willing to talk about some of the Heidegger, though I'm skeptical that it'll be necessary.

Reasons why I should get to talk about my man Jakob: I was already thinking about him on September 28th, before the reading group was even proposed; the discussion of him is the reason I read The Open in the first place; I just read A Stroll Through the Worlds of Animals and Men (which, IIRC, is the sole source on which Agamben draws) and intend to track down a copy of Theoretical Biology. Plus I'm thinking of using him in a paper for a class this quarter (hence the reading).
ben wolfson | Homepage | 10.13.05 - 8:34 pm | #

Ben, I figured.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 10.13.05 - 9:03 pm | #

I'll say something about something in 5-9 (messianic stuff...)
Jodi | Homepage | 10.13.05 - 10:58 pm | #

I can't be a part of this whole project, but if you need a "presentation" on Haeckel and Darwin, the fake history of the missing link, and an astoundingly detailed account of early evolutionary theory's relation to entomology, I'm your man. I can't contribute much else, but the one thing I am good for is historical accounts of evolutionary theory which no one really takes seriously anymore...like Haeckel's. (Of course, I feel obliged to inform you that Scott McLemee's also working on Haeckel, and he'd be a far more prestigious contributor...but I volunteered first! Seriously though, if you need someone to account for turn-of-the-last-century evolutionary theory, well, that's one of the few things I can speak to without any crisis of conscience.
Scott Eric Kaufman | Homepage | 10.14.05 - 1:15 am | #

I'm unwilling to read any of Agamben's book, but I'd be happy to wait til someone ekse does, and politiely explain why everything he says is rubbish. I hope Agamben's familiarity with Uexkull goes beyond that of certain scholars (e.g. Eric Santner) who merely read Heidegger's inadequate and defensive summary of his positions in Fundamental Concepts.
Marc Lombardo | 10.14.05 - 2:06 am | #

Um, Marc -- this is a "reading" group.

The book really is quite short.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 10.14.05 - 4:36 am | #

Scott, Your proposed contribution would be welcome.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 10.14.05 - 7:03 am | #

If needed I could present to you: boredom.

As a blogger, however, I should warn you that I never keep my promises.
Matt | 10.14.05 - 2:48 pm | #

Which is to say that it might not get done. It may indeed get done and still be boring.
Matt | 10.14.05 - 2:50 pm | #

Heidegger's own analysis of boredom is 180 pages. I wonder if even Heidegger chuckled at that.

So we've got Ben with Uexküll, Jodi with messianism, Scott with evolution, and Matt with boredom.

I don't really know what's left for me. Maybe I'll just participate in the discussions.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 10.14.05 - 3:17 pm | #

Of course, Jodi and I could be bluffing, in a final ploy to put you out of blogbusiness.

Right then, off to read a bit of Heidegger. To.the. local.barflies...
Matt | Homepage | 10.14.05 - 7:08 pm | #

Adam K., I'm looking forward to reading the book and to the presentations/discussions. Thanks for putting this together.
John R. (Old News) | 10.15.05 - 1:01 pm | #

If the book is available at u of toronto (jodie is checking today) then I can do something for my post either next Thursday (the 27th) or the following one (Nov. 3rd). I am willing to do one of two things depending on interest. (1) I can write something with respect to the aspects of the book that are of interest to my political judaizing. (2) I can do something with respect to comparing and/or contrasting some aspect of the book with Alisdair MacIntyre's *Dependent Rational Animals*.
old | 10.17.05 - 11:34 am | #