..mainly because DeLanda’s Intensive Science, Virtual Philosophy and Rheinberger’s recent (and rather brilliant) Epistemology of the Concrete show so many exciting points of convergence – or; possibilities of taking a philosophy of science’ reading of Deleuze a step further. But especially because these are so relentlessly hard to grasp (exactly like the carpet in a room that is too small); not only does it presuppose a perfect training in Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition, but also a willingness to invest in both author’s intellectual background (for both; the kind of science that usually scares the naive philosopher). But then again; the notion of the epistemic object as a virtuality, the fuzziness of scientific concepts, the evental character and agental realist-like potentialities of objects and a reading of Deleuze via such authors as Simondon and Bachelard is quite exciting. Furthermore; an attempt to drag object-oriented ontology into philosophy of science discussions seems to be quite interesting as well – especially with regard to arguments on the status, development, agency and role of scientific objects. Exciting, perhaps especially because I haven’t come across a lot of books or articles dealing with the aforementioned possibilities (perhaps Todd May’s article ‘Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Science’ proves me wrong, but the article deals more with Deleuze’s overall approach of science (seeing it as ontological exemplars, rather than arguments) instead of trying to incorporate Deleuze into the philosophy of science, let alone a Deleuzian philosophy of science). Ofcourse my intuitions manifest that I haven’t read The Force of the Virtual yet; but, just to express my somewhat too skeptical reaction after having read the list of content, it seems to be a book on how Deleuzian concepts can be used in various scientific disciplines, rather than giving an account of, for instance, the status of epistemology in Deleuze and/or the meaning of the virtual as opposed to the possible with regard to science. But, yes; I have to read it first.