א. Metalepsis
Anthony Stavrianakis
Paul Rabinow
Mode of Intervention: Subsequent forms of participant-observation

We have a set of objects and a problematization but what we do not have any longer is a common fieldwork practice. This returns us to the initial reason for building ARC and to its difficulties. Namely, how individuals who are not in a common fieldwork practice, can nevertheless collaborate on anthropological problems.

Given the shared experience that we have and given the conceptual tools and equipment that we share, the test now is whether we can give a form to a series of interconnected problems and inquiries, such that individual work on these inquiries is synergistic.

Betrachtung

What is an anthropological non-fieldwork form of Betrachtung?

The first question is: what is it that we have taken from fieldwork?

The second question is: where does one practice this form of participant-observation?

The third question is: how does one practice this form of participant-observation?

The fourth question is: why does one practice this form of participant-observation?

It seems to involve cases and comparisons. Hence, in this instance, three configurations of discordancy.

What?

What is it that we have taken from fieldwork?

Three actual configurations of discordancy.

How?

How does one participate in the conceptual interconnection of problems?

The how question does not require more concept work, since we have do enough shared concept work to collaborate. So with that shared concept work, how does one participate in the interconnection of problems?

How are problems interconnected? This is the referent. They are interconnected conceptually and metaleptically. This metaleptic interconnection of problems is not "merely" narrative, although it involves that, but is an assemblage.

How can we assemble a practice of collaboration given that we are working at a meta level of the conceptual interconnection of problems?

One participates through a collaborative assemblage.

Cooperative friends certainly can be helpful with their insights and their support, but their resistance to participating in collaborative Bildung is a limit to partcipation in the conceptual interconnection of problems.

Where?

Where does one participate?

Following Max Weber, one participates in the "conceptual interconnection of problems."

It is in conceptualizing the interconnection of problems, that one advances towards an understanding of a broader problematization.

Why?

Why does one participate in a collaborative assemblage midst the conceptual interconnection of problems? The assemblage is constituted to participate in the conceptual interconnection of problems, which is why it is metaleptic.

Why does one participate in the conceptual interconnection of problems, via an assemblage?

Because the conceptual interconnection is the means by which new figures of truth emerge; through the means of the governance of self and others;

We have two candidates:

(1) Reconstruction, as one clarifies this discordancy in the situation and as one builds the intellectual instrumentalities to intervene, reconstruction at least becomes possible.

(2) A new figure of truth: When one confronts the demands of the day through work, that is collaborative and Bildungische it becomes at least possible that one can contribute to the emergence of a new figure of truth.