What is the status of bios? It's not just an object. It is not a universal. It is an ontological historically determined 'something.' We are asking about this 'something.'
How did we get these determinations?
Why bring together the question of the modes and objects of bios and the excesses, deficiencies and means of those modes and objects?
It's so as to bring together conduct and truth.
There is something general and enduring about this, but the old answers cannot be sufficient.
When Foucault, or Aurelius himself, asks about the relation of conduct and truth, they have to pose it as a question. Neither of them answers the question, What is good for the subject?, or the other questions which link truth and conduct, such as which virtues are necessary to reflect on objects of thought. Why? Because these questions were ethical equipment for living. In our case, we require ethical equipment for thinking and inquiry, hence we are obliged to answer these questions in a determinate form. The determinate form enables us to pose these questions again, hence giving the general problem its specific historical ontology.
There are multiple ways of bringing together truth and conduct, for instance dignity is a contemporary topic. However, dignity did not arise out of our inquiry and hence some schema of the archonic would not help us to organize our determinations.
The issue at hand is what form to give determinations given that determinations arise out of a specific inquiry into historical ontological discordancies and indeterminacies? In order to do so you need to find a way of moving back and forth through different times and scales. The logos of our bios has a much longer historical span. This motion enables us to go to Marcus Aurelius and enjoy his discussions without in any way thinking that what he is doing and what we are doing are the same thing.
In the 21st Century with respect to people who claim to speak the truth about bios, how does one raise the truth-conduct question, given the determinations we established, we think the way to do it is by way of excess and deficiency.
This is a second order observation of a first order statement about the actuality of bios. Endy story 2004; a modernist break with the story of modern bios 1802. Insofar as Brenner recognizes that bios is still in continuity with bios of 1802, but is not reducible to the bios of 1802, then he actually has a contemporary relation to modern metrics/parastēmata; he’s telling them, that is what they are missing.