“It is not the “factual” interconnection of “things”, but rather the conceptual interconnection of problems, which forms the basis for zones of inquiry. A new science emerges where new problems are pursued by new methods and truths are thereby discerned which open up significant standpoints.” -- Max Weber
What are the political and economic pre-conditions for practices of somatic form giving?
What are the techne of form-giving?
Is there an emergent dispositif for how to give form to the ending of life?
How to assemble venue, gesture, signification?
How are the variables of historical determinations, biographical situations and creativity given form (venue, gesture, signification) in relation to a range of kairoi? What kind of kairos encourages or discourages late style?
Adorno on Beethoven; Are Foucault's last works late style? Coltrane as multiplying late styles; Does Richter have a late style?
How does the identification of problems get inflected through a modern or a contemporary ethos?
Is there such a thing as late style in the human sciences? Is anthropology of the contemporary a late style?
In comparison with the two studies in Designs, the motion here is to abstract terms from the series of individual inquiries.
We have chosen four candidate terms -- Maengelwesen, techne, epreuve, bios -- which, if they are to form a new zone of collaborative inquiry, need to be turned into parameters.
How did we abstract these four terms from the specification and clarification of the prior three problems? We observed that each inquiry could be seen to include a somatic / maengelwesen, techne, epreuve, bios dimension.
By abstracting these terms from the previous inquiries, and by assembling them together, we are creating a plane of immanence in which we hope collaborative inquiry can take place.