AIMEproject asks: “Defending Science as a domain might be different from defending the quality of [REF], then, when Science is attacked, is [REF] attacked ?” This poses the question of the relation between the modes and their respective domains. Are the modes independent of their correlated domains or are they abstracted out from them?
The same question could be asked about any other mode and correlated domain, for example about religion as domain and [REL] as mode. When religion is attacked is [REL] attacked? One is tempted to reply that no mode can exist independently of its domain of origin, and be instantiated in quite different situations and assemblages (thesis of autonomy). But this would be a post hoc retrospective illusion, as in fact the modes are abstracted from the domains by isolating out the purportedly essential components of the enunciative practices of each domain (thesis of abstraction). Thus their autonomy is purely specualtive.
The modes cannot be known, nor named, nor even exist, independently of the domains. In the empirical order, to attack a domain is also to attack the correlated mode. However, in the speculative order the modes can be said to have a certain autonomy. This “relative autonomy” explains how [REL] could be said to be absent from many religious situations, but present in philosophical, or even sports, situations.