For an empirical philosophy, not merely empirical, the survey offers the only way to break down its concepts and then test them before proposing a version that is subject to criticism from its peers. And yet, although the gender of the survey benefits in philosophy from a prestigious and intimidating pedigree, it is quite rare for the author to seek to organise it with the help of his readers. However, that is what I claim to do by publishing a book entitled Survey of ways of existence — an anthropology of the Modernes, backed by a digital site that allows visitors, who have since become co-investigators, to inspect their arguments before offering other land, other evidence and other reports. With this system, I propose to the investigators to help me regain experience by paying attention to a number of truth regimes that I call modes of existence, following the strange eponymous book of Étienne Souriau recently republished. It is the deployment of these modes that allows me to propose Modernes — the perimeter of this term must, of course, be specified — a more realistic description than that of the advent of the Western River — or that permitted by its criticism. My assumption is that each of these methods makes it possible to respect, in the empirical terrain which I have pursued so far, a certain tone of experience, the conditions for congratulating and infelting specific conditions, and above all, that is where things become dangerous, a particular ontology. Indeed, each mode requires that we meet different people who should be addressed in their own language. The classic question of philosophy “what is technical, science, religion, etc.? ‘then’ becomes: “what are the human beings of technology, science, religion and how did the Modernes try to address them?”. But how can we justify the multiplication of these modes, when the civilisation that is being studied thinks of itself on the basis of the only two categories of object and subject — it is true that a thousand ways are combined? (First paragraph)