{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"fe4bea74-cc49-42f1-b9da-df6f304bda86","title":"诸众的语法 当代生活方式的分析","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787100146678","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"fe4bea74-cc49-42f1-b9da-df6f304bda86","id":"fe4bea74-cc49-42f1-b9da-df6f304bda86","uuid":"fe4bea74-cc49-42f1-b9da-df6f304bda86","title":"诸众的语法 当代生活方式的分析","normalized_title":"诸众的语法当代生活方式的分析","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787100146678","isbns":["9787100146678"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":163,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/fe4bea74-cc49-42f1-b9da-df6f304bda86","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E8%AF%B8%E4%BC%97%E7%9A%84%E8%AF%AD%E6%B3%95%20%E5%BD%93%E4%BB%A3%E7%94%9F%E6%B4%BB%E6%96%B9%E5%BC%8F%E7%9A%84%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/fe4bea74-cc49-42f1-b9da-df6f304bda86/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/fe4bea74-cc49-42f1-b9da-df6f304bda86/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/fe4bea74-cc49-42f1-b9da-df6f304bda86","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/fe4bea74-cc49-42f1-b9da-df6f304bda86/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/fe4bea74-cc49-42f1-b9da-df6f304bda86/search"},"page":{"printed_page":25,"pdf_page":34,"physical_index":34,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"86f4f1ee2081043f3971768309b72aaa7ab34b41d18908880d8fdb3b77e04505"},"chapter":"诸众的语法","content":"和生产者（producer）这两个类别也能把我们难住；或者，即使它们像在卢梭、斯密、黑格尔，甚至连马克思本人那里那般重要，作为类别也只是变得稍微可靠点儿（也不过是引起争论的靶垛)。\n\n当代诸众既不是由“公民”组成的，也不是由“生产者”组成的；它占据了“个体和集体”之间的中间区域；那么，对于诸众，用“公众”（public）和“私人”（private）之间的区别也就没有办法验证。这恰恰是由于很久以来这些术语间耦合的溶解已被认为是明白无疑的了，就像我们可以不再说人民（people）聚合成国家的统一。虽然人们不愿高唱那跑了调的后现代风格的曲子（“多样性很好，大一统灾难要提防”)，然而，这对于认识诸众与“二”(One)不相冲突却是必须的；确切地说，诸众对“一”做了重新定义。实际上这个“许多”需要一个统一的形式，需要作为“一”存在。但这里的关键是：这种统一不再是国家；而是语言、智力、人类共有的才能。这个“二”不再是承诺（promise)，它是前提（premise)。统一不再是万物向其汇聚的什么（国家、领袖)，像人民的那种情况；而是理所当然地作为背景或必要前提。必须把这个“多数”看成是共享经验的、泛型的、普遍的个性化。因此，与之相应，我们必须设想“一”远非结论性的东西，也许可以看作一个基础，允许存在差异的基础，或者允许这个许多，被视为存在着的许多的政治一社会存在的基础。我这样说只是为了强调现在反思诸众的类别时不允许做狂热的简化或肤浅的缩写；相反，这种反思必须面对一些严酷的难题：尤其是这个“二”和“许多”(One/Many)之间关系的逻辑难题（需要重新阐述，而不是删除）。\n\n前言 029\n\n25","previous_page":24,"next_page":26}