Mushin-Sho

In an effort to better understand the relationship between Virno’s general intellect and its historically specific manifestations, I pointed to this passage.

“In the multitude, there is a full historical, phenomenological, empirical display of the ontological condition of the human animal: biological artlessness, the indefinite or potential character of its existence, lack of a determined environment, the linguistic intellect as “compensation” for the shortage of specialized instincts. It is as if the root has risen to the surface, finally revealing itself to the naked eye…The multitude is this: a fundamental biological configuration which becomes a historically determined way of being, ontology revealing itself in phenomenologically.” (98)

The general intellect is then the abstract biological potential from which the historically specific moment manifests, on which the moment is dependent even while the specific moment demonstrates the presence of this potential and adds to it.

There are some problems and questions I have regarding this move. For one, are all historical moments dependent on this general intellect; is the general intellect transhistorical? In so far as this general intellect is defined as merely the biological potential of human speech, we might say ‘yes’. There are however, historical moments not determined by/ manifestations of this speech potential–Napoleon’s sneeze comes to mind–wherein not the speech act but the affective results of non linguistic communications drive the event. Here, however, I question whether the general intellect does/ must not include communication beyond speech as such. Another way to present this would be to ask in what way is a historical moment dependent on the general intellect? Is it limited to certain, multitudinous, manifestations or more generally invoked in all speech acts?