Normality, for Husserl, is said in many ways. While the most detailed treatments of this technical Husserlian concept are usually found in discussions concerning the constitutive dimension of the lived body and intersubjectivity, little attention has been paid to the notion of normality understood as the tacit regularity of nature. Indeed, the normal can also be understood as the causal background which is presupposed, tentatively, in the anticipation of uniform processes of change, as well as in poieticinstrumental experiences, that is, in experiences involving the production and use of objects. The subject that elaborates, manipulates or uses objects is installed in nature. Hence, in our productive-instrumental confrontation with objects in the world, we operate under the assumption that the potentially mutable causal scene surrounding our acting life will retain its style. This assumption of normality is the world, in one of the many ways in which Husserl characterizes this concept. The world qua background of normality becomes thematic, retrospectively, precisely when it ceases to cooperate with the agent’s initiatives. This, on my view, is what lies behind Husserl’s assertion that the world is a “super-object” or “higher-level theme”.

对胡塞尔来说，常态有多种说法。虽然对这一技术性胡塞尔概念的最详细处理通常出现在关于生命体的构成维度和主体间性的讨论中，但很少有人关注被理解为自然默认规律性的正常性概念。确实，常态也可以被理解为因果背景，它暂时预设于对统一变化过程的预期中，以及在诗意的乐器体验中，即在涉及对象的生产和使用的体验中。阐述、操纵或使用物体的主体是自然安装的。因此，在我们与世界上的对象进行生产工具的对抗中，我们是在这样的假设下运作的，即围绕我们表演生活的潜在可变的因果场景将保持其风格。这种常态假设就是世界，这是胡塞尔描述这一概念的众多方式之一。回想起来，当它停止与代理人的主动性合作时，作为常态背景的世界就变成了主题。在我看来，这就是胡塞尔断言世界是一个“超级对象”或“更高层次的主题”背后的原因。