dans la solitude des champs de coton

今天晚上的娛樂。非常娛樂。

But these are gems that are buried in the rambling flows of the text and are barely related to the alleged encounter with Deleuze. At one point, for example, we find Zizek on a flow about the deathdrive, a notion that deeply occupies him for obvious reasons. Deleuzeʼs own dense and remarkable reworking of the death-drive in Chapter 2 of Difference and Repetition is never even mentioned. There are some odd mannerisms as well as odd claims on display in this book. [37]

The bookʼs ʻencounterʼ with Deleuze is deeply undisciplined as a work of philosophy. The book, it has to be said, is a chaotic mess. The encounter with Deleuze never effectively takes place, and so one has little idea of its desired effects. [38]

我還沒看過安瑟皮耳森教授這樣出言不遜的。看得我笑死了！！我有他講的這本OwB，為什麼買不知道，但是這是第一本我想直接賣掉的書。可能是因為聽說ｚ先生在美國跟台灣都很紅，看到他出了一本跟自己相關的書覺得還是買一下好。沒想到根本是錯誤決定。（這種焦慮多少近似於美國台灣研究生怕不認識D先生所以卯起來念一樣吧？不過通過ｚ先生了解ｄ先生的人可能比較多，這時候我們就只能仰賴安瑟皮耳森教授。 XD）

最好這裡不要不小心被ｚ先生迷喵到。請直接點安瑟皮耳森教授的文章，我什麼都不知道。

*****
想一想如果文章結尾不順便貼一下，那真是太不敬了：

It is unfortunate that in his encounter with Deleuze he has not allowed his Lacanianism to be instructed in turn by the truths of another way of thinking and feeling. I can only advise him to persist with his trauma and to go deeper with it. [38]

罵人不帶髒字。高等示範。 XDD

*****
每次念到這種跟傷痛有關的我就會想起這個夢，像那次快速地翻閱OwB時，我也是毛骨悚然想起來這樣。剛好我跟夢中主角這幾天前後地肋間神經痛，那順便把這東西重貼一下（奇怪，這裡不是應該沈沒了才對＠＠）。