普丁這個雜碎，出動空降師，拿下一城，城裡烏克蘭人，應該是戰到彈盡援絕了，
普丁宣稱俄軍只陣亡四百九十八人，意思是說，奧威爾說的沒錯，指鹿為馬，謊言就是真相，中共蘇共本質一致，
5：58 PM，沒有買電腦桌，沒有落髮，意思是說，其他皆辦，周六起，備課 3/26，其中 3/20 告別式，Stillwater 尚未看完，拍得細密寫實，像人類學田野，
9：00 PM，你眼前的一切，都將消失，這是基輔的命運，也是台灣的命運，然後，他們說，靈魂的重量，是廿一公克，意思是說，堪稱為靈魂，的靈魂，意思是說，戰死的靈魂，
I said, I'm glad that tonight is the first time I made myself clear enough. You see, Deleuze was talking about becoming, rather than being. His world was a world of becoming > being. Eric said, but there is a dialectic between being and becoming. I told Eric that one needs identity to be, yet one needs to lose identity to become. He was puzzled by the word 'lose'. I said, 'to lose' meant 'not to hold it too tightly'. Later on, I think, to lose means exactly 'to lose' it, otherwise you won't create space to allow becoming to take place. This way of thinking, apparently, is not the way of traditional existential therapy, which mainly emphasizes being. I said, this is the key message of post-structuralism. But the paradox is, for someone, still too eager to struggle for identity, either personal identity, or collective identity, this way of life might be premature for him, or them.
Eric talked about Zama, which I've not read, and it seemed that, after a long voyage of being trapped in the search for being, the third part was about finally he, the protagonist, saw, kind of, a possibility. Not hope, mind you. I think Eric's interpretation was beautiful. And it seems to me, that there is a hidden message in Zama for him. Though I'm not sure what that message is yet.
