The first tradition is that which seeks to supplement thought only with another thought: I think thought thinks. This I equate with ontotheology. Ontotheology initiates an infinite regress; consequently, all its questions are asked by an answer: the something. (Plato addresses a similar problem in the Meno.) The second tradition is that which endeavours to contend with this aporia by supplementing thought with something other than thought. This I refer to as meontotheology. This is an appropriate name because it stems from what is termed meontology. Meontology is evident in the work of Plotinus when he places the One beyond being, which means that being is grounded in non-being (meon). When Deleuze grounds thought in what he calls ‘nonthought’ he appears to place his philosophy within a meontotheological legacy. The same goes for Heidegger when he speaks of Being by speaking of das Nicht. This tradition does not, therefore, evoke the notion of the ultimate something employed by ontotheology. Instead, the ultimate nothing governs its logic. In contrast to ontotheology, questions are not asked by one final answer: the something. Rather, there is but one question asked an infinity of times by the nothing. It is argued that both traditions are nihilistic. But I suggest that the first leads to nihilism, while the latter is the realised logic of nihilism.2
(Genealogy of Nihilism, 2002, p.xiii)
有趣的是，這個系譜，沒有尼采，也沒有佛學，比如說，京都學派，意思是說，這是一個，「神」影幢幢的系譜，意思是說，神鬼不分，神影幢幢，即鬼影幢幢，但是，你要珍惜，這些影子，你要理解，中共治下，中國無神無鬼，只剩下純粹屎尿歷史虛無排泄主義，
