Woolf 'It is now five minutes to eight,' said Neville. I have come early. I have taken my place at the table ten minutes before the time in order to taste every moment of anticipation; to see the door open and to say, 'Is it Percival? No; it is not Percival.' There is a morbid pleasure in saying: "No, it is not Percival." I have seen the door open and shut twenty times already; each time the suspense sharpens. This is the place to which he is coming. This is the table at which he will sit. Here, incredible as it seems, will be his actual body. This table, these chairs, this metal vase with its three red flowers are about to undergo an extraordinary transformation. Already the room, with its swing-doors, its tables heaped with fruit, with cold joints, wears the wavering, unreal appearance of a place where one waits expecting something to happen. Things quiver as if not yet in being...And every moment he seems to pump into this room this prickly light, this intensity of being, so that things have lost their normal uses—this knife-blade is only a flash of light, not a thing to cut with. The normal is abolished. (The Waves)

Sartre Pierre is not here. This does not mean that I discover his absence in some precise spot in the establishment. In fact Pierre is absent from the whole cafe; his absence fixes the cafe in its evanescence; the cafe remains ground; it persists in offering itself as an undifferentiated totality to my only marginal attention; it slips into the background; it pursues its nihilation. Only it makes itself ground for a determined figure; it carries the figure everywhere in front of it, presents the figure everywhere to me. This figure which slips constantly between my look and the solid, real objects of the cafe is precisely a perpetual disappearance; it is Pierre raising himself as nothingness on the ground of the nihilation of the cafe. (Being and Nothingness, p. 10)

接著，討論蜂擁而至，有人說：「我不覺得沙特有讀過吳爾夫喔！因為沙特自己都說他沒讀英國文學或哲學了！」史單古魯姆馬上反駁：「沙特自己說過他從吳爾夫等小說家的研究學得如何處理同時陳述！」有人則說：「什麼抄襲？我老是覺得吳爾夫自己的作品才像歐陸哲學呢！她的《燈塔行》（To the Lighthouse）根本像是採用柏拉圖！」

還有人回覆：「是很相似摟～不過沙特動機有創意多了！沙特被吳爾夫概念呈現／型式啟發，得到一個特殊結論。幾乎所有作家、文體或作品都互有相關咩！我還聽過人家說沙特是抄海德格（Martin Heidegger）和齊克果（Søren Aabye Kierkegaard），他常被說成是沒有獨創性的『吹牛老爹』啊！」

也有回應提到：「沙特也沒讀過印度非二元對立說（Advaita），可是他的存在論就是包含了和虛無主義相似的主調！」或不同聲音說：「如果不是巧合的話，就是所謂創意激化（Creative Impetus）」

而巴吉尼先生就覺得這些相似沒有什麼好奇怪的，因為兩者陳述的情形很不同，而且也可找到比沙特或吳爾夫早的作家，也是寫關於「空無」的，難道「這些相似就有啥駭人的可疑之處嗎？！」

討論串最後，竟然發起討論的史單古魯姆回頭論道：「我說沙特抄襲吳爾夫這言論可能有點太挑釁（刺激），當然某人被某人啟發是件沒錯的事摟（...nothing wrong to be inspired...）！我發起這討論會有趣，不就是因為這話是《存在與虛無》裡的名句嗎？」

這樣的討論串，比「九把刀與陳生」在網路（批踢踢或部落格）上或台灣傳媒渲染的猩羶烤肉串好呷多了，不是嗎？比較像是優質的思索糧食，而不是充斥鄉民情緒性話語、網路惡搞多數暴力公投或「搖著所謂著作權令箭殺無赦」那種吃了會拉肚子的黑心食品。至於台灣那兩位主角的一切措舉......只能小聲說：「No Comments!」因為，不只是個人自有個人評在人心，還包括鄉民(sic)的對話基礎還是參差。

汀還是默默去讀哲學教本比較好。噓。

註：Gestalt Psychology 又譯為「格式塔心理學」，其機本主張謂任何心理現象都是有組織的、不可分的整體。心理上的整體經驗得之於整體知覺，而整體知覺並非由分散的部分知覺之和構成的。因此，完形心理學既反對強調心理元素的結構論，也反對持分析態度的行為論。完形論者認為，行為論所強調刺激反應聯結，在學習中積少成多的觀點，是錯誤的解釋。完形心理學家認為，學習是個體對整個刺激情境所做整體性的反應，而非向部分刺激去做分解式的反應。（P. 281）【資料來源】張春興（1991）。張氏心理學辭典（第二版）。臺北：東華書局。