Dialogue 1
L: I thought philosophy was about common sense. I was quite wrong about it then.
G: No, you’re not wrong. That’s what it’s supposed to be.
L: Then why is it all about ontological correction nowadays? All these grand theories, if not grand positivists.
G: Well, I don’t know, really. Most people don’t think. They don’t ponder these kinds of questions.
L: Why did you decide to become a geographer then? Is it just about the title, fame and money?
G: Well, I’m not good at any other jobs.
L: So am I. But you want to be famous.
G: Do I?
L: Yes, you do.
G: Shall we cross the bridge to the other side, then?
L: No, it’s too late. Too much water has flowed under the bridge.
Dialogue 2
T: There is no democracy in this country.
Y: Is there not?
T: No.
Y: But this isn’t China. There’s freedom of speech.
T: No, there isn’t.
Y: Are you sure? Surely, people don’t put up with self-censorship.
T: No, that’s exactly what I mean. You can never say what you really want to say in this country.
Y: Like what?
T: I can’t use the word ‘cripple.’ But I like to use it.
Y: Well, because it’s not PC to use that word to describe disabled people.
T: But I don’t mean to offend disabled people when using that word, you know. It’s just how I’d like to call them. I’d call myself a cripple if I were disabled.
Y: But what if disabled people feel disrespected when you call them ‘cripple’? Don’t you have to respect how they feel?
T: I don’t. Fuck them. Because no one ever cares how I feel.
Y: Oh, well, that’s democracy for you, then.
Dialogue 3
P: Why must I give a reason for everything that I do?
D: Because that is what normal people do. To justify your conduct.
P: What if you just invent a reason that, despite looking good on the surface, you know doesn’t make sense to you at all? Deep down.
D: Well, you’re deceiving yourself. You allow your own reasoning to break the ears of the vessel midway through transmutation.
P: Hmm…
D: I guess not everyone wants to eat the pheasant’s fat. And I am one of them.
P: At least you have not spilt it out. Give it time. Wait for the rainfall, then you will be able to see the ‘truth’ that appears strongly unfamiliar to your brain and desire. You will be able to feel it with all your heart.
Dialogue 4
Y: But he’s very mentally vulnerable, and it’s not fair to ask me to take care of him.
D: I don’t believe in mental health, you see…
Y: Do you not?
D: No, it’s not a real illness.
Y: I see… Oh, well… Why?
D: I think people just invent that illness for nothing.
Y: Hmm.
D: What’s your new research project about?
Y: Well, it’s actually about mental health…
Dialogue 5
L: Is it possible to defer any decision to a certain point in the future?
D: Well, that’s what makes Derrida different from Foucault, isn’t it?
L: Yes, I think so. What do you think, then?
D: I think it’s possible.
L: You do realise that’s a decision made at the point when difference overthrows historical repetitions, right?
D: Well, I never liked Foucault. His writing is too flat. Nor do I like Derrida. Everything about him is text.
L: I don’t think you’ve given Derrida enough justice. But that is not my point. I only care about whoever leads to a different opening, a different future. No one should burden themselves with the weight of others’ histories that one has never partaken in. It is unfair.
D: True, but what drives one’s decision? Have you thought about that?
L: No. But now since you ask, I think it is the will of heaven and earth.
D: Oh?
L: You can never defy their will.
D: Can you not?
L: No.
D: What if you do?
L: Then your decision is no longer authentic. No longer aligned with the working of universal spheres. Out of sync. Off.
D: What does that leave us then?
L: There is never ‘us’, only the Oneness. What binds together is exactly what splits it apart
