To divide things into two categories, as a traditional mode of thinking, is pushed in its pair-makings to extreme in metaphysics, where it is transformed into an absolute “either/or” opposition that is in time formulated as the rule or universal principle regulating and dominating the description of things and the nature of the world. Be-ing in the between or thinking in-between, as a way to deconstruct such a way of “structuring”, can also be conceived as the basic style of man’s living in this world, as stressed by both Heidegger and Derrida. Hongloumeng（《紅樓夢》）is used in such a case study, with its author’s intention defined in its description of the vicissitudes of man in this world in those situations in which be-ing is mixed up with non-be-ing, and the real with the non-real. The “betweenness” of the “third world” as depicted in the novel is therefore a key to the understanding of the text, where the interaction between be-ing and non-be-being and the interpenetration between the real and the non-real always invites its readers’ attention. Thus it is not unreasonable to argue that the division of the artistic world of the story into two as proposed by Yu Ying-shi（余英時）is problematic. As for the English translation of the novel, David Hawkes, with the key words in an important couplet in the novel translated into a detrimental opposition between the real and the non-real in his version of the novel, puts aside the fundamental problems concerning the interaction between be-ing and no-be-being, and relegates things of the primary level to its secondary counterpart, while forgetting the inter-relationships between the two levels. In doing so, the elaboration of the most significant elements in the novel is leveled to a “flat” rendition of a trivial “true or false” judgment, thus turning a revealing of the real into logic reasoning, implausible as it is. In the same way, Yang Xian-Yi and Gladys Yang regresses to metaphysical thinking and its derivatives of essentialism by using such words as being and non-being, restricting their reader’s imagination to a place where art may not dwell. As far translation and its studies are concerned, Literature, quite different from philosophy, should not follow the way of the metaphysicians who arbitrarily take fiction for principles, and turn the concrete pictures into abstract logic reasoning. It is also quite unthinkable to ignore the harmful influences of metaphysics when philosophers tend to return to metaphorization.