在文章寫完後，我覺得有必要談一下本文寫作的脈絡，這樣可使讀者了解本文有什麼意義。本文是在結構主義遭到了以德希達爲首的後結構主義者之攻擊，這樣的脈絡下寫作的。我不欲替結構主義辯護，但却要顯示『深層結構』這個槪念的合理性;而這就意味著必須闡明『結構性因果』的意思。某些準結構主義者先將通俗所謂的『因歸根究底地決定了果』等同於『結構性因果』，然後將後者歸結爲『因（結構）現（內在）於果』。這個結論雖然正確，但是過於抽象，並不能幫助我們具體了解『因歸根究底地決定了果』的意思。

It has often been noted that throughout Freud’s psychoanalytical theory there is an incessant though vain quest for origin. The persistence of this desire—as it is shown in Freud’s insistence on the existence and effect of primal narcissism, primal scene, primal repression, primal phantasies, and the ever-fleeting Nirvana Principle—is often understood as a structural necessity for his theory, a mVe that Freud has to make in order to hold all the pieces of his analyses together. Or, to put it in terms of C. S. Pierce，s concept of “abduction，” Freud，s move is to generate from known facts (pathological behavior) new hypotheses (explanations for the behavior) which, though situated outside the world of observable phenomenon (behavior), can nevertheless explain the world of phenomenon (behavior). (Herein lies Freud’s alleged Platonism.) In that sense, what Freud is seeking turns out to be a certain kind of empty space, not only because the origins are usually the so-called “primal” ones which Freud himself admits to be (re-)constructions during analyses; but more importantly because the so-called origins often establish their meaning and significance only after the fact—that is, during later experiences or displaced manifestations. Interestingly, these primal concepts are intricately related to each other and all of them somehow gesture toward the common origin of human (physical and psychical) life.