1920 年， 一位年轻的瑞士心理学家赴维也纳出席国际精神分析大会，他当着西格蒙德·弗洛伊德的面宣读了一篇论文。这篇论文提出了一种观点，该观点既非弗洛伊德关于婴儿期的“主要过程”(primary process) ，也非弗洛伊德所谓的“次要过程”(secondary process)的现实定向思想。在这位瑞士心理学家看来，这个不同的观点发生在主要过程和次要过程的发展阶段之间，也即发生在婴儿期和潜伏期之间，发生在弗洛伊德称之为恋母情结的时期(oedipal period) 。这是一种高度直觉的、富于表征的、充满幻想的、自由漂浮的、联想主义的思想，在精神分析(psychoanalysis)的实践中，得到鼓励的就是这种思想。由于治疗方法定向于自由联想、幻想和想象，使人们采取一种像恋母年龄阶段的孩子那样的自然方式去思考，因此这也许就是为什么——在心理学家看来——恋母情结问题是经常产生的问题之缘故。这位年轻的瑞士心理学家【也就是让·皮亚杰(Jean Piaget)】所谈论的那种思维后来被他称之为前运算思维( preoperational thought) 。据说，弗洛伊德曾被这篇论文所迷住，但没有证据表明这次大会对两人的思想有什么深远的影响。看来，这是理性史中许多交叉点中的一个，在我们看来，这样一种交叉理应成为颇具意义的竞赛，可是结果却并非如此。也许，部分原因在于缺乏一种整合的背景，使这两种思想能够凭借该背景而凸现出来。《发展的自我》P160

In 1920 a young Swiss psychologist went to an International Psychoanalytic Congress in Vienna and gave a paper with Sigmund Freud in attendance. The paper discussed a kind of thinking that seemed to be neither Freud's infantile "primary process" nor the logical, realityoriented thought Freud called "secondary process." As far as the Swiss psychologist could tell, this different kind of thinking occurred right between the development of primary and secondary thinking, between infancy and latency, the era Freud called the oedipal period. It was a highly intuitive, representational, fantasy-filled, imagistic, freefloating, associationistic kind of thinking, just the kind of thinking that was encouraged in the practice of psychoanalysis. Since the therapeutic approach, with its orientation to free association and fantasy and image, was getting people to think in a mode natural to that of the oedipal-age child, perhaps this was why- the psycholoEist suggested- oedipal issues were what so often arose. The young Swiss psychologist, of course, was Jean Piaget, and the kind of thinking he was talking of he later called preoperational thought. Freud is reported to have been fascinated by the paper, but there is no evidence that the meeting led to 3nything significant for the thinking of either man. It appears to be one of those numerous crossings in intellectual history where what would seem to us, in retrospect, to be a fertile match, turns out not to be. Perhaps this is due in part to the lack of an integrating context, a broader soil in which the insights of both can be firmly rooted. In this chap《THE EVOLVING SELF》P137