The quoted
passage from Daniel Stern’s book contains so many issues that several posts may
be needed. I will begin with the first transformation in “chasing the path”
from maternal representations to the infant’s understanding of its intent. Here
it is: “We must be able to describe in concrete behavioral terms how the mother
manages to be rejecting and aloof such that her rejection and aloofness can be
perceived by the baby and have an impact on him.”
How do
psychic processes become external? The concepts by which we attempt to describe
this event affect the outcome. If we carry out the analysis by using “representation”
and “behavior” we will get into Stern’s question, and the puzzling problem in
it. In fact, the very term transformation contains an Aristotelian reverberation.
A form is transferred from one domain into another.
An
alternative would be to regard “the transformation” as an expression. Psychic
processes become manifested through expressions. I Consulted the Oxford English
Dictionary to get the current meanings of the term and found the following:
The action of
expressing or representing (a meaning, thought, state of things) in words or
symbols; the utterance (of feelings, intentions, etc.).
The action or
process of manifesting (qualities or feelings) by action, appearance or other
evidences or tokens.
An action,
state, or fact whereby some quality, feeling, etc., is manifested; a sign,
token
The confusion between representation and
reference seems to be so pervasive that it is even reproduced in the OED
definitions. “Expressing or representing” are used as equivalent terms. This
won’t do! There is an unrecognized internal ambiguity here that reproduces
Aristotle’s original rift between in-dwelling forms and their expressions in
words. How does a form become a sign within the mental apparatus of a
human being?
The OED definition clearly wants to include
signs in characterizing expressions. In the OED Thesaurus this is
stated by relating an expression to signification,
defined as “a thing, event, action, etc., which signifies, symbolizes, or
expresses something.” It seems that I have to stop at this very first problem
of how “representations” become “expressions” for a while.
