He || The solipsist || I pointed
but I took the meaning || the sense away from the pointing || but I robbed the pointing of its sense || but I withdrew the sense from the pointing by removing the || leaving no possibility of a choice. He || I constructed a clock with all its wheels etc. & in the end fastened the dial to the pointer & made it go round with it.

     Of course one of the things that || which tempt us to make our pseudo-proposition is the proposition “I see this” where I point to certain objects around me as opposed to others or in a certain direction in physical space (not in visual space) as opposed to other directions in physical space. And if, pointing in this sense, I say “this is what is really seen” one may answer me “this is what you L.W. see” & there is no objection to adopting a notation in which what we used to call “things which L.W. sees” is replaced by “things really seen.
     If however in saying this is seen I point to that of which I say that it has no neighbour. I make a similar mistake as when || mistake absolutely analogous to this when I say || think that the sentence “I am here” makes sense & is always true (although possibly one which other people can't understand || no one else can understand it) when ¤ I say it under conditions different from those special conditions under which it makes sense, e.g. when my voice is recognized by the other
person & the direction from which I speak, & others. Again a case where you can learn that the word has meaning by the particular use we make of it. We are like people who think that pieces of wood shaped more or less like chessmen or draught stones standing on a chessboard constitute a game even if nothing has been said as to how they are to be used. To say “it approaches me” has sense even when in the physical sense nothing comes nearer to my body. And in the same way “it has reached me” or “it is here now” when nothing has reached my body & on the other hand “I am here” makes sense if my voice is recognized & heard to come from a particular Euclidian place.
     I could however try to express my solipsism in a different way. I imagine that I & others make descriptions of what we see || each of us sees by writing, drawing etc. These descriptions are put before me. I point to the descriptions which I have made & say “only this is (or was) seen”. That is, I am tempted to say only this description has reality (visual
reality) behind it. The others I might call blind descriptions. I could also express myself by saying “This description only was taken || was derived from a reality only this was compared with a reality. Now it has a clear meaning when we say that this picture or description is a projection of say this group of objects the trees I look at or has been derived from it. But we must look into the grammar of such a phrase as “this description is derived from my sense datum”. What we are talking about is connected with the || that temptation to say such a thing as: “We || I never know what the other really means by ‘brown’ or what he really sees when he says (truthfully) that he sees brown.” – We could propose to one who says this to use two different words instead of the one word ‘brown’; one word “for his particular impression”, the other word with that meaning which the other people can understand as well. If he thinks about this proposal he will see that there was || is something wrong in || about his conception of the meaning function of the word ‘brown’ & others. He looks for a justification of his description where there is none. (Just as in the case when one || he believes that the chain of reasons must have no end || be endless. Think of the justification for the performance of a mathematical operation by a general formula || by a general formula for the performance of a mathematical operation & of the question: does this formula compel us
to use it as we do in this particular case). To say “I derive a sentence || description from visual reality” can't have a sense analogous to that of || mean anything analogous to the sentence “I derive a description from this part of reality || what I see here for otherwise the ¤ method of derivation || which we use for deriving the description from reality would have as it were to be described by means of a sample of reality which did not belong to reality. That is to say: I may e.g. see a table || chart in which a colour patch || sample is correlated to the word “brown” & besides a patch of the same colour elsewhere & I may say: “so I must || this shows me that I must for the description of this patch use the word ‘brown’”. But it would be meaningless to say that I derive the word brown from the particular colour-impression which I receive.
     Let us now ask: “can a human body have pain? One is inclined to say how can the body have pain? The body in itself is something dead; a body isn't conscious.” And here again it is as though we saw || looked into the nature of pain & as though we ¤ saw that it lay in its nature that a body couldn't have it. And it is as though we found that ¤ what had pain must be an entity of a different nature than a material object in fact a spiritual object.
But to say that the ego is spiritual or mental is like saying that the number 3 is of a mental or of an immaterial nature when we recognize that ‘3’ isn't used as a sign for the numeral ‘3’ || a physical object.
     On the other hand we can perfectly well adopt the expression that a body feels pain || “this body feels pain”, & we would just as usual talk || tell it to go to the doctor, lie down, & even to remember that the last time he had pains they were over in a day. But wouldn't this form of expression at least be an indirect one? As when one strikes the ◇◇◇ …? – Is it only an indirect expression when we say “write ‘3’ instead of || for ‘x’ in this formula” instead of “substitute 3 for x”? (Or on the other hand is the first the only direct expression as some mathematicians think)?! ¥ All depends how we go on using our words. Don't imagine || Let us not be misled by imagining meaning as an occult process or relation || interaction between the || a word a mind & a thing which contains the whole usage of the word as a seed might be said to contain the future tree.