The solip
He
I pointed but I took the meaning the sense away from the pointing robbed the pointing of its sense but I withdrew the sense from
of ˇthe pointing by
leaving no
removing the
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 reasons wh things
which
that
tempt us to make our pseudoprop. is the prop. “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 The mistake we make is exactly analogous 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 ˇin saying this is seen I point to that of which I say that it has no neighbour. I make a similar mistake as when absolutely analogous to this when I
think that the sentence
say
“I am here” makes sense ˇ& is always true (although possibly ˇno one which other people else cann't understand it) when the person I who says it is not recognized by as the one having this voice or this appearance & the place is not recognized as under conditions different from those special conditions under which it makes sense, e.g. when my voice is recognized by the other
person & the direktion from which I speak, or when & 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 seeing bits of wood formed more or less like chessmen or draft stones on a chessboard think think that pieces of wood standing s[p|h]aped more or less like chessmen or draft stones standing on a chessboard constitute a game even if nothing has been said as to how they are yo 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” when 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 orthers I might call blind descriptions. I could also express myself by saying “This Description only
was derived
was taken
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 ˇsay this group of objects ˇthe 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
that
the
temptation to say such a thing as: “
I
We
never know what the other really means by ‘brown’ or what he really sees when he sais (truthfully) that he sees brown.” – We could propose to one who sais this to use two different words instead of the ˇone word ‘brown’; one ˇwordfor his particular impression”, the other word for with that meaning which everyb the other people can understand as well. If he thinks about this proposal he will see that there
is
was
something wrong
about
in
his conception of the meaning ˇfunction of the word ‘brown’ & others. He looks for a justification of his description where there is none. (Just as in the case when
he
one
believes that the chain of reasons must
be endless
have no end
. Think of the justification ˇfor the performance of a mathematical operation by a general formula & of the question: does this formula compell us
to use it as we do in this particular case). To say “I derive a
description
sentence
from ˇvisual reality” cann't have a [m|s]ense analogous to that of mean anything analogous to the sentence “I derive a description from
what I see here
this part of reality
for ˇotherwise the ↘ method
which we use for deriving the description from reality
of derivation
would have ˇas it were to be described by means of a sample of reality which did not belong to reality. Let me That is to say: I may ˇe.g. see a
chart
Table
in which a co[ul|lo]ur ˇ[patch| sample] is correlated to the word “brown” & besides a patch of the same colour elswhere & I may say: “
this shows me that I must …
so 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 coulour-impression which I receive.
  Let us now ask: “can a ˇhuman 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
looked
saw
into the [N|n]ature of pain & as though we ↘ saw it as that it lay in its nature that a body couldnt have it. And it is [i|a]s though we found that wha[s|t] 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 “this body feels pain, & we would just
tell it
as usual talk
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 indire[k|c]t expression when we say “write ‘3’
for
instead of
‘x’ in this formula” instead of “substitute 3 for x” in this (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.
Let us not be misled by imagining
Don't imagine
meaning as an occult process or
interaction
relation
between
a
thec
word a mind & a thing which contains the whole usage of the word as a seed might be said to contain the future tree.