But how does it do that? The answer to this would be an explanation of the use || two uses of the expression. But how could this explanation reach
under the surface? It is an explanation about symbols || signs & it states the in which cases it these signs || symbols are used. But how does it characterize these || the cases? Can it in the end do more than distinguish two expressions? I.e. describe a game with two expressions?
     “Then is there nothing under the surface?!” But I said that I was going to distinguish two expressions, one for the ‘surface’ & one for ‘what is below the surface’ only remember that these expressions themselves correspond just to a picture, not to its usage. It is just as misleading to say that there is nothing but || just surface & nothing underneath it as that there is something below the surface & not that there isn't just the surface. Because once the picture we use || make use of the picture of the ‘surface’ it is most natural to use it such as to express the distinction as that between something on & something below the surface. || express with it the distinction as on & below the surface.
     But Because we naturally use the || this picture to express the distinction as that between ‘on the surface’ & ‘below the surface’ But we misapply the picture if we ask whether both cases are or aren't on the surface.