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.