But how does it do that? The answer to this would be an explanation of the

two uses
use

of the expression. But how could this explanation reach

under the surface? It is an explanation about

signs
symbols

& it states the in which cases it these

symbols
signs

are used. But how does it characterize

the
these

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

just
nothing but

surface ˇ& nothing underneath it as that there is something below the surface & not that there isn't just the surface. Because once the picture we

make use of
use

the picture of the ‘surface’ it is most natural to

express with it the distinction as on & below the surface.
use it such as to express the distinction as that between something on & something below the surface.

But // Because we naturally use

this
the

picture to express the distinction as that between ‘on the surface’ & ‘below the surface’ // But we misapply [it|the picture] if we ask whether both cases are or aren't on the surface.

(2015–) Wittgenstein Source Bergen Nachlass Edition (WS-BNE). Edited by the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen under the direction of Alois Pichler. In: Wittgenstein Source, curated by Alois Pichler (2009–) and Joseph Wang-Kathrein (2020–). (N) Bergen: WAB.