But what are the simple
elements
components
[f|o]f which reality is
composed
made up
? – What are the simple
elements
components
of a chair? – The pieces of wood out [f|o]f which it is put together? Or the molecules? [o|O]r the electrons? “Simple” means: not
complex
composite
. And th[en|us] it all depends on: in what sense “
complex
composite
”? It
makes no sense
is senseless
to talk about the “simple components of a chair” without qualification. Or: Does my visual
sense datum
image
the visual appearance I get of th[ei|is] tree, or of this chair, consist of parts? [a|A]nd what are its simple components? Being of different colours is
a
one
kind of complexity; another is,
e.g.
for instance
, the composition of this broken
line
contour
out of straight bits. A[d|n]d you
may
might
call this a say that this curve a complex compound of was made up of an ascending and a descending
branch
part
.
      If I say to someone without further explanation, : “What I now see before me is complex”, then he will be quite correct in rightly asking, you: “What do you mean by ‘complex’? Th[at|is]
may
can
mean all sorts of things.” – The question, “Is what you see complex?”, does have meaning if it is already clear what sort of complexity – i.e., what particular kind of use [f|o]f this word – is supposed to be in question we are referring to is in question. If it ha[s|d] been
laid down
settled
,
e.g.
for instance
, that the visual
appearance
image
of a tree
is to
shall
be called complex if you see not only a trunk but also branches, then the question, “Is the visual appearance of this tree simple or complex?”, and the question, “What are its simple components?”, would have a clear use ˇsense, a clear use. And the answer to the second questionˇ is, of course, is not,:[T|t]he branches” (this would be an answer to the grammatical question “What d[l|o]es one call do you call here ‘simple components’ here?”) but rather a description of the individual branches.