We could ask
the diviner “how did you learn the meaning of the word
‘three feet’?” We suppose by
being shown such lengths, by having measured them and such
like. Were you also taught to talk of a feeling of water
being three feet under the ground, a feeling, say, in your
hands? For if not, what made you connect the word
“three feet” with a feeling in your hands?
Supposing we had been estimating lengths by the eye, but had
never spanned a length. How could we estimate a length
in inches by spanning it? I.e.,
how could we interpret the experience of spanning in
inches? The question is, what connection is there
between, say, a tact
ile sensation and the
experience of measuring a thing by means of a yard rod?
This connection will show us what it means to “feel
that a thing is six inches long”. Supposing the
diviner said, “I have never learnt to correlate depth of
water under the ground with feelings in my hand, but when I have a
certain feeling of tension in my hands, the words “three
feet” spring up in my
16.
mind.”
We should answer “This is a perfectly good
explanation of what you mean by ‘feeling the depth to be
three feet’, and the statement that you feel this will
have neither more, nor less, meaning than your explanation has
given it. And if experience shows that the actual depth
of the water always agrees with the words, ‘n
feet’ which come into your mind, your experience will be
very useful for determining the depth of
water”.‒ ‒ ‒ But you see that the meaning of
the words, “I feel the depth of the water to be n
feet” had to be explained; it was not known when the
meaning of the words “n feet” in the ordinary
sense (i.e. in the ordinary contexts)
was known.‒ ‒ ‒ We don't say that the man
who tells us he feels the visual image two inches behind the
bridge of his nose is telling a lie or talking nonsense.
But we say that we don't understand the meaning of
such a phrase. It combines well-known words but
combines them in a way we don't yet understand.
The grammar of this phrase has yet to be explained to
us.