Eric Dean wrote: "Finally, the 'meaning' in a game is not to be found by examining the rules nor even, generally, in examining how the rules constrain the choices before the players. It is, instead, to be found in how the players interact with one another through the actions offered by the rules -- the meaning is in what they're doing, not in syntactic analysis the rules might offer." However, consideration of the rules is also part of the game. It seems to me that Wittgenstein makes the distinction between rules and actions that follow rules a little less absolute by showing that when one learns a rule, one is learning how to follow a rule. A rule is meaningful only in the context of examples of how to follow that rule. If that is the case, then analyzing the rules might be thought of as consideration of the examples that constitute a game. One might consider here the designated hitter in baseball, drug testing, or instant replay. Each of these involves what I would take to be something like a syntactic analysis of rules in order to arrive at decisions regarding what examples of actions do or do not belong to the game. Each of these brings into discussion the nature of the game and how the rules of the game relate to each other. Each of these alters the game through analysis of the rules and examples of the rules. I am not sure I can make any sense of there being meaning _in_ a game, but it seems to me that doing syntactic analysis, or transcendental deduction, can be meaningful insofar as it involves reflection on what examples are to count as being examples. Furthermore, and continuing with the analogy of games, denying the role of syntactic analysis seems to deny the manner in which games are intentionally changed in order to bring about specific results. Sincerely, Phil Enns Yogyakarta, Indonesia ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html