Hi Natalia: FWIW, I see more agreement in your posts than I rarely find with other Wittgensteinians. There's been two or three messages of yours where I have said to myself, "there is an extremely bright student!" I am very much of the opinion that expressions of an inner nature are indeed fair plays in a language game. All that they need is conjugated. But if the person is "knotted up" in the grammar of the assertion, it requires untangling. So when I wrote my introductory paragraph, I should have probably said "talked with a knotted grammar of." But I do not mean to imply that metaphor or family resemblance is to be shunned in favor of better ways of talking. That would take us back to the days when Moore and other analytics thought that surface-level language was the result of confusions, and that humans should develop a clearer form of language. Even Wittgenstein I thought those notions absurd. My current book project is very much against the idea. Language is as language does. In this sense, no "surface level expression" is every nonsense by virtue of the words used. It only becomes nonsense if the grammar it deploys doesn't "add up." Wittgenstein I is about rules for talking. Wittgenstein II is about achieving insight. Another way of saying it: meaning is more important than logic. Regards. Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq. Assistant Professor Wright State University Redesigned Website: http://seanwilson.org SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860 Twitter: http://twitter.com/seanwilsonorg Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/seanwilsonorg New Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4 TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf 3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz 1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/ FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009