Why is Wittgenstein so difficult to write about? (a romance between extremes). If language is the subject each word does count, doesn't it? And if the ordinary practice of language is the subject then each word must count doubly. Why is this? B/C all the rest rests upon ordinary language and practice, a practice which we have little knowledge of, little interest in, and few methods for investigating. If ordinary practice is our subject then our method must begin with an analysis of our daily lives, a filling up of examples, a trust in what actually happens as opposed to some abstract in the sky. An abstract conceptual scheme fits together simple because you have invented it, but our lives fit together because we live them (ohh yes we do).

See 'turning to stone'... see using practices and watching... see or look, which is deeper now?

nothing asserted you told me 'look at the use' nothing asserted

Wittgenstein is so difficult to write about because he walks delicately between untenable extremes, such as realism and idealism. His thoughts often do not deny that positions of either extreme, they show how both of the extremes are either untenable when applied to life or uninteresting.

(Hey, it's way more difficult to write about someone who doesn't assert a theory.)

you told me to look at practices— anthropological view... how is it done? how is another form of life critiqued?

(example:
To critique a mathematical statement such as '2+2=4' you would first have to understand the role which the institution of mathematics played in our lives, then you would have to understand the role which '2+2=4' plays in mathematics)

('murder is wrong' is a tautology, because murder means 'wrongful killing'. This is why state execution will never be murder.)

(example:
difficult: wrong word: example: fill it in: example: take some notes on the difficulty)