71).   But what if, doing all this, he then transcribed an “A”
into a “b”, a “B” into a “c”, and so on? Should we not call
this “reading” “deriving” too? We might in this case describe
his procedure by saying that he used the table as we should
have used it had we not looked straight from left to right like
this: but like this: though he actually when looking
up the table passed with his<…> eyes or finger horizontally from
left to right. — But let us suppose now
72)   that going through the normal processes “looking up”, he
transcribed an “A” into an “n”, a “B” into an “x”, in short,
acted, as we might say, according to a scheme of arrows which
showed no simple regularity. Couldn't we call this “deriving”
too? — But suppose that
73)   he didn't stick to this way of transcribing. In fact he
changed it, but according to a simple rule: After having trans-
cribed “A” into “n”, he transcribed the next “A” into “o”, and
the next “A” into “p”, and so on. But where is the sharp line
between this procedure and that of producing a transcription
without any system at all? Now you might object to this by
saying, “In the case 71), you obviously assumed that he under-
stood the table differently
; he didn't understand it in the
normal way”. But what do we call “understanding the table in

75.
a particular way?” But whatever process you imagine this
“understanding” to be, it is only another link interposed
between the outward and inward processes of deriving derivation I have des-
cribed and the actual transcription.
In fact this process of
understanding could obviously be described by means of a schema
of the kind used in 71), and we could then say that in a part-
icular case he looked up the table like this: ; underst-
ood the table like this: ; and transcribed it like this:
. But does this mean that the word “deriving” (or
“understanding”) has really no meaning, as by following up its
meaning this seems to trail off into nothing? In case 70) the
meaning of “deriving” stood out quite clearly, but we told our-
selves that this was only one special case of deriving. It
seemed to us that the essence of the process of deriving was
here presented in a particular dress and that by stripping it
of this we should get at the essence. Now in 71), 72), 73) we
tried to strip our case of what had seemed but its peculiar
<…>costume only to find that what had seemed mere costumes were the
essential features of the case. (We acted as though we had
tried to find the real artichoke by stripping it of its leaves.)

The use of the word “deriving” is indeed exhibited in 70), i.e.,
this example showed us one of the family of cases in which this
word is used. And the explanation of the use of this word, as
that of the use of the word “reading” or “being guided by sym-
bols”, essentially consists in describing a selection of examples
exhibiting characteristic features, some examples showing these


76.
features in exaggeration, others showing transitions, exaggerated forˇm, others in transitional phases, certain
series of examples showing the trailing off of such features.
Imagine that someone wished to give you an idea of the facial
characteristics of a certain family, the So-and-so's, he would
do it by showing you a set of family portraits and by drawing
your attention to certain characteristic features, and his main
task would consist in the proper arrangement of these pictures,
which, e.g., would enable you to see how certain influences
gradually changed the features, in what characteristic ways the
members of the family aged, what features appeared more strongly
as they did so.