∕∕

This object seems to be ˇis

inadequately
unsuitably

described as “that which I see”, “my visual image”, as it has nothing to do with any particular human being. Rather I should like to call it “what's seen”. And so far it's all right

only
except that

now I've got to say what can be said about this object, in what sort of language game. “What's seen” is to be used. For at first sight one should feel inclined to use th[e|i]⌊s⌋ words expression as one uses a word designating a physical object & only on second thought

it appears
I see

that I can't do that. – When I said

that here seems to be an object I can point to & talk about, it was just that I was comparing it with to a physical object. For o⌊n⌋ly on second thought it appears that the idea of “talking about” isn't applicable here. (I could have compared the ‘object’ to a theater decoration.)

(2015–) Wittgenstein Source Bergen Nachlass Edition (WS-BNE). Edited by the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen under the direction of Alois Pichler. In: Wittgenstein Source, curated by Alois Pichler (2009–) and Joseph Wang-Kathrein (2020–). (N) Bergen: WAB.