“We have two expressions: one for moaning without pain, & one for moaning with pain.” To what states of affairs am I pointing as explanations of these two expressions?
     “But these ‘expressions’ can't be mere words, noises, which you make, they get their importance only from what's behind them (the state you're in, when you use them)!” – But how can this state give importance to noises which I produce?
     Suppose I said: The expressions get their importance from the fact, that they are used not used coolly but that we can't help using them. This is as though I said: laughter gets its importance only through being a natural expression, a natural phenomenon not an artificial form of language. || code.
     Now what makes a ‘natural form of expression’ natural? Should we say: “An experience which stands behind it”?