“We have two expressions: one for moaning without pain, & one for moaning with pain.” To what states of affairs am I pointing as an explanations of these two expressions?
  “But these ‘expressions’ [k|c]an'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 imp 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 it's 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”?