54
B
ut what are the simple
[f|o]f
which reality is
? –
What are the simple
of a
chair? –
The pieces of wood out
[f|o]f which it is put
together?
Or the molecules?
[o|O]r the electrons?
“Simple” means: not
.
And
th
[en|us]
it all depends on: in what sense
“
”?
It
makes no sense
is senseless |
to talk about the “simple components of a chair”
without qualification.
Or: Does
my visual
the
visual appearance I get of th
[ei|is] tree, or
of this chair, consist of parts?
[a|A]nd
what are its simple components?
Being of different colours is
kind of
complexity; another is,
, the
composition of this broken
out of straight
bits.
A
[d|n]d you
call this
a say that this curve
a complex
compound of
was made up of an
ascending and a descending
.
If I say to someone without further
explanation
, :
“What I now see before me is complex”,
then he will be
quite correct in
rightly ask
ing,
you: “What
do
◇ you
mean by ‘complex’?
Th
[at|is]
mean all sorts of
things.” –
The question
, “Is what you see
complex?”, does have meaning if it is already clear what
sort of complexity – i.e.
, what
particular
kind of use
[f|o]f this word –
is supposed to be in question we
are referring to is in question.
If it ha
[s|d] been
,
, that the
visual
of
a tree
be called
complex if you see not only a trunk but also branches, then the
question
, “Is the visual appearance of this tree
simple or complex?”
, and the
question
, “What are its simple
components?”, would have a clear
use ˇsense, a clear use.
And the answer to the second question
ˇ is, of course,
is
not
,:
“
[T|t]he
branches” (this would be an answe
r to the
grammatical question “What
d[l|o]es one call do you
call here ‘simple components’
here?”) but
rather a description of the
individual
branches.
)
out of straight
bits.
A[d|n]d you