Is it
then correct to say that no arrow could be the meaning, as
every arrow could be meant the opposite way? ‒ ‒ ‒
Suppose we write down the scheme of saying and meaning by a
column of arrows one below the other.
55.
Then if this scheme is
to serve our purpose at all, it must show us which of the three
levels is the level of meaning. I can,
e.g., make a scheme with three levels, the
bottom level always being the level of meaning. But
adopt whatever model or scheme you may, it will have a bottom
level, and there will be no such thing as an interpretation of
that. To say in this case that every arrow can still be
interpreted would only mean that I
could always make a
different model of saying and meaning which had one more level than
the one I am using.