Ordinary language is all right.
those who master a metaphor, and those who hold by a formula.
Those with a bent for both are too few, they do not comprise a class.
(Note ca. p. 23: 'Could it be that human beings are in human guise?', i.e., could it be that what we take to be human beings, might only be beings simulating humanity? In other words: by thinking this possibility named via the phrase 'human guise' through, might we leave 'epistemological agnosticism' behind and reach a 'metaphysical skepticism', 'a surmise that perhaps there are no human beings' [p. 13], just as we might surmise by reasoning about our experience that there is no world behind it, outside it, for it to be experience of? 'Could it be that human beings…?' sets out from an epistemological starting point, even if to try to leave it behind.)
Wake, peep, work, sweep, creep, sleep, repeat.
There's one worker, an obnoxious, artlessly profane, belligerent complainer, who I'll be glad to hear the last of. The wall is almost up, the summer of constant annoyances outside my window is almost over. But I could take maybe a little bit more: throwing a piece of metal into the house, and shouted back at from inside, the complainer, alone out in the yard with hardly anyone to behold him, ridiculously, taunts: 'What are you gonna do about it? What are you gonna do about it?' He keeps repeating himself. 'What are you gonna do about it?' Finally! Some action! I'm willing to let this play out.
But, no, no one else wants to play his game. Everyone goes back to banging on things and ignores him.