 He raises two complaints against this approach. First, he characterizes it as desperate, insofar as “it leaves the nature of this postulated primitive state … completely mysterious” (1982: 51), for such an approach does not provide an account of what makes it possible for one to “be confident that [one] does, at present” mean what one does (1982: 51). Second, he thinks that a non-reductionist account does not address the “logical difficulty implicit in Wittgenstein’s sceptical argument” (1982: 51), which is that it would seem that we could not “conceive of a finite state which could not be interpreted in a quus-like way” (1982: 52).