The Puzzle.
198. "But how can a rule shew me what I have to do at this point? Whatever I do is, on some interpretation, in accord with the rule." That is not what we ought to say, but rather: any interpretation still hangs in the air along with what it interprets, and cannot give it any support. Interpretations by themselves do not determine mean-ing.

"Then can whatever I do be brought into accord with the rule?" Let me ask this: what has the expression of a rule—say a sign-post—
got to do with my actions? What sort of connexion is there here?—Well, perhaps this one: I have been trained to react to this sign in a particular way, and now I do so react to it. But that is only to give a causal connexion; to tell how it has come about that we now go by the sign-post; not what this going-by-the sign really consists in. On the contrary; I have further indicated that a person goes by a sign-post only in so far as there exists a regular use of sign-posts, a custom.

- - - - - - -

Cutting to 201.

201. This was our paradox: no course of action could be deter-mined by a rule, because every course of action can be made out to
accord with the rule. The answer was: if everything can be made out to accord with the rule, then it can also be made out to conflict with it. And so there would be neither accord nor conflict here.

I don't think I agree with "kripke's solution to the Paradox". As a matter of fact,I don't think there can be a solution to "Paradoxes", other wise they wouldn't be called as such... they are ever self contradictory, So it remains an unique puzzle, at the same time, common sense dictates there has to be a solution. For otherwise, we wouldn't be so certain of what's certain...)