Following a Rule and Enacting a Rule

As has been previously discussed, what Wittgenstein calls 'following a rule', which he characterizes as paradoxical, consists, more precisely, in three elements--1. representing a rule; 2. giving oneself the rule; and 3. executing the rule--which may eliminate the paradox.  However, even prior to the expansion, he mis-characterizes how a rule is used.  For the term 'follow' signifies a diachronic sequence, i. e. that first, a rule is given, and, subsequently, that it is executed.  But, in the actual incorporation of it into behavior, a rule does not remain a mere antecedent to its execution.  Rather, it guides the execution from beginning to end, e. g. 'n +2' guides the transition from '2' to '3', from '3 to '4', etc. In other words, a rule functions not as the transcendent Efficient Cause of its execution, which is what 'follow' connotes, but as its immanent Formal Cause.  So, more accurate than 'following a rule' is 'enacting a rule', which is better appreciated upon the inclusion in the process of giving oneself a rule.