which are so fundamental to all the sciences and to all knowledge as such? Can a unified horizon of a field of subject matter be found in the material content of the three discoveries taken as a whole? Or do these refer to disparate objects? This is the real direction of the line of questioning in search of a scientific logic.
Intentionality now is nothing other than the basic field in which these objects are found. [As intentio and intentum, it is] the totality of comportments and the totality of entities in their being. Now the question is: In the two directions of intentio and intentum, where the given is either the comportment or the entity in regard to its being, what is it that is structural, what is already there in the given as a structural composition, what is to be found in it as that which constitutes its being? The field of matters for phenomenological research is accordingly intentionality in its apriori, understood in the two directions of intentio and intentum. But this implies that the so-called logical comportments of thinking or objective theoretical knowing represent only a particular and narrow sphere within the domain of intentionality, and that the range of functions assigned to logic in no way exhausts the full sweep of intentionality.
We have thus specified the field of subject matter and the regard taken toward it-intentionality and apriori. The second question is, what mode of treatment corresponds to this field?
The characterization of the apriori as well as the specification of categorial intuition have already shown that this mode of treatment is a simple originary apprehension and not a kind of experimental substructing in which I construct hypotheses in the field of the categorial. Instead, the full content of the apriori of intentionality can be apprehended in simple commensuration with the matter itself. Such a directly seeing apprehension and accentuation is traditionally called description. Phenomenology's mode of treatment is descriptive. To be more exact, description is an accentuating articulation of what is in itself intuited. Accentuating articulation is analysis. The description is analytical. This serves to specify the mode of treatment of phenomenological research, although once again only in a formal way.
It is easy to see, or better, we constantly overlook and so fail to see that the general term 'description' still says nothing at all about the specific structure of phenomenological research. The character of description is first specified by the content of the matter to be described, so that description can be fundamentally different in different cases. One should keep in mind that this characterization of the way of treating objects in phenomenology as description first of all refers only to direct self-apprehension of the thematic and not to indirect hypothesizing and experimenting. The term 'description' at first implies nothing more. The clarification of the content of the phenomenological