0040 To date, one reverie and three commentaries, listed in the first blog in this series, propose propositions that ought to be tested.

Vargas Perez, Nieto Bravo and Santamaria Rodriguez, in the article entitled, “Hermeneutics and Phenomenology in Human and Social Science Research”, provide material to test the arguments.

0041 Three tests have been considered.

0042 One, why is hermeneutics neglected in phenomenological inquiry?

The answer is that both hermeneutics and phenomenology are able to virtually situate natural (or “first-order”) science.  But, hermeneutics is disallowed on the basis of the rule of the positivist intellect, outlawing metaphysics.

0043 Two, what is the latent dilemma between hermeneutics and phenomenology?

The answer is that the situation-level normal context of Husserl’s project_3b elbows out the normal context of hermeneutics_3a.  Such is the logic of normal contexts.  The potential underlying Husserl’s paradigm_3b is a return_1b to the thing itself_1a.  This return may be formulated as what the noumenon_1a must be_1b, (that is, the noumenon_1b).

In contrast, the potential underlying hermeneutics_3b is interpretation_1b.

0044 Three, what is the subject matter of phenomenology?

The answer?

Phenomenological reduction_2b elucidates a subjective being_1b, what the noumenon_1a must be_1b, capable of serving as an intersubjective being_1b.  Intersubjective beings_1b are curious creatures, since they simultaneously appeal to a suprasubjective perspective-level realm (a God’s eye view) and a consensus-driven content-level (a human’s eye view).  Thus, an intersubjective being_1b may appear to be mind independent, despite its mind dependence.

Phenomenological reduction_2b succeeds when its noumenon_1b is regarded as mind independent and enters the slot for the noumenon_1a, thereby creating novel conditions where phenomena_1a can objectify their noumenon_1a(1b).  A second-order social empirio-schematic inquiry_2a follows.

0045 Once a social science takes off with a community of inquirers_3a, the noumenon_1a(1b) displays a life of its own.  A new Positivist judgment unfolds.  Husserl’s project is no longer capable of virtually situating this particular Positivist’s judgment.

How so?

Why is phenomenology_3b needed when a noumenon_1a(1b) [can be objectified as] its phenomena_1a?