Today's reading spans pp.21-41.
I am reminded--struck, really--strongly of a famous paper given by a physicist named Eddington about his Two Tables. One table is wooden, has extension & c.; whereas the other table is mostly nothing, space between electrons, i.e., fields of force. How much sense does it make to speak about the one versus the other? (This paper was given rougly the same time as Husserl wrote our book)
How exact is exact enough? (Wittgenstein's question) E.g., were I to say, "stand roughly here [pointing]" versus saying, "stand right there [pointing at an X formed by two pieces of tape crossing on the ground] or even were I to say, "stand at local coordinate 45' 10" ssw" etc.--how useful is that? But use is not necessarily after what Husserl stalks.
Is the indirect mathematization--the plenum VS pure shape--that Husserl describes not really Manicheanism? Kantian dualism?
Cause = Formula?
We hear a little bit of Foucault, maybe, in Husserl's treatment of measurement giving intersubjective objectivity to geometric shapes. We could wonder about the technological's influence on the ontic validity of subjective space (via measurment and especially the drive-to-exactness) remembering well that the technological seems to be subjected to economical praxis, material, wealth & c.