I tried to state my difficulty in finding the hyle as immanent datum, whereupon Husserl explained it in a way which would lead me — if I were consistent in using terms as before — to call it transcendent. It is somehow "out there". The objects, the (objective) aspects of the object, are given as the continuity in a multiplicity of hyletic Abschattungen 〈adumbrations〉. The latter are primarily hyletic, and have the quality of being class="EmphasisTypeItalic ">Abschattungen only by virtue of the continuity which runs through a group of them. This continuity is such as to constitute the basis for the perception of an enduring object, or object-aspect. The esse of the object is as a unity "in" such a multiplicity. "All" of the qualities of the hyletic stream do not "go into" the unity. E.g., variations in visual sensation which are correlated with variations in the focus of the eyes do not "go into" the color-form aspect of the object. The result is, for me, a readjustment of the sense in which objects are transcendent, and a concomitant widening of the extension of the term "immanent". What I had formerly taken to be the whole field of immanence did not contain what Husserl means by hyle. Thus it was small wonder that I did not find it there.