This chapter defines the basic method of reflection on one's own or a general instance of being conscious to produce the raw data for further methods of eidetic idealisation and conclusion. Below are assembled definitive remarks on how to make the raw data for careful consideration of ideals about potentially universal aspects of the relationship between forms of being aware about objects. The topics discussed over the next two chapters enable readers to practice the basic method and make universal ideal conclusions. The sequence of topics below starts with reflection. The reflecting ego attends to what appears so that it can make higher objectified senses of the meanings that it sees and identify the differences between them: In the technical language of 1913, what appears to reflection is Erlebnis, conscious experience of an experiential whole of the intentional correlation between noesis and noema (II, 6–7, 13, 75, III, 83–84, 265). Setting aside the action of retentional consciousness and its non-objectifying presencing (explained in chapter 7) objective awareness is divided into three parts: The meaningful object is primarily constituted by its noetic-form (III, 172, 203), so constituting meaningful noematic content (III, 94, 280–281), in reference to an object (III, 206, 266–267, 271–273, 278–280, 286–289, 295–297) that accrues or integrates across time (III, 298). Reflective attention can turn towards either the object or the noeses but either way, intentional analysis specifies the morphology of parts and wholes that it sees. The high amount of detail in the original justifies starting a new academic discipline. The chapter provides explanations concerning the most fundamental egoic work of becoming aware and reflecting on noetic-noematic data in a way that improves the initial pre-reflexive understanding of the differences between forms of consciousness and specifies the manifold of meanings of being in an intersubjective context. The explicit account earns the use of the word "rigour" where it is ultimately possible to specify how intersubjective objectivity in culture, society and History accrues across time and the perspectives therein.