It's strange that when Husserl intiated phenomenology with the epoché, the 'bracketting away' of all the ontological anchoring of the 'natural attitude' - a sort of Cartesian doubt-lite - he was cavalierly dismissing the most interesting and mysterious aspect of experience - as if it was a simple modification of view which anyone would know how to carry out! - and condemning his followers to a sort of cross-eyed mental contortion - however cleverly they may have later attempted to restore said natural attitude by subsequently reassembling it from the other side. It could be argued that Heidegger's contribution was to attempt to reinvent phenomenology without the epoché - and then veering too far in the direction of worshipping being - but leaving that aside, it seems worth wondering just what it is that Husserl tried to bracket away, and why it seems on the face of it such a simple (indeed natural!) thing to do, in thought. Here it seems that it is not a matter of applying a thought to experience as if it were a filter, or something like a histologist's stain, but of a certain inner gesture. It is as if you had been leaning on something for support for so long that you had no awareness of doing so, and you were told to shift your weight slightly so as to feel it, but without relinquishing that support. What does the weight stand for in this analogy? Is it the coming together of a mass and a gravity? And why is it so natural in that it pervades all 'ordinary' experience? A sort of covert and immediate ascription of reality to the world out there - operational in every waking moment as a grounding taken-for-grantedness of the real. It doesn't matter whether the realm of being you concern yourself with is inner or outer, this odd twist of giving reality to it works in the same way. It is a gesture so habitual that we believe it to be indispensible, and yet it is only a gesture, a sepration from ourselves that we then seek to overcome, but only by failing to overcome it.