In summarizing chapter four, I suggested that difficulties in Gurwitsch's interpretation of Husserl, difficulties concerning the categorial differences between perceptual noemata and perceived objects and concerning the relationship between perceptual appearances (noemata) and the perceived object (the noematic system), could be overcome only by denying Gurwitsch's claim concerning the identity of the noema and the intended object or by redefining the relationship between noemata and the object. In chapter four, I have argued that the former fails as an interpretation of Husserl, since Husserl does in fact adopt the view that the noema is the object precisely as intended and that the innermost moment of the noema, the determinable "X" is the formally characterized, identical, intended object itself.