{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02219233355749832, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008742434431741762, 'mean_word_length': 5.3319148936170215, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Sense of Postphenomenology

Edmund Husserl developed the phenomenological method of inquiry before it was known that the universe extended beyond the Milky Way, prior to the division of the atom, and before the conception of the first digital computer. Why should discoveries and innovations such as these however, be of importance to phenomenology, which understands itself as a priori strict science?1 This is one of the key questions concerning the division between phenomenology and postphenomenology, which I shall return to shortly in the following review. In Don Ihde’s three recent and relatively short books: Ironic Technics (2008), Postphenomenology and Technoscience: The Peking University Lectures (2009) and Embodied Technics (2010), the author takes the reader on a number of fascinating philosophical journeys in the borderlands between phenomenology and what he has coined postphenomenology. These three books belong to a series in progress, which Ihde has entitled Late Life Little Books (LLLB). Ihde’s LLLB experiment, alter and expanded upon the methods of inquiry and questions which he has worked on throughout his life as a philosopher. In the following review, I shall dedicate the most attention to the volume which samples Ihde’s lectures on postphenomenology at the Peking University, because of its programmatic character. I will also strive, however, to give a flavour of a number of arguments and insights presented in the various chapters of the other two