That’s on reason I put “awareness” first.
I mean, we can’t “perceive”, “think”, or “study” without awareness.
And awareness of awareness (which gives a sot of “positive pattern matching” sensation/feeling) is the first evaluation, the first (presupposed) certainty, the first affirmation, the first “true”/“truth”, and thus first “knowledge/knowing”, so to say.
It’s the starting point of logic and study of anything.
And it’s the first attachment (a.k.a. love), in a way, too.
So, it seems that awareness (with the awareness of awareness) is the back born of “philo-sophy”, and the first foundation to base other hypothesis and thoughts and studies.
Or, from the other way around, to examine the awareness, we only need the awareness of awareness. We can eliminate all other studies and thoughts and logic (and pre-logic) used for them.
Does “phenomenology” sufficiently deal with awareness?
To me, the awareness “itself” is required, first.
And it’s like we need to open our eyes before to see things (=perception) and recognize objects (=cognition) and compare/evaluate them and study relations and more about the incoming information (=study of something, “somethingology”).
So, “phenomenology” being one of “study”, it may come later.
By observing how our awareness is, in the density, shape, focus, and so on, which isn’t necessarily easy nor evident for many, we can start to have the foundation of logic (in broader sense) in the sense of comparison/evaluation of focus of awareness.
With logic, we can study anything we are interested, attracted, as we know how to compare, measure, and evaluate in many ways, adopting different perspectives (focuses of awareness) as needed/preferred.
The rest depends on the motivation, desire, fear, etc of each person, associated with one’s preferences and beliefs, I’d say. It’s more or less tribal.
And which “study” (other than the study of awareness by awareness) should be prioritized would be dictated by the desired goal of the given person.