Yes You can and You should I almost did when I came to a dead end I understand …
Focus.
The center is completeness.
There can be no absence.
Nihil is extra… dross. Sartre saw it destroys/adds nothing real.
Sounds like something lovebird would dance to.
But sweet sweet love, yes.
Thanks double seven oh.
Oh yes so true though enclosed within wider marginal parentheses. Being is within a shadow of a doubt preferable. It’s all energy the oil that lubricates romance.
And then some. Jesus was the maximal parenthesis; more than a footnote to Buddhist longing of joyful distracted attachments.
( if China wins this super duper power trip)
How did China get so off track?
…or not say, as the case may (well) be.
I’d call a truce, but pretty sure nobody cares (Spongebob DRAWs a rainbow) lol.
yawn
I have no idea…
_
I didn’t intend anything mean by it… that’s not my M.O… I save that for my siblings. 
A truce? whatever over…? I can’t say I noticed anything that it could be. 
I’m not on Spotify…
Jealousy?
Nah
Eeconomic goulash? May be.
Or more like it with a dash of perstroika thrown in …and other things like competing with India who in turn competes for Kashmir … and other tid bit delicacies.
That’s what I thought you said.
Two thumbs up.
I intuit this thread has very little to do with Kant.
It started out about Kant. Up to you where you go with it.
Sections of focus in Critique of Judgment: Introduction, sections III & IV, but also to the end of the intro. Judgment mediates via concepts of intuition.
Sections of focus in Critique of Pure Reason: I dunno… wherever it mentions analytic and synthetic judgments & pure intuition. I think he further develops his thoughts by the time he writes critique of judgment.
I’m about to jump into the categories in CPR.
Also in CPR - fourth paralogism of ideality (of outer relations)
Based on what you have said above, I don’t think you have grasped what Kant is saying yet. Kant influenced the whole modern trend toward subjectivism. Accordingly all perception is conditioned by the “faculty of reason” which is the brain. We don’t perceive anything as it is in itself. “A priori”versus “a posteriori” is not merely about things being new or old. Per Kant you can’t stand outside of this process and make judgements about how it works. To do that you’d have to stand outside of space, time and causality which are subjective projections of the process itself.
He has two ways of talking about time. In one sense he’s talking about simultaneity and succession or sequence. In another sense he’s talking about a single object underlying/outside/beyond/basic to the first sense.
Where did you get that? How does it relate to what you said in the OP or my last post? As I understand it, to Kant space, time and causality are all mind-dependent products of pure intuition.
I read the books… I gave some sections above.
We don’t create being (the supersensible substrate).