Now that alone determines the position of another thing in time
which is the cause of it or of its determinations。 Consequently
every substance （inasmuch as it can have succession predicated of it
only in respect of its determinations） must contain the causality of
certain determinations in another substance； and at the same time
the effects of the causality of the other in itself。 That is to say；
substances must stand （mediately or immediately） in dynamical
munity with each other； if coexistence is to be cognized in any
possible experience。 But； in regard to objects of experience； that
is absolutely necessary without which the experience of these
objects would itself be impossible。 Consequently it is absolutely
necessary that all substances in the world of phenomena； in so far
as they are coexistent； stand in a relation of plete munity of
reciprocal action to each other。
The word munity has in our language* two meanings； and contains
the two notions conveyed in the Latin munio and mercium。 We
employ it in this place in the latter sense… that of a dynamical
munity； without which even the munity of place （munio spatii）
could not be empirically cognized。 In our experiences it is easy to
observe that it is only the continuous influences in all parts of
space that can conduct our senses from one object to another； that the
light which plays between our eyes and the heavenly bodies produces
a mediating munity between them and us； and thereby evidences their
coexistence with us； that we cannot empirically change our position
（perceive this change）； unless the existence of matter throughout
the whole of space rendered possible the perception of the positions
we occupy； and that this perception can prove the contemporaneous
existence of these places only through their reciprocal influence； and
thereby also the coexistence of even the most remote objects… although
in this case the proof is only mediate。 Without munity； every
perception （of a phenomenon in space） is separated from every other
and isolated； and the chain of empirical representations； that is；
of experience； must； with the appearance of a new object； begin
entirely de novo； without the least connection with preceding
representations； and without standing towards these even in the
relation of time。 My intention here is by no means to bat the
notion of empty space； for it may exist where our perceptions cannot
exist； inasmuch as they cannot reach thereto； and where； therefore； no
empirical perception of coexistence takes place。 But in this case it
is not an object of possible experience。
*German。
The following remarks may be useful in the way of explanation。 In
the mind； all phenomena； as contents of a possible experience； must
exist in munity （munio） of apperception or consciousness； and in
so far as it is requisite that objects be represented as coexistent
and connected； in so far must they reciprocally determine the position
in time of each other and thereby constitute a whole。 If this
subjective munity is to rest upon an objective basis； or to be
applied to substances as phenomena； the perception of one substance
must render possible the perception of another； and conversely。 For
otherwise succession； which is always found in perceptions as
apprehensions； would be predicated of external objects； and their
representation of their coexistence be thus impossible。 But this is
a reciprocal influence； that is to say； a real munity
（mercium） of substances； without which therefore the empirical
relation of coexistence would be a notion beyond the reach of our
minds。 By virtue of this mercium； phenomena； in so far as they
are apart from； and nevertheless in connection with each other；
constitute a positum reale。 Such posita are possible in many
different ways。 The three dynamical relations then； from which all
others spring； are those of inherence； consequence； and position。
These； then； are the three analogies of experience。 They are nothing
more than principles of the determination of the existence of
phenomena in time； according to the three modi of this
determination； to wit； the relation to time itself as a quantity
（the quantity of existence； that is； duration）； the relation in time
as a series or succession； finally； the relation in time as the
plex of all existence （simultaneity）。 This unity of determination
in regard to time is thoroughly dynamical； that is to say； time is not
considered as that in which experience determines immediately to every
existence its position； for this is impossible； inasmuch as absolute
time is not an object of perception； by means of which phenomena can
be connected with each other。 On the contrary； the rule of the
understanding； through which alone the existence of phenomena can
receive synthetical unity as regards relations of time； determines for
every phenomenon its position in time； and consequently a priori；
and with validity for all and every time。
By nature； in the empirical sense of the word； we understand the
totality of phenomena connected； in respect of their existence；
according to necessary rules； that is； laws。 There are therefore
certain laws （which are moreover a priori） which make nature possible；
and all empirical laws can exist only by means of experience； and by
virtue of those primitive laws through which experience itself bees
possible。 The purpose of the analogies is therefore to represent to us
the unity of nature in the connection of all phenomena under certain
exponents； the only business of which is to express the relation of
time （in so far as it contains all existence in itself） to the unity
of apperception； which can exist in synthesis only according to rules。
The bined expression of all is this： 〃All phenomena exist in one
nature； and must so exist； inasmuch as without this a priori unity； no
unity of experience； and consequently no determination of objects in
experience； is possible。〃
As regards the mode of proof which we have employed in treating of
these transcendental laws of nature； and the peculiar character of
we must make one remark； which will at the same time be important as a
guide in every other attempt to demonstrate the truth of
intellectual and likewise synthetical propositions a priori。 Had we
endeavoured to prove these analogies dogmatically； that is； from
conceptions； that is to say； had we employed this method in attempting
to show that everything which exists； exists only in that which is
permanent… that every thing or event presupposes the existence of
something in a preceding state； upon which it follows in conformity
with a rule… lastly； that in the manifold； which is coexistent； the
states coexist in connection with each other according to a rule…
all our labour would have been utterly in vain。 For more conceptions
of things； analyse them as we may； cannot enable us to conclude from
the existence of one object to the existence of another。 What other
course was left for us to pursue？ This only； to demonstrate the
possibility of experience as a cognition in which at last all
objects must be capable of being presented to us； if the
representation of them is to possess any objective reality。 Now in
this third； this mediating term； the essential form of which
consists in the synthetical unity of the apperception of all
phenomena； we found a priori conditions of the universal and necessary
determination as to time of all existences in the world of
phenomena； without which the empirical determination thereof as to
time would itself be impossible； and we also discovered rules of
synthetical unity a priori； by means of which we could anticipate
experience。 For want of this method； and from the fancy that it was
possible to discover a dogmatical proof of the synthetical
propositions which are requisite in the empirical employment of the
understanding； has it happened that a proof of the principle of
sufficient reason has been so often attempted； and always in vain。 The
other two analogies nobody has ever thought of； although they have
always been silently employed by the mind；* because the guiding thread
furnished by the categories was wanting； the guide which alone can
enable us to discover every hiatus； both in the system of
conceptions and of principles。
*The unity of the universe； in which all phenomena to be
connected； is evidently a mere consequence of the admitted principle
of the munity of all substances which are coexistent。 For were
substances isolated； they could not as parts constitute a whole； and
were their connection （reciprocal action of the manifold） not
necessary from the very fact of coexistence； we could not conclude
from the fact of the latter as a merely ideal relation to the former
as a real one。 We have； however； shown in its place that munity
is the proper ground of the possibility of an empirical cognition of
coexistence； and that we may therefore properly reason from the latter
to the former as its condition。
4。 THE POSTULATES OF EMPIRICAL THOUGHT。
1。 That which agrees with the formal conditions （intuition and
conception） of experience； is possible。
2。 That which coheres with the material conditions of