>>24527701
the proof of causality is still not valid under your interpretation.
according to your interpretation the rule used to order the event lies unconsciously in the imagination.
there is no reason the imagination cannot imagine something which is incoherent and then present that to us. my same criticisms still apply. if the rule lies in the unconscious, then since it is unconscious, there is no need for the rule to be coherent, as kants transcendental deduction only applies to consciousness and states that the coherence is a precondition for consciousness.