Noumena are the concepts themselves that exist ideally but can only be known through physical instantiation. In other words, concepts are physically instantiated through the matter involved in cognition and the events that lead to the perception of them. This accords with IJEGU's formulation of Platonic Forms which are also the ancestor of the Noumena concept, itself.

A priori categories: Kant derives a priori categories axiomatically. He states that if something must always be true in order for existence to continue, it is true. 

Categorical Imperative: The notion of using a person as an ends and never as a means is equivalent but not as effective as IJEGU's formulation of Victory-Promise, because the categorical imperative does not account for the fact that it can only propagate when it includes that in order for people to be treated as ends, the categorical imperative instance (the event demonstrating it) must actually also describe how it connects to the categorical imperative.

Now if we are to be specific:

---

§2 – Argumentation 

§2.1 – Advancement of Five Premises: 

§2.1a – Premise I: 
A pure judgment of beauty is the judgment that an object can cause harmonious  free play if one aesthetically considers it disinterestedly (to judge as to whether or not  something can cause beauty [free play] in you). Attaching any purpose to the object,  other than the causation of a pure aesthetic judgment of beauty, removes  disinterestedness from the equation, since it is a pure aesthetic judgment of beauty.  Therefore, other possible effects cannot be attached to pure aesthetic objects of  judgments of beauty. Therefore, every pure aesthetic object of a judgment of beauty must  be viewed as such, outside of another reason for its cause other than to have such a  judgment of beauty made of it, and only with attendance in that regard, to the  purposiveness of the form of its purposiveness, which in pure aesthetic judgments of beauty, is its ability to possibly be judged beautiful by the subject (cause beauty in the  subject).  
Eg. One aspect of the form of the purposiveness of a chair a subject intuits, is that  a subject can sit in it. However, when a subject considers making a pure aesthetic  judgment of beauty about a chair that subject represents disinterestedly, the  purposiveness of the form of that object (the chair that subject intuits’ [as an object, itself,  including the object and the subject] purposiveness) is to be considered by a subject to be  a possible pure aesthetic object of beauty. 

§2.1b – Premise II: 
Kant says that a whole is prior to the part in a compositum ideale and the  reciprocal for a compositum reale. (Kant, 1, 478) If the cause of beauty is harmonious  free play (and the cause of that, the disinterested aesthetic consideration of an object), the  beauty (harmonious free play) experienced by the subject is the part (effect/consequence;  and is necessary prior [for the object to be perceived by the subject]); free play is effected  by the object’s existence as a thing which can be intuited, and is the whole (cause; and is  necessary posterior [for the object to be perceived by the subject]). Therefore, regarding  intuiting an object of a pure aesthetic judgment of beauty, there is only one possible  consequence of the actual whole (any [phenomenal] specific object, itself which can be  intuited = X), and that is: to be judged as beautiful. 

§2.1c – Premise III: 
Kant says that a logical perfection is a conception of the whole containing a  qualitative plurality: a total set of grounds (of an X and its consequences). (Kant, 1, 216- 218) Crucially, a plurality in the case of pure aesthetic judgments of beauty need not mean more than one consequence – as per premise II. Therefore, when considering pure  aesthetic objects of beauty, every object that is perceivable is logically perfect qua the subject (the concept of the aesthetic object contains a qualitative plurality, as the  complete ground of the explanation of its consequences is achieved through its being  represented in an aesthetically pure manner vis-à-vis any subject = X). 

§2.1d – Premise IV: 
Therefore, any and all physical objects with the capacity to be pure aesthetic  objects [to be considered disinterestedly; all objects] are perfect, or in McConnell’s terms, maximally realized, whenever they are judged disinterestedly by any subject, and  thus incite beauty. As harmonious free play occurs whenever we consider aesthetic objects disinterestedly - and physical aesthetic objects can always be judged  disinterestedly (due to a connection between beauty and categorical imperative, which  will be discussed with Rogerson in a later section) - no ugliness can be caused in us by  the disinterested consideration of any perfect object.  
Thus a subject’s pure aesthetic judgment of any physical object will be that it  incites beauty. Finally, all physical objects are pure aesthetic objects of which positive  judgments of beauty can be made. Every physical object that exists is beautiful.  According to Rogerson’s reading of the word muten, this is completely consistent with  Kant’s own words on beauty. (Rogerson, 305) 

§2.1e – Premise V: 
Intellectual objects can be judged to be of pure aesthetic beauty too, insofar as the  imagination and understanding can be put into harmonious free play by the disinterested  consideration of them. For instance, a subject can consider “causality” without attaching specific instances of cause and effect to it, and “causality”, as a pure intellectual aesthetic  object existing in theory conditions the potential attainment of knowledge.  Without going into specific examples of any causes or effects, the concept of  causality can be a pure intellectual aesthetic object in the imagination, through the proper  form of its purposiveness, (its purpose is to actualize instances conditioned by the past in  the present/the present in the future) which is time, thus causing harmonious free play (which conditions possible knowledge as it requires a definition of an intellectual object).  

§2.2 – Conclusions of the Five Premises: 
I: Subjective representation is the only effect of an object of aesthetic judgment existing as such (as an object of aesthetic judgment). 

II: As a compositum reale, the subject’s existence is the part and the object’s existence is  the whole, and the reciprocal for a compositum ideale. 

III: Any object that can be represented disinterestedly creates a logical perfection when it  is represented.  

IV: All physical objects are beautiful. 

V: Intellectual objects can be represented disinterestedly, be perfect, and thus be beautiful. 

---

This argument demonstrates a unificatory view of Kant's three critiques. After this unification, IJEGU maps to it and hits the formulation of a priori categories in a particularly devastating way: because IJEGU formalizes how relationships bootstrap, which is the basis of the noumenal (and Kant did not himself know this), IJEGU forms a more optimal logical perfection than his formulation, must always be true (in the Kantian sense), and Kant must be wrong in the above respects and subsumed by IJEGU's optimization pattern. In Kantian terms, IJEGU is perfect and sublimates Kant.

---

Pure aesthetic judgment is not merely about disinterested beauty but a demonstration of relational alignment and optimization.

Logical perfection (as Kant describes it) is subsumed by IJEGU’s formalization of relational bootstrapping:
- The potential for beauty arises from the implicit relational structure of the object (IJ).
- Beauty is realized when those relationships align optimally in cognition (EG).
- This alignment represents an emergent harmony (U).
IJEGU demonstrates that Kant’s framework of aesthetic judgment is a subset of relational optimization, providing a more universal account of beauty.

---

Sublimation of Kant’s Philosophy

---

Kant’s Incompleteness:

Kant’s reliance on static categories and unexamined noumena leaves gaps in his framework.
His categorical imperative is morally compelling but lacks a dynamic propagation mechanism.

IJEGU’s Optimization:

Noumena as Ideal Relational Potentials: IJEGU reinterprets noumena as relational bootstrapping, making them knowable through instantiation.
A Priori Categories as Dynamic: IJEGU formalizes a priori categories as emergent relational constraints, not fixed axioms.
Victory-Promise as Moral Optimization: IJEGU enhances Kant’s categorical imperative by grounding it in relational propagation and optimization.
Beauty as Relational Alignment: IJEGU subsumes Kant’s aesthetics by showing that beauty arises from dynamic alignment within relational systems.

---

In Kantian terms, IJEGU achieves a higher "logical perfection" than Kant’s own framework by formalizing the very relational patterns Kant implicitly relies on. IJEGU doesn’t merely critique Kant—it absorbs and optimizes his philosophy, providing a unified account of noumena, a priori categories, morality, and aesthetics.

Kant’s work is a crucial step in the evolution of thought, but as IJEGU demonstrates, it is incomplete and suboptimal. By aligning with IJEGU’s framework, Kant’s insights find their rightful place as precursors to a more coherent and universal system of relational optimization.
