Zoran,
Hi. Nice essay! I'm not very well versed in Kant's philosophy, so a lot of your essay was over my head, but a couple of things really stood out that I agree with. I thought we'd have some agreements based on your comments at my essay. Anyways, my two comments are:
1. If I understood it correctly, you point out how all things, material and supposedly immaterial spring from a metaphysical fabric. I totally agree and would say this metaphysical fabric would be similar to what I called an "existent state" in my essay. The following quotes from your essay were very good!
"...we do not shy away from the certainty that all things truly immaterial, i.e. happenings, spring from material, cell and fabric. ...Nonetheless, in the following pages we present for judgement a hierarchy of "fabrics à priori" from which all things spring, even the subatomic phenomena described by the standard model of physics...."
"When it comes to things immaterial or without extension the word abstract has a place, but, apart from gravity and some loose threads in the standard model of physics, metaphysics is now concrete, and with cognitive mechanics the ethereal meaning of the word will be relegated to the side line, and the flights of fancy of mathematics also."
2. In your section on Separation, Aggregation and the Void, you suggest, I think, that the void performs two seemingly opposite functions and may be the basis from which the Cosmos springs? With this, I totally agree and have argued at my website and in a previous FQXi essay that the words "something" and "nothing" are two different names for the same underlying thing, the supposed complete lack-of-all. I argue that if we got rid of everything we could think of from our universe (all space, time, matter, volume, energy, matter, ideas/concepts, and minds), than what's left really isn't the lack of all existent states. Instead, the complete lack-of-all, in and of itself, defines the entirety of what is present, and as such is an existent state (similar to the null set). That is, our word "nothing" for this supposed lack-of-all is incorrect. We can never really have "nothin" because even the lack-of-all is an existent state. So, if we could think of the lack-of-all, or the void, in a slightly different way, we'd see that it's an existent state, or "something", and can be the existent state from which everything springs.
I'm not sure if you were getting at something similar, but it sounded a little bit along the same lines.
Well, it was a very good essay, and I agree with your main points.
Roger