|So, Kant inherited a view that was not familiar with the concept 'orthogonal' and instead, categorized a change in axes as a 'divide.'|
Mankind exists in the material world with or without deep intellectual or even any thought; that is what makes the concepts 'orthogonal'. (For example, purely reptilian thought is often sufficient for mankind to get by in the material world; "Can I eat it? Can it eat me?")
The difference is, with thought, mankind navigates the material world. Without thought, he simply exists in the material world, for as long as he might.
Movement along both axes-- the material world, the intellectual world -- is not impeded by any actual 'divide' other than one Kant imagined on the axis he imagined it on... The orthogonal nature of what is permissable on one axis, and what is permissable on the other, is pretty easy to comprehend.
Mankind is able to imagine on one axis that which cannot exist on the other. (Of course, what Mankind can do, not all men do.) Mankind is not free to imagine on one axis that which does not and cannot exist in reality -and- bring it into existence on the other axis. Such whimsies are restricted purely to the imaginative axis..but on that axis can exist freely. But mankind can and often does imagine things that do not exist but that can exist and so, as allowed because it is not activwely prevented-- brings them into existence on the other axis--by rearranging that which is into that which can be --but only if same passes the absolute filter of what is allowed in reality--including, changes to or extensions to those filters brought about by the same process. Bacon's observation.
What do you think was Kant's purpose, if any, in reinforcing the belief that this orthogonality was really a 'divide?' Was he trying to modify that inherited belief, reconcile it? Or, since his outcome was the opposite, was that in fact his intent?
A 'divide' requires a bridge of some type to cross, even if it is an imagined bridge. Orthogonalities require no such bridges-- movement on both axes is readily possible under the rules/laws of each, with no 'bridge' required, even an imagined one. So on what basis resuted Kant's reinforcement of a 'divide?'