He therefore falsely inferred from the con tingency of our determination in accordance with the law the contin the law itself, and he confused going beyond the concept of a thing to possible experience (which takes place a priori and constitutes gency of the objective reality of the concept) with the synthesis of the objects of actual experience, which is of course always empirical; thereby, however, he made a principled of affinity, which has its seat in the understanding and asserts necessary connection, into a rule of association, which is found merely in the imitative imagination and which can present only contingent combinations, not objective ones at all.