From the experience in view of which they are postulated they receive at once the proof of their actuality and the material for their specification. We may now return to the question of the nature of the two deductions. The complex character of their interrelations may be outlined as follows: 1. Though the subjective deduction is in its later stages coextensive with its objective counterpart, in its earlier stages it moves wholly on what may be called the empirical level. The data which it analyses and the conditions which it postulates are both alike empirical. The objective deduction, on the other hand, deals from start to finish with the _a priori_. 2. The later stages of the subjective deduction are based upon the results of the objective deduction. The existence and validity of _a priori_ factors having been demonstrated by transcendental, _i.e._ logical, analysis, the subjective deduction can be extended from the lower to the higher level, and can proceed to establish for the _a priori_ elements what in its earlier stages it has determined for empirical consciousness, namely, the nature of the generative processes which require to be postulated as their ground and origin. When the two deductions are properly distinguished the objective deduction has, therefore, to be placed midway between the initial and the final stages of the subjective deduction. 3. The two deductions concentrate upon different aspects of experience. In the subjective deduction experience is chiefly viewed as a _temporal process_ in which the given falls apart into successive events, which, in and by themselves, are incapable of constituting a unified consciousness. The fundamental characteristic of human experience, from this point of view, is that it is _serial_ in character. Though it is an apprehension of time, it is itself also a process in time. In the objective deduction, on the other hand, the time element is much less prominent. Awareness of _objects_ is the subject-matter to which analysis is chiefly devoted. This difference very naturally follows from the character of the two deductions. The subjective enquiry is mainly interested in the conditions generative of experience, and finds its natural point of departure in the problem by what processes a unified experience is constructed out of a succession of distinct happenings. The objective deduction presents the logical problem of validity in its most striking form, in our awareness of objects; the objective is contrasted with the subjective as being that which is universally and necessarily the same for all observers. Ultimately each of the two deductions must yield an analysis of both types of consciousness--awareness of time and awareness of objects; _a priori_ factors are involved in the former no less than in the latter, and both are conditioned by generative processes. Unfortunately the manner in which this is done in the _Critique_ causes very serious misunderstanding.