the section in question is as mentioned in rachmaninoff’s
vocalise (op. 34 no. 14), first some symbology of numbers
in relation to kant’s thesis:

in a sequence
                                 (end)                                             (beginning)
                                           1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

   upon reaching 1 and
subsequently              0,

i find this to be unsatisfactory in terms of the kantian
equation 0 = negation,
unless there be an affirmation of non-negation, the use
of zero would have to take the form of coordinates,
thus the sequence would be as above but it would end
thus: (0, 0, 0) - given that the above sequence can be
seen a linear, given that it might reflect the essence time,
ending the sequence with 0 would only provide
“the end of time,” hence the need to change the whole
sequence ending with the other essence, space - and thus
the loss of negation, given from the beginning (0, 0, 0)
the following sequences are provide:
(1, 1, 1), (2, 2, 2), (3, 3, 3) (x, y, z), etc., which is the affirmation
i was looking for - movement in a three dimensional space,
the only other affirmative possibility is by ending the
sequence with ∞, which is transcendental positivism
aligned with ending the sequence with (0, 0, 0),
and not transcendental negativism of merely using 0;
nonetheless, this is my introductory fascination
as on offshoot of what is about to be translated
(i can't read philosophy in english, hence this translation
comes from a translation of german translated
into polish and now translated into english) -

antonyms of pure reason
the third conflict between transcendental ideas

                     thesis                                                  antithes­is
causality in agreement with the          freedom does not exist, yet
laws of nature isn't the only                 everything in the world happens
causality, from which all                      only according to the laws of
phenomena can be explained               nature.
in the world. for explaining them
it is also necessary to accept the
(self-accomplishing) causality
through freedom.

                    proof                              ­                                 proof
let us accept, that there is no other     accept, that freedom exists in a
causality other than the one in            transcendental understanding of
agreement with the laws of nature;    the word as a particular type of
thus everything, that is happening     causality, according to which
appropriates a preceding state, after  events in the world could take
which its next successive state is         place, namely the ability to begin
not sheltered from a certain rule.        in a way that's absolute of a
                                                              ­    certain state, and also in the
                                                                ­ same way, its series of successive
                                                     ­            *implications.