objects of synthetic a priori judgments

Garlic starts with the premise of A=A (from Aristotle's first rule of logic or first initiating principle) is not tautological but ontological (and eventually argues that ontological A=A becomes the "ground" for quantum mechanics and theory). What this means is that Garlic delivers objects in the original context of "Metaphysics": The objects or "identity" of probable and possible "thingness" belongs to an "after physics" phenomena. If Aristotle wanted A=A to be tautological he would have used numerical identifier: 3=3, for example. But he didn't. Garlic, thus, stews in the premise that numbers and geometrical forms are not simple "objects" of consciousness. It could be thought from the Garlic point of perspective that arithmetic and geometry are more "building blocks in deliverance" than anything else. Numerical and geometrical "objectivity" therefore remains a continued process of revolving perception: they are the "moving parts" in a historical dialogue and, thus, a historical consciousness. The word "revolving" is used instead of "evolving" because the "perception" is something limited in an awareness that can only evolve from a part to the whole or from the whole to a part principle of initiation. (Parts and whole are equated to "finite" and "infinite" in a Garlic Cure found in a Tale of Ragout.) Some might say that when Garlic refers to arithmetic and geometry as "moving parts" there appears to be a revealed point of objective contention to or in their natures: Numbers and geometrical forms seem to appear independently of "one's" experience -- or they necessarily exist independent of "one's" consciousness. How does Garlic address this issue? Garlic delivers numbers and geometrical forms in a non-Cartesian story. There is a "difference".