Great post. K.'s four insights are noteworthy. One imagines such a one who says: I've known nothing of you, from well before I ever met you. Such a one, evidently, comports a history. In my own post history, for instance, there is a reference I made, earlier today, to Korsgaard, and not to Kierkegaard. And yet, I had revisited Kierkegaard maybe a week ago, and had some points I had to work through before putting down his writing. And here he arrives, again, in your post. Repetition is like that; one experiences again things that one had packed away into a sack and put up in a closet or shipped as cargo. So it's all in the air, this "Kierkegaard" stuff. His point has to do, not merely with repetition (as the literary poets, such as Ovid, could attest to what is latter known as "Ovidian" Repetition), but with Kierkegaardian Repetition. Perhaps there is repetition for each: a /u/blazing-truth repetition, a /u/ConclusivePostscript repetition. Wait, I thought it was conclusive. For Korsgaard, of course, we live in such a human "kingdom of ends" - and yet, Kierkegaard went askance of this. How? He had no jury, and yet he suggests there is an intermediate court: Regine. "Yes, there is – that I do not have her forgiveness; and she is and remains an intermediate court, a legitimate court, that must not be bypassed..." So Korsgaard has the jury instructions, and Kierkegaard has none. But why couldn't he say: I was born guilty? Why guilty or not guilty? He could not make himself understandable to her. Does this mean innocence is somehow demonstrated (before God)? Through understanding? He was a zealot, to be sure: and yet the terms of this contract did not work in Regine's case. He was a formalist, that Kierkegaard. He was firmly swayed by this one thing, that had absolutely nothing to do with her. He was self-constituted, obviously, and so Korsgaard's argument involving the sources of normative values is moot. He's writing it out, but what on Earth has he written?