The ethical mean defined by Aristotle can properly be understood as a mathematical representation of the phenomenon of dichotomy, here describing

the polar opposites of good and evil, vice and virtue, and ultimately as the natural conclusions of these poles, death and life.

This being said, Aristotle himself, i.e. the existence of Aristotle as such, must be understood itself as an ontological phenomenon prior to the establishment of an understanding or critique of his thought. His thought as such being a consequence of his existence thus exhibits the tendency of its ontological condition, specifically, the mathematical precision of Greek thought and art. Thus the concept of aesthetic is implied a priori and as such is invoked as a determination of moral truth, truth as such being understood to relate to beauty and thus pleasure and the survivability of the species.

What is not proven, however, is the notion of choice, which being governed by circumstance cannot be properly situated as an absolute. Indeed, the condition of virtue as understood by Aristotle, and its consequent contentment of living, could be better understood as a consequence of good fortune rather than any particular choice.

Thus we find that choice as such is less an absolute than a consequence of the nature of chance, and more a quantum phenomenon. The determination of ethics and morality favors a select few whose condition has allowed for the development of

that of correcting the imbalance. and at what point precisely the actuating force of the time envelope occurs. which must ultimately be answered. and how do we correct its balance? It is this question.virtuosity. On a theoretical level. how do we calculate the mean. mediating the movement from flux to determination this itself at the passage and falling away of the critical edge of the time envelope. how do we as a species understand ourselves? And given this understanding. and here the question becomes whether cause interrupts chance or vise versa. this conclusion negates the basis of prejudice and mandates the project of relief. Between the extremes lies the indeterminate field of the quantum. and perhaps take for granted their condition despite the fact of the non-determination of their being. out of chaos and absolute chance the ontological determinant emerges as a consequence of nothing but itselfbecoming of itself. a causal determination would fail to constrain the phenomenon and in this field of adeterminate probability an outcome solidifies into being at the point of absolute necessity. if at the point of absolute chance causality itself fails then there must be some deeper mechanism actuating the movement. Nietzsche would develop this concept much later as the dicethrow. however. the shades of grey in whose existence the dialectic of ethics situates itself. From an ethical standpoint. that is. and herein lies the ultimate question. it still begs the question of the acausal determination. not the question of choice. . a quantum phenomenon acting unseen at the point of quasiabstraction.

exists as a becoming-Now. but this in its absence of observable evidence would seem to contradict the nature of intelligence. while in constant flux. is yet governed by some transcendent absolute principle. a foci of resonance in the field of chance resulting in the formation of a definable outcome. This paradox could be solved by positing the existence of some outside source. immanent unto itself. such a being would seem to contradict the very existence of the evolution of consciousness. At this point. perhaps there is a conscious intelligence. the point of singularity. Being-manifest. namely. acts upon the substrate of reality. yet it gains a determinism from the substrate which. A prior determination is rendered impossible. And . thus necessitating the contemplation of Dasein. and assuming it is situated in itself. the existence of an absolute whole would contradict the process of the development towards such an end. the force of Being. How can such an intelligence act prior to actual knowledge? Given the transitive nature of the time envelope. while the adeterminate acts upon the substrate governed by the law of absolute chance. a solution which begs some questions of its own. ontology thus being a project of the dice-throw and of the attempt at determination in the field of resonance echoing the intimations of Being. God perhaps. the singularity. The absolute exists as a substrate. Thus we arrive at a more elegant conception of the whole and can now define the nature of the adeterminate singularity (Dasein). Furthermore. the drive to discover and grow. A better solution is a teleological one. An evolving intelligence. such an intelligence would act upon the future without prior knowledge of the future extant.To invoke Heidegger. as being Dasein.

perpendicular to the prime axis. and ultimately that of the species. undertaken in a condition always-already finding itself. Not a choice. that Truth finds in its absolution the primordial One. So the question becomes a dialectic between Dasein and the cosmic. but a palace. becoming itself. echoed by Dasein. The project of ontology. . an alchemy of chance driving a reaction of determinations and differentiations with the goal of transcendence and transmutation.driving all of this is the inexorable flow of the time envelope which must act according to some more profound vibration. the dawn of a new age. a calculation rendered by time and the implicit necessity of Dasein's own project. discovering itself. between the chaos of chance and the order of determination. as Nietzsche suggested. the hopes of the ages that upon the statues of giants we build not a farce. perhaps to attain a state of completion at the ontological One. between being and Being. but a process. and that ultimately we find in humanity the beauty to reach the next day.