"And so the wisdom of time had fallen away,
like so many leaves, but now to seem never again to grow as the sun set upon
the last age.
Yet perhaps might one last spark remain, a candle
in the darkness, flickering in the wind a faint soliloquy of whose whisper only
breath might tell the name."
1.
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.
Nietzsche would develop this concept much later
as the dice-throw; out of chaos and absolute chance the ontological determinant
emerges as a consequence of nothing but itself-becoming 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, this itself being the passage and falling away of the
critical edge of the time envelope.
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 virtuosity, and as such tend to
hold themselves in a higher regard despite the fact of the non-determination of
their being. Between the extremes lies the indeterminate field of the quantum,
and herein lies the ultimate choice, that is, how do we as a species understand
ourselves? And given this understanding, how do we calculate the mean, and how
do we correct its balance? It is this question, not the question of choice,
which must ultimately be answered.
From an ethical standpoint, this conclusion
negates the basis of prejudice and mandates the project of relief, that of
correcting the imbalance. On a
theoretical level, however, it still begs the question of the acausal
determination; if at the point of absolute chance causality itself fails then
there must be some deeper mechanism actuating the movement, and here the
question becomes whether cause interrupts chance or vise versa, and at what
point precisely the actuating force of the time envelope occurs.
At this point, the point of singularity, it could
only be a conscious intelligence which acts unseen, a solution which begs some
questions of its own. How can such an
intelligence act prior to actual knowledge?
Given the transitive nature of the time envelope, and assuming it is
situated in itself, such an intelligence would act upon the future without
prior knowledge of the future extant.
This paradox could be solved by positing the existence of some outside
source, God perhaps, but this in its absence of observable evidence would seem
to contradict the nature of intelligence, namely, the drive to discover and
grow. Furthermore, such an intelligence
would seem to contradict the very existence of the evolution of consciousness;
the existence of an absolute whole would contradict the process of the
development towards such an end.
A better solution is a teleological one. An evolving intelligence, immanent unto
itself, acts upon and is changed by an absolute substrate, properly
named the time substrate. Thus we
arrive at a more elegant conception of the whole and can now define the nature
of the adeterminate singularity. The
absolute exists as a substrate, while the adeterminate acts upon the substrate
governed by the law of absolute chance, yet it gains a determinism from the
substrate which, while in flux at all times, is yet governed by some
transcendent absolute principle. And
driving all of this is the inexorable flow of the time envelope which must act
according to some higher law.
2.
That the basis of this law would indicate an
ethical imperative seems to imply a particular condition of humanity, that it
itself is without law, or in a primal state.
Indeed, that humanity itself seems to defy this
higher law, or in the state of flesh, is somehow at odds with the formation of
an absolute, and thus requires the quantum: The substrate, Physis, finds itself
now at odds with the paradox of the Human; choice as being a condition of
chance, and this itself driving history as much as the weather, yet some order
emerging – we cannot help but to foresee already the tragic; it is the animal,
as much as the ego, intimating the emergence of humanity, or, in this
particular movement, the forming of a new substrate, upon the slate of organic
time, the substrate of the human, of the historic.
The deeper question, then, of an immanent
intelligence, not in the least raising the question of the nature of DNA, which
itself cannot but be an intelligence forming: The distinction, then of the
conscious, and the intelligent. What has
not been proven, is that they are one and the same, is Intellect/Ego aware of
itself, of its own cognitive movements, or is there a deeper ‘I’ seeing
through?
Intelligence, as an embedded process, not itself
self-aware, but simply operating by functions and principles.
The adeterminate singularity, then, as a function
of Intelligence, and choice, as a consequence, or the remainder of the calculation of the Conscious. As a purely human
determinism, the Intellect, the Ego, responding to the demands of the
underlying Consciousness, and this itself upon the time-substrate, the
resonating Physis which itself seems to demand an evolving complex of systems.
That Man finds himself the pinnacle of the
organic order, seems to lend itself to the imperatives of law: It is not a
moral order, but the walls of a bastion: Do I protect a city, or my soul? Aristotle might say perhaps, Both - the
fundamental imperative of law, being its own antithesis, driving then the
impulse of the order of Law – without the lack of order, order itself finds no
raison d’etre, it is chaos which drives the imperative of order, ergo, the
lawless, the criminal, necessitating law.
Or on an individual level, the problem of
psychology: That the Ego has failed in its primary function, and the chaos of
the primal emotive complex takes reign – Aristotle again, that the soul has
failed, but as a particularly humanistic concern, it is not an ‘I’ who has failed,
but rather, an entire system of resonancies, the point at which the singularity
(I Am) has been corrupted, and this again driving the imperative of correction.
3.
Returning to the adeterminate singularity, we
find in the very foundation of choice a quantum paradox, whose negation or
resolution solves the nature of choice, of will. It is this paradox which drives history,
acting both at the level of the singularity of ‘I,’ but more profoundly, the
consequent movement of the human substrate.
Whether intelligence is itself a resonance of a
deeper intelligence – the immanency of Being, of the Cosmos – is the last
remaining question, and the one which cannot be resolved except by its proof in
the historic. That the Physis, the
Earth, has given rise to the Human, is evident, that the Human is aware of
Physis, has emerged, but now, at a critical juncture we find Earth and Human at
odds, and in their codependency, yet at the same time conflict, we find the
final problem: If the Universe is sentient, aware, acting upon, then humanity
is but an emergent phenomenon, to be observed; yet, if we find a static Cosmos,
and ourselves alone responsible, the moral imperative becomes an absolute: that
we must correct the error, before it is too late, for lacking a hand of God, of
Physis, of Cosmos to intervene, the possibility that the singularity spins into
oblivion; the chaos of the foundry of creation gives rise only to its
destruction, as the human, ever-becoming towards its own ruin, continues along
this path, until ultimately there is nothing left.
And perhaps this, then, is the nature of faith:
faith in Man, faith in the Physis, faith in the singularity, that in its
endless calculations a solution is found, order restored, and ultimately, we
all live to see another age.
