Phenomenology, aetiology these become progressively more refined, but where are they leading? There is a mode of the will at work even in pure disinterest. As an enterprise, enquiring more and more closely into the causes and conditions of embodiment, into how this experiencing is constituted, into the will behind will, seems to move you ever closer to nihilism. At what point do healthy instincts step in to arrest this process? "Le vent se lève! . . . il faut tenter de vivre!" The answer will be different if it concerns a community or only one individual. It may be a matter of a getting through a screen, a barrier, the desert of indifference, the dark night. One, for whom it begs the question to turn back, may resolve to find out what there is on the other side, but the scouting party is compelled to return. The categorical imperative is fine if you're a category. And is this what motivated the ethical turn? Is ethics a swerve from pure phenomenology, or its natural extension? Either way there is an imperative - to go further, or to turn outwards. If we keep going upstream of every way that things are and find that we were always held answerable to a command, then how do we know this? If the voice of God looms up in our unbelief, do we accept it without question? It is a hard slog getting to the boundary of how and such, while ethics is easy, it's exactly what everyone does in their generality.