Ongoingly unfolding your understanding of what is there, and of what you can feel, and of what you can do, where do you encounter the ethical imperative? Kant was surely right that whatever you do is already understood in relation to the principles defining that action, and these principles are what they are because in action you are substitutable, you are anyone whatever. But in acting it is really only the principles in principle that are needed, and in practise there are many different ways to fit a principle to an action. To choose one of them is already to have made an ethical decision and in doing so you are again in the situation of being called, of encountering a demand to choose, and choose now, to choose, like Adam, once and for all - you are in the situation of your paradoxical freedom. In explicating your constituting processes you move from multiplicity to oneness, and in the process freedom is one of the first things that you give up; but when you make the ethical turn you move back from oneness to duality. In getting to oneness you have been fighting against the current of your own and of the world's conditioning, which is supremely difficult; ethics on the other hand, no matter how great the sacrifice asked, is a surrender to those currents. It is not enough to try to forge an ethics of the difficult, it is ambiguous and at best leads to a warriors ethic which does not generalise. Perhaps the best you can do is to resolve to accept the consequences of your experiments in truth, which does.