[Common use of the term ‘free will’ shows that speakers do not readily distinguish between these two associations.
May I? gets confounded with can I?.
One question is theological. The other is practical.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[What about the potentials underlying the heart2?
‘Free will’ associates with the something that I may choose1V (and by comparison, with consciencespecified1V).
Does ‘free will’ also associate to the grounds of the exercises of the heart2H(1H)) (and by comparison, with ‘the potential inherent in me1H’)?
[When a locomotive engine breaks, there are so many issues to consider.
What is the problem? Is it the fuel? Is it the way that the fuel burns? Is it steam production? Is it the working of the steam piston? Is it the connection to the wheels? Why are the wheels turning to move the train? What am I going to do if I cannot move my goods to market?
Does that sound like the travails of a broken heart?]
[Let me imagine that a train is like the single actuality produced by an intersection of two actualities.
The vertical nested form exhibits something comparable to choosing or thinking.
This corresponds to the value that a locomotive adds.
The horizontal nested form portrays something comparable to turning potential energy into work.
This correspond to the transformation of fuel (desire) into work (effort).]
[Engines serve as a metaphor. Different engines work in different contexts. They serve different purposes. Consequently, they are comparable but not interchangeable.
Here, a locomotive serves as an example.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Is there a parallel between heart2 and what is good and what is bad2?
Yes, they both are modeled as an intersection.
No, they are supported by exclusive normal contexts. So, the actualities within each are different.
My choice2V and something (emerging from a potential in me)2H are not interchangeable with human thoughts2V and human actions2H, even though they may be compared.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[I can now expand the locations where the terms “sin”, “law” and “death” apply.
The sites are:
“Law” goes with ‘I, seat of choice3V’. “Law” goes with ‘lawessential3H(2’.
“Sin” goes with ‘the mirror of the world3H’ and ‘thought experiment3H’. “Sin” goes with “think3V”.]
