Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
[Ah, what about the prior models?
Free will is a term that belongs to both the intersections of ‘my heart2’ and ‘what is good and what is bad2’.
Free will associates to the potentials of each vertical axis, something that I may choose1V and conscience1V.
Similarly, free choice belongs to the single actuality of ‘my heart’2 and what is good and what is bad2.]
[What does this observation imply?
Did the word “free” shift within a changing symbolic order?]
Is there a difference between the terms free will and free choice?
Augustine wrote of a free will in contrast to a slave will, even though both retained free choice.
Anselm contrasted simple choice (arbitrium) and Christian liberty (libertas). This does not quite fit Augustine’s opposition of free and slave wills.
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
Scriptures tell of the ‘heart’. Church doctrine tells of ‘free will’.
In the pagan Greek and Roman world, the ‘heart’ had ‘free choice’ (libertum arbitrium).
So, the terms became confused.
[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?]
