[henry quirk]

'Not free of, free to'

i don't see the distinction

to be 'free to' means one is 'free of <restraint>'

also: 'freedom', 'free', is not the same as agency

again: to 'be free', to have 'freedom', means -- to me, at least -- one is unrestrained

and we each are restrained: by our own flesh (the way reality works) at the least; by the esoterica of the culture (all the fictions foisted up on us) at the most

agency, on the other hand, is simply a placeholder for the very real exercise of choice, that is: choosing and doing

again: our choices and the actions extending from those choices are not unlimited...in fact: very often, our options are severely limited in both choice and action, and still we can -- must -- choose

'freedom' and 'free will' are, i think, the sphere of god (if it exists) while agency is for us, IS us


'take away freedom and you are no longer free to do what you wish'

indeed!

but as 'agent' (agency) even if shackled (made un-free) one can still choose and act...not always as one likes or wants, but, even the shackled man led to the gallows has the capacity to choose

such a man may only have the choice of whether to walk with a measure of dignity to death (and therefore 'own' the death), or, dissolve into a puking puddle begging for mercy (becoming a slave of the death), but he still has the capacity, the possibility, of choice

'freedom', again, is a nice idea, a useful fiction, but it's a fiction nonetheless

agency, which is the agent, which is the self-possessed individual, is real, demonstrable, and intuitively 'correct'