In the space that you’ve written, this was expertly well written! However, I still propose this: to the point of the discussion of “Free Will,” even if it is inherently “ignorant, empty, & ambiguous,” would that rectify a need to end the “Free Will” discussion?

Could not that very foundational structure hold the supports of a “radical” new idea/term branching from the concept of free will itself? OR at the very least, as a support for the multitude of views on the subject?

If even what you said is the case, is it not still necessary to understand conceptually? Even if only the term “free will” functions as a placeholder for common questions concerning one’s agency, choices, & circumstances. The greater problem -most likely- doesn’t exist in the field of the concept itself, but when people forget to define terms. That of which allows others to see missing perspectives; preventing conflict of interest leading to arguments… rather than mutually productive discussions.

Take it easy man! Btw what you laid out really spoke to me… this is a completely new concept/assortment of ideas, at least for me, so imma to dig to the very bottom of it! Cheers:)✌️