This time, only moving freedom's indespensable elemental conditions is deal with, with symmetrical freedom's mention.

Originally at the beginning of this propositional series at Part1, I mentioned that large extent area could not move so easily, toward it, very narrowed presenxce as smaller thing with insect or so can easily move, that propositional premise was my first questioning submission.

Then, crust change could be embodied at relatively narrowed estate's space's transition, but probably the spatially largest country Russia's whole territory could never do so, that could be true, spatially major extent condition means another dimension toward our regarding freedom. In other words, for larger extent flat field's spatial substance's modus ponens could be regarded as irrelevant with freedom's characteristic composite aspect.

These factual physically regarded phenomenal standards are evidencing that our usage of meaning of being free must need minor powerful degree, and necessarily that micro individual could need freedom necessarily, thus e.g. Russia's totalized space extent is not relevant with freedom's aspect. that is simply only present.
In other words, being free in definitive regard means minor extent presence and additionally that definable meaning must need smaller spatially extent presence and relatively suitable for locomotion.

These inspected data show us like next definitive mechanism.

✡Being capably arbitrarily moving must need that moving will, intention and wanting, in other words, mind.

✡Originally definition of freedom is not applicable for only being, and just being present.
In other words, "freedom" as being free must be defined or mean subjective actuation in moving or acting will or intention.

AND AT LEAST FOR US, FIELD, SPACE MUST NEED MOVING PHENOMENA, CHANGING ASPECT.(If that moving substance or presence could not be there, filed's aspect must never be composed)

✡NEVERTHELESS, WE COULD REGARD NOT MOVING SPATIALLY IN NO TRANSITING OR LOCOMOTION AS SOME NECESSARY FIELD✽. E.G. OUR BRAIN'S THINKING NEEDS NO SPACE TRANSITION.(e.g. delibarating field)

FREEDOM MUST INCLUDE MOVING IT AND NOT MOVING IT, and these mutually are sustainable. Symmetrical relevance is necessary at composing condition to be free.
THAT MEANS, ONE INTEGRAL CONCEPT MEANS AMBIVALENT. FREEDOM IS UNEXCEPTIONAL.

In conclusion, next simple conceptual interpretation must be composed.

In other words, physically necessary field and not physically nessary field must exist.
Former is space by itself and latter is our mind.
SPATIALLY MOVING FREEDOM, and SPATIALLY NOT MOVING FREEDM exist.

In terms of latter it, next truth could be composed.

That means necessarily paradoxically that freedom in realizing physically must need not moving nor not willingly, nor intentionally moving as just materiality attending substance.
That substant nature must not be mindful only being nature.(e.g. room, hotel, park or so)

In other words, space by itself means field and that to some extent means objectivity.
Meanwhile, subjective regarded substance must need freedom, that definitive meaning must need condition of necessity in moving, movable substance and with these conditions that could make transition and locomotion.
Nevertheless we need another freedom not moving but thinking by brain, mind.

This time ends there, but from next part on, we'd address to this time submitted prososition's formulated or equated order in systematic and mechanical aspect, at more neatly arranged with diagram and equation.
(to be continued)

Nov. 28th.     2021