Eleutheric constraints!

From an online source:

http://yessenin-volpin.org/onthelogic.pdf

I appreciate the attempt to disambiguate 'free' by sticking with the Greek, 'eleutheric'"

"By the term ‘freedom1’ (svoboda) [Since there are no English terms which
convey the contrast of svobodny and vol’ny, subscripts will be used: ‘free1’ and ‘free2’] I mean the quality of acts of not being obstructed, i.e., impeded by obstacles; I call such act free1 (svobodny).

I call an activity free1 if in any of its situations every one of its acts is free1, etc. I call an agent free1 if his activity is free1.

In this way the term ‘freedom1’ signifies a quality of both an action and an agent.

In this case, in particular, ‘obstacles’ are understood as eventual obstacles.

The organic possibility of an act or an activity is compatible with the presence
of an eventual obstacle which will not be realized. Therefore one may have the
possibility of performing unfree1 acts and carrying on an unfree1 activity.
An activity encountering obstacles is not free1, but if these obstacles are
overcome, a wider activity, including overcoming these obstacles within it, may be
free1.

A free1 act can be compelled. This often happens since a person compelling an
act usually does not obstruct this act and may even eliminate obstacles.

I call the quality of an act’s not being compelled its freedom (vol’nost) and the
activity consisting only of free2 (vol’ny) acts free2,— in which case I ignore
compulsions deriving from the requirements of the activity itself (i.e., describing its tactics). I call an agent free2 if his activity is free2 and if, in addition, he has not been
compelled to choose it. I call this capacity in an agent his freedom2.

A free2 act may be unfree2 , and the same is true of an activity or agent.
Ordinary language uses these terms inconsistently, creating a powerful obstacle
to their correct usage.

"Therefore, a term is needed designating the combination of
freedom1 and freedom2."

"I will designate this combination by the Greek word
e/eutheria, and I will call acts, activities, and agents which are both free1 and free2 eleutheric."

"Even this term is not felicitous in all respects. I call the absence of obstacles to
the opposite act the independence of an act (understanding opposites as a pair of acts
[A, not-A]—not-not-A-acts can usually be identified with A; in the contrary case the
question becomes more complicated)."

"I will call an act which possesses this property
independent, an activity made up only of independent acts independent, and I will call
the doer (agent) of an independent activity independent if the very choice of the
activity is independent for him or if this activity is not selected by him and he did not
have obstacles to prevent his selecting it."

"Acts compelled by the rules of an activity
(including rules of external activities) are not considered as obstacles here.
Independence is certainly a narrower quality than freedom2 (i.e., an independent act
must he free2, etc.)."

"Sometimes it is convenient to consider ‘eleutheria’ as the
combination of freedom1 and independence."

"I prefer to call this eleutheria in the
narrower sense, keeping the previous meaning for eleutheria."

"Morality can be established for the most varied purposes."

"It may he as hostile to
the freedom1 and freedom2 of an activity as one could wish."

And so on.