A LITTLE INCREASED PRECISION ON MY USE OF ‘AGENCY’ I preserve both real and idea

A LITTLE INCREASED PRECISION ON MY USE OF ‘AGENCY’

I preserve both real and ideal definitions of truth, and so the source of confusion is my deflation of truth into real and ideal terms (truthfulness, and truth proper/ideal truth) and not doing so with agency (agency in fact, and ideal agency) and assuming the reader understands.

Second, part of the reason i use the term is to reverse its emphasis on the blame of others(structure) vs the self (mindfulness).

And that is because I include reciprocity which includes markets in everything. Which is perfect ‘structure’.

So perfect knowledge, perfect action, within limits of reciprocity (perfect structure) is commensurable with perfect testimony (truth proper/ideal truth).

So I don’t have a term for agency as you most it (possible range of production), instead of the limit of production. Whereas with truthful and truth i have a term for both the possible range of production, and the limit of production.

Agency —————————————————>

Good —————————————————–>

Honest->Truthful(real)->True(Ideal)->True(Analytic)->Taut.->

Agency(limit) = Omniscience(knowledge), +Omnicognizance(Reason), +Omnipotence(Action), within +Reciprocity(Condition)

|Agency| Knowledge->Reason->Action->Condition.

Thanks Bill Joslin for helping me with this oversight.