so free will of choice isn't so free will of choice isn't thinking or willing but feeling??

Consenting to a suggestion...wills consent; thinks about suggested, and feels the emotion of conflict (is vs isn't).

Consent binds what was FREE. WILL/want distracts from need. From suggested inverts OF perceivable. Conflict imbalances CHOICE.

thinking or willing but feeling?

Feeling implies emotion/emotio - "to move from". Being implies within (life) motion (inception towards death). Emotion implies moving from one another, while ignoring to adapt to being moved.

Motion generates matter by internal separation from one another...emotions tempt matter to and fro one another, hence turning against one another, while ignoring that nature sets beings apart from one another.

Resisting the conflict of to vs fro aka debate over an issue aka reasoning about suggested aka vacillation implies being free will of choice at the center of balance, while being tempted with imbalance from the circumference.

The sentence you wrote starts with OK, which implies a to vs fro conflict between OK vs NOT OK within your mind aka circular logic. Same with IS vs ISN'T. You are being tricked to position your free will of choice into an imbalance, while ignoring balance.

IS vs ISN'T represents an artifice tempting you to ignore that nature WAS before you came into being. Only if you...by free will of choice...choose to let go of IS or ISN'T will you perceive WAS. Otherwise circular logic prevents you from thinking straight.