Effects of the Dilemma

Is willingness for any endeavour something that is purely for me to affirm? Or is it solely a product of social constraints? In my view: neither.
Why?

Surely I cannot be willing through being totally constrained. That much is clear. But is it conceivable to be willing in the total absence of some existing situation that inherently constrains possibilities for an endeavour? Probably not.

So RL7-Willingness is a single balanced Centre: RL7B.

Can a purpose (value, objective) for the endeavour be my own, entirely independent of the environment and wider society? Yes—I think it can.
Why?

If I cannot define my own goals, or decide what is important for me (my values), then autonomy of any meaningful sort could not exist. Many of my purposes may exist because of my socialization, but once values are internalized, they are mine and the exercise of intention to realize them is also mine.

Can an endeavour's purpose (value, belief, objective) be in my social environment, existing independently of me, and yet affect me? That is certainly the case in regard to values.
Why?

Society and its groups determine a diverse range of paradigms, theories, conventions, ethical rules, ideals, social needs and such like which impact on me and which I more or less support. Many are designed to constrain me. Groups, both communities and organizations, seek and find ways to ensure that all members, including me, behave in a «proper and responsible» way.

So RL6-Purpose is bipolar with two different Centres named:

My Personal Goals (RL6_A)
Group Doctrines & Norms (RL6_C)

Dominance: Group doctrines and norms-RL6_C are more powerful than personal goals-RL6_A.
How is that?

We seek out communities and associations that share our values and whose goals are congruent with our own. They seek us and value us too, but expect their doctrines and ethos to dominate. If there is a serious conflict over values or goals, the individual member submits or is forcibly ejected one way or another. Examples:
● A church uses excommunication.
● City-states used to send troublemakers into exile.
● Associations can revoke membership.
● In scientific societies, promotion and grant funding cease.
● Within an organization, higher authorities override a person's pet project.

See the picture.

Can I communicate about the endeavour in a way that is uniquely my own? Surely yes.
Why?

My account of the endeavour has to make sense to me and to have some feeling in it in order to come across as genuine. If I cannot find a way to talk about my endeavour in my own natural way, no-one will listen or provide unpaid support. Persuasive speech is natural and spontaneous, and my informal accounts of my endeavour are impossible for anyone to copy. I cannot even be sure that I will say exactly the same thing twice.

Do I need to communicate in a way that is wholly governed by the social context? Yes, I do. And I can only ensure that by putting my thoughts in writing.
Why?

Most endeavours of any significance require clarity in some areas, at least goals and costs. Shared clarity on details requires documentation. For proper shared understanding, the use of language in those documents must be such that I and others can be reasonably sure what is being referred to and intended. More on specifications: Clarity and agreement might be needed for scientific, doctrinal, technological, engineering, legal or financial aspects. Some training is usually essential to appreciate the rationale and use of strict definitions of terms and expressions.

So RL5-Communication is bipolar with two different Centres named:

Informal Accounts (RL5_A)
Formal Specification (RL5_C)

Dominance: The formal specification-RL5_C with its specialized language and technical details must dominate because it is designed to provide clarity, certainty and formally defined terms within communications.
More.

In commercial settings, the documents often state that nothing else that may be said or written at any time can override them. When formal specifications are ignored or mishandled, either fraud or incompetence should be suspected. Informal exchanges may be preferable for discussions but they are no substitute for agreed clarity. Think of management: a great deal can be achieved at work through ordinary discussion and good-natured exchanges. However, if there is no clarity about «roles», about «authority», about «reporting» and such things, then no amount of informal exchanges will put things right. An important contribution of this website to social activities is precisely the provision of a usable, impartial and impersonal formal language that is easily shareable and wholly practical.

See the picture.

I automatically bring my experience to bear in any situation I am in, and do so intensely in relation to my endeavours. Just as everyone else does for theirs. It is essential for evaluating anything in one's own terms. Are my experiences in relation to any endeavour constrained? Or autonomous? Or both? The answer is both simultaneously.
Why?

My experiences are certainly limited by my genes, by brain functioning, by my upbringing, by my socialization, by previous work, by past traumas, and perhaps by my current associates. Even if all these things are outside my control, I can still simultaneously and at any moment choose where I turn my attention, how I use my thoughts, who I associate with, what situations I put myself in. Over a longer term, I can affect my experiences by what I read, what I learn, what films I watch, what I make objects of my interest.

So RL4-My Experience is a single balanced Centre: RL4_B.

Change is where my endeavour exists within the environment and unavoidably interacts with this wider reality. Social and physical realities change both as part of my endeavour and independently of it, and this suggests two distinct Centres defining distinct systemic states.
Why?

I want specific developments to occur so that the endeavour will turn out the way I envisage and think best. However, forces and events within the environment or in the means used in the endeavour impinge. These have nothing to do with what I desire, but I have to ensure effective viable adaptations. If I do not, there is likely to be more or less serious disruption and degradation as the endeavour proceeds. At the extreme, there will be a disintegration and destruction of the endeavour.

So RL3-Change is bipolar with two different Centres named:

Necessary Adaptations (RL3_C)
Desired Development (RL3_A)

Dominance: My desired development-RL3_A must dominate necessary adaptations-RL3_C or my endeavour will meander and lose its way.
More: 

I will not pursue my endeavour if it cannot progressively generate appropriate developments. I must notice external pressures that emerge, and I must ensure that adaptations stay broadly within my own parameters. Otherwise, my efforts will start to feel futile. So, even if the best laid plans never survive their first contact with reality (and they don't), my desired development must dominate in some fashion if I am to sustain my endeavour.

See the picture.

Inquiry is typically determined both by the situation and by the orientation and preferences of the individual.
Why?

I cannot properly pursue inquiry that is not sensible and meaningful in my own eyes. At the same time, if inquiry does not meet criteria intrinsic to a testing and investigative process, then I will not give it much validity: and, perhaps more significantly, nor will anyone else.

So RL2-Inquiry is a single balanced Centre: RL2_B.

A decision may seem to be unequivocally mine, but the flow of action and subsidiary decisions that follow to complete the task demand an intimate interplay between me and my ever-changing situation. So this Centre must fuse the two poles.
Why?

My actions would lose all force and integrity if they were not autonomous, and yet numerous impersonal situational constraints exist—time, place, resources, laws, knowledge, politics and more. These limit, shape and affect decisions that control tasks and actions. It is never possible to decide with full knowledge in advance, nor is it possible to anticipate and take account of the endless ramifications of any single decision.

So RL1-Action is a single balanced Centre: RL1_B.