Is motion like the following?

[Mudhammam]

I confess I'm not understanding the choices.  Is this a contrast between viewing the movement of objects as entirely the result of earlier, determinative motions -vs- objects as subjects with intentions whose motion are reflection of those intentions (wherever those may have come from).  So the motion of inanimate objects is to be understood by looking backward toward earlier impacts while the motion of (at least some) animate objects is to be understood by looking forward toward the ends which are the goal of intentions.  Am I close?

Yes, that is close to what I'm saying, though I would include intentions/ends under that of a mover moved by a determinate motion, whereas self-motion is movement of self by self, and hence, can only be random motion. Why do I insist on this? Because if of itself and by itself something can determine to move in such a way that is truly free of necessity, it can have no predilection for one outcome over another, or to move at this time and at none other. Such a bent would preclude a prior motion which necessitated that particular state of affairs, otherwise, it occurred spontaneously.

To put it another way: All change by definition follows upon a preceding state of affairs which is ever so slightly different in one of two respects, temporal succession or spatial location. That change must either result as a necessary consequence of the preceding state (the car in Benny's dream was imagined to be here, passing by, but now that it has changed its position, it's there, up the imaginary road), in which motion is acted upon by something prior (whatever put the car in motion, on that particular road, in that instant of thought, etc.), or it acts from something of an internal impulse, but one that can truly be said to free in the sense that it is indeterminate - the only other option involving some causes and/or ends.