That’s funny because Bergmann’s theory would suggest that freedom has nothing to do with obstacles or enhanced choice, but rather it only has to do with identification and dissociation. Removing a day from the work week is like removing an obstacle or enhancing one’s choice to do what he pleases during the week. But if I am already identified with a 5 day work week, then I already feel free and do not need an extra day off. I wonder, then, what Bergmann’s rationale would have been for advocating a 4 day work week.

Whenever people say they are free it is a subjective claim. They say it when they finish an exam or when they’re out of a toxic relationship or when they like the way their life is currently structured or better yet, when they’ve found internal peace. If I feel free, then I obviously don’t have to wait for some external objective change in order to be “really free” as you seem to be suggesting. What exactly is this “objective” definition of freedom that you’re referring to?

True. Although Jesus didn’t seem to fall into the trap of thinking there is a man in the sky in the way that other “God people” do. One might argue that religious people are not even properly using their own word. But in any case the words don’t matter much. Everyone takes a different path and uses a different word, but there comes a point where we move beyond words altogether.

Yes I mean you’re not wrong in saying that one can be identified with academic tasks and dissociated from artistic tasks or vice versa, which ultimately determines the situations in which theyre able to enter into the flow state; but these are just more examples demonstrating how Bergmann’s dualistic flow works. It’s not really being suggested that academic and artistic are specifically two types of flow, because this isn’t central to the point being made by the article.

What Rupert is saying isn’t incompatible with the other people you mentioned. Calling it “awareness” or “consciousness” isn’t really to describe it….it’s just giving a name to an indescribable thing. It’s like how religious people say (and this is just an example) that God is indescribable….they give a name but it has nothing to do with describability.

Although it is true to say that using language is limited because it objectifies things…so it’s linked to duality. But it’s often the dualistic path that leads to an eventual recognition of nonduality. So language would still help despite its limitation.

The end of that section is differentiating between Bergmann and Spira’s view of flow state….in other words it’s establishing the difference between the flow state as seen from a dualistic vs a nondualistic perspective. It uses an example to demonstrate how Bergmann’s dualistic flow works….if I’m identified with my my reasoning skills then I will feel free and therefore enter the flow state while reasoning. Not sure where you’re getting the art and academia idea from.

The article only mentioned the flow state insofar as it relates to freedom and identity

The person talked about how they grew up learning about nonduality in India…they said it’s called Advaita and that it underlies Hinduism and Buddhism

As far as I understand, yes

🤣🤣🤣yes everything is fused

Bergmann’s theory would suggest that you enter the flow state while playing pen and paper RPGs because you’re identified with the activity; you therefore act freely while doing it. On the other hand, nonduality says that the flow state is our natural state and we can get to the point of acting freely in everything we do if we move beyond the realm of identification and dissociation, let’s say.

I’m surprised his work on abstracting above all theories of freedom isn’t more spoken about

Yes, and it seems like the West is picking up on it more and more