What is Freedom?
Frithjof Bergmann’s model of freedom from a nondual perspective
Frithjof Bergmann makes the case in his book, On Being Free, that all theories of freedom fit into his model of identification and dissociation. In this model, freedom can be seen as the expression of a particular identity through action (37, 90). For example, if I identify with my reasoning ability and not my emotions, then any actions that stem from my reason are “free,” whereas the actions that stem from my emotions are considered coercions or invasions of my freedom; this means that I am dissociated from my emotions. Of course, our identity is never really this sharply defined (84–85), but my example serves as a simple demonstration of the concept. Bergmann goes as far as to say that possessing an identity is the “primary condition” for the existence of freedom (37); in other words, given that he defines freedom as the harmony between identification and action, it is impossible to experience it without an identity. Bergmann makes a solid case for this view, leaving the reader with no apparent choice but to conclude that all instances of freedom are divided into identification and dissociation. There exists, however, a conception that might challenge this model — a conception that Bergmann is unlikely to have considered given its roots in Eastern tradition and relative non-existence in the Western world. It’s one of the fundamental components of Buddhism and the Advaita Vedanta tradition of Hinduism — nonduality.
Rupert Spira, a well-known spiritual teacher, author and proponent of nonduality, defines it as “the recognition that underlying the multiplicity and diversity of experience there is a single, infinite and indivisible reality, whose nature is pure consciousness, from which all objects and selves derive their apparently independent existence” (“Introduction”). In more Western philosophical terms, it is a form of idealism, and it is particularly compatible with Bernardo Kastrup’s “Analytic Idealism,” the idea that reality is a “transpersonal field of subjectivity of which we are segments” (“Analytic Idealism”). Nonduality is often compared and contrasted with a form of duality in which there is a sense of self or “I” who is separated from all other things in experience — this is the ego. Duality in this sense delineates the boundary between what constitutes “me” and “not me.” I will demonstrate in this article that while nondualists do not reject the idea of identification and dissociation as proposed by Bergmann, they would suggest that complete freedom is found beyond this dualistic interpretation of experience.
Bergmann’s duality
In the fifth chapter of his book, titled “Freedom and the Self,” Bergmann repudiates the idea of the Substance Subject — a “ghost dwarf” replicate of ourselves that is found within us, watching everything from that position and travelling throughout all moments of our lives while remaining completely unchanged. He proposes that this predefined “I,” supposedly discovered through introspection, is a “fairy tale,” while the real self is a distinguishable set of everchanging identifications or a “grouping into this or that configuration” (79). Freedom, as explained earlier, would be the acting out or expression of this configuration. Bergmann goes on to say that these identifications form when our initially neutral experience becomes more and more personalized; we attach significance to certain aspects of our experience over time and this divides reality into the “self and its opposite” (83–84). It is precisely in this manner that Bergmann’s model of freedom is dualistic: “identification” and “dissociation” is just another way of dividing the world into “me” and “not me.” Bergmann may not define this sense of self as the Subject, or any other concrete entity found at the core of our being, and he may place emphasis on the expression of this identity through action rather than its existence, but it remains true that his model divides experience into what I am and what I am not.
A fraction of freedom
Nonduality, on the other hand, does not deny the experience of identification or dissociation, but rather it denies the suggestion that our essential being is defined by whatever our current set of identifications and dissociations is. There may be an experience of self that is generated from the acting out of a particular identity, but it is not fundamentally who we are. Recall from our provided definition of nonduality that reality is suggested to be a transpersonal field of subjectivity or pure consciousness. Under this view, each of us — rather than being a Substance Subject or some other entity — is simply the activity of consciousness in the same way that a wave is the activity of an ocean or some other body of water. Just as a wave consists of nothing but water, our essential being is consciousness or awareness. While this fundamental awareness can be overlaid with various identifications and dissociations which modify our experience and define the limits of our freedom, awareness never changes. Spira describes it like the sun: there are no varying degrees of sunlight, but rather there are varying degrees and types of cloud cover which modify the visibility of that sunlight. It appears as though the sun fluctuates in intensity, but in reality, it is always the same (“Psychedelic Drugs”). I am using this analogy to suggest the following: believing that one’s essential self is the expression of a configuration of identifications and dissociations is no different from believing that the little sunlight which peers through the clouds is all there is to the sun. The freedom that is felt through the expression of a particular identity is not the full story — it is only a fraction of true freedom as seen by nondualists. This will be made clear once I further explain the connection between these two views.
The ground beneath the fence
Bergmann’s model of identification and dissociation abstracts above all theories of freedom rather than rejecting them or proposing an alternative theory, which means that all theories of freedom can be reduced to the components of identification and dissociation (15). For example, a communist view of freedom involves identification with the state, whereas anarchism is clearly dissociated from all forms of government. In this same way, nonduality is not opposed to Bergmann’s model, but rather it is found at a deeper level of experience. To modify an analogy taken from Derek K. Heyman, if identification and dissociation are two sides of a fence delineating between “me” and “not me,” nonduality is the ground beneath that fence — the underlying reality found beyond this dualistic separation of myself from everything else (437, 440). But as Heyman says, “the discovery that the ground beneath the dualistic fence extends to the boundless non-duality does not preclude that it still supports the fence on its surface” (440). I would suggest that this is the reason why both Bergmann’s model of freedom and nonduality converge on the notion of “flow,” often known today as the “flow state.” Bergmann says that “freedom should connote a natural flow, neither cramped nor forced, a shift away from the need to control, to compensate and to correct” (92), while Spira has spoken about “ ‘being in the zone’, … a holy grail state of mind and body in which there is total flow and peak performance” (Seymour). These two views are clearly related; however, Bergmann’s flow is only a result of the freedom that is attained when there is a harmony between identification and action (90, 92). This experience is therefore limited by the demands of one’s identity configuration. For example, if I’m identified with my reasoning ability and dissociated from my emotions, then I will feel free and therefore enter the flow state when I am engaged in activities that involve reasoning, but I cannot enter the flow state if I am engaged in actions that involve my emotions; my freedom and ability to flow is therefore restricted by my identity. Spira’s flow, on the other hand, is derived from an understanding of who we are — an understanding of our fundamental nature, and therefore the nature of reality itself. To the degree that this understanding is fostered, we are free in every action that we take (Seymour; Spira, “Essential Nature”). I will clarify the meaning and implications of this.
Consciousness and lucid dreaming
Since nondualists see reality as pure consciousness, all seemingly separate objects and experiences are considered as being fundamentally connected by this shared nature; not a single experience can be had outside of consciousness. So to view Bergmann’s model in the light of nonduality, we can say that the freedom and flow resulting from a harmony between actions and identity is simply attributed to an inherent recognition of the oneness that a person shares with his identifications. However, this recognition of oneness is limited to those identifications in ways that we previously discussed, and the sun’s light is therefore not fully seen. To use another one of Spira’s analogies, it’s like a character in a dream who is unaware that all aspects and moments of that dream are connected by the dreamer’s consciousness (“Personal Freedom”). The character and his identifications, as well as his dissociations, share the same essence and arise within the same medium, and yet the character still differentiates between “me” and “not me,” failing to recognize that everything is just the dreamer’s mind. Spira has described awareness or consciousness as “a field of infinite possibilities in which there is infinite freedom to assume any form” (“Essential Nature”). He goes on to say that this makes consciousness inherently free, and that each of us shares in this freedom simply by virtue of being clusters of consciousness. However, to the degree that we reduce reality to a distinction between “me” and “not me,” treating ourselves as separate from our dissociations, we lose the inherent freedom that comes along with our nature of awareness: “The more deeply identified we are with our thoughts, feelings, activities, relationships; the more opaque our mind is — the less in touch it is with its essence of pure consciousness, and therefore its essential freedom … ” (“Essential Nature”). The character’s freedom within the dream is therefore limited by his identifications, but whoever realizes his true nature is a lucid dreamer, so to speak: “ … the more transparent the mind is to its essence, the more it is in touch with its original and innate freedom” (“Essential Nature”).
Individuality and Self-harm
Of course, recognizing that one shares his nature with reality does not mean that there is no individuality. After all, an ocean produces both the wave and the whirlpool, identical in essence but different in activity; there are several forms and expressions of the same fundamental consciousness. But a felt nondualist understanding of reality changes the way that one approaches life. While Bergmann is concerned that some identifications are harmful and should not necessarily be freely expressed (99–100), the nondual vision of freedom solves this issue. Harmful identifications are only possible when there is a division of reality into “me” and “not me;” in other words, if there are parts of reality from which one feels dissociated, then he is unlikely to treat that aspect of his experience with the same love that he would treat the parts with which he identifies. For example, it is easier for a mother to love her own child because the sense of shared being is more apparently felt in this scenario, but it is much harder for her to identify in such a way that she would love a stranger, and therefore she is more likely to treat a stranger carelessly. When a person sees the world through identifications and dissociation, it makes sense for him to consider what parts of his identity should and shouldn’t be expressed, as Bergmann suggests (98), but if there is a recognition that all things share the same fundamental being, then harm done to any other aspect of reality is harm done to “myself” — harm done to other people is also harm done to “me.” To the degree that a nondualist reality is understood, it becomes less necessary to monitor the expression of certain identities; freedom and love become increasingly inherent in one’s expression.
Digging underground
As said earlier, I have come to realize that nonduality is the ground beneath the fence which separates identification and dissociation. These two views do not contradict each other; however, the nature of a person’s experience is simply a consequence of how far he digs to see the underlying nonduality bridging the divide between apparent identifications and dissociations. Bergmann has done commendable work in abstracting above all theories of freedom, making the topic far easier to understand and discuss, but nondualists would simply suggest that the theory remains above ground. Digging is the process of moving towards what is often called “enlightenment” in nondualist circles, whereby one’s originally dualistic experience can be “radically altered,” usually through meditative practices (Heyman 440). Nonduality proposes a completely different metaphysical perspective of reality from that which is typically understood in the West, and while I am not trying to prove it, I must say that it links quite convincingly with the concept of identification and dissociation while suggesting a more profound outlook on freedom.
Work Cited
“Analytic Idealism Course.” Essentia Foundation, https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analytic-idealism-course/.
Bergmann, Frithjof. On Being Free. University of Notre Dame Press, 1977.
Caroline Seymour. “The Art of Flow State and Being in the Zone — Jonny Wilkinson.” Blog | Rupert Spira, 15 Mar. 2022, https://rupertspira.com/non-duality/blog/talks/the-art-of-flow-state-and-being-in-the-zone-jonny-wilkinson.
Heyman, Derek K. “Dual and Non-Dual Ontology in Sartre and Mahāyāna Buddhism.” Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, https://kph.ffs.npu.edu.ua/!e-book/clasik/data/pdf/134262.pdf.
Spira, Rupert. “Introduction to Non-Duality.” Introduction | Rupert Spira, https://rupertspira.com/non-duality.
Spira, Rupert. “Do We Have Personal Freedom?” YouTube, 23 Aug. 2019, https://youtu.be/ra_61mSa9Po.
Spira, Rupert. “Freedom Is Our Essential Nature.” YouTube, 1 Jun. 2018, https://youtu.be/oeExE-Bmjk4.
Spira, Rupert. “Non-Duality and Psychedelic Drugs.” YouTube, 27 Dec. 2020, https://youtu.be/SR5FCNYkcPI.
