The Organism as a Whole

"Everything in the universe is within you.

Ask all from yourself." 

~Rumi~

Written by Mathew Naismith

Organism: A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.

When talking about the organism as a whole, I am making reference to the whole of existence. The whole of existence includes both ego created existences (participation/motion) and an existence not of the ego (observation/motionless. There is no perception of separation of this singular organism as a whole.

The independence of this organism as a whole is independent of the perceptions of separation of this whole organism. While of the ego and by the ego, the whole organism is perceived to be of separate individualistic entities or organisms, however, while not of the ego and by the ego, all is observed as one organism. There is no perception here, just clear observation through the absence of bias. You see, the ego existence, therefore participation, creates biases simply by separating one from the other. This process of separation also creates, for example, racialism and hate; you of course could go on from this and say evil and demonic tendencies.

This is odd for me to think like this as I was brought up as an atheist, of a limited consciousness to certain specifics of existence as whole. I observed that atheism wasn't just limiting my consciousness; I also looked at the whole existence as a singular organism, not of a separated organism trying to control all other organism not of itself.

Having researched in the way the Eastern and Western mind thinks in all of us, it would seem that my Eastern mind observed one organism even while my Western mind was focused on the individualistic side of existence. Yes, we are individuals but individuals existing in a holistic existence, an existence of observation of participation of the ego. Ego simply means to individualise existence into separate parts.

A lot of people perceive this individualising, the separation of a singular organism or consciousness, as an illusion. Illusion refers to something that is fake, not of a real existence. So, what is the observer observing? Why would the observer of ego existences observe anything that was an illusion? To do this would be of the ego; this is not the observer, considering the observer is egoless, only the ego would bother to perceive and observe an illusion!!

What is being observed are ego existences, a part of the organism in motion. It's important here not to perceive everything as just being of materialism where matter is the only reality. The observer is not of matter for matter takes motion, the observer is simply motionless therefore not of matter.

The ego often separates one from the other; thereby individualising its existence separate to other existences. Seen as the Western mind is of individualising, you could easily perceive that the Western mind is of the ego and the Eastern mind is of egolessness. I don't think this is far from the truth considering that the Western and Eastern mind is within everyone. What becomes more predominant reflects our thoughts and feelings, either that be of the ego or egolessness/selflessness.

What the ego seems to do on a regular basis is to perceive that ego existences are separate to the egoless existence; this is while the observer observes only one organism in motion. It's still of one organism even when the observer is observing itself in observation, it's all one organism either in motion or not. Look at this way. Yin and yang can often act as one organism when in harmony to each other. When one is asleep and the other is awake, are they still not of one organism?

It's advisable and wise to be aware how our egos behave; separating a singular organism into numerous individualistic organisms to serve its own self-worth.......

https://scienceandnonduality.com/we-are-all-one-organism/

It is really good to see that science is looking at everything being of one organism, of non-duality. However, it is sad for people like me observing new age spirituality doing the opposite, trying to separate itself from something it doesn't desire to be a part of. When you are a part of the whole organism, no amount of perceived separation will separate you from this organism. You can become as perceived evil or saintly as much as you like, you are still a part of the whole organism as a whole.

So how do you create a more constructive existence/reality? By simply being aware that you are a part of the whole organism without exception, within this, the destructive ways of the organism become insignificant in comparison to the whole organism. Yes I know, this is hard to comprehend for the Western mind and understandably so.       

Alan Wilson Watts was a British philosopher who interpreted and popularised Eastern philosophy for a Western audience. What is being said here is very much of the Eastern mind, of course the Western mind being what it is, desires to separate itself from the Eastern mind!!                       

Whole of Existence - A Singular Organism

Written by Mathew Naismith

I awoke during the night holding my hand out; this is of course no big deal. What was a big deal was what I perceived or envisioned that I was holding in my hand in awe, the entire existence as a whole. The wonderment I experienced wasn't just to do with what I was holding; it was to do with how the entire existence exists.

One simply creates the other, for example, bad creates good, negative creates positive, awareness creates unawareness, dark creates light and of course visa-versa. There was no perception that one was above another. That some almighty high level of consciousness resides as an ultimate state over all other states. What was obvious is that existence was of the ego and non-existence was egoless.

However, what's in observation of existence? What is the observer's state of consciousness to all other states of consciousness? As I was doing, I was in observation of existences as a whole. It was like observing a singular organism in motion with itself. It seemed to be important for me to perceive the whole existence as a singular organism, more importantly, an organism in motion with itself.

From an ego point of view, this observing state of consciousness is going to be desired to be the ultimate state over all other states. To do this, the ego has to put this state above all other states. The ego does this in different ways through the perception of God, light and love, some perceived ultimate state or however the ego desires to perceives this state to be. Don't get me wrong here, it's good that the ego does this; at least this gives the ego a perception of something more than an existence of ego. The organism in motion with itself is simply pure ego.

What is in observation of the entire ego existence, this singular organism in motion with itself, is a state void of the ego. This gives the perception, from an ego point of view, of a non-existence. As you could imagine from an egoless point of view, this is clearly not the case. Existence is of both ego and egoless states of existence. Just because one is of observation void of participation, void of the ego therefore motion, doesn't mean the observer doesn't exist!!

Being the observer observing the entire ego existence, isn't in observation of the entire existence when excluding observing the observer as well. Within my own actions here, I am also observing the observer in observation of the ego's existence. In other words, I have observed all of existence by observing the ego's existence, the participator, and the egoless existence, the observer in observation.

My ego wishes it could remember the dream that incited my experience here; it was not to be........

I decided to look up on related topics and came up with the following.

http://robertlanzabiocentrism.com/are-we-part-of-a-single-living-organism/

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/

http://highexistence.com/topic/the-universe-is-one-massive-single-cell-organism/

http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2016/05/how-all-living-things-are-connected-in-an-exam.html                    

Being the Quality of Change

Written by Mathew Naismith

If people like Jesus and Buddha couldn't change the world, how are thousands or even millions of people working towards a singular goal going to change the world? Considering the enlightenment of Jesus and Buddha and many other wise and aware people in human history, millions of people not of the quality of this enlightenment are obviously not going to change the world either. We need to be honest with ourselves here, so what is the answer?

I wrote the following in regards to light and dark, light overwhelming or overcoming dark.

_____________________

Imagine yourself in a completely dark room; now shine a small light, what has your focus, the dark or the light? The light is more pronounced within the dark than in the light, even though the light is surrounded by darkness!!

As it's not the quantity of people that will change the world but the quality, it's the quality of the light within the dark that will change the world, not the volume of light. If the light within the dark is not pronounceable, the dark will be more pronounced.

It all comes down to not being of the quantity or volume but the quality.........

_____________________

Imagine a light room with a small dark area, what is your focus going to be on? The dark because it's more pronounced within a light room. Now imagine a balance of light and dark within a room, which, out of light and dark, is going to be your main focus on? Neither, the focus will be mainly on the balance of light and dark because it's the balance of light and dark that becomes more pronounceable/obvious.

When you go into a house that is made up of a decor of a balance of black and white, what do you notice the most, the black or white? The balance between black and white becomes the main focus, even when a brightly coloured object is added. The brightly coloured object will take your attention but your main focus is still going to be on the pronounced, the balance of black and white.

Buddha, being a prince, was in a safe heaven away from all the negatives of the world outside of his safe heaven. Jesus was a carpenter, this was his safe heaven. What did both of these people do? They went way outside of their safe heavens!! They faced the so-called negatives face on outside of their personal safe heavens, most importantly, facing the degradation of their own being. Degradation simply refers to how our desires overrule all else. In their case the act of going outside of their safe heaven was to deny their own personal desires control over them. They became more focused on the collective than the individual.

The negatives outside of their safe heavens became more pronounced, this is represented by the dark in regards to their own light. Their main focus wasn't on the light but the dark, as the dark became more pronounced to them. In truth, what is our main focus on? The light, while at the same time ostracising and/or having disdain for the dark!!! Should we give more attention, love and goodwill to the light or the dark? We most often give our attention to the light, not the dark. Yes, the quantity of people are trying to change the world but not the quality, as most of the quantity simply desires to create a personal safe heaven, not go out from their safe heaven to assist in real change.

I often give as much attention to the perpetrators as I do the victims, for example, I often give more time to bullies and abusers than I do their victims. For people like me, the perpetrators are as much of a victim of themselves as of anyone!!

All you need to be is the quality of change, not the quantity of change........M G Naismith

Eastern Western Mind

Written by Mathew Naismith

In my case, its Western Eastern mind, being that the Western mind is predominant over the Eastern mind. This is understandable, being that the culture I have predominantly been influenced by is Western. Look at it like this, most males (yang) are predominately inflected by male chromosomes, as most females (yin) are predominantly influenced by female; each is of its own predominance but not totally without the other.

Holistically and individually speaking, we exist within an individual existence, for each aspect of this existence has its own separate identity. At no time is any reality of individualism totally without or not also a part of the holistic existence as a whole. Being that the Eastern mind is of the collective and the Western mind being of the individual, the existence of the holistic mind is still present. To me, this Eastern holistic mind is there to balance out the Western individual mind in a reality of growing individualism.

From today's materialism to spiritualism, individualism is being expressed and taught more and more. It's primarily about benefiting your personal self over and above others. It's simply about personal growth over and above the collective growth. Of course we are taught our own personal growth will benefit the collective growth in some way in the future. This is not living in the present for the good of the collective within the present.

So by focussing more on the individual self (ego) within an individualistic reality, we are creating a more balanced peaceful existence!! Peace and tranquillity can't exist for very long in an imbalanced existence while continually focusing on the individual, especially within an individualistic reality of perceived separate identities.

It makes perfect sense to the Eastern mind that a balance of the collective is needed in a reality of individualism. Of course the Western mind is unable to comprehend this, so the Western mind, without the balance of the Eastern mind, expresses even more individualism in chaotic times of existence. This of course created more imbalances not less.

If we existed in a holistic collective perceived reality, the opposite would have to occur to reach a balanced state. More of an individual mind would be needed to be expressed to create a balanced reality but within the very present we don't need to do this, quite the opposite actually. In actuality, we need to express more of the collective mind, the Eastern mind of holistic perceptions, to balance out the present perceived reality. Of course the Western mind being what it is, about the individual self over and above all else, we do the opposite which creates even more imbalances.

Eastern mind = holistic mind + collective reality

Western mind = atomistic mind + individualistic reality

As of any well balanced relationship, only peace and tranquillity can exist.....    

If you comprehend and understand what is written here, it is most likely you are of the Eastern mind as well, even when being of and existing in a Western culture.

Some people will find the following video quite interesting.

The Passion of Philosophy

Written by Mathew Naismith

Philosophy: The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics

There are of course other interpretations of philosophy; I however generally live by the interpretation above, of course this can be mistaken in thinking too much. The consensus is; there is simply no quietening of the mind within this kind of expression of philosophy. Considering that Buddhism is known as a philosophy, and the state that Buddha found himself in was of complete stillness, it is obvious philosophy can also quieten the mind.

So how does philosophy do this? Certain expression of philosophy frees you from the egos control. There is no more expression of a black and white mentality, negative and positive, bad and good, wrong and right, black and white, basically, everything becomes as one and is perceived as one. It's simply all a perception anyway, all separated perceptions simply become as one thus a neutralisation of the mind of all perceptions is created.

How I did this is explained in a reply I gave someone on a philosophy forum, this was in relation to philosophy itself.              

____________________

Philosophy, to me, is about free thinking void of the control of other ideologies and isms doctrines and dogmas. This is anything from religion to atheist materialism.

I love exploring the environment free from the dogmas of ideologies and isms, at the same time being free to use the concepts of ideologies and isms to explore this environment.

In dealing with people who restrict free thinking processes, I probably become a little too clinical within my philosophies. I am quite clinical when it comes to abuse period, either that be the restriction of free thinking, like the abuse of philosophy from certain groups, or mental and physical abuse.

Within this philosophy of true free thinking, I am able to explore the environment free from mental limitations. This allows people like me to observe parts of the environment other people are unable to observe I feel

I would not give up my free thinking for anything.

Also, after a number of rebuttals, not to do with the above mentioned:  

Sorry people, I often do this, I think way outside the square at times, this can be taken as an insult to some people, my apologies.

If you are unable to comprehend where I am coming from, simply ignore me, please. Very few people take head of what I say anyway and understandably so.

This is strange, I do have a lot of friends in real life who adore me, not sure why myself!! Maybe it's to do with my wife and not me!!     

Philosophical Freedom

Jean-Paul Sartre, French Philosopher 

Written by Mathew Naismith

Philosophies of Lies and deceit

A vacant space

In the absence of truth

A spaceless space

No direction within

Simply vacant of truth and honesty

In this lays vacancy

A vacancy of mind

For in this vacancy

Truth is unable to exist

There is simply no substance

For without substance

Where is truth and honesty to abide

For in this vacant space

Honesty needs substance

A substance of truth and honesty

This is within itself

Is its beginning

MG Naismith

What this poem of mine refers to, is that truth and honesty are unable to be recognised thus often misunderstood in a philosophy of lies and deceit. Often quite deceptively to protect and harvest what comes from philosophies of lies.

I wrote the following to the questioning, is courage needed to express intellectual honesty? I was interacting on a philosophy forum and received hostility against proven truths and honesty, to me, the reason this occurred was obvious.    

_________________

   

Thinking about this more; the courage to see the lies and deception within ones own philosophies, is courageous no matter what the ism or ideology one follows.

Take note of the people who slam, for example, religion and its philosophies, you will note that they are themselves most likely of the philosophies of lies and deception. Example: When did truths and honesty supported by evidence become abuse and disdainful? When did facts and figures become of abuse and disdainful?

The answer seems to be when of and the protection of known lies and deceit. Any truth, especially proven truths to be true and of fact, will always be disdainful to any philosophies based on lies and deceit. Example: An OP can be noticeably deceptive within its intent but still be supported!!

Are facts and figures disdainful to the people of philosophies based on truth and honesty? Unlikely to any great extent.   

I have noticed the more facts and figures you support the truths you speak of, the more hostile some people get. Also notice that not all the people become hostile, why? They simply don't live by philosophies based on lies and deceit. It is very possible they may not know this themselves, actually, most often this is the case it would seem.

There is a lot of courage needed to tell the truth in ways other people don't want to hear them. If your philosophies are based on truth and honesty, you will always get a hostile rebuttal from the opposing camp.

Should an intellectual honesty take courage to express? It shouldn't but it does in today's reality.

_______________________

Never chase truth and honesty within anything, for truth will come without effort once the philosophies of lies and deceit are put to rest.....MG Naismith

I chased truth and honesty in philosophy, there was little obvious truth and self-honesty to be found but in a few. Most people of the philosophies of truth and honesty will stay hidden, for they know what would occur otherwise. The reason I chased the truth in this manner, was to observe and become aware of the truth within the truth that philosophical lies and deceit exist within every corner of man, no matter of the isms or ideology followed.

A bit of self-honesty and truth goes a long way, to freeing ourselves from the bondages and limitations of the philosophies of lies and deceit.......MG Naismith

Being As One

Written by Mathew Naismith

G'day Carolyn.

The worst of times can be our greatest teacher or our greatest nightmare, this is always our choice. This is like the worst of times can bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. This has nothing to do with positive and negative, good and bad, it's simply aware or not aware or less aware.

Are less beautiful looking people less positive or more negative than beautiful looking people? In today's society of the perceptions of negative and positive, yes, less beautiful looking people can be more negative but only if they abide by what is and what isn't negative and positive.

Bad good, negative and positive, wrong and right, love hate, are simply perceptions we have created, basing our whole existence on these kinds of perceptions is bewildering to someone like me.

Be blessed my girl, always.....

______________________________

The black and white mentality is of separation, the separation of one from the other. If one is different to another, like light to dark and white to black, one has to be positive over the other within this mentality of old consciousness. Is light (white) more positive to the dark? Seen as the dark makes us more aware of the light, deeming the dark purely negative is simply a mentality of white over black, light over dark.

Most often in our darkest times will we see the light or experience our most enlightening experiences. How many of us are aware today of the white mentality of superiority over dark people, the mistreatment of other races by white people? It is obvious to people like me that darkness is just as illuminating as the light, if not more so at times.

Being brought up in an abusive neglectful childhood, has given me the awareness of the abuse and neglect in the world, I am more aware because of my childhood experiences. What I have done is made a choice in making my so-called dark experiences enlightening; my experiences have become my greatest teacher instead of my greatest nightmare.

How many people into spirituality have made the present world circumstances their greatest nightmare?  Only the light will save them from such a nightmare. There is just as much illumination within the dark as there is in the light, of course if we simply deem the dark being negative, all we will see is darkness within the dark and this is the point. If we perceive darkness to be simply negative, this is what it will be, and in accordance within this, create a reality based on negativity. In truth, creating a reality to escape from instead of learning from.

Our present consciousness is conditioned to a black and white mentality, the separation of one from the other, to people like me, an evolved consciousness won't perceive like this. 

I have inserted the following video of me, it's not good because I do mumble a bit. This is probably because I  am not comfortable, as yet, to expressing myself in this way.