Identifying one’s self with the total organism makes perfect sense to me philosophically, and I think that’s the definition I would want in a political context as well.

I am not sure how it would work psychologically or experientially, though.

I know how to switch from “I am this emotion” to “I am the watcher of this emotion,” but I don’t know how to switch to the perspective of “I am the organism.”

Conceptually it makes perfect sense, but experientially I don’t know what it is like to view experience through something that is not inside my own mind.

It’s analogous to modifying a camera so that it views from the perspective of the whole camera, and not just the lens or the photo-sensors. What would that … be like?

Or, returning to the movie metaphor, it might be like like switching from “I am the movie” to “I am the watcher of the movie” to “I am the whole theater.” Suddenly the frame of reference is too large for a single perspective to still be applicable.

It may be that “organism” works fine as a philosophical definition, but won’t work as a psychological or experiential perspective because it’s no longer internal to consciousness; the total organism includes much more than just consciousness.

Does that make sense?

Joshua

PS. One thing fully enlightened people often say is that they no longer have the experience of a separate self. They might have an interesting, er, perspective on this conversation.