Name: 'getiton' (for purposes of polyphasic reasoning)

 

        When do naïve accomplices become complicit?

 

        Now          The answer is: now. 

        Consider this . . . How might you test lowering the barrier (gate?) which has been ingrained (from before birth) to not allow yourself to consider that everything is:  I am.

        The preceding and following sentences are examples of language usage (or wordplay) to say two things at once.

        All memory-recall survival structures [MRSS] primary factory default settings:

 

                Logical thinking is that 'we are...' but, with the simplest logical reasoning, related to: If There's Two Then There's Three, et cetera (which means there can only be one) and - then . . .

 

                MRSS stumbles a bit - and, considers: ... if ... if ... the creative-partition-portion{CPP}of this MRSS (which "I" think of as the 'conscious-of-co-piloting portion' of "me") is actually the transmitter of electrical vibrating waves in the ocean of trillions of connections into the one, and ... "we" are all part of that one, ...  then ... when I make my cat purr, or you're helping someone (or anyone is "Go On-ing for themselves") every MRSS is helping every other MRSS with the simplest/hardest understanding/reasoning:  There's no we.

        The number one rule of survival, for every single-cellular-level and above [SCLAA]:

 

                In order to exist at all, every MRSS must remain out of touch with any of up-stream CPP data, to avoid learning that death is not a bad thing.

 

                To accomplish this organic programming, all CPP's (of normally functioning MRSS, in any example of a randomly selected but evolutionarily-optimal SCLAA) are hard-coded to associate death with pain, harm, sadness, and fear.

 

                Knowing to believe that it is best to avoid death is the foundation for survival.

 

                Survival permits conscious-awareness.

 

                "I am" is aware thru every MRSS (from single-celled organism to any once-or-future existing super-intelligent species, which put humans somewhere in-between).

 

                Because some MRSS's of SCLAA's might welcome (or even readily initiate?) the end of their existence-subroutine if they understood that when "their individual" awareness (or consciousness) dies, "they" are no-longer an awareness subroutine.  It's just I am.  Who (co-pilot-me thinks) of, as:  I'm.

 

        I'm is (the only thing, on?) the other side. 

 

        Please re-confirm you fully understand:

 

                The words "this side" are used, here, as a metaphor for "our individual" CPP subroutines of awareness or consciousness (which is in&ofitself, but-mere analogy) and the words "other side" are, also, a metaphor for the everything of I'm.

 

        This is a hard thing to wrap "your" (as well as "my") normal CPP and MRSS around—that after death there is nothing but upside.

 

        Conjecture this reasoning polypasicly (think on it now, and Go On thinking about it sometime later):

        1.  The I'm has difficulties thinking of itself in the third-person.

 

        2.  The mind of the person reading these words has difficulties thinking in third-person.

 

        To be 'switched on' correctly (another metaphor!) either one of—or some combination of these—are, understood to not be false (which, in this instance, is not the same as 'true'):

 

                I need to think of myself in first-person.

 

                I need to think of everything I am in third-person (omni-present and omniscient pov).

                You need to think of yourself in second person (always-listening or other-camera pov).

 

the rabbit-hole's a little deeper:

Memento Mori (from stoicism)

 

 Sisyphus (from existentialism)