To 'Figure it Out for Yourself' Examine these Values:

    "I have a few questions, is that OK with you?"  Their handshake was firm, smooth, not overly energetic, and could never be considered aggressive; a soon-to-be-forgotten clasp of hands, which could be perfectly natural or could be engineered and choreographed to be indistinguishable from it.

    "Please, I'm all yours.  Fire away."  Their smile seemed genuine, even visible in the creases above their naturally thin eyebrows.  Also visible was the normal amount of teeth stain for their age, which may have been straightened decades ago, but no cosmetic whitening or apparent implants.

    "Although it's unnecessary to explain your reasons, I'd like to know your all-time favorite US president."  Eye contact moved up and around, slight nod as the question set-in, after a brief moment of consideration, they said . . .

    Artfully Trying for Ultra-Safe:  A Mount Rushmore-famous one.  [Educated conservatives; Narcissists, who refer to themselves as an Independent or as a political Libertarian; and Agnostics, who are politically apathetic or only remember a US president's name from primary school.]

    Attempting any Gain-Without-Give Ploy:  A deflection, non-answer, or request for you to "go first".  [Uneducated psychopaths; Religious fundamentalists; and those who fall into the vast category of "unethical, immoral, and untrustworthy" (e.g. organized criminals, most life-long politicians, and many authoritarians in positions of authority).]
 
    Providing Un-Asked-For Reasoning:  Even leading with it, to either appear 'being aware of flaws' justifies their position, or to explain why they aren't embarrassed by their choice's lack of remarkableness (e.g. because they were born in the same state).  [Perfectionist's; Some who are prone to 'Magical Thinking'; The occasional over-thinker with Autism or Asperger's; Children and immature adults, unpracticed at conversation; and "Floor Holders" to-whom, answering and waiting for the next question makes them feel stress, anxiety or irritation.]

    Jimmy Carter:  A one-term president most-known for his after-presidency accomplishments.  [Left of Center Democrats; "Farm-to-Table" Environmentalists; and kind-hearted Prius-drivers with white-guilt.] 
 
    Richard M. Nixon:  An "unethical, life-long authoritarian-politician" most-known for his resignation after failing to cover-up the criminal break-in(s) of the Democratic Re-Election Headquarters, which he authorized.  [Anyone who overly professes their "Pride in being who they are" (without irony); Most "Tell-it-like-it-is" or "down-to-earth" super-nationalists (who want to be honest and say: Bush Junior, or even Trump, but are just aware-enough to lie.]

    Dwight D. Eisenhower:  The last US five-star general who was "in command" at the end of WWII and began NATO.  ["Center-leaning" moderate Republicans; Hawkish supporters of US "military might"; and Conservative Democrats.]
 
    JFK:  A one-term president most-known for being assassinated.  [Conspiracy-theorists; Admirers of 'Celebrity' (to verify, ask about Princess Diana); Catholic "apologists"; and any member of the general public who has never thought about who their favorite president would be until this very moment.]
 
    FDR:  The only president elected to four terms in office, most known for the country's recovery from the Great Depression, support of WWII, enacting Social Security, the United Nations, and the Manhattan Project.  It is the only correct answer.  [Anyone with empathy (extra points if they do not name any flaws, and, when you verify by asking about Japanese Internment Camps, they acknowledge the facts, but do not attempt to justify).]

    LBJ:  A one-term president, most-known for his highly-effective use of "dirty politics" to obtain civil rights act(s), voting rights, medicare, medicaid, and immigration reform.  ["Modern Liberals" who are more comfortable with the term 'progressive' but may be slightly uncomfortable with terms like 'leftest' or 'social democrat'; Idealist's (at heart) who are less willing to turn a blind eye toward FDR's failings; and anti-corporate individualists who are critical of any hypocrisy, especially their own.]

    Ronald Regan:  The Corporate-Republican's Wet Dream, most-known for neoliberal supply-side economics, tax cuts for the wealthy, de-regulations, and trickle-down economics.  ["Modern Conservatives" who are, definitely, without any empathy; Psychopathic-sociopaths; Financially secure from birth; and the newly "Comfortably-Wealthy" (or those who aspire to become so).]

S p a c e | A n t i - M a t t e r

 
 
        •••  The near-empty parts between galaxies (commonly referred to as: space) is expanding.  There are no astrophysicists who disagree with this current consensus.  Measurements vary (slightly) but it's the dominant scientific-theory explaining why our universe is thought to have 'begun' about 14 billion years ago, even though our visible portion of the universe has an estimated diameter well over 90 billion light years.
 
        •••  Many physicist-mathematicians posit that for every particle of matter an anti-matter particle must also exist; matter and anti-matter eradicate themselves when they interact, but—because this eradication is rarely observed—anti-matter's existence is still considered unproven.

        •••  The two are one.  The matter/anti-matter eradication mostly happens between galaxies and (similar to space-scale double-slit experiments) the particles erase themselves by "going back in time" and erasing the "time in which the particles previously existed".  The only measurable evidence of the matter/anti-matter eradication is an expansion of near-empty space.

        •••  Space's expansion is what keeps galaxies together.  (Is it the elusive 'dark energy'?)

        •••  If you were an anti-matter Perfittorial, you would be thinking the same thing that you are currently thinking at this moment as a curious human internal-theorizer.  Anti-matter meet matter . . . who both think of themselves as matter and the other as anti-matter.
 
        •••  When you contemplate or ponder, and an idea/answer seems to arrive from outside of yourself, it "comes from your subconscious" (according to some); or, it's your "creative right-hemisphere" communicating with your "egoic left-hemisphere" (according to some others).  A few think it's a true "gut feeling" because they think your micro-biome (bacteria through your entire body) communicates chemically with your organs and brain.  A small number think it is the collective consciousness or non-dual (I'm) guiding all of the above; but almost everyone fails to theorize that, at times, it is you thinking to your anti-matter self.  I am not certain, but I suspect that I'm experiences consciousness and does not answer esoteric mental questions.

Family Trees


        Picture your family tree; exponentially expanding back, through the generations.  How far do you imagine it extends?
 
        Do you extend your ancestral family tree to include proto-human species, from millions of generations ago?  Since there was never a clearly demarcated "line" between proto-human and human —why not keep going back along your mammalian-portion in your family tree?
 
        But, how can you choose to stop looking back along that massive pyramid of organic life-forms at the "mammal-lizard" that must have been your ancestor a few hundreds-of-millions of generations ago?  Is it because of the warm-blooded versus cold-blooded seems too "alien" (too far away from human)?

        Keep going.  There were billions of generations of single-celled organisms, which thrived on sunlight or carbon dioxide (or some other food-source) until there was sufficient levels of their waste-products (oxygen) to allow multi-cellular life to procreate and survive.  Your family tree should include some portion of those small animals, right?  

        There is one long ancestral line of survivors who duplicated or cloned, then they spawned, later they birthed, which leads from some combination of inorganic proteins (think: RNA-virus) to you.
 
        Every one of those organic organisms should be in your imagined family tree.  And, why stop there?  I expect it's because consciousness, and the organic drive-to-survive, may not have been (and may still not be?) present in inorganic proteins.
 
        Is it probable that inorganic proteins were/are unaffected by the extreme temperatures, radiations, and vacuum-conditions of space—during the ten billion years between the universe's expansion and the point when the third planet away from the star (now called: Sol or The Sun) cooled sufficiently enough for those viruses to crash land and begin their job of Terra-forming?     
 
         

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

 

        When do naΓ―ve 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:

 

Intern ... Internal ... Interesting ... Resting ... Rest

  

How do you pronounce the word pronounce?  Is your emphasis on the 'noun'?

Do questions go-in easier than statements?  Is your default-mode commands?
 

Does a furtive glance differ from a brief glimpse?  Is the 'imps' intent evident?

Consider your reaction to these sentences being read-aloud (without subtitles).
 

Creation's creator begets congregations:  Not a flaw or bug, but baked-right-in.
 
Fear, as an emotion, thrives more than pleasure, love, and happiness combined.

 
Infinite vs ceaseless—timeless vs without space—∅ space vs energy vs gravity.
 
Maximum light-speed vs maximum gravitational energy—describe black holes.