Further to this well thought out and defined thesis, there are various elements in the intial question (which, we would say remain moot but for the reasoning herein) whose response requires more detailed treatment and analysis and which can be broken down in to the following elements:
a) Methodology: To this head, we would note that it is important to define the precise methodology employed in defining and answering the question. The question is not a random question, is not rhetorical and contains sufficiently defined parameters that require answer. Traditionally, in the English language, words such as ‘what’, ‘where’, why’ and ‘who’ are employed to give effect to such issues. Because the proposition is necessarily quantitative (see below), to encapsulate the above in a single word, we would suggest “How”.
b) Quantitative analysis: To this head, we would note that it is critical to the overall structure of response to the question to clearly define that the answer involved is quantitative. This may not appear to be the answer given by the perceived majority of potential respondents to the instant question. However, for the reasons and heads set out below, it is clear that rather than be definitive (i.e. yes / no), the accurate response should in fact refer to the amount of space, time or matter (sold, liquid, gaseous or other) whether explicit or not, theoretical or not as may apply. To encapsulate the above in a single word, we would suggest “much”.
c) Temporal analysis: Again, for the reasons given above, it appears to us that a definitive response lacks focus, function and sufficient detailed consideration and analysis of the instant question. A definitive response has the inherent problem of being a snapshot taken at a particular defined or undefined period of time. The fundamental weakness of such a definitive answer therefore leaves little room for consideration of more flexible or uncertain temporal elements which come into play at various points of time in the normal course of events. To encapsulate the above in a single word, we would suggest “time”.
d) Ego / psychological: The direct interlocutor / inquisitor has described herself in the first person singular. This is completely natural and consistent with the nature of the question. But, as referred to above, the answer to be given is not one the direct interlocutor / inquisitor is able to provide as the question is not fundamentally a rhetorical one. The direct interlocutor / inquisitor, by actively posting the question on a forum accessible by thousands of people is providing an invitation to treat (as it were) to those people (who cannot be identified with specificity) to provide an objective response to a subjective question. That said, the question is not therefore directed to the direct interlocutor / inquisitor, but rather to those in the second person. Thus, we summarise this by the words “do you”.
e) Quantitative temporal analysis: Because it is arguable that the quantitative and temporal analyses on a separate basis yield several, not joint (as opposed to joint and several) results, to ensure that the question and the resulting analysis is sufficiently complete it is necessary that this important element is not overlooked. Without labouring the point, we refer to the several heads above and in this instance, to encapsulate the joint heads in a single word, we would suggest using the verb “spend”.
f) Perceptive or visual analysis: As a link between the ‘Ego / psychological’ analysis above and the ‘sui generis’ analysis below, it is clear that a common link between the two (and indeed the fundamental question) is visual. The question then arises as to what or whom (as the fundamental question is directed to a person or people) this visual acuity is directed towards. Taken in isolation, the issue presents grammatical and epistemological difficulties. A solution can be developed if, to encapsulate the above in a single word, we use “looking at”.
g) ‘Sui generis’ analysis: The Latin maxim ‘sui generis’ means “of its own kind”. This is applicable in the instant case as the concept of Narcissism is solely limited to human beings and not other species as far as current inter/intra-species research on anthropology, anthropomorphism, etymology, epidemiology, epistomolgy and other related sciences are at. The very nature of the Narcissitic ‘self’ is key to the straightforward analysis of the issue and answer to the question and therefore at the heart of the matter. However, trhe question has been put by the direct interlocutor / inquisitor is in the first person singular (who has referred to herself as such). The answer necessitates a change in perspective which is also not rhetorical, but properly directed to the direct interlocutor / inquisitor. Thus, to encapsulate the above in a single word, we would suggest “yourself”.
h) Dimensional Dynamics analysis: Spatial, fractal, Fractal-Spatial and time continuum dynamics are a fundamental issue arising out of the originating question. These dynamics of dimension, space and time are reduced to key words in the English language which are used as descriptors and include “out”, “around”. “up”, “down”, “left”, “right” and so forth. Having regard to the Reflective Analysis (as per below), we perceive that to encapsulate the above in a single word, we would suggest “in”.
g) Reflective analysis: On a simple, non-scientific basis, for example a creative writing class, a ‘reflective analysis’ could be described as a conclusion. As the old proverb itself states, ‘all good things come to an end’ (although it is arguable that the proverbial premise is fundamentally flawed in that the proverb does not define what ‘good things’ are, and therefore creates huge ambiguity, and also creates a temporal vacuum in that it does not define or state with specificity when the end will eventuate). Because of the reference to Narcissus, we believe that it is appropriate to concretely encapsulate such reflective analysis in a single word and (appropriately), we submit that this is “the mirror”.