There is a saying, “It is easier to put on slippers than to carpet the world.” In essence it is telling us that rather than trying to change the circumstances of the world around us, which is nigh impossible, we can have a powerful effect on how we experience those circumstances by simply changing our own perceptions and attitudes. As an idea it speaks to the nature of what actually is and the kind of control we have over what actually is. In short it is reminding us that our most powerful form of control over the quality of our experience of life is self-control. But this saying also illuminates an underlying principle of consciousness that is not so obvious, which is its drive toward anthropomorphism; the subconscious projection of the qualities and attributes of one’s own experience of life onto the world around oneself. This attribute is an essential element of the nature of the biosensory system wherein which the conscious observer becomes aware of “what is” via the experiences that are fabricated by this system. It also speaks to the fungible nature of those experiences as they pertain to any set of external circumstances.

Different people sitting in the very same seat of the same rollercoaster will have very different experiences of the ride. Some will be giddy with excitement while some will be overwhelmed with fear and others will have a gamut of experiences falling within and without these boundaries. Nothing changes about the ride. An empty car running on rails following the same laws of physics, over and over, has no experience, it is a set of circumstances, but add a conscious observer and an entire world of experienced reality emerges for that observer. From this truth we can view the slippers as a metaphor for the experience of reality provided to the conscious observer via its biosensory system. But it is not just slippers that this biosensory system provides for us it is an all covering and enveloping suit that, like a membrane, separates the entire experience of consciousness from the reality it is interacting with. In this sense there are two “realities” present when an observer is present. And if there are multiple observers present during a single event, there will be multiple realities for each observer’s experience is unique to the organism itself. But there is ever only one “prime” reality from which our biosensory systems fabricate their own unique experiences of reality, and that is what I’ve termed “totIs” reality. And it is these other biosensory produced experiences of reality that I’ve termed “antIs” reality, each of which is unique to the organism that produces it.

TotIs reality, being “prime”, is the independent source of all, of all we observe and can’t observe, all we know and can’t know. As source it is dependent on nothing else. AntIs reality, on the other hand, is completely dependent on totIs reality. Through the mechanisms of its biosensory system the organism simulates an interpretation of its interactions with totIs reality, and that simulation is the enveloping suit, created using the threads of sensory data sent by the biosensors and woven into whole cloth by the central nervous system, a creation which the organism believes to be actual reality. But it is not. The roller coaster is neither fun nor scary, those are products of the organism’s biology. In the most fundamental of terms observation itself is not reality it is a simulation, an interpretation, in essence it is an illusion. The experiences of the attributes of nature that the conscious observer has are an illusion. They are completely dependent on the actuality of totIs reality but are not equivalent to totIs reality. The nature and attributes of totIs reality are not, in the least, dependent on what the conscious observer’s antIs experiences interpret as “real”. Up, down, left, right, in, out, red, green, hot, cold, love, hate, before, after, these are all simulated experiences created for the benefit of the conscious observer by its biosensory apparatus. TotIs reality requires neither observation nor experience to be. Its nature is beyond, above, outside any attributes of reality our biology creates for us. It can’t even be described by consciousness because we are continually forced to describe it using some corresponding conceptual framework that our consciousness can “understand”, as the previous sentence illustrates perfectly.

And so, the very experience of reality created for the conscious observer can in fact be understood, metaphorically, as an all enveloping suit fabricated by our biology and separating us completely from actual totIs reality. This is the nature of the anthropomorphism of reality projected subconsciously into our conscious observations. The nature of reality we observe must comport with our biosensory experience of it even though that experienced reality is based on a qualitatively and quantitatively limited and flawed set of biologically generated signals. It is the only reality a conscious observer can ever “know”. Because of this we don’t’ think about nor can we control this anthropomorphism of reality; it is the very process by which reality is made manifest for us. The most consequential aspect of this process is the conscious observer’s projection of the biologically experienced attributes of space and time on to reality as a whole as if these experiences are the actual attributes of totIs reality when they are not.

This anthropomorphism is the warp and weft of the fabric of the enveloping membrane that separates us from actual totIs reality. As conscious observers experiencing an antIs reality we believe that we are agents of our own fate; possessors of a free will that enables us to affect changes to, and outcomes of, events not yet manifest in time. But Relativity and Quantum theory have both shown this to be an illusion. Nobel physicist John Bell proposed another idea for the nature of reality when he said, “There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is superdeterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the ‘decision’ by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be. The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things.”

The attributes of antIs reality as supplied to the conscious observer via our biosensory system have no effect on the actual nature of totIs reality, they are merely a bio-simulated interpretation of that reality. As such, the attributes of space and time, in totIs, exist beyond any conception that a consciousness can imagine. The conscious experience of cause and effect, based as it is on the observation of changes in state through time on systems in space, is an illusion. What we experience as the chance occurrence of outcomes in time in no way alters the nature of totIs reality simply because of our inability to have an actual, non-simulated, experience of this unknowable reality. Let’s see how this plays out to a consciousness engaged in a game of chance which allows for the perception of the wielding of free will. We’ll look at a game of Klondike Solitaire.

We begin with the official layout of seven columns of cards with each column to the right having one more card than the column to the left so column one has one card column two has two cards and column seven has seven cards for a total of twenty-eight cards in the layout. Only the last card in each column is showing while all the others are face down so the player only sees the seven cards in the layout and one card from the play pile where the remaining twenty-four cards sit in that pile, face down. During play the player will form columns of cards in the layout from high to low and alternating red and black. When no more cards can be moved within the layout the player turns over three cards from the play deck which top card can be played on the layout if permissible and the exposed cards below can now also be played if permissible. If no cards can be played, the player turns over another three cards. When all possible cards in the play deck have been used, they are cycled back to the face down position and played again. The object of the game is to form all fifty-two cards into four piles of like suited cards starting with the ace and, in numerical order, ending with the king. When an ace is exposed in either the layout or the play deck it is removed to its own position above the layout to begin building the run of that suit, ace to king.

So, we’ve now dealt out the cards. The layout shows a black jack, red king, red five, red five, red three, black four and red jack. The red three is placed on the black four exposing a black ten, which itself is placed on the red jack, exposing a red queen. The black jack is placed on the red queen leaving that column without any cards. Only a king can be placed on an open column so the red king is moved to that column exposing a red six. The black four is now moved to one of the red fives exposing an ace of diamonds. It is at this moment that I have the “choice” of which red five I move to the black four. The ace is moved to its own position to begin building the run from ace to king in the suit of Diamonds while exposing a red king. We have not yet needed to use cards from the play pile so pure chance has been, mostly, responsible for our success so far. The red queen is moved to the black king revealing a red two of diamonds, which we move on to the ace of diamonds. This reveals a black seven onto which we move the red six, leaving an open column. Onto that column we move the black king revealing a black six. We now move one of the red fives, our “choice”, onto the black six revealing a red three. But we have another red three that is a diamond, so we move it to the two of diamonds, adding to the diamond run, and move the other red three onto the black four. An ace of spades is revealed, so we move it to its own position to begin building a run of spades. This reveals a black king. We now have no more plays in the layout so we turn over the first group of three from the play pile. It reveals a black five which we place on the red six, revealing a black jack which we can’t place so we turn over another three cards. It reveals a black four which we place on the red five. That reveals a red nine which we place on the black ten. Once again, we must turn another group from the play pile. It reveals a red three which can’t be played so we turn over three more cards. A red four of diamonds shows up, but instead of placing it on the three of diamonds in the diamond run, we place it on the black five in the layout, our “choice”, so that we retain the ability to place a black three on it if one appears. With no other plays we turn another group of three over to reveal a red jack which can’t be played so another group of three is turned. A red nine can’t be played so once more we turn three over. An ace of hearts shows so we start a third pile to build a hearts suit group. The red ten below is placed on the black jack. With nothing to play we turn over the last three cards to reveal a black seven which can’t be played, so we turn the whole play pile over and start again and will continue in this fashion until either we can no longer play any cards and are stuck, unable to build the four piles of cards arranged by suit and running in numerical sequence, or we accomplish this feat and are the winner of the game.

Continuing the next round of play I proceed in the same manner. Partway through I have an open column which I allow to remain open because I remember there is a king in the play deck which I want to use to fill this space and so use a queen I can play from the layout cards. I could move a king from the layout but decide to wait. It pays off, I draw the king and play it, I put the queen on it and reveal another important card to play thus building a cascade of moves. This gives me a great feeling, I’ve done something “right”, I made the right choice which can lead to me winning. I do not feel controlled in any way, I feel that I am the controller. There are a slew of techniques the player can choose from with regard to placing playable cards; like choosing to place a king from the layout onto an open column, leaving it open, or waiting for a king to appear from the play pile. We can also choose to place a card from the play pile onto the layout or to not place it and wait to play the other possible card that may be hidden in the layout still. There is also the possibility to play only one or two cards from the play deck in a cycle so as to change the order in which the cards appear during the following cycle of the deck, and since a player can see all three cards on each turn they can decide to play just one or two in order to have a certain card appear during the next cycle. A player can choose to play no cards from the play deck so as to ascertain which cards will actually come up in the cycle and so play certain cards strategically. Cards can be played back onto the layout from the suit piles in order to allow the play of other cards so as to reveal hidden cards in the layout or play cards in the play pile. It would seem that there is a whole gamut of opportunities for the player to affect the outcome of the game by “choosing” one or the other and thus lead to a winning situation. Continuing this game, I was able to play all the way through to a win using the techniques discussed above. “Yes” I exclaimed, delighted with myself in having been able to work the cards using my intelligence, knowledge, and skill in order to eke out a win against the odds. In my mind, and thus my experience, I was the author of the win, me myself; for in what other way could it have been achieved?

This is the experience of the conscious observer, the player, in the winning of a game. Is this anthropomorphism? It was I who won the game using my own “nonrandom” choices wasn’t it? But in truth I win less than one game in six. In those other five games I likewise apply my intelligence, skill, and knowledge. I’m using the very same attitude and techniques as I am still trying to win yet I do not. In those games where realizing that I’m blocked and stymied, that there are no more cards to be placed and no way to continue building the piles of numerically sequenced suits, there is a feeling of impotence and inadequacy that in losing it is not that “I” have lost but that luck or some other unsympathetic force has moved against me. The experience is one of disappointment and frustration. “Ugh” I will exclaim or “damn” when the card I need does not materialize after turning one over in the play deck or being revealed in the layout. Is this anthropomorphism? I was beaten by heartless chance, I ponder that perhaps “if only” I had done something different, if only I had played a different card or played it in a different order or chosen to not play a card if I’d shuffled the deck one more time. This is a completely different experience and feeling from the one I have when winning. But the fact is that neither the circumstances of play nor my desire and ability had changed. Though winning or losing elicits experiences with very different feelings within me, like the roller coaster car, the external circumstances of the solitaire game do not change. The antIs experience of the choices we think we have do not exist as such in totIs reality. Let a computer “play” the game and, without human observers, there is no winning or losing, simply outcomes. To the cards and the computer such concepts do not exist, they have no reality. The only place they do exist is within the consciousness of the observer; the bio-simulated interpretation of totIs reality that consciousness believes to be totIs reality, but it is not.

Is there any fundamental difference between the process and circumstances of the winning hand and the loosing hand? That all depends on whether we ask the question from the perspective of antIs or totIs reality. Winning and losing themselves are arbitrary contrivances of the observer’s creation and exist as part of the observers antIs experience. Do the cards care in what order they start or end up? Do the cards care that there is a win or a loss? The experiences of the various riders on the roller coaster are a function of their biologically created antIs realities, they do not affect the external circumstances of the car riding the rails. So too the player’s desire to win and their experiences of winning or losing, which is a direct consequence of conscious observation, does not alter the random nature of the game. That we seem to be able to choose between the permutations to allow for a “winning” or “losing” outcome is a function of our antIs perspective, it is illusory. Such a circumstance is without meaning, without variance, without judgment, or any other antIs attribute we wish to project upon it. In the card game we see that from the conscious observers antIs viewpoint the desire to win along with its flip side, the desire to not lose, directs the activity of the organism and that these outcomes affect the qualitative judgments that the player, as observer, places on the experience. But this experience is not real, in the sense of being a fundamental aspect of reality itself, that is, from the totIs perspective. In the antIs reality of the conscious observer, the future and its outcome can only be guessed at by relying on our faith in the reality of cause and effect which, solipsistically, is built upon our antIs experience of reality; which experience convinces us that we can manipulate and control events. In the reality that is the totIs universe, nothing is as we experience it in antIs. Time does not “flow”, cause and effect are biosensory illusions, there are no probabilities, everything is, there is no “was” or “will be” as we experience it. To win or lose has nothing to do with free will or chance, there is only “is”. Winning and losing exist only as ingredients in the antIs universe of observers. We might as well ask “is the sun winning, is the snowflake losing?” These are meaningless concepts outside of our antIs perspective. As I, the observer, sit down to begin my game, the totIs reality is that the game is already won or lost, there is nothing I can do to change what is. I am a part of that reality, not a creator of it. Looking at reality in this way gives us new insight into Dr Bell’s proposal, “…Suppose the world is superdeterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the “decision” by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears… For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things.”

The insight relates to the very description of the conundrum. His reasoning continues to assume that the observer’s perspective, that is his antIs perspective, is indicative of “actual” totIs reality and so a resolution to the dilemma can be found within an antIs perspective. The entire dilemma itself exists because of this very assumption. The power of the projected anthropomorphism inherent in the very nature of the conscious observers experience of reality is responsible for the manifestation, to consciousness, of the only reality we can know through our biosensory experience; this is our antIs reality. But the “other” reality, totIs reality, is the one source. By its nature it is above, beyond, outside any conception or experience our biology can create for us. It is both the source of everything and yet completely unmanifest to consciousness. It cannot be “observed” with or within the conditional antIs reality as fabricated by our biology; a reality contingent on the existence of a “now” moment in flowing time. To “experience” totIs reality would be, for consciousness as we know it, an annihilating event.

Without the ability to differentiate between these two categories of reality, we continue to believe that our experienced antIs reality is equivalent to the actual source reality of totIs. It is an impossibility to reconcile the projected nature of a simulated representation of reality with the attributes of the source reality itself because we are always trying to force the attributes of the source to correspond to the projected attributes of the interpretation. Simply put, an interpretation of a thing is not equivalent to the thing itself. As consciousness, in an antIs reality, we find ourselves living in a world of conditional and uncertain existence with an unknown future moving into an unrecoverable past. We ponder fate and free will and worry about the future and lament our past. These are not the attributes of the source, totIs, reality. Albert Einstein was correct, “reality” is an illusion with a dogged persistence. All of these concepts, “superdeterminism” “locality”, “spooky action at a distance”, only exist as antIs concepts. They have no meaning in a totIs universe. But at the same time our consciousness keeps us stuck “here” in the “now” as observers. And what is this thing we as consciousness call observation? It is a direct function of our biosensory system: seeing, smelling, tasting, hearing, feeling, thinking, imagining, knowing, dreaming, naming, owning, controlling, creating, destroying; all of them separately and together, modes of observation by consciousness, all creations of our biology. We think these are the actual attributes of reality, but the totIs universe cannot be observed by consciousness; antIs judgments and concepts have no meaning nor effect there. Space as we experience it cannot contain it and time as we experience it does not mitigate it. That we, as conscious beings, exist in this condition is for us the only manifestation we can experience of the source but it has no effect on the unobservable, unknowable, and unfathomable mystery that is totIs reality.

So, what’s a consciousness to do? As Dr Bell has said, the resolution of this problem will not be trivial. This is the reason I wrote Gita. As consciousness we cannot resolve this dilemma because there is no dilemma. This dilemma exists only in our antIs experience of reality. It is a question of perspective that requires consciousness to accept the very real limits on its capabilities while also accepting the unmanifest nature of totIs reality. Astoundingly, human consciousness has been aware of this situation for thousands of years and some have tried to supply tools for living with the tension that exists for consciousness in the acceptance of our limited awareness of actual, unmanifest, reality. I am speaking of the central ideas within the Bhagavad Gita which is considered one of the most important texts within Vedic and Hindu philosophy and cosmology and the Tao Te Ching, the Taoist text that is likewise considered a seminal work of Chinese philosophy and cosmology. The basis of both of these texts is the understanding of the truth of the unmanifest nature, to human consciousness, of “actual” reality, what the Bhagavad Gita terms “Brahman” and the Tao Te Ching terms “Tao”, and I term “totIs”; as opposed to the “illusory” reality of human consciousness that is responsible for all that is “made” manifest to us. In both the Bhagavad Gita and the Tao Te Ching the ultimate goal of such a “knowledge”, for lack of a better word, is commonly translated in the west as Enlightenment. A state where the bonds of delusion, desire, and the suffering they evoke are broken and the seer lives in a state of peace no matter what outer circumstances one finds oneself experiencing. Such a revelation, once accepted by consciousness, is like donning a pair of “magic slippers”. And so, to paraphrase the earlier saying, “It is easier to don the slippers of the knowledge of the truth of totIs and antIs reality than it is to try to reconcile the unreconcilable differences between the illusion of antIs reality and actual, totIs, reality.” And so I hope you will enjoy Gita’s journey as she learns to don such a set of magic slippers allowing her to master her own conscious experience of her many challenges using her innate power of self-control to find tranquility and illumination under all circumstances.