The most striking characteristic of the phenomenal world in which we, as humans, find ourselves is the distinction that

appears to exist between the moving and the unmoving, the static and the dynamic. While we ourselves appear to move about, the vast majority of objects that compose the environment in which we move appear to move but little, if any. The sun and moon, the planets, appear to move over time, whereas the Earth on which we stand does not. This primitive notion of a geocentric cosmos based on simple sense evidence has, for the most part, been discarded and was replaced by a heliocentric system which has been developing in stages into the more general notion of hierarchocentricity. The choice of center is in some sense arbitrary, however, due to the fact that motion is relative. Selecting out any particular point as center is then purely a matter of convenience relative to the task at hand; the mathematical formulae for predicting the locations of the heavenly bodies was simpler when the Sun was considered to be the center of the Solar System than when the Earth was regarded as the center. The relative simplicity of the heliocentric predictive laws compared to the geocentric ones, led to the former system being considered as true and the latter false. This tendency of very highly valuing simplicity is very much a part of the modern scientific enterprise, and there is certainly good reason for desiring simplicity yet the wanton application of Occam s Razor is both crippling and blinding There is no reason things must be simple in their basic nature. The mathematics governing our Solar System is a case in point, where the transition of center from Earth to Sun leads to the ignorance of both the nature and existence of the system of Earth as Center. The forms the paths that planets take in their journey are simple ellipses around the Sun, and the beautiful complex curves they trace around the Earth are relegated as secondary phenomena and slowly forgotten, along with whatever knowledge that might have therewith been gleaned. Certainly as far as human life is concerned, the Earth truly is the center not only of the Solar System, but of the Universe. It might not have been wise to so quickly shelve the geocentric system, especially considering that information from past ages has been quite unanimous in declaring the effects the other planets have on the Earth and the mind and social organization of humanity. In any case, relativity of motion should have indicated that the geo- and helio-centric systems are complementary and that neither has any right to be considered true while the other thus becomes false . Relative usefulness for some specific end is no good as an arbiter of truth and falsehood. This description of the choice of center for the local planetary-sun system is an illustration of the equivalency of the static and the dynamic that arises from the relativity of motion. This formal equivalency allows some freedom in choosing what we will consider to be static and unmoving or to be dynamic. This sort of choice can also be made in various aspects of the human condition and experience.

Throughout our lives we associate with the environment in many different ways and we usually conceive that throughout these operations it is our body that moves. It is perhaps possible, and not unreasonable, to operate from the notion that our body is static and that the movements we appear to make of our body are actually movements of the environment. If we choose to not inextricably tie our self to our body and think of ourselves as being a point-like observer or consciousness then we have the choice as to whether we as that point believe we are moving through a field of unified observational states or that we are unmoving and the field is changing. In short, we have with full faith of logic the right to consider our being as the center of creation, and without a doubt we are each already the

center of our own world. The ability to mentally position one s self further from or near to the center of all things is a prerequisite for certain kinds and degrees of magical action, all of which is based on control of that aspect of ourselves that exists abstracted from common mundane bodies, that is not so much seen or felt but heard, and that is referred to as mind. The relativity of motion, insofar as it applies to material bodies, provides a logical basis for what is generally considered illogical nonsense. Logic is not a crutch in magical practice, but rather its legs. The undeniable production of physical effects is the prerogative of modern science and its mathematical tools, which are a product of logic. It should not be surprising then that the magical production of physical effects must be based in the application of logic, and we are supported in this by the fact the hierophants have always come from among the ranks of those more than passingly acquainted with physical facts and forces. A thing, or act, is called magical by those who do not know the logical steps necessary to produce such a thing or act. That a television or computer is not considered magic at the current time is due to there being a widely-held, general notion of what is and is not possible to achieve with logic. It should be noted that mathematics, as the high development of logic, often leads to illogical results and that there is no reason that a mathematic concerning existence as willful consciousness may not lead to similar illogical results.

In a psychological sense individuals are said to have a form of center called the ego. In English the ego manifests itself linguistically in the word I. Since it is a center, the ego must have something to be the center of. Since it is the notion of our self as a personality, it is natural to assume it to be the locus around which various different personalities congregate and the outlet through which they find possibility of affecting that which is the other via control over the physical. Each of us has multiple personalities, or modes of interfacing with the world. In the standard individual the differences between the various egos are generally but little and their separate natures are not evident without the imposition of abnormal conditions. Being in a sense close to one another, they are all then close to the center and the ego does not, and cannot, change much over time as its range of motion is relatively confined. In individuals considered to have what is called multiple-personality disorder the little egos, subselves, what-have-you, are more distinct and the fact that each personality usually has no knowledge of the others is an indication that they are also further away from the center than in normal individuals. At different times, with their differing sets of circumstances, is useful to behave and act in a certain manner, to take on the characteristics of a certain personality. Our personality systems are formed over time in reaction to the environments in which we find ourselves, and manifest as what is called habit. Being a product of environment and time, differences in location and duration will elicit different forms of personality and people of the same or similar environment must generally share the same basic personality structure. In the sense used here, the notion of environment is inclusive of culture. Indicative of the notion that the ego is merely a certain kind of center is the existence of what is called multiple-personality disorder. This disorder is generally seen to occur amongst people who have undergone traumatic experiences, and by viewing the personality as a product of environment and duration a certain understanding of this disorder is easily acquired. Different environmental conditions encourage and demand different courses of action in securing the needs of the body and the prevailing personality. Taken to the extreme an environment may be hostile to the point where the inability or

unwillingness to at in a certain manner would lead to significant pain or death. In such a case the dominant personality will usually be sacrificed in order to ensure survival of the physical organism. The extent to which the new environment differs from that in which primary personalities were formed, will dictate how far the ego must move from its usual location in centering the primary personalities. In so moving it will take on other personality characteristics. This changing of personality is the movement of the ego; one is always accompanied by the other. In the sense it is useful to consider the existence of a field of personality that exists independent of any individual and with which humans, as an ego, must find some relation. It is suggested that in relation to this field the ego is as a point, and that as it remains in any one area the field there is ascribed what may as well be called density. Once this density has accumulated, where-so-ever in the personality field it may exist, the ego will then tend to center that density . Inducing a different habitual structure, moving the position of the ego in the personality field, and keeping the individual in such a state will cause density to accumulate in that portion of the field and at the same time the initial personality as a region of density will grow weaker. After returning to normal conditions the individual ego will find itself with a new center. Individuals with multiplepersonality disorder are characterized by the existence of especially dense regions remote from one another, each of which can act on its own as a center. Just as the personality of a normal human changes along with conditions, so too does that of someone with multiple-personality disorder. The difference being that, since individuals with MPD have multiple centers in which the ego may reside, a change of conditions may force the ego into a drastically different orbit. In this sense the ego and personality structure are similar to the solar system and astrology can in this light be, perhaps more properly, referred to as a science. Ignoring for the time being the influences of the actual planet per se, the various signs and conjunctions can be viewed as fundamental personality elements in their own right. They will be used in fleshing out the mathematical system suggested in this paragraph in a later essay.

In order to form new personality centers some type of, at least relatively, traumatic experience is necessary. In all cultic systems there exist rites of initiation, which often include some aspect of trauma. The idea of Induction or initiation as a member of some group includes within itself the notion of some degree of loss of self alongside the creation of a new self, a new personality. The widespread use of trauma in such instance is evident in the simple, and usually thoughtless, hazing that occurs in sports teams and in the fraternities and sororities of United States colleges. From the standpoint of an individual occult operative, the notions in this article are useful in that they provide a simple structural approach for tackling the problem , since it is to a large extent not of one s own creation, of our personality. What needs be done is painfully obvious and consists in changing one s habits, which is not always easy, and putting oneself in what could be called hostile environments. The extent of change and the speed with which a change is desired determine the methods one would apply. The use of highly traumatic experiences will not always work as planned, and should be used with care, if at all [see end of this paragraph for a safe accelerative]. The application of massive physical and/or emotional pain is primarily of use in causing rapid deterioration, and even shattering, of an existing personality or particular aspects thereof. These things may or may not be desired, and in nearly every case are

perpetrated by hostile agencies. The Christ archetype as found in the Christian churches is, in its being an idea of self-sacrifice, a representation of the traumatic change of personality. Generally, the whole of changing one s self consists in identifying the habits of body and mind so that one may do or think something other than those things. Over time the ego will become more mobile and the personality and mind more flexible, and the opportunities and range for action will increase. That s pretty much the whole of it, and any specific form can be cultivated with effort and time (self-induced sleep deprivation is highly useful as being a form on non-traumatic trauma). Before any more effectual magical practice this first is necessary.

A normal human experiences the world dualistically as self and other. This division is synthetic and operational (all definitions are operational and exist as closed loops within a linguistic framework; this can lead to interesting effects Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds anyone?). Unity demands that this division between self and other is illusory, however useful or common it might be. As the normal state of human consciousness is dualistic, nearly all of the density in the personality field will tend to support the ego in this state. A preliminary training of the personality through forced change in habit will diffuse the density and allow breakthroughs into non-ordinary personality super-system fields to occur more easily. The thinning out of the field of the dualistic personality super-system is necessary in order to eliminate what can be called its total gravity. By thinning out or homogenizing the density of the entire super-system field it obtains the condition wherein there are only weak potential positions where the ego may center itself and the hold the dualistic super-system has as a whole on the ego is close to being negated. Dualistic consciousness and unital consciousness may appear at first glance to be diametrically opposed at one-hundred and eighty degrees, this cannot be the case if the two possible states are to coexist. If they were, the unital form, being the state of consciousness respecting the truth of Unity, would annihilate the dualistic before it even existed. Unity and duality are without doubt separate notions, although two does indeed come from one (which comes from zero, but that is another matter). They are not opposed, they are rather independent and complement one another. The condition wherein two quantitative terms are independent of one another and yet related is a condition called in mathematics normality , it s geometric figure is the right angle; the axes of the two dimensional graph, the 2D Cartesian system, are normal to one another: move along either one and your position will not change with respect to the other. Two spaces that are normal, that are at a right angle to each other, are independent of one another, separate in a sense, and also related, together creating a space larger than them considered as really separate. The larger space may be represented using smaller spaces, subspaces, that are not normal, ie. related as are the two legs of a right angle, but the normal representation is the simplest that is able to completely represent the larger space, although it may not be the simplest representation for any specific task. Considering any personality super-system, in this case the dualistic and unital, to be planar, the condition of normality can be visualized by considering two planes separated by some fixed distance picturing them close together will be helpful here. When our dualistic personality super-system has had its density thinned-out , has been homogenized, it loses what power of gravity existed in it with which the ego was centered. The ego is no longer strongly bound to the dualistic system and is free to float into the unital personality super-system and begin the

creation of a new density/gravity relation within the unital structure. Once one begins operating from a position within the unital field one notices at first not so much a change in the appearance of the other, but rather a change in the meanings with which the things as other are endowed. Specifically, everything will have meaning, whereas in the dualistic field very few things present themselves as containing significant meaning. Likewise will every act will be characterized by meaning and so great as that meaning is will the act carry unimaginable potency. To one accustomed to the dualistic field, existing and acting in the unital field will be found to be very draining, similar to being awake for extended periods of time. This very similarity indicates exactly how self-induced sleep deprivation serves as an accelerative. When we sleep, we dream, and the dream world and the unital super-system are identical! The occult reason for why it is necessary that we sleep is that our consciousness must return from the dualistic field to its source in the unital field in regular intervals in order to obtain sustenance. We feed our bodies in the dualistic world, or souls/ego/consciousness in the unital world. We find in dreams that the things we encounter have meanings beyond those things merely being objects, and that we are able to act in ways usually unimaginable for the waking world. These are the same sorts of changes one finds when purposefully entering a conscious state of awareness of the unity of all things. The unital super-system is also likely the same as that notion that Australian Aboriginals refer to as the Dream Time.

There are many things the structures of which may in some degree be elucidated by the notion of hierarchocentricity found in the beginning of this essay. The main idea usually in attendance when one speaks of a hierarchy is that of a gradation of power, or control, and a hierarchy is in this sense the relational structure of that gradation. A usual symbol is the pyramid, indicating that the power of many is controlled by the few. This symbol need not be taken as the only one that could represent the notion of hierarchy, although it is the most common form of its existence within human systems as dictatorship/oligarchy. It could just as well be represented by a line, or a pillar, and could take as representation for itself well-near any image so long as it has within it a way of indicating the ideas of being greater than and less than. As an example, the structure of power within a democracy as it is generally considered to have been intended would be two pyramids connected at either their bases or their apices. These forms would indicate, that although the power of the many are controlled by the few, those few are in turn chosen, or controlled, by the power of the many. Centricity is, obviously, the idea of something being central and heierachocentricity is, as would be expected, the structure of control relating to things considered as central. As the apex of control in a system is a sort of center, hierarchocentricty is then a hierarchy of hierarchies. In the initial paragraph, the picture of moons revolving around planets revolving around suns revolving around the galactic centers was used as an illustration. The lower systems compositionally create the center that controls them, and although not the center s power, per se, are the mechanism through which that power manifests itself. In a similar way the power of the lower centers manifests in their combined center, and from which they have originated. Hierarchocentricity is the natural order of the All, and any deviations therefrom will be subject to a corrective action corresponding to the degree of deviation and the propensity of that deviation to recreate itself. The whole of nature is a hierarchocentric paradox that cannot be resolved

from the spatiotemporal point of view. This comes as no surprise to students of the occult and it is evident in the symbol of the cosmic egg and the related chicken in the egg paradox. Paradox, as outside the law, is the source of all phenomenal things subject to law as normally considered. An understanding of the law of paradoxa is necessary to move beyond current limitations and the suggestions for personal development in previous paragraphs arise from, and are a means of, resolving basic paradoxical natures attending the existence of the individual. As regards organizational systems, an interesting example is that based on human relationship triangles often found in occult movements. The structure builds itself off a primary unit of three individuals who are the apex of the hierarchy. The three agree to goal and a course of action necessary to achieve that goal, which is their center and the true apex of the system which concretizes around them. The three then split and each finds two others with whom they will form a new triangle who will remain unknown to the other original two. This process continues for however long is necessary to secure the base necessary to reaching the goal. The power structure within each trine can vary; the most effective in accomplishing the goal for which the structure was established is the demand of complete obedience to those in an order closer to the central, originating trine. In practice it is necessary that those in rings closer to the center have at least a modicum or appearance of having a controlling influence in the organization. The original three will find it necessary to in some way bring the groups they spawn together for collaboration, near the top or center this would have to occur in secret meetings where individuals remain anonymous except to those who had inducted them. Further from the center the necessity for anonymity and appearance of having a degree of control becomes less and will evaporate, although the demands of secrecy will remain. This is the basic structure of any secret society - independent of any reason for it having to, or deciding to, operate in secret. It is not a structure suited for developing a quick result and the goal will near invariably not be achieved during the lifetimes of its original founders. The fact that the goal and operation of such an organization is secret and only manifests after a wide span of time suggest that the goal, at the very least, is one that cultural conditions prevailing at the time of institution would find anathema. A similar organizational structure with a more benevolent goal need be less concerned with secrecy and anonymity, and would be used by a group of people disseminating knowledge in order to prevent that knowledge from falling into what they consider the wrong hands. The fall of Egypt is thought to have occurred primarily because the visible hierophantic fraternity was infiltrated by hostile agencies: first by people, then more gradually by their ideas.

The audience reading this is largely composed, I am assuming, of individuals who are independent occult operatives who may occasionally engage in group practices. I would personally advise against involving one s self with any large organization that purports to be of the occult variety, if only to maintain independence. Loose affiliations should suffice. Be especially wary of organizations with explicit hierarchies that demand unquestioning obedience and belief. You must remain free to choose what to believe and to act with your own reasons in mind, to do otherwise is to submit to external personality forming impulses. Questioning is itself the method through which occult knowledge is developed, as with all other forms of knowledge. A demand for unquestioning belief refutes the basic process through which we would otherwise develop. An organization devoted to truth will only ask that one suspend

disbelief, and will welcome questions as the answers would help to show how their point of view is at least a partial version of the truth. Hierarchies are sometimes useful, in that in order to achieve certain goals leaders are necessary to direct action. Such a temporary hierarchy cannot function under the burden of unlimited questioning of those in positions of leadership. As many questions as possible must be resolved in the elucidation of the nature of the goal and the plan. Once those things are decided, the leaders will hopefully be so chosen that they are the best suited to direct certain activities and thus they will not be subject to paralyzing questioning. In any event, if you don t like the current order of things you probably shouldn t ally yourself with any of the powerful institutions of that order.