Individuals have a form of center which manifests psychologically as the ego and linguistically in the word 'I'. Since it is a center, the ego must have a periphery, & since it is the notion of our self as a personality, we can assume it to be the locus around which personalities congregate, and the outlet through which they affect the other. We each have multiple personalities, or modes of interfacing with the world. In the standard individual the differences between the various egos are small and their separate natures not evident. Being 'close' to one another, they are all close to the center and the ego does not, and cannot, change much over time.
In so-called multiple-personality disorder (mpd), the little egos are more distinct and the fact that each personality has no knowledge of the others is an indication that they are also further away from the center than in ‘normal’ individuals.
Under differing circumstances, it is useful to behave in a certain manner, to take on the characteristics of a certain personality. Personality systems are formed over time in reaction to our environment, and manifest in habits. Being a product of the environment in time, differences in location and duration will elicit different forms of personality. People of similar environments share the same basic personality structure. This notion of 'environment' includes culture.
The very existence of mpd indicates that the ego is a kind of center. This disorder is seen to occur amongst people who have undergone traumatic experiences, and one can come to understand it by viewing the personality as a product of environment in duration. Different environmental conditions encourage and demand different courses of action in securing the needs of the body and the dominant personality. Taken to the extreme an environment may be hostile to the point where the inability or unwillingness to act in a certain manner would lead to death. In such a case the dominant personality will usually be sacrificed in order to ensure survival of the physical organism.
The difference between a new environment and that in which primary personalities were formed will dictate how far the ego must move from its usual location to 'center' the emerging personalities. In moving, it will take on other personality characteristics. This change in personality is the movement of the ego; one is always accompanied by the other.
It is useful to consider the existence of a field of personality that exists independent of any individual and with which each ego must find some relation. In relation to this field the ego is a point. Since it haunts some ‘area’ of the field, we can talk about sub-fields of varying 'densities'. Once a certain density has accumulated in the personality field, the ego will tend to center it.
Inducing a different habitual structure, moving the position of the ego in the personality field, and remaining in such a state will cause density to accumulate in that portion of the field. 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 mpd 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 mpd. The difference being that, since individuals with mpd have multiple centers, 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, under this light, be considered a science. Even ignoring the influences of the actual planets, the various signs and conjunctions can themselves be viewed as fundamental personality elements.
The most striking characteristic of this phenomenal world is the apparent distinction between the static and dynamic. While we appear to move, the vast majority of objects in our environment do not. The sun, 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 been discarded and replaced by a heliocentric system which has gradually developed into the more general notion of hierarchocentricity.
The choice of center is arbitrary, however, due to the fact that motion is relative. Selecting out any particular point as a 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 are simpler when the Sun is at the center. The relative simplicity of the heliocentric predictive laws compared to the geocentric ones led to the former system being considered true, and the latter false. This tendency of valuing simplicity is part of the modern scientific enterprise.
& 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. Certainly as far as human life is concerned, the Earth is the center not only of the Solar System, but of the Universe. It might not have been wise to shelve the geocentric system, especially considering that past ages have been unanimous in declaring the effects the planets have on the Earth, mind and social organization of humanity. In any case, relativity of motion indicates that the geo- and helio-centric systems are complementary and that neither has any right to be considered ‘true’, & the other ‘false’.
Relative usefulness for some specific end is no good as an arbiter of truth. This description of the choice of center for the local planetary-sun system is an illustration of the equivalence of the static and the dynamic that arises from the relativity of motion. This formal equivalence allows some freedom in choosing what we will consider to be static, and what is dynamic. This choice can also be made in various aspects of our experience.
Throughout our lives we associate with the environment and conceive that it is our body that moves. Still, it is possible to operate from the notion that our body is static and that the movements we appear to make are actually movements of the environment. If we choose to not inextricably tie our self to our body and think of ourselves as 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 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 magical actions. This is based on control of that aspect of ourselves that exists abstracted from 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 commonly considered illogical nonsense.
Logic is not a crutch in magical practice, but rather its legs. The production of physical effects is the prerogative of modern science and its mathematical tools, which are a product of logic. The magical production of physical effects must be based in the application of logic, and hierophants have always come from among the ranks of those acquainted with physical facts and forces.
Something is called magical by those who do not know the logical steps necessary to reproduce it. That a television or computer is no longer considered magical is due to there being a widely-held notion of what is and isn't possible to achieve with logic. It should be noted that mathematics, as the high development of logic, often leads to ‘illogical’ results. There is no reason that a mathematic concerning existence as willful consciousness may not lead to similar ‘illogical’ results.
In order to form new personality centers, 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, or personality. From the standpoint of an esotericist, the notions introduced here 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.
The choice of center is arbitrary, however, due to the fact that motion is relative. Selecting out any particular point as a 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 are simpler when the Sun is at the center. The relative simplicity of the heliocentric predictive laws compared to the geocentric ones led to the former system being considered true, and the latter false. This tendency of valuing simplicity is part of the modern scientific enterprise.
& 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. Certainly as far as human life is concerned, the Earth is the center not only of the Solar System, but of the Universe. It might not have been wise to shelve the geocentric system, especially considering that past ages have been unanimous in declaring the effects the planets have on the Earth, mind and social organization of humanity. In any case, relativity of motion indicates that the geo- and helio-centric systems are complementary and that neither has any right to be considered ‘true’, & the other ‘false’.
Relative usefulness for some specific end is no good as an arbiter of truth. This description of the choice of center for the local planetary-sun system is an illustration of the equivalence of the static and the dynamic that arises from the relativity of motion. This formal equivalence allows some freedom in choosing what we will consider to be static, and what is dynamic. This choice can also be made in various aspects of our experience.
Throughout our lives we associate with the environment and conceive that it is our body that moves. Still, it is possible to operate from the notion that our body is static and that the movements we appear to make are actually movements of the environment. If we choose to not inextricably tie our self to our body and think of ourselves as 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 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 magical actions. This is based on control of that aspect of ourselves that exists abstracted from 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 commonly considered illogical nonsense.
Logic is not a crutch in magical practice, but rather its legs. The production of physical effects is the prerogative of modern science and its mathematical tools, which are a product of logic. The magical production of physical effects must be based in the application of logic, and hierophants have always come from among the ranks of those acquainted with physical facts and forces.
Something is called magical by those who do not know the logical steps necessary to reproduce it. That a television or computer is no longer considered magical is due to there being a widely-held notion of what is and isn't possible to achieve with logic. It should be noted that mathematics, as the high development of logic, often leads to ‘illogical’ results. There is no reason that a mathematic concerning existence as willful consciousness may not lead to similar ‘illogical’ results.
In order to form new personality centers, 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, or personality. From the standpoint of an esotericist, the notions introduced here 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.
What needs be done is painfully obvious and consists in changing one’s habits, through putting oneself in hostile environments. The extent and desired speed of the change determine the methods. The use of highly traumatic experiences will rarely work as planned, which is precisely the point. The application of massive physical and/or emotional pain is primarily of use in causing rapid deterioration, and even shattering, of an existing personality. This may or may not be desireable.
Changing oneself consists in identifying habits of body and mind, so that one may do or think something other. Over time the ego will become more mobile and the personality and mind more flexible, and the opportunities and range for action will increase. Before any more effectual magical practice this first is necessary.
Changing oneself consists in identifying habits of body and mind, so that one may do or think something other. Over time the ego will become more mobile and the personality and mind more flexible, and the opportunities and range for action will increase. 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). Unity demands that this division be illusory, however useful or common. As the normal state of human consciousness is dualistic, the density in the personality field will tend to support the ego in this state.
A preliminary training of the personality through forced habit changes will diffuse the density and facilitate breakthroughs into non-ordinary personality super-system fields. The thinning out of the field of the dualistic personality super-system is necessary in order to eliminate its 'total gravity'. By thinning out or homogenizing the density of the 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 on the ego approaches annihilation. Dualistic and unital consciousness may appear to be diametrically opposed, but this cannot be the case if the two states are to coexist.
Unity and duality are 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’; its 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 are independent of one another; separate in a sense, and also related, together creating a space larger than if they were separate.
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 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.
One who begins operating from a position within the unital field first notices not so much a change in the appearance of the other, but rather that everything will have meaning, whereas in the dualistic field very few things present themselves as containing significant meaning. Likewise will every act be characterized by meaning, and will carry unimaginable potency. To one accustomed to the dualistic field, existing and acting in the unital field will be draining, similar to being awake for extended periods. This 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 esoteric justification for sleep is that our consciousness must return from the dualistic field to its source in the unital field regularly, to obtain sustenance. We feed our bodies in the dualistic world, our souls in the unital world. We find in dreams that the things we encounter have meanings beyond their mere appearance, and that we are able to act in ways usually unimaginable. These are the same changes one finds when entering a state of cosmic consciousness. The unital super-system is what Australian Aboriginals refer to as the Dream Time.
There are many things the structures of which may be elucidated in terms of hierarchocentricity. When one speaks of hierarchy, they mean 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 a few. This is not the only possible symbol of hierarchy. It could just as well be represented by a line, or a pillar, and could take as representation for itself any image so long as it has a way of indicating the ideas of being greater, and less than.
As an example, the structure of power within a democracy 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 controlled by 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, hierarchocentricity is then a hierarchy of hierarchies.
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 esotericism and 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 paradox is necessary to move beyond current limitations and these suggestions for personal development arise from and are a means of resolving basic paradoxes attending our existence.
