One of the major obstacles we encounter as soon as we attempt to align hexagrams to the Tree of Life is that the Tree of Life itself is not logically aligned. Whereas the initial Sepheroth (numbers 1-10) do follow a logical sequential order, the remaining paths 11-32 follow a random chronological pattern adhering to no certain logic at all. To make things even worse we find virtually no acknowledgement of this fact anywhere among the so-called authorities in this field, such that they are either completely oblivious of the discrepancy or else have observed it and somehow arrived at the conclusion that an exact logical organization must not be possible for some reason. In either case we are left with a hodge-podge alignment of paths that feign a logical progression but do not in fact achieve one.

The Principle of Proximity resolves this problem without issue and in so doing reveals some interesting insights as to the kinds of irrational bias that has lodged itself in traditional arrangements, as evidenced by the peculiar misplacement of a few key positions, either through deliberate sabotage or else through simple carelessness. I will address some of these issues at another place and time, but for the moment I will confine myself to clarifying how this principle is applied.

The Principle of Proximity follows a uniform rule from beginning to end regarding proper path alignments, which simply states that (A) lesser numbers always precede greater numbers in any linear progression and (B) lesser numerical distances between numbers always precede greater numerical distances within like sets. This rule is easy to understand and can always be applied to any arrangement of paths without exception, so long as our starting arrangement of numbers follows a logical sequential progression (or then adheres to the first part of this principle).

Applying this rule in the glyph above, we begin from the smallest number (1) and examine every direct path between itself  and every other number. We see that a set of 3 direct paths can be identified: 1-2 , 1-3 , and 1-6. The numerical distance between 1-2 is less than the numerical distance between 1-3 which is less than the numerical distance between 1-6, so that path 1-2 = 11, path 1-3 = 12 and path 1-6 = 13. Once we have exhausted all direct paths between 1 and every other number we can then proceed to the next number in progression, being number 2.

Number 2 reveals a set of 3 direct pathways which are not already taken up by Number 1: 2-3 , 2-4, and 2-6. Path 2-3 = 14, Path 2-4 = 15 and Path 2-6 = 16 and again we have exhausted all direct pathways so we move on to Number 3.

Number 3 reveals a set of 2 pathways that are not already taken up by lesser numbers: 3-5 and 3-6. Path 3-5 = 17 and Path 3-6 = 18 and we can do no more here so we move on to Number 4.

Number 4 reveals a set of 3 direct pathways not already taken up by lesser numbers: 4-5 , 4-6 and 4-7. Path 4-5 = 19, Path 4-6 = 20 and Path 4-7 = 21, completing Number 4 so we move on to Number 5.

Number 5 reveals a set of 2 pathways not taken up by lesser numbers: 5-6 and 5-8. Path 5-6 = 22 and Path 5-8 = 23, completing Number 5 so we move on to Number 6.

Number 6 reveals a set of 3 pathways not taken up with lesser numbers: 6-7 , 6-8, and 6-9. Path 6-7 = 24, Path 6-8 = 25 and Path 6-9 = 26 and we can do no more here so we move on to Number 7.

Number 7 reveals a set of 3 pathways not taken up by lesser numbers: 7-8 , 7-9 , and 7-10. Path 7-8 = 27, Path 7-9 = 28, and Path 7-10 = 29 and we have exhausted Number 7, so move on to Number 8.

Number 8 reveals a set of 2 pathways not taken up with lesser numbers: 8-9 and 8-10. Path 8-9 = 30 and Path 8-10 = 31 and we can do no more with Number 8 so move on to Number 9.

Number 9 reveals a set of 1 pathway not taken up with lesser numbers: 9-10. Path 9-10 = 32 and we have reached the end of our chronological sequence adhering to a uniform Principle of Proximity from beginning to end. We can be confident that our path alignment is logical and correct and is the simplest and most direct procedure available to us.

Why have so many Tree of Life authorities failed to inform us of this in all these years? Why have they themselves failed to employ such a basic and self-evident rule of thumb with respect to path alignments? On the face of it, this amounts to a serious indictment of either ignorance or negligence that is difficult to overlook, considering what an easy thing it is to recognize and implement. The answer to this question may simply be that we have tended to treat the Tree of Life like some sort of religious icon instead of a dynamic navigational tool that has certain technical duties to perform and must therefore be expected to adhere to quality standards suited to these tasks. Without a clear sense of the Tree's intended applications, we have no such standards to hold it accountable to.

In any case, it is my primary objective at this immediate juncture to set the matter straight with respect to Abrahadabra and I have no idea if this principle has ever been revealed by anyone else at any time. I have never seen anything on it in print and I do not know of a single traditional Tree of Life arrangement (other than that being presented in this treatise) that adheres to its simple logical integrity.

m1thr0s