The Center of Existence speaks of the nature of essence, which is our origin. What does this entail? First off we start with our general outer appearance or "form." This is where our material "physical" being terminates and meets the world. By which other beings like ourselves are able to recognize us, by our physical features. And hence the notion of clothes, which are forms in and of themselves, by which human beings "extend" their physical appearance. In which case the clothes become the form, of which human beings become the essence ... i.e., in that form arises out of "the need" to serve the essence. What do I mean by this? For example let's take a man who wishes to build a house for his wife and children. What's the point in him building a house if in fact it doesn't serve the need to protect his family? In which case the house becomes the form, by which to serve and "protect" the needs of the family, which then becomes the essence. Whereas isn't this what our "exterior bodies" do, hold that which is vital and essential inside, to keep it from spilling out and dying? Doesn't it also allude to life in general, and the need for it to exist "within context" of form? Aren't we also conveying the relationship between men and women here? Isn't it generally understood that men are more rational and intellectual, and women more irrational and emotional? Whereas men tend to be more rough and unyielding in nature (exterior), and women more soft and nurturing? (interior). Doesn't this then belie the true nature of masculinity and femininity? Where the masculine portrays the form and the feminine portrays the essence? After all, aren't we all born of the "essence" of the feminine form, which is our mother? Where we once bathed in the essential elements of the womb, only to be rushed out to the external cold slap of reality, to find ourselves kicking and yelling and screaming? Therefore wouldn't it be fair to say that the Center of Existence, which is also its essence, is feminine? And so brings up the issue of science, with its intellectual and rational pursuits, which is truly a masculine discipline. Does anyone disagree? Ah, but where did science originate, if not without a mother? Could it be? Yes! Mother Church! Replete with her quirky sentimental notions of reality and the hereafter. Ah, but none of these silly notions can be proven you say? Why should I take heed then? Isn't the very fact that science is the son of its mother possible proof enough? Whereas if you were to take any self-respecting native American and asked who his mother was he would say, The Great Mother, which is Mother Earth, and hence "his religion." Why shouldn't we follow suit, and stop forsaking our mother? (the planet). Isn't it about time the prodigal son returned home to his Mother, and to his Father, the Husband of his Mother? Mind you I am not the churchgoing type here, but am only saying these things to illustrate a point.