Re your question about polarity, I don't know. I read the chapter on Polarity in the Kybalion, which is also an Hermetic text, afaik. Israel Regardie discussed these matters in The Middle Pillar. Christian and/or Jewish cabalists may have a different perspective.OK then, I guess Crowley put polarity into the 'tree'. It looks highly electronic in the graphic above. Almost like something you'd see on the console of an alien spaceship. The question is, IS there polarity in the sephiroh where there seems an evolutionary unfolding from one modality of God into the next? They certainly take center stage in the Kybalion.
Excerpt from Caroline's post, SOS and The Basic Principles of Processing.
Theta and MEST in a disorderly collision bring about enturbulation in both the theta and the MEST which actually changes or reverses the polarity of the theta and the MEST. This reversed polarity permits the rejection of theta by enMEST and of MEST by entheta, so that
death can ensue and a new organism can be begun.
Sounds like the tape with Mary Sue auditing Ron on Theta vs Mest goals......electropsychometric auditing, Scouting the war between the universes.
Tape begins after ads on this Underground Bunker site.
I listened to "Electropsychometric Scouting: Battle of the Universes," and read the transcript, thanks. Hubbard incorporated his Theta/MEST theory into many Scientology narratives. In the demo session (1952), Hubbard remarked about somatics (unwanted body sensations and pains) and associated them with entities. In 1978, with the NOTs materials Hubbard was still associating somatics with these entities/BTs.
A BT or cluster has three choices - it can run its own life or run yours or run nothing. The things you run into with somatics are not likely to be of the category of your life, they’re more likely to be in the category of the BT’s life. So it gets to be a dizzy scene.
NED for OTs handles those BTs and clusters which, while they could still affect the body, are not readily responsive to OT III handling. As NED for OTs is run these cats wake up and get handled. This relieves the Pre-OT of a lot of phenomena which puzzles him and can hold him down. As you go along in running it you will find that the material to which NED for OTs is addressed seldom considers itself live beings. It thinks it is MEST, body parts, significances, conditions - anything but a live being. Because a thetan can’t do anything but survive, the states he can get into exceed what we normally think of as living beings. Even though you will occasionally find “live” BTs and clusters in running NED for OTs the bulk of the material you are handling considers itself outside that category. While it responds to all the laws of life it requires a special address to get it into the realm of awareness that it is alive.
You’ve never had any pcs like that unless you’ve worked in an institution and have seen some inmate living in a totally lifeless state, unaware of anything. NED for OTs handles this condition on BTs and clusters which existed without being suspected except for the occasional clue of a strange picture or a wild somatic.
HCOB 15 September 1978 NOTs Series 1 Confidential NED for OTs RD Theory Of.
In NOTs Series 27 Hubbard specified the ideal scene for thetans in relation to their MEST bodies, and explained how BTs/clusters, or their masses and pictures, are what stands in the way of this ideal:
The basic biological structure of the body is transparent to a thetan. The Pre-OT’s perception hangs up on BTS and clusters. These BTs and clusters have the ability to change and control a thetan’s perception whereas Mest won’t. BTs and clusters are too close to a thetan’s wavelength and can therefore exert control. A primary target for NED for OTs is: “things that are not part of the biological machine (body), but think they are and get in the way.” This is what you want to handle. The Pre-OT’s sight hangs up on these BT/cluster masses. The successive steps of the Rundown have to do with the parts of the body he can see, the phenomena encountered and the processes you handle these with. The actual criterion the auditor uses is What is the Pre-OT looking at? What can he see? and Can he blow it?
The ideal scene: “A transparent body which does not interfere with the sight of the thetan and is free from unwanted sensations, pains, or pressures.” The primary error a thetan makes is mistaking these BT/cluster masses for the body or mistaking another’s pictures as his own. The procedure has a cyclic pattern of getting rid of the obvious ones, then dead or unresponsive ones, then obvious ones, over and over. You are liable to run into any of these manifestations at any time and need to know the processes which handle.
HCOB 1 November 1978 NOTs Series 27 Confidential NED for OTs Checklist.
Hubbard's "discoveries" about somatics and entities reveal a more complete view of what underlies "engrams" at all levels of Scientology. Hubbard's materials provide insight into how Scientologists are supposed to relate to their bodies, medical issues, etc. The OT tech also underlies "knowledgeable" Scientologists' covert view of raw meat and wogs:
L. Ron Hubbard said:8-C AND CIRCUITS
Don’t go being an effect of the public. Every once in a while you see some auditor half starved to death. He gets hold of a pc whose fee he needs, so starts doing anything he can to get that fee and makes himself an effect. It’s quite remarkable, but he generally winds up not getting it. That’s because he is too much the effect of the fee. He then has to be the effect of the pc to such a degree that he has to put up with anything, and he then finally abandons 8-C and really doesn’t handle the problems of the pc. All these things go together in a package.You would be amazed how many restaurants you could walk into, find people sitting by themselves, sit down across from them and start a session. You would be just amazed how many people you could do that to without a preliminary or anything. I’ve seldom been successful in getting Scientologists (except those doing professional auditor training levels) to go out and just grab people off the street. It’s quite remarkable how often this works, if you, yourself, have a totally brave attitude toward it.People respond to 8-C. All the social machinery people have actually breaks down in the face of direct intention. But the thing that causes difficulty in moving people along this line of methodology has a great deal to do with the notion of privacy—that a reactive mind has a right to “privacy.” You very definitely have to be willing to invade its “privacy.” When you__________ 8-C: the abbreviation of the name of a Scientology process called Routine 8 Control. It is also used to mean good control. Thus if one is “8-Cing” a person he is said to be exerting good control over him.
 circuit(s): a part of an individual’s bank that behaves as though it were someone or something separate from him and that either talks to him or goes into action of its own accord, and may even, if severe enough, take control of him while it operates. A tune that keeps going around in someone’s head is an example of a circuit.
 methodology: a system of methods and procedures.
 reactive mind: a portion of a person’s mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control, and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. The reactive mind is where engrams are stored. Also called reactive bank or engramic bank or bank.
 invade: break into; intrude upon.87realize that the highest point of aberration on the third dynamic was the first time you decided not to invade somebody’s privacy and that nearly everything you’ve suffered from since was a determination not to invade somebody’s privacy, you will see at once where this connects on 8-Cing somebody into a service zone.If you have a hard time invading people’s “privacy,” you’ll have a hard time 8-Cing them into a Book One co-audit or any other Div 6 course, because you think the reactive mind has rights. No! It does not have any rights. What has rights? That machinery? Those dramatizations? Those computing circuits? Those things have rights? The next thing you know we’ll have laws out saying reactive minds have a perfect right to kill everybody.It began when you first decided that somebody was entitled to privacy— another thetan. There he was, over there, and you decided he was entitled to the privacy of his own thoughts. It was perfectly all right to grant him beingness. But to get on this kick that he was the only one who could invade that particular sphere and spatial area and that you mustn’t, of course wound you up in the mechanics of mechanical communication and started you straight into the overt act-motivator mechanism. It’s just as fast and as simple as that.__________ third dynamic: the urge or effort of an individual to survive as a member of a group, or through a group, whether civil, political, racial or just a number of individuals who compose a group, such as a community, a state, a nation, a social lodge, friends, companies, or, in short, any group. Any group or part of an entire class could be considered to be part of the third dynamic. Div 6 (Division 6): Division 6 of a Scientology organization has public contact work, public advertising, Field Staff Members, public book sales, contacts with missions, basic public courses, etc., all of which are actions meant to reach the broad public. Div 6 looks outward into society. The organization’s main thrust into the world outside itself is Division 6. dramatization(s): the duplication or acting out of an engramic content, entire or in part, by an aberree in his present time environment. A person in an irrational rage would be an example of a dramatization. spatial: adj: existing in space. (Also spelled spacial.) overt act-motivator mechanism: a system used by a person to lessen the effects of his having committed an overt act and to make it all right for him to commit more. It works like this: The person commits an overt act. He then believes he has got to have a motivator (an aggressive or destructive act against himself, done by another) or he believes he has had a motivator. Motivators are then likely to be used by the person to justify his committing further overt acts. Motivators are called motivators for this reason—they motivate (push or prompt into action) a new overt act.
L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Dissemination Course (Bridge Publications, Inc. 1986).