BONDING

Please note that on this lecture that Dennis will call what he's talking about "Level Six".  He later on re-named this technology as "Level 5D".

Hello Greg, 21st of March 1993 and I want to give you a rundown now of my
Level 6. And the subject matter of Level 6 is a Bonding. Bonding B-o-n-d-i-n-g. During the last few
weeks I have made a number of breakthroughs that have allowed me to complete this level, this
material and all of my notes are now finalised. 

I am now in a position to complete the material and theory and practical. I've had the theory of it
for some time it was the practical that was holding me up. I wouldn't release the theory until I
had the practical. Among the things a person will find as they work through Levels 1 to 5 in my
tech is that the subject of relationships will become more and more prominent in their mind. And
as they get toward the end of Level 5 they should start becoming intensely curious about this
subject of relationships, and what is a relationship, and so on. 

The reason for this intense curiosity is that as Level 5 is completed and the other levels are
complete, of course. That none of these Levels 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 touch directly on the subject of
relationships. They all address it to some degree, and they all de-intensify relationships in the
mind to some degree, but there is not one of the levels which addresses directly the subject of
relationships and the correct time to do this is at Level 6. Because then the person is curious
about them and they're ready for it. 

I wouldn't advise a person to attempt Level 6 before they've done the Levels 1 to 5. First of all it
would be very unreal to them and second they could find the practical very heavy going. 

Relationships 

A strange thing in our society is that not much is known about this subject of relationship. You
ask the average person what is a relationship and they scratch their head and say well it's a
relationship. These days you say a relationship and most people think its something vaguely 

sexual. You know, that he's having a relationship "Oh it's something sexual about it." I suppose it
gets that way because they can't figure what else it might be. So it must be something sexual. 

So first off we must look at this subject of relationship and see if we can throw some clarity on it
and find out what a relationship is. Now essentially a relationship is always something between
two  things.  A  thing  can't  have  a  relationship  with  itself.  So  a  relationship  is  essentially  a
connection or bonding between two things, entities or classes. That's a pretty good definition of
a relationship. It's essentially a connection or bond between two things, entities or classes. 

An example of a relationship will be the relationship between a girl, and a person who wears a
dress. Now clearly the class of girls and the class of people who wear dresses are related, they
have a relationship, they are related in our society. 

Connectivity 

On the other hand the class of Beethoven's Symphonies and the class of Eskimo's breakfasts
aren't related in our society. These things have no relationship. The determining factor is the
subject of connectivity. The subject of connection. A connection exists between girls and people
who wear dresses but there is no apparent connection between Beethoven's symphonies and
Eskimo's breakfasts. 

Definitions 

Now before we go any further it's necessary to give a few definitions. Otherwise we are going to
get bogged down. We are going to get misinterpretations. So I'd better start defining. I've
already used the word class in this lecture so I better define a class. 

Class 

Here is what we mean by a class. Now a class is a group whose members all possess the same
quality or qualities. I'll give it again: A class is a group whose members all possess the same
quality or qualities. 

Example: Men are a class, you consider men as a class because they all posses the same quality or
qualities. Black beings are a class. A class of black beings all possess the quality of blackness and
the quality of beings so they are black beings, so that's a class. There's a class of black beings and
a class of men, so they are examples of classes, so that's what this mysterious word "class"
means. 

These definitions I am giving you are pretty well standard definitions in the field of logic, so they
are scientific definitions in the science of logic. I am sure if you were to refer to a logical text
book you'd find much more hairy definitions than I am giving you but they boil down to what I'm

giving you. These are probably much more precise than the textbook definitions would be. And
these are good enough for us. 

Common Class 

Next, we have the definition of a common class. Now a common class is a class whose members
all possess the qualities of two classes. Give it to you again. A common class is a class whose
members all possess the qualities of two classes. 

An example of a common class would be black men. Each of the members of the class of black
men would possess the qualities of black beings and of men. So they would be the common class
of black beings and of men. So they become the class of black men, you follow. It's quite straight
forward. 

Now before I proceed any further, and get into this. You're probably thinking I am about to give a
talk on the subject of Logic. Well, no I am not, as a matter of fact. This whole subject of classes
and its logical and algebraic aspects and so forth is covered in the subject of Boolean algebra if
you really want to dive in the deep end and study up on this subject of classes and algebra and
mathematics of how to deal with classes in logic. 

The whole area was discovered and worked by the great English mathematician George Boole
about 1850. And he came up with this algebra which is a very simple algebra. And it's the algebra
of classes. And that's the algebra you need to look at if you want to become an expert on the
subject of classes and how to manipulate them mathematically. But no one needs for god's sake
to study Boolean algebra, it's quite unnecessary. 

The material I am giving you here is quite sufficient for our purposes. I'm giving you all the
definitions and all the material that's necessary for our purposes. You don't have to go dashing
off to the library and digging up books on Boolean algebra unless of course you want to. 

Null Class 

Ok so much for that. Now I've given you the definition for a common class. Now the next thing
the next definition we have is a null class. That's spelled N-U-L-L, null. Null comes from the Latin
nullus meaning not any, Null Class. 

Now a null class is a class having no members. An empty class. Give it to you again; a null class is a
class having no members, an empty class. E.g. green cats, green cats, they're a null class. There
aren't any green cats, as far as I know. I've never come across one. And I've never heard of anyone
coming across a green cat. Cats don't come out in that colour, so green cats are an empty class. 

Cats are a class with members in. The class of cats is a well-defined class, with the creature cats,
and green objects and green entities they're a class in the universe. Both those classes exist. The 

class of green objects exists. Green things exist. They are a class and the class of cats exists. But
the common class of green cats does not exist. It's an empty class. So that's what we mean when
we say a null class. 

The null class is a class having no members. It's an empty class. And the moral here is there is no
way you can combine these classes together and have common classes. You must always bear in
mind some of these permutations and combinations of classes might be null in the real universe. 

You might be able to utilise them in a logical system in imaginary universes but in the real
universe they're null classes. 

Bonding Postulates 

So I've defined a class and a null class and a common class. And defined what a relationship is, so
we've got enough to work on here. How do things get bonded or connected to each other in the
universe? How do they do it in the mind? Most specifically in the mind, how do things get
connected or bonded to each other in the mind? 

Well it's done by postulates, of course. They are a particular type of postulate. They are a
bonding type of postulate. They're a particular class of postulate called a bonding postulate. 

Now that is a very important datum. You'll find that a large part of childhood, when the child
learns, and discovers things about the universe around him, he's discovering these relationships
that exist between things around him. And he discovers these relationships by making these
little postulates, and putting these little things together. He sees this is connected to that, and
he makes these postulates. 

These postulates are made by human beings. They are very real things. They are made by
children.  They  are  made  by  adults  too.  All  through  a  persons'  life  they're  making  these
postulates. We're doing it so unconsciously. We do it automatically. We make these bonding
postulates. 

This is one of the reasons you have to get up to Level 6 before this material starts to make much
sense to a person. Below Level 6 the whole area is so confused a person can't really sort it out
easily. It's only when they get up to Level 6 and they've taken the charge off of compulsive
games play, and their mind is quietened down, that they can really start to look at this material
and see just what a relationship is and analyse it. So never miss it. That's a 5 star datum that is.
That things are bonded, connected one to the one another by postulates. That's absolutely
fundamental. If you don't grasp that, you'll never get Level 6. You'll never get the flavour of what
we're doing at Level 6, the subject of the postulates. These postulates are real. When the person
has completed Level 5 the bonding postulates themselves start to show up. They start to get 

real to the person, where before they were unreal. That's why they need address at Level 6, this
subject of relationships and bonding postulates. 

Well now when you look over all these bonding postulates in the mind. There is something
happening that is very fortunate in this area. There is a basic bonding postulate and the basic
bonding postulate is the same in the human mind as it is in the field of logic. Now, this is
marvellous. 

There is a basic bonding postulate that the mathematical logicians discovered. They were mainly
using George Boole's algebra, and they come across it and they realised that there is a basic
bonding postulate. You can actually prove this by Boolean algebra, and it's just fortuitous that in
the human mind, in this psyche, this basic bonding postulate is exactly the same in the mind as it
is in the algebra. 

All this means is that the algebra represents the mind. It's an accurate representation of what is
going on in the mind and of what is going on in the universe. There is nothing magical about the
algebra, it's simply that the algebra just happens to be an accurate representation of what's
going on. That's all. 

If A then B 

Now what is this basic bonding, this basic connecting postulate between one thing and another
thing in the algebra and in the mind? 

Well the postulate in its most basic form, in its most concise form is the postulate: 'if A then B'.
Give it to you again 'if A then B'. Now what does that mean, 'if A then B'. Well first of all it's a
conditional postulate. It's conditional in that it doesn't imply that A exists and it doesn't imply
that B exists. It simply says that if A exists then B exists. 

That's what the postulate means. If A exists then B exists and the postulate is 'if A then B'.
Another way to look at the postulate is to say, every time we see A we also see B. That's another
meaning of 'if A then B' postulate. 

Now the postulate may show up in the form of ‘all A’s are B's’. Now the postulate ‘all A's are B's’
isn't quite the same as ‘if A then B’. You see. The postulate ‘all A's are B's’ does imply that A's
exist. 

Then because A's exist then B's exist by reason of the postulate ‘all A's are B's’ You see that? 

There's an implication there when you say that "all A's are B's" you are implying A's exist. When
you say "if A then B" you are making no such implication you are not saying that A exists you are
saying if it exists. If A exists then B exists, ‘if A then B’ is the purest expression of the postulate 

and  that  is the  basic  bonding  postulate  in the  subject of  logic and  it's the  basic  bonding
postulate in the human mind. Now what do I mean by that precisely? 

I mean that in the field of logic any logical relationship no matter how complex can be broken
down into a series of 'if A then B' relationships. And similarly in the human mind, no matter how
complex the relationship is between two things in the human mind it can be broken down into a
series of 'if A then B' relationships, 'if A then B' postulates. 

So it's very important to understand this basic bonding postulate, because if you know the basic
one you can always take the more complicated ones apart. You don't have to know any others.
You only have to know the basic one. Once you got the basic one 'if A then B' you can take all the
relationships in the mind apart, just like you can take any relationship in logic apart by the use of
'if A then B' postulate. 

I better give you a brief example of what I mean here. A person might say, "The situation is such
that it's either A applies or B applies, or either A exists or B exists." How on earth can you turn
that into an 'if A then B' postulate? Well very simply, if the situation is one where either A exists
or B exists then the 'if A then B' type postulate is 'if Not A then B', and if you examine that
situation, that either A exists or B exists or both exist means exactly the same as saying if A
doesn't exist then B exists. 

Now if you think about it, work through it you will see that those two propositions do mean
exactly the same thing. They certainly mean the same thing in standard logic. And they certainly
mean the same thing in the human mind. 

Ok, so the 'if A then B' type postulate is the basic building block of the subject of relationships
from which you can build up any relationship in the mind, any relationship in logic using that
basic building block. It's not immediately apparent, it's easily provable in logic. 

What is the Immediate Effect of an 'if A then B' Postulate 

What is the immediate effect of an 'if A then B' postulate? Now we should know this, we should
know this very clearly. What is the immediate effect of making an 'if A then B' postulate? What
effect does it have on the classes? I mean making this postulate is causative action, you're
causing something to happen when you make an 'if A then B' postulate. 

But what are you causing to happen? It has the effect of making the common class of both A and
Not-B into a null class. I'll give you that again. The effect of making an 'if A then B' postulate is to
make the common class of both A and Not-B into a null class. 

I'll give an example of that: If all crows are birds, then the common class of crows and non-birds is
empty. You see that. That's a situation where 'if crows then birds' maintains, ‘all crows are birds’
maintains, then this common class of crows which are non-birds is a null class it's an empty class.

And it's true in this universe that all crows are birds, and it's equally true in this universe that this
class of crows which are non-birds is a null class. There aren't any. It's an empty class. You can
ransack this whole universe and you will never find anything in the class that's both a crow and a
non-bird. There aren't any because all crows are birds you see. 

So the effect of the 'if A then B' postulate is to make the class of A and Not-B into a null class.
That is its effect. And what's more that is it's only effect. The making of the if A then B postulate
has no other effect than rendering the common class of both A and Not-B into a null class, that is
its only effect. That is its effect and that is its only effect. 

As a scientist would say, "Making an 'if A then B' postulate is a necessary and sufficient condition
for rendering the common class of both A and Not-B into a null class." That is the way a logician
might express it. 

Single Bonding Postulate 

Now the 'if A then B' postulate is called a single bonding postulate or a single bind. B-I-N-D, bind
because it bonds A to B. Every time we see A we see B. It's the single bonding. We call that a
single bonding or a single bind. Now let me see if I can give an analogy of the 'if A then B'
postulate something that will stick in people's minds so they will grasp it. 

Tandem Bicycle 

Let us imagine that we live in a town and there's a couple of men who ride on a tandem bicycle.
There's B rides at the front of the bicycle, he always rides at the front. And there's A, he always
rides at the back of the tandem bicycle. And we go out and we walk around the town and we see
A and B go past on their tandem bicycle. 

Whenever we see them go past, B's always at the front doing the steering and A's always at the
back. Now sometimes when we go out and walk around the town we see B going around on the
tandem bicycle by himself and the back end of the tandem is empty. There is no A there. But we
see B going around the town by himself on the tandem bicycle. 

Now the one thing we can never see is A driving this tandem bicycle, because to do so he would
be driving it from the back seat. And you can't ride a tandem bicycle from the back seat. And as A
only occupies the back seat we never see A alone on the tandem. So the situation is that we
either see both A and B with B at the front and A behind him, both upon the tandem going round
the town, or we see B going round without A, or we don't see either of them. We never see A
going around alone. Now that gives you an analogy of the effect of the 'if A then B' postulate. 

The 'if A then B' postulate simply guarantees that every time we see A we see B, but we might
see B by itself without seeing A. See that? Might see B by itself. It tells us nothing about that.
The postulate puts no constraints on B at all. All the constraints it puts is on A. 

It bonds A to B, it says that if A exists then B exists. If we see A we see B. It doesn't tell us
anything about B. We might see B and not see A. We might not see B and not see A. One thing
we can't see is A by himself without B. Cause the postulate says so. The postulate says ‘if A then
B’, see that? So we never see A without B, does that help? That gives you an analogy of the 'if A
then B' postulate. 

Remember it in terms of the men on the tandem bicycle and I think you will get it. Well there is
one other deduction to make on the subject of tandem bicycle and that is if we don't see B we
don't see A. That's the final deduction. It is a valid deduction when you say, "If we don't see B on
the tandem then we certainly won't see A. B's got to be there, in other words before we see A. 

Causation 

Next it's necessary for us to nip in the bud any ideas a person may have that the 'if A then B'
postulate implies any causation between A and B, it does not imply that there is any causation
between A and B or between B and A. It is simply a relationship. It is not, does not imply a
causation. 

The only causation involved in this 'if A then B' is when the person makes the postulate. That is a
causative action. And that is the only causation involved. There is no other. It doesn't imply that A
is causing B or that B is causing A or any other combination of causations in the situation. It is
absolutely vital to understand that. 

Making the postulate is a causative action, but the postulate itself is simply a relationship
postulate. It's a pure relationship postulate. So it's necessary to get that thoroughly that a 'if A
then B' postulate, does not imply that A is the cause of B or B is the cause of A. It is not a
causative postulate. It doesn't imply any causation between A and B. 

Sets 

Ok, we're getting along fine here. And there is one more definition we need at this point. It's a
good time to introduce it. And this is the definition of what is called a set, S-E-T, a set. Now a set
is a group of classes whose sum constitutes a universe. Give it to you again. A set is a group of
classes whose sum constitutes a universe. Now an example of a set would be the class of men
plus the class of non-men. 

Now whichever way you chop up the physical universe in which you live, whichever way you look
at it. You're going to be forced to conclude that you can divide this universe up into the class of 

men and the class of non-men. Now in other words everything in the universe is either a man or
it's a non-man. Similarly you can divide this universe up into women and non-women. And you
can divide this universe up into coal heavers and non-coal heavers. And so on Ad infinitum or
near infinitum. Do you follow me? That is a set. 

The set is a group of classes whose sum constitutes the universe. And the basic set is a class plus
its negative. i.e. men and non-men, that is the basic set. Ok, So much for sets. It's quite a simple
concept to grasp. 

Bonding and Freedom 

Now we get into this very important subject of bonding and the relationship between bonding
and freedom. We already know from our theory that all freedom lies within the class of freedom
of choice. But there is a definite relationship, within the universe or within life, in the mind
between the subject of bonding and freedom. And what is that relationship? 

Well the relationship is that any bonding is a limitation of freedom of choice. Give that again. Any
bonding is a limitation of freedom of choice. Now let me give you an example of that. The full
freedom of choice in the AB set. That's the set of the class of A and the class of B. Now the full
freedom in that set would be: 

-The common class of both A and B, plus 

-The common class of A and Not-B, plus 

=The common class of Not-A and B, plus 

-The common class of Not-A and Not-B 

Thus, these four classes together constitute the AB set. You see. Everything in the universe
would have to be in that set. Now no matter what we specify A and B as, we could specify A as a
king and B as a coal heaver, if no other postulates were made then we would have specified that
every object in the universe would be in one or other of those classes simply because of the
definition of the set. 

You see, I've defined the set as a class plus its negative constitute the whole universe. So, I give it
to you again. The full set there. The full freedom in the AB set is the class of both A and B, plus
both A and Not-B, plus Not-A and B, plus Not-A and Not-B. That's the full freedom of choice. 

Now the imposition of the postulate of 'if A then B' reduces the class of both A and Not-B to
zero. In other words it turns the class of both A and Not-B into a null class and so reduces the AB
set down to both A and B, plus both Not-A and B, plus both Not-A and Not-B. There are only
three classes. 

We've dropped the class A and Not-B, because that is now a null class, It's an empty class. So the
freedom has been reduced. We've lost something. We've lost the class, you see. So the freedom 

of choice one had as a being occupying classes where one had the full freedom to occupy any
one of four classes. 

One can only occupy three classes because the fourth class has been reduced to a zero class, an
empty class. "You can't be in that class, mate. Cause there isn't anything in there." Why isn't
anything in there? Because you postulated that it's empty when you postulated if A then B, that
reduces the common class of A and Not-B to a null class. Get it? 

So that's the relationship between bonding and freedom. Every time you make an 'if A then B'
postulate you've reduced your freedom. And every time you get someone else to subscribe to an
'if A then B' postulate you've got them to reduce their freedom. Tricky isn't it? It's a sneaky one,
isn't it? No one would suspect this until they examine it, that here is how you can lose your
freedom. 

You know, how to lose your freedom without being carted off to the local constabulary and
getting locked up in a cell. You know you can lose all the freedom there is in this universe if you
make enough 'if A then B' postulates. And you'll make these postulates absolutely injudiciously.
You see that? You can trap yourself thoroughly, and work yourself into a hole, and be just as
trapped as any prisoner in his cell if you injudiciously make 'if A then B' postulates. And you
would have done it all yourself. You don't need any help from anyone else. You can do it all
yourself. 

That's the message of Level 6. That's the message of Level 6 and the subject of bonding. On how
freedom can be lost by making relationship postulates. Or how to dig yourself into a hole
without really trying. 

Necessity and Sufficiency 

Now there is just one little bit more on the subject I'd like to mention of this clinical address on
this subject of 'if A then B'. It's this subject of necessity and sufficiency. It's really a little bit of a
side issue. But I really did ought to mention it. 

The 'if A then B' postulate can come about in two ways in games play in the universe. There's two
ways it can come about. The first of these is the subject of sufficiency. One can consider that A is
a sufficient condition for B. The existence of A is a sufficient condition for B. 

Now let me give you an example of that: That a person who wears a dress is a sufficient
condition for a girl in our society. It might not apply in the whole universe but it certainly applies
in our society that a person who wears a dress is a sufficient condition for being a girl. 

Now the subject of sufficiency doesn't cover the whole of the 'if A then B' postulate. There is
another possibility that the 'if A then B' postulate maintains, when B is a necessary condition for 

A. If the existence of B is a necessary condition for A, then the 'if A then B' postulate is
appropriate and will maintain. 

A great example of that is: ‘if rainfall then clouds’. It's absolutely necessary to have clouds in
order for it to rain. You see? Now it's not a sufficient condition if you have rainfall to have clouds.
Rainfall is not a sufficient condition for clouds. But clouds are a necessary condition for rainfall.
See that? So that's an example of an 'if A then B' postulate where B "clouds" is a necessary
condition for rainfall A. 

Now the example of the girl and the dress, wearing a dress is a sufficient condition for being a
girl. But nobody would say that being a girl is a necessary condition for wearing a dress. Follow?
So that is an example. The dress and the girl is an example of a sufficiency. But it's not an
example of necessity. See that? 

Now these concepts of sufficiency and necessity are very germane to this subject of the 'if A
then B' postulate. The 'if A then B' postulate only shows itself in those two forms. In point of
fact, the subject of sufficiency in science and logic is bound up with the 'if A then B' postulate.
And the subject of necessity in science and logic is bound up with the 'if A then B' postulate. You
simply cannot separate those two subjects. You can separate them from each other but you can't
separate them from the 'if A then B' postulate. They are completely determined by the 'if A then
B' postulate. 

Sufficiency and necessity I mention it so that when you see examples in the universe of an 'if A
then B' postulate that sometimes it pops up as A being sufficient for B and sometimes it pops up
for B being necessary for A. Well we expect it can be either way around, it can be either way
around. Either A is sufficient for B or B is necessary for A. Either is the result of the 'if A then B'
postulate. In other words, we made the 'if A then B' postulate under both those circumstances.
You either consider A to be a sufficient condition for B. So ok then 'if A then B', That's true, A is a
sufficient condition for B. That is the 'if A then B' postulate. Or we look at the situation and say
well B is absolutely vital to A. Ok, it's 'if A then B' postulate. See that? 

Now which comes first the sufficiency or the necessity or the postulate? Well the postulate
comes first. The 'if A then B' postulate creates the sufficiency or creates the necessity. But it
depends on the circumstances, which way round, applies. You see? The postulate comes first I
can assure you. The postulate is the senior thing. Without the postulate, without the 'if A then B'
postulate there can be no such thing as the subject of necessity and no such thing as the subject
of sufficiency. 

Establishment 

Before I go I'll press on to slightly more advanced aspects of this I'd like to talk about the subject
of establishment. Establishment. It's a very important subject in human relationships particularly
in childhood. Now the datum here is that we establish things in life and games play, we establish
the thing by bonding it to something that is already established. 

It happens all the time in games play. You know, we see a person acting as an agent for a more
established organization. And he finds that he can operate better by becoming an agent for the
established business than he can by trying to set up as himself in that line of business. So there
he is. He's established himself by bonding himself to this other entity which is established. So
establishment is achieved by bonding yourself to something which already exists with an 'if A
then B' postulate. 

In other words, you can establish A by bonding it to B providing B's exist. The subject of
establishment is also the subject you find in name dropping. The game of name dropping some
people  play,  you  know,  you  talk  to  them,  and  they  keep  dropping  famous  names  in  the
conversation. 

You're talking to them and they suddenly say, "Oh, yes the other afternoon I was having a cup of
tea with Paul Keating so on, so on, so on." So you see it's another famous name. Name dropping.
You see. The idea is that they are trying to establish their own identity by bonding themselves to
established identities in the society. You see. It's a game. 

It's an application of the 'if A then B' postulate. But children are the great ones at this. They're
the absolute masters of this one. Children do it you see because it's very difficult for a child to
establish any great form of identity without bonding themselves to something which is already
established. They do it all the time. 

For example a young boy sees his father wearing a cap and he wants to be like his father. He
wants to be a man. You see. Well it's not easy for him to be a man when he is small and so forth.
So he thinks, if I wear a cap I'll be a man. You see. So now he establishes himself as an identity, as
a male by wearing a cap like his dad does. You see. Little boys do it all the time. Girl children do it
with their mothers and their clothes all the time. You know, Mum buys a certain set of clothes
and daughter wants something similar. Cause she wants to use these clothes to establish her
femininity. You see. It's establishment. Goes on all the time in games play, it's an aspect of the 'if
A then B' postulate. So don't think we are dealing with something wishy-washy here. We're
looking at something that is very fundamental. 

Childhood 

You'll find that most of the croppers a person falls into on this subject of 'if A then B' postulate
of injudicious bonding in their lifetime happens in childhood. They make some absolutely weird
bondings, children do, which just never get corrected. They just carry on with this idea. 

You see the trouble with the bonding is having made an 'if A then B' postulate that one gets
trapped within one's own postulate. It's not easy to walk back out of the postulate again. One
tends to justify the postulate. One tends to interpret the universe. The child tends to interpret
the universe in terms of his postulates. It's only when his postulate is obviously at variance with
the  universe  that  he  will  attempt  to  change  it.  Even  then  sometimes  he  can't  change  his
postulate. 

If he's had a lot of trauma on this postulate he gets stuck with it. If the postulate is very
necessary to him or vital to him he still can't change the postulate and so the tendency is for all
of us to have made some pretty weird and wonderful 'if A then B' bondings in childhood. 

Bonding Breaking 

I mean, when you are working with the Level 5 materials you will come up with some weird stuff
about your own childhood. Some of the postulates you made will make your hair stand on end.
And when you examine Level 6 you will see that these are relationship postulates. They're 'if A
then B' postulates, they don't apply today. They're absolutely weird and wonderful and you've
been stuck with them for years and years. And they don't mean a thing. 

They were applicable in those times when you were a child. They meant something then, but
they don't mean anything today. They're best broken, which is the practical side of Level 6. It's to
break these bondings and you'll find the technique to break the bondings. The subject of bond
breaking. 

But anyway, the subject of establishment is the major route into the 'if A then B' postulates
made by children. The postulates hang around into adulthood, but most of the damage is done
before a person becomes an adult. The damage is done in childhood. The person does it all by
themselves. By their injudicious use of the 'if A then B' postulate largely in an endeavour to
establish their identity. 

To establish their masculinity when they're a boy, or to establish their femininity when they're a
girl. Establish their gender and so forth, or just to establish their identity. They make these weird
and wonderful bondings to establish themselves and they're most peculiar. They are weird. You
will laugh at them when you come across them. Or you will cry first then you'll laugh when
you've blown them. 

Single Bonding Summary 

That pretty much wraps up the subject of the single bind and single bonding in the mind. Now
how abberative is single bonding? Well it can be pretty darned abberative. It's rarely fatal. It will
rarely lead to psychosis. But it can be very upsetting. It can ruin a person's life, single bonding
can. 

The thing about the single bonding is that once you spot the single bonding and there are no
other postulates involved. Note that rider! You spot the single bonding and there are no other
postulates involved in the area you can usually blow it. You can usually blow the postulate and
re-evaluate it by inspection. 

So that's the good thing about the single bonding. The bad thing about the single bonding is that
once you become more and more enmeshed in compulsive games play the whole subject of
postulates  and  particularly  the  relationship  postulates,  the  bonding  postulate,  become
completely unreal. They go completely on automatic and you just become the complete effect of
them. 

They don't begin to show up until you've completed the first 5 Levels of the tech, then they start
to show up, with a vengeance. So much for the single bonding. 

Double Bonding 

Now I'll take up the subject of what is called the double bonding or the double bind in the mind.
Now I am grateful to the originators of this subject. The term single binding is my own. I don't
know of anyone else who has used that term, but for the term "double bind" I am grateful to the
anthropologist Gregory Bateson who first used this term some many years ago now in a work
which I've never been able to track down anywhere but he used the term double bind roughly in
the same sense that I intend to use it. I can't say any more because I've never read his work. I've
only read references to it. 

The double bind is also known in common usage as the "Catch 22". Now the term "Catch 22"
comes from the novel of that same name by the American author Joseph Heller who wrote the
novel in the mid 1960's. A very good novel, a very amusing novel, one of the best novels that
came out of that period, Catch 22 by Joseph Heller. That's how we get the word Catch 22 in the
language. 

So, straight away, what is a double bind? Well simply a double bind is a single bind plus its
reverse. In other words, it's not only an 'if A then B' postulate. It has the additional postulate of
'if B then A'. So we can define a double bind as an 'if A then B' postulate plus an 'if B then A'
postulate. 

Well, when we make a double bind we're not only saying that every time we see A we see B but
we are also saying that every time we see B we see A. Logically the effect of the two postulates
is to make A equivalent to B in the mind. That is the effect. 

Now what do I mean by that? Well if the 'if A then B' postulate applies and the 'if B then A'
postulate applies then A has an equal value or an equal weight in the psyche to B. They become
virtually identical to each other, (A=B) The logicians as a rule are very coy about this use of an
equal sign in this context. They usually prefer the word equivalent and they’re no doubt right
because obviously the truth of the matter is that no two things in this universe are really
identical simply because they occupy different positions in space, so they are not really identical
but they can certainly become equivalent in the psyche. 

They can become to all intents and purposes identical in the psyche as far as the subject is
concerned. The effect of the 'if A then B' double bind is to not only reduce the common class of
A and Not-B to zero but it also reduces the class of B and Not-A to zero. 

This now reduces the AB set down to the both A and B class and the both Not-A and Not-B class.
So there is an enormous reduction of the set. Now unlike the single bonding the 'if A then B'
postulate, which can be upsetting, embarrassing, and so on, the double bind can be deadly. 

When I first wrote up my notes on the subject of the double bind I called it the double lock on
the mind and that is no exaggeration of the power of the double bind. Once a person has
postulated a double bind, without therapy, without an understanding of what's going on their
chances of ever getting out of that double bind are just about zilch, are just about zilch. 

It is truly a double lock on the mind. That is to say if you really want to reduce your opponent to
impotency in games play set it up so that he postulates himself into a double bind. If you can
achieve this then he is gone. He's finished. He has now dug himself a hole and buried himself in it
completely. He's gone. 

Ron Hubbard in his early researches of Dianetics and Scientology was always talking about the
A=A=A mechanism of the reactive mind. Well Ron was no logician, for all his great attributes he
knew very little about logic but he did know there was an identification factor here in the
reactive bank. 

Well this identification factor in the reactive mind is the double bind. And the double bind is the
A=A mechanism in Dianetics and Scientology. That is the phenomena Ron was talking about
when he talked about A=A in the reactive mind. He was talking about the double bind. But he
didn't know sufficient logic and he hadn't analysed it out completely. 

I've now got the data out. This is what we're talking about now. When we're talking about the
double bind, is the A=A of the reactive bank itself. 

I'll  give  an  example  of  the  double  bind  and  perhaps  you'll  understand  the  power  of  the
mechanism: 

A young man has just left school so he goes and applies for a job. And he's told he can't be given
a job because he is inexperienced. So he then asks the interviewer, "Well, how can I gain
experience?" and the interviewer says "Well, the only way to get experience, of course, is to get a
job, which we can't give you because your inexperienced." 

Now unless the young man happens to be rather skilled in logic and mathematics, and so forth,
and is particularly clear thinking. All that is likely to happen is he's going to feel a little bit
flattened. And he'll walk away and think that there is something odd about what he's been told.
But he probably won't spot it as a double bind. He will just feel absolutely flattened, and
rejected and so forth, but he won't know what is going on. 

But let's examine the postulate structure here. The interviewer has told him that in order to be
employable he has to be experienced. And he's also told him in order to be experienced he has
to  be  employable.  The  postulates  in  the  set  are:  if  employable  then  experienced  and  if
experienced then employable. Now this reduces the AB set where A is employable and B is
experienced. Reduces the set down to both employable and experienced or neither employable
nor experienced. The other two classes employable and not experienced and the other class of
experienced and not employable are empty classes, are null classes. They are made empty of
course by the postulates. 

So the set is reduced down to just the two classes which I named. Now the unfortunate applicant
is stuck in the class of being neither employable nor experienced. And he wants to get over to
the class of being both employable and experienced. And there is no way he can do it. There's
simply no way he can get across from the class he's in to the class he wants to get into. 

You think about it for a while and you will see that is the case. He can't go from inexperienced to
experienced because he is also unemployable and he can't go non-employable to employable
because he is inexperienced [chuckle] the postulates have trapped him with a double lock. He's
locked out there by a double locking device. The only way he can get out of the class he's in,
being both inexperienced and non-employable and get into the class of being both experienced
and employable is to leap out from one class into the other class which he can't do. He simply
can't do it. There is no way. 

So he is trapped. You've trapped him. He is trapped in the double bind. He is in a double bind or a
Catch 22. It's a Catch 22 situation. He just goes round and round it like a rat in a maze. How do I
get employed? How do I get a job when I need experience? That's right, how do I get experience,
well I have to get a job. Well, how do I get a job? Well the only way to get a job is to get some
experience. But I can't get experience because I haven't got a job. Well, I can't get a job till I get 

some experience. He just goes round and round like a rat in a maze. There is no way he can get
across from one postulate to the other. 

You see, it's a deadly device, the double bind. It's a deadly device. The Double Bind, the Catch 22. 

How could this young man resolve this enigma? Well the easiest way would be to do the practical
of Level 6. When he had backed up [‘backed up’ perhaps meaning caused to accumulate] the
practical of Level 6 to this situation he would realise that there is something odd about these
postulates 'if employable then experienced' and 'if experienced then employable'. 

And particularly there is something odd about this postulate of 'if employable then experienced'.
And that postulate happens to be false in our society. If you think about it for a moment, the
postulate 'if employable then experienced' if that postulate is true then no one would have a job.
You see that? 

If everyone has to be experienced before they can become employable. Then no one would have
a job, because by necessity everyone is inexperienced when they start their first job. You see?
The postulate is a lie. It's false. So once you realise that that postulate is false the double bind
collapses. You see that the young man would realise they’re just having him on. The whole thing
is just a Catch 22. 

He's just been sold a lie and he'd be out the trap. You see that? But he would have to do Level 6
to do it, to get out of the double bind. You have to break those postulates. One way or the other
he would have to break those two postulates. Or at least one of them would have to be broken. 

If he breaks one of them and he is just left with a single bonding. If he is left with a single
bonding, he's broken the double bond. And when he breaks both of them he's regained full
freedom of choice in the situation. 

The double bind, the Catch 22 can show up in a number of guises. A person can come up to you
and say "in this matter you're either with us or you're against us" now that sounds innocuous
enough but as a matter of fact it's a double bind. He is handing you a double bind on a plate. 

If you agree with this situation that you're either with him or against him then you bought the
double bind. And you've trapped yourself because when he says you're either with us or against
us he is denying you the freedom to be both with him and against him, and he is denying you the
freedom to be neither with him nor against him. He is insisting that you be either with him and
not against him or against him and not with him. Follow? That's the double bind, the double bind
situation, and one to be wary of. 

So the double bind can show up in many guises, many areas of life. And I can tell you this for
absolutely sure the toughest incidents you ever have to erase in therapy will be double binds. 

These are the ones that hang on by grim death and stay on and hang around the longest and just
never seem to erase, and you grind away forever and ever and ever. Sure thing. 

The double bind is that incident and there are probably more than one that are there hanging
fire. And that's why you can't free the incident because of the double bind. That is why you can
save a lot of time by applying Level 6 to a situation like this. Oh, you'll reduce the thing by Level 

5. 

You'll reduce the thing. You'll knock it into a cocked hat by Level 5 but you'll never have 

understood what went on in that incident. You will need Level 6 to take the double bind apart, to
see just why the thing was so damned upsetting to you. 

Level 6 is The Understanding 

Even though Level 5 will take all of the charge out of it and erased it, you'll need Level 6 to
understand the incident, to fully understand the incident. So it's a great rule of thumb. The old
hand in this area of research that I am doing and these levels. He knows that if an incident is
hanging fire look for the double bind. "Show me the double bind" is the message. 

Incidents where it's just a single bind, they can hang fire for a little while but they do come apart
when you spot the bonding and the thing blows by inspection. And if there is no bonding at all in
the incident well it will just resolve by inspection any old time. It probably won't be abberative at
all. It never would have affected you; it would have been a null incident right from the word go. 

Just finally I will give you the definition of a double bind again: It's a bonding postulate plus its
reverse. A double bind is a bonding postulate plus its reverse. 

If the bonding postulate is 'if A then B' then a double bind is 'if A then B' plus 'if B then A'. If the
bonding postulate is 'if Not A then B' then the double bind is 'if Not A then B' and 'if B then Not
A', and so on. It's simply the double bind is the bonding postulate plus its exact reverse. There is
no difficulty there. There is no complexity. It's just a simple postulate plus its reverse. 

Double Binds and Sexuality 

Finally there is one particular area of human livingness that is absolutely festooned with double
binds. And that is the subject of sexuality in human beings. The reason for this is because the
human body has adopted gender specialization. 

That means that a human being can only be either a male or a female. He cannot be both and he
cannot be neither. He is either a male and not a female or is a female and not a male, and that I
can assure you is a double bind. 

So from that start point you have a double bind, which you collect at birth. You collect that when
you come into the game. You can see how you could collect a whole number of double binds on
the subject of sexuality. And that is why sexuality is a very difficult thing to get apart in therapy. 

And that's why Sigmund Freud would come forward and say the whole of resolving the human
mind is entirely a matter of taking the sexuality apart. Well he is not quite right but he was on
the right track. He knew it was a damned difficult subject to get apart, a damned difficult subject
to get apart because it's festooned with double binds. 

Now that we know this we can get it apart rather easily. Right, well that, wraps up the theory of
the subject of bonding that's the end of the theory and we'll now take up the practical. 

Practical 

The rest of this tape will be devoted to the practical of Level 6. The tech here is very simple to
explain, but very difficult to do unless you're ready to do it. So I'll tell you that at the outset. This
is not something for the kiddies. It's not something for a person early on to play with. It's very
difficult to do it and you need a clear mind to be able to do it. It's easy to explain. The processes
themselves are ridiculously simple to offer to a person but they're very difficult for him to do. 

Now the stable datum of Level 6 practical runs as follows, and this should be written up on the
wall. Here it goes: 

A bonding is broken and its bonding postulate erased  by putting members into the

common class that the bonding postulate renders null.

I'll give it to you again, "a bonding is broken and its bonding postulate erased by putting
members into the common class that the bonding postulate renders null." 

Now that was the breakthrough I made. Until I had that postulate, that understanding I just
spoke of, I couldn't round out Level 6. I've tried for a number of years now to wrap up this subject
of bonding, I had many techniques from the practical side. None of them have been completely
successful. I needed that datum to come up with the very simple technology that does the trick. 

I've now got that technology from that datum. You see, we know that every bonding postulate
manufactures a null class. We know that. 

We can represent the bonding postulate as 'if A then B' that's the class of bonding postulates.
We represent them as 'if A then B' and when that postulate is made it renders the class of both A
and Not-B an empty class. And all we have to do in practical is to get the subject to look at this
class of both A and Not-B, it's empty in his mind. His postulate makes it empty. And all we have
got to do is we've got to get him to put things into this class and see that this class can have
members in it. 

Once he sees that this class can have members in it he will stop creating the 'if A then B'
postulate. You see that? While he creates the 'if A then B' postulate the class is empty. But once
he sees the class can have members in it, he sees there is something wrong with his postulate.
He sees his postulate is false. He'll say, "Good God, this postulate is crazy... this class can have
members in it: therefore, my postulate must be false." He'll stop making the postulate. 

Once he stops making the postulate the bond postulate is broken. We've done the trick. You see
that? Now there is one other thing we do while we're working here. We not only get him to be
able to put members into that null class to fill it up again, to fill up the null class. But we also
provide him with a technique to take the members back out again. This gives him his full freedom 

of choice now on this particular class that he made null with his postulate. We let him put
members into the class. He sees that members can go in and he learns how to put them in and he
learns how to take them out. 

And we have given him now his full freedom of choice as far as that class is concerned. In his own
mind he can have it empty or he can have it full. He can fill it up to his heart's content and he can
now empty it to his heart's content. His full freedom of choice is restored and all the charge has
gone off that class. 

And more importantly the bonding postulate is broken. That's the essence of our approach in
the practical of Level 6. It's a very simple approach. Alright now what is the auditing command
that will do this magical thing? 

The Method 

Here we go: 

Let's assume that the null class is the AB class. It could any, it could be A and Not-B, it could be
Not-A and B, it could be any class. We'll call it an AB class. The common class of A and B. Got that?
We'll call it that as a symbol to recognise it while we're talking about it. Right. 

Here are the auditing commands. 

"What could A and B have in common?" 

That is the first command. Now we run that command until there is no more change. We simply
flatten that command off as far as we can. There may be long comm. lags on it. You may have to
think about it for hours, days or weeks but that's the one that puts things back into the AB class.
You see? The AB is the null class and we want to put some things back in it. 

So we say, "What could A and B have in common?" 

It's a creative process. It's not a recall process. It's a pure creative process. So it's quite unlimited
in application. It's creative. A person has to imagine things. It's an imagination type of process.
"What could A and B have in common?" So we run that as far as we can until there is no more
change. And all the somatics if any have gone. And the person is feeling fine about it. 

Then we run : 

"What could A and B not have in common?" 

"What could A and B not have in common?" 

Now that command "What could A and B not have in common?" We run that again until there is
no more change. Now that command takes things out of the AB set and starts to empty it again.
You see that? We're doing the reverse taking things out of the AB set. That empties the set. 

So that's the second command. We run that until there is no more change. 

Then we go back and run "What could A and B have in common?" we run that some more and see
if that is charged up again. When that's gone null we go back and run "What could A and B not
have in common?" And we null those until there is no more charge on either of them. 

We run plenty of RI, liberally, because it can be quite tough on RI, this one can particularly in the
early stages. Until you get used  to the process. So run plenty of RI, liberally. And  that is
essentially the way it's done, at Level 6. 

There isn't any more to Level 6 than that. Those two commands are sufficient to do the trick. 

Level 6 Therapy Example 

Now to finish off this tape I will give you an example of how you would run this in therapy on a
person. We've got a person who has run through the therapy. They have completed all their
levels and they've arrived at Level 6. They are feeling very good about things. They are running
showing Clear on the meter and have been for some while. 

They went Clear at Level 3 probably. And they have run out their goals packages. The 'To Know'
package has gone very quiet. They can't find anything on any of the junior packages. Everything
has gone very quiet and they’re feeling pretty darn good. But while they were running Level 5
these bonding postulates showed up. One that keeps sticking in their craw, that is in their mind
still. It's not bothering them. They remember it as a child. They had this postulate show up about
girls and wearing dresses. ‘All those who wear dresses are girls’. And the other side of it ‘all girls
wear dresses’. And the person is sort of stuck with this. And it's still sticking in their craw up at
Level 6. 

Well here we are ready now to handle it, and this is the way they'd do it. Now before we go into
it you might say, "Now how can a person in our society possibly hold a postulate that all girls
wear dresses?" 'if girl then wearing a dress'. When so many girls don't wear dresses, they wear
jeans, and so forth. 

A Person Can Always Justify Their Postulates 

And that's no difficulty. A person can always justify their postulates. Such a person can easily say,
"Well, girls that don't wear dresses aren't really girls." You know a person can simply justify their
postulates. There's a thousand ways they can simply justify it. It's quite possible for a person to
hold that double bind. 

We'll assume the person is holding that double bind. How would they go about resolving it at
Level 6? Well we take each postulate in turn and we erase each one in turn. That's the general
rule. We take each side of the double bind and erase each one in turn. We don't attempt
anything like trying to erase both sides of the double bind at the same time. We take them in
order, in turn. 

Now what is A and B here? Well the postulate here is, 'If a person wearing a dress then a girl'. So
that's the postulate and the null class is a person wearing a dress and a non-girl. See that, that's
the null class. That's what the postulate brings about. So the null class the person is stuck with is
the class A "a person wearing a dress" and the class B of "a non-girl". That is the common class
that is null, and we've got to populate that null class. 

So we ask him, "What could a person wearing a dress and a non-girl have in common?" That
would be the first auditing command. "What could a person wearing a dress and a non-girl have
in common?" And we just wait out the comm. lag, and as the person struggles with this, with
their postulate. And eventually they start to fill it up. And we run it and run it and run it. 

When that's gone null we then say, "What could a person wearing a dress and a non-girl not
have in common?" 

And with this question we start emptying out this class again. We run those backwards and
forwards until we've nulled both of them. We've now erased one side of the double bind. It's no
longer a double bind now. We've erased one side. 

Breaking The Double Bind 

We now home in on the other postulate. The other 'if A then B' postulate in this situation, 'if girl
then person who wears a dress'. Well, we could now go to work with the reverse. 

Our first auditing command now becomes: 

"What could a girl and a non-wearer of a dress have in common?" 

And we run that until it is null. And then we would run the other side of it: 

"What could a girl and a non-wearer of a dress not have in common?" 

And we would run that until it was null. Then we would go back to the first command and the
second command and then alternate until till both were completely null. We've broken the other
side of the double bind. At that point we've now broken the double bind completely. 

So each single bonding is broken in turn by the use of those two postulates. It might sound a
little complex when you first play this tape. Really it's childishly simple. It's much simpler to
explain than it is for the unfortunate person, for the subject to actually answer the questions. It's
a very difficult question to answer. It's that sort of tough and highly charged double bind. A
person will find it just about impossible to answer. They may comm. lag it for days, weeks before
he gets some answers up. 

But you can take it from me this is the best process, the most precise process, the most accurate
process and it's the most elegant process to do the job. There are other processes that do it
partially and do a much more sloppy job. 

In other words, there's other ways to skin the cat. But this skins it precisely, does the job in the
most optimum fashion. So there's the example there, of how you would apply this to a double
bind situation. 

Difficulty in Running 

In terms of difficulty of doing the level, Level 6 is comparable in difficulty to Level 2. It's a much
more difficult step to achieve than Levels 1, 3, 4 and 5. Level 2 is difficult, is a tough one too, 2 is
and 6 is comparable to 2. It's a toughie. This is one for the high school. This is one for the
university graduates in the terms of therapy. 

It's not a technique for the beginners. It really isn't. You really need your wits about you to tackle
this stuff at Level 6. That's why it's at Level 6 and not down at Level 2. 

At the time of cutting this tape I haven't completely erased all the double bondings, double
binds or single bondings, I have extant in my own mind. There are quite a number of them that
cropped up. During my own running of Level 5 which I've got notes of, strewn around the place.
I'm in the process of collecting them up. They'll all get dealt with eventually because I always
keep a note of everything I've done. 

Keep a Note of The Binds 

So it's very important that when you're working with Level 5 in the earlier steps keep a note of
any bondings that show up. Keep a written note, not just a mental note. Write them down for
god's sake. Keep the paper because you're going to need them on Level 6. You don't want them
to get lost. Write them all down on a bit of paper then when you get to Level 6 you collect up all
your bits of paper and you've got something to work with. 

So  until  you've  got  those  bits  of  paper.  Until  you've  got  the  actual  bondings,  the  actual
postulates there, unless some crop up you've nothing to work with at Level 6. You see a beginner
can't even start at Level 6. He's got nothing to work with. He scratches his head and says 'if A
then B' if this then that, I mean it just doesn't mean a thing at the beginning of therapy. It simply
doesn't mean a thing to the subject. You know, the whole thing is just a great big mystery. He
couldn't answer the question because he can't start. When he works on Level 5 bondings show
up, he writes them down. Then he's got something to work with at Level 6, so that the procedure
is quite self checking. 

You won't have people mucking around with Level 6 before they ought to muck around with it
for the simple reason they won't have anything to muck around with. They might manufacture a
few but they won't get any hot ones. They might manufacture a few, pick them out of thin air
and play with those at Level 6 when they didn't ought to be. But they won't get any tough ones,
meaningful in their own bank. They are too far deeply buried. They'd need Level 5 to dig those
out. So there is some degree of self checking at Level 6. 

Test for 'if A then B' Postulate 

Now, re-listening to this tape I recall, there is another bit of information about bonding that is of
interest to you which I haven't mentioned. And I will mention it because it's of interest. It's not a
vital importance but it is of interest. 

That when A is bonded to B in the mind, if you have an 'if A then B' bonding in the mind. If you
mock-up A and mock-up B then B will tend to move towards A. Now this won't happen for
everyone. It only happens if your mock-ups are quite real to you. And you've got a pretty good
perception of them. And you'll see this phenomena there that if you've got an 'if A then B'
postulate and you mock-up A then B will tend to move towards A. 

I won't explain why this is. I know why it is but it's a little complex. It's a little bit of unnecessary
logical theory to explain the phenomena. But I can assure you that's what happens. Now this
mechanism, if it does work for a person, can be used as an indicator of an 'if A then B' postulate. 

In other words, if you mock-up two things and one tends to move towards the other then the
thing that does the moving is the B. The B end of an 'if A then B' postulate, and the thing it's
moving towards is the A. 

It's always that way round. It's never the other way round. It can't be the other way round. It's
always that the B moves toward the A. You mock-up A then mock-up B and if an 'if A then B'
postulate is extant then the mock-up of B will tend to move toward the mock-up of A. It can be
used as an indicator for the presence of an 'if A then B' postulate, for those who are sensitive
enough to their mock-up to perceive them. 

As I say it's not one everyone can use because particularly early on in therapy their contact with
their own creations is not sufficiently good for them to spot what's going on. But strangely
enough even though this phenomenon occurs you can't break the bonding by the use of mock-
ups. 

I've  tried  all  conceivable  variations  and  permutations  of  the  mock-ups,  mocking  up  A  and
mocking up B. Moving them toward each other and moving them apart and so forth. It won't
break the bonding. It won't break the postulate. 

The only way to break the postulate is to use the Level 6 process I've given you. It's the only one I
know that will do it efficiently. There's others that will do it less efficiently but the ones I've
given you will do it spot on. Bang. They are absolutely precise; they are precise for the job in
hand. So I thought I'd mention that phenomena of the B moving towards A on the mock-up level
in the presence of an 'if A then B' postulate. 

Just for a reference, if you see it happening in therapy you will know what's going on. Well that's
about Level 6 Practical. I can't tell you what it looks like when you've completed Level 6 practical
because I haven't got there yet. But I can tell you that it will produce case gains. And there is no
harm in the process. I've tested the process long enough now on myself. There is no harm in it.
There is no way it's going to drive anyone mad. 

If they run it properly and run it at the time it's supposed to be run. No one's going to be harmed
by the process. So I'm looking forward to what life’s going to be like without all these bondings.
It must be clearly understood that Level 6 is not a requisite process of the set. The set process
does end at Level 5. 

You don't really need to go past Level 5. Level 5 will erase the bank for all intents and purposes.
It will take it off the meter and it will be gone. It will leave a blank in your understanding of
various aspects of life and one of the aspects it leaves a blank on is the material of Level 6. 

Level 6 will fill this in for you and round out your understanding of life and postulates and games
play and so forth. And also give you a few extra case gains that you couldn't have gotten on Level 

5. 

Okay, well that's about it Greg. That's Level 6 theory and practical. And I wish everyone luck 

with the procedure and I hope you'll never be the same again. 

RETURN TO LECTURES MAIN PAGE