Embedded Files
Today is the 21st of February 1994. And today I want to take up this vitally important subject of
relationships, which technically is the subject of bonding. So the lecture will be entitled
"Bonding" but the material it covers will be this subject of relationships.
Relationships
First off we need to discover what a relationship is. Well, fundamentally, a relationship is a
connection. It's a connection. When we say two things are related we only really mean
fundamentally that there is a connection between them.
For example in our society there's clearly a connection between a person who wears a dress and
a girl. These two things are connected in our society, and so we say they are related. The concept
of relationship and connectivity is quite interchangeable. If two things are connected then they
are related. And if two things are related then they are connected.
It's a two way proposition. You can't have one without the other. On the other hand, there
doesn't appear to be any relationship between the subject of Eskimo's breakfast and
Beethoven's Symphonies. So we would say that these two things are unrelated. So they are
unconnected.
Now the first thing we need to know about a relationship is that it's always between two or more
things. A thing cannot be related to itself in isolation. You see that? So that's absolutely
fundamental to the idea of a relationship. There are always two or more things involved. I mean
three things could all be related to each other. But when you examine these complex
relationships any complex relationship of more than two things you can always break this
connectivity down into a series of pairs.
If you've got A, B and C related to each other well you can break it down to the relationships
between A and B, and between A and C, and the relationship between B and C. You see, you can
always break it down into a series of pairs.
So a fundamental relationship is always a relationship of a pair, one thing to another. But
certainly a thing cannot have a relationship with itself. Now the next thing we need to know
about a relationship is that:
All relationships are achieved by postulates
All relationships are achieved by postulates.
Things are related one to the other by making postulates. Now if you don't understand that
you'll park yourself right here on the subject of relationships. You've got to get that. It's done by
postulates. It's all done by postulates. Well, as we already know this universe only consists of life
and postulates. It's no great surprise to us to discover that all relationships are achieved by
postulates, is it? But never-the-less you better grasp this.
Now, in life and livingness there is a vast number of ways in which a relationship can be
postulated. In other words a relationship postulate can occur in many ways in life. I won't bother
to classify them. I haven't bothered to classify them. There is no need for me to classify them.
But I can assure you it's a considerable number of ways.
I'll give you some examples of the diversity of relationship postulates and you'll see what I mean:
Example 1:
In the Old Testament of the Bible it is said that God said, "Let there be light."
Now "Let there be light" doesn't sound like a relationship postulate but as a matter of fact it is. It
is a relationship postulate. It's not a postulate in isolation because what God intended, according
to the Old Testament was that the light should occur in the universe. So we have the two things.
We have the universe, and we have light. So, really what God was saying, the type of postulate he
was saying was that ‘if the universe exists then light will exist’. That's really what he was saying.
That ‘if the universe exists then light exists’.
He may have expressed the postulate as "let there be light", but that is what he meant. He
meant that granting that the universe exists, and the universe does exist. Then there will be light
in the universe. Another way of saying that if the universe exists then light exists in that
universe, ‘If universe then light’, that's what he was saying. So there's an example of a
relationship that doesn't obviously appear to be a relationship. When you say a postulate like "let
there be light," it doesn't immediately appear that it's a relationship postulate. Yet it is a
relationship postulate.
Example 2:
All right I'll give you another example. And this is possibly a more obvious example. A man says "I
love Mary." Well now that's a relationship postulate. We've got the subject of him. We've got the
subject of love. And we've got the subject of Mary. That's actually three things in this situation.
And he's connecting up in a manner that says "I love Mary."
Another way to express this postulate that "I love Mary" is to say that Mary is within the class of
people that I love. You see that? Now that's a very precise way of expressing the postulate. But
people don't normally say that in conversation. The man would say that "Well I love Mary" he
wouldn't say that "Mary is within the class of people that I love". He wouldn't say that. But never
the less the latter is the more precise way to express the postulate.
Example 3:
Well, let's give another example of a relationship. A person says to himself or says to the world at
large "All people who wear dresses are girls." See that? Well that definitely is a relationship
postulate. And we could express that in another way by saying that his postulate is that 'if
people who wear dresses exist then girls exist'. That's another way of expressing that. You see?
When you come to examine this subject of relationships and the nature of these various
relationship postulates you'll find they come up in therapy. And they will come up in therapy.
Don't kid yourself on this subject; they are going to show up in droves as soon as you start
working in therapy, particularly at the upper levels, Levels 4 and 5. You're going to get these
relationship postulates. They're going to start coming up. And you'll be struck by the diversity of
these postulates.
And you'll also be struck, and say to yourself "Wouldn't it be nice, wouldn't it be lovely if there
was a standard, that every relationship postulate could be reduced to a standard form." A
standard type of postulate, which means exactly the same as the one I find in my mind. Well is
that possible? In other words, can we standardise all relationship postulates and put them into a
certain form? Yes we can.
We can do this. But before I talk about this, we'll have to talk a little bit about logic. A little bit
about the subject of logic.
Logic
In the field of logic, this subject of how to express relationships between things was a great
problem for many years. They too were struck by the diversity of relationships. The logicians
were struck by the diversity in the way that relationships could exist between things. And they
too looked for a standard form of the relationship postulate.
Oh, but they didn't call it a relationship postulate. They simply were looking for a standardised
form of relationship. They were looking for something that, no matter what they found, in the
real universe. No matter what the relationship was. No matter how it expressed itself in the real
universe it could be broken down into some simplicity, and so it could be used in the logical
system. And eventually they found what they called the fundamental logical relationship.
That any relationship between things in the universe can be broken down into this simplicity and
thus understood. And thus standardised, and understood in the terms of this simplicity. Now
when we searched for a standardization of the relationship postulates there was absolutely no
reason why we shouldn't use the same standard form that the logician uses. I mean, the logicians
went to great lengths to discover the fundamental relationship postulate. And there is no reason
why we shouldn't use it. Or to put it another way round, we couldn't do any better no matter
how we worked at this subject of relationship postulates and classifying them and standardizing
them.
We would basically end up with the same postulate that the logicians ended up with, I can assure
you of that. We wouldn't come up with anything new. There is only, in this universe, one
fundamental relationship postulate. And that's the one the logicians use.
Life doesn't use it very much. It can use something very similar to it. But it doesn't use it very
much. It's lovely to be able to convert any relationship you find in the mind into this standard
form. But you might say, "Does any advantage accrue to taking a relationship in the mind and
reducing it to a standard form?" Yes, considerable advantages accrue which you don't notice and
don't know about until you actually do the reduction to the standardization.
Once you take this relationship and reduce it to the standard form you are then in a position to
learn much more about that relationship than you could ever learn while it was in the non-
standardised form. In other words, there is a tremendous advantage to be gained by taking the
relationships as they appear in the mind and reducing them to the standard form.
[Note: What Dennis is saying. In your mind you don't use this standardised relationship 'if A then B'
but it helps to reduce what you have in your mind to this form for understanding and therapy.
Editor]
The Standard Form
Now what is this standard form of a relationship? Well before I give you that standard form we
will have to talk, unfortunately, just a little about the logic of classes. We won't have to go very
much into it but unless I give you a few of the basics of the subject of the logical classes you
won't see the advantages of putting a relationship into its basic logical form.
So we better talk a little bit about the logical classes. And then you'll see the enormous
advantages that accrue by using the logical form of relationships.
Class
Well first of all we better briefly say what is a class? We'd better make some definitions here
otherwise we're going to get into a frightful mess if we don't define a few terms. All these terms
are going to be used later in the lecture so you better cock your ears up. They're not complicated
terms.
But we're going to define them. First of all what is a class? Well a class is defined, and this is as
good a definition as any. You may find a more precise definitions in logical text books but for our
purposes of a class, it's as good a definition as any.
A class can be defined as a group whose members each have one or more things in common. A
class is a group whose members have one or more things in common. Now for example, men are
a class. They are a class of beings. They all have in common masculinity. They all have masculinity
in common. They may have many other things in common in the class of men. But they at least
have that in common. So that is sufficient to designate them as a class, that they've all got
masculinity in common.
Alright, so much for a class, it's a simple enough definition.
Common Class
Now the next thing is a common class. A common class is best defined as a class which consists of
two or more classes. For example a common class would be the class of black men. And here we
have the class of black beings. That would be a distinct class in the universe, black beings. And
men is a class in the universe. The class of men, but the common class of black men, they have in
common that they are men and they also have in common that they are black. They're black
beings. So they are both men and black beings. You see? So they're black men. We would say this
is the class of black men. You see that?
Now that's a common class. A more complex class would be black men over 6 foot tall. They
would have in common, each member of this class would be a black being and would be a man
and would be over 6 foot tall. See that? So that would be black men over 6 foot tall, would be the
common class of black men over 6 foot tall. Again it's quite a straight forward system.
Null Class
Now the next definition I want to give you. And this is a very important one, is the concept of the
null class, Null class. N-U-double L. The word null comes from the Latin nullus meaning not any.
So it's no surprise to discover that a null class is a class that's empty. It has no members in it. So
that is what a null class is. It's an empty class, there are no members in it. I'll give you a couple of
examples of empty classes, null classes.
The class of green cats is a null class. The class of green things is a well populated class. There
are plenty of things in this universe that are green. And the class of cats is a well defined class.
But the common class of green cats is null. Cats evidently, for some reason best known to
themselves, don't come out in the colour green. So, although you find plenty of cats about and
plenty of green things about, you won't find any green cats. Green cats, this is a null class.
So, another example of a null class would be crows, the common class of crows that are non-
birds. That too is a null class. It's an empty class, crows that are non-birds. There are plenty of
crows about, and there are plenty of things in the universe that aren't birds. But the class of
things that are both crows and non-birds does not exist. There aren't any crows that are non-
birds. The reason why there aren't any crows that are non-birds is because all crows are birds.
You see? If all crows are birds, and in this universe all crows are birds, then the common class of
crows that are non-birds does not exist. So again that is a null class. You see that? So one must be
wary of making permutations and combinations of classes, it's quite all right to do this but you
can't always be sure that the classes you arrive at when you start combining these classes at
random, although while each individual class you specify may have members in it you can't be
sure that the common class that you end up with is going to have members in it. It may be a null
class. You would have to test it. There may be postulates in the universe which make your class
that you arrived at into a null class. You see that? Don't always assume that all classes have got
members in them. There are quite a lot of null classes in this universe, quite a lot of them.
Bonding Relationship Postulate
Right, well, so far so good. We're getting on very well here. We've defined a relationship. We've
defined a class. We've defined a common class, and we've defined a null class. We're getting on
very well. We're now in a position to specify the basic bonding relationship postulate in the field
of logic. Now this postulate is in simplest form 'if A then B'.
That is the basic form of the postulate, 'if A then B'. Now what do we mean when we say 'if A
then B'? Well we simply mean, if A exists then B exists. That's what we mean fundamentally. That
if A exists then B exists. Now our postulate is determined to make this so. That is what we're
postulating, when we say 'if A then B'. We are saying "if A exists then B exists."
Or, to put it another way, every time we see A we will see B. Every time we see A we will see B.
The postulate doesn't say that A exists. It says that if A exists. That if A exists then B exists.
Follow? So it's not, when you say "if A then B". It's not quite the same as saying "all A's have B".
See that? In certain specified instances "all A's have B" might be the same as 'if A then B'.
Let's give an example here to differentiate those two out. In this universe all crows are birds. You
can postulate ‘all crows are birds’. Ok? Now that's true, that's true. All crows are birds in this
universe. They all obey that postulate. I don't know who made the postulate, whether the birds
made it, or whether god made it. We're not concerned who made the postulate, but the
postulate exists in the universe that ‘all crows are birds’.
Now we can express that. This postulate says that all crows are birds. It implies that crows exist.
When you say "all crows are birds", the implication is that crows exist. But when we say "if crow
then bird", there is no such implication. So it's a much more precise postulate. But it means the
same thing. 'If crow then bird' means exactly the same thing as 'all crows are birds'.
The only difference is that 'all crows are birds' implies that crows exist, and because crows exist
birds exist.
Conditional Postulate
But 'if crow then bird' is a conditional postulate. We aren't saying that crows exist. But if the
crows do exist, and we don't know whether they exist or not, but if a crow does exists then it's a
bird. But, of course, there may not be any crows at all. So our postulate, 'if crows then birds' or 'if
crow then bird' could exist in a universe where there are no crows and no birds. You see?
Where the postulate ‘all crows are birds’ does really need the existence of crows, therefore, the
existence of birds to put itself into action. But the postulate 'if crow then bird' could exist in a
universe where there are no crows and no birds. It's simply a postulate, simply a relationship. It
just says if crows exist then birds exist.
Now you see the difference between the two? You see that 'if crow then bird' is a much more
fundamental way to express the postulate. It doesn't require the existence of the junior
universes of crows, birds or whatever A and B happen to be in this situation we are considering.
You see that's the most fundamental it can get, 'if A then B'.
Now, in the field of logic, you might be interested to know this, any logical proposition, no
matter how complex the logical propositions are, can be broken down into a series of 'if A then
B' propositions. Now this is true in the field of logic. You can have something as complex say as
the programming of a mighty computer and that may have millions maybe billions of
relationships in its memory bank but this whole mishmash of relationships could, if you wanted
to and would spend the time at it, you could break it down into a series of 'if A then B'
relationships, ‘if A then B’ bondings. You see that?
Or to put it another way, no matter how complex the relationships you want in your computer
you can build them up to any great complexity in terms of 'if A then B' postulates. You just keep
feeding 'if A then B' postulates into the computer and you'll end up with any degree of
complexity you desire in your memory bank or in your postulate structure in your program of
your computer. You see?
So it doesn't matter how complex it is. It goes two ways. You can build up complex structures or
complex relationship postulates from the simple 'if A then B's or you can break down the
complex ones into their 'if A then B' parts. You see that? It goes either way.
Goes from simplicity to complexity then break the complexity back to the simplicity. Now you're
beginning to see that there is some advantage to using the logical system over dealing with all
these different types of relationship postulates we find in life. Already we're beginning to see
advantages, aren't we? You see that we can break down a complexity into a simplicity and go
from a simplicity to a complexity, by using this system, using the 'if A then B' system, which we
can't do on another system.
And it's no different in the human mind. No matter how complex the relationships are in the
human psyche, they can all, each and every one of them, can be broken down into a series of 'if A
then B' relationships. And can be utilised as such, and, strangely enough, once you break them
down into 'if A then B' relationships they can be utilised and can be manipulated in the logical
system, if you wish.
The logicians divert their subject where you can manipulate these 'if A then B' postulates within
a system. And can come out with deductions and so forth. Before you can use the system of the
logicians you've got to put your postulates in the form, your relationships in the form, that the
systems can handle.
And the logical systems can handle 'if A then B' postulates, because that's the basis of all
relationships. You see? So then any logical system can handle an 'if A then B' postulate. So you
get your life and livingness postulates and you reduce them down to 'if A then B' so they can be
manipulated in a logical system. That's another advantage of doing this. You might not want to
do so but you can do so once you've reduced them down to this simplicity.
So again we are seeing that there are more advantages accruing here. Beginning to look good
isn't it? It's beginning to look good. Now we're beginning to get into an area where you'll really
begin to see the advantages of going into the simplicity of the 'if A then B', rather than with
dealing with the complexity of dealing with the relationship postulates of the human mind.
The Effect of 'if A then B'
What is the effect of an 'if A then B' postulate? Well, we know that the effect of all postulates is
to limit freedom. Every postulate limits freedom. You'll find this in one of the earlier
supplementary lectures. It's in one of the very early definitions, which apply in the universe, that
all postulates limit the possible and thereby define the reasonable.
All postulates limit the possible and thereby define the reasonable. Well a relationship is no
exception to this rule. It's a postulate. So it limits the possible. Therefore, it results, like any
postulate, in a lowering of freedom of choice.
Well let's examine an 'if A then B' postulate and see what and how this comes about and what
freedom of choice is lost when you make an 'if A then B' postulate. Let us take, for example, the
relationship postulate 'if crow then bird'.
Now what freedom is lost in that area? Well when we say if crow then bird we are saying that this
common class that are both crows and non-birds does not exist. I'll give it to you again. When we
make the postulate 'if crow then bird' we are saying that this common class that is both a crow
and a non-bird does not exist. It's a null class. And that, so help me, is the only effect of the 'if
crow then bird' postulate. It has no other effect. It simply empties that class.
So you lose one of the possible classes on the subject. When you say "if crow then bird". You've
lost some freedom here. Well, let's have a look and examine what freedom you've lost.
A Postulate Set
Well now there is this little thing called a postulate set here. There's this subject of crows, this
class of crows and this class of birds. Well we already know that there are four possible
permutations between the subject of crows and birds.
There is this class of things that are both crows and birds. There is a class of things that are both
crows and not birds. There is a class of things that are non-crows and birds. and a class of things
that are neither crows nor birds. And the sum of those four classes constitutes the whole
universe and we call this a set. A postulate set. It's a set of the postulates.
Remember I've used the words postulate set when dealing the postulates of the goals packages.
It's still a postulate set. But we're using the relationship postulate so you still call it a postulate
set or loosely we simply call it a set.
So there are four classes in the set. There's the class of both crows and birds, both crows and
non-birds, both non-crows and birds, and both non-crows and non-birds. And when we say, 'if
crow then bird' we've taken this class of both a crow and a non-bird and reduced it to a null class.
So in our universe now we haven't got four classes. The universe now has only got three classes.
We got the class that is both a crow and a bird, the class that is non-crow and a bird and the class
that is neither a crow nor a bird. And that's what it looks like in this universe. Course it happens
to be true in the real universe that if crow then bird is a true postulate and the universe
subscribes to that postulate. It's true in the universe. There are only those three classes extant.
The fourth class, the class of creatures that are both crows and non-birds doesn't exist. They
don't exist because the postulate that if crow then bird reduces that class to a null class. You
follow? So there is the freedom that's lost.
Now, this is sneaky isn't it? This is sneaky. If you've been following this you'll realise that you can
lose freedom by making relationship postulates. Every time you make a relationship postulate
you've lost a little bit of freedom. Now that is something worth knowing isn't it.
You know, when you've gone around relating one thing to another, no matter how you do it.
Once you've related one thing to another you've lost some freedom. Once you've connected two
things together, no matter how you've done it, no matter what you call this relationship
postulate, fundamentally you've gone and lost some freedom, as can be easily demonstrated by
converting your relationship postulate into the four 'if A then B' postulates and seeing which
member of the set is gone.
One of the members of the set will have gone. Will have been reduced to a null class because of
your 'if A then B' postulate. You see that? So there's a distinct relationship between relationships
and freedom. Every relationship that is made is a loss of some freedom of choice. And that is the
datum. And it's a very important datum, a vitally important datum on the subject of
relationships. You'd better know that one. That is the liability of making relationship postulates.
Because every time you make a relationship postulate you've lost a little freedom of choice, and
it's not obvious is it, not obvious.
A young man or child may postulate ‘all people who wear dresses are girls’. It may not be obvious
to him, but he should know in his own mind he's now lost a bit of freedom. He can no longer now
have the class of a person who wears a dress who isn't a girl. That class is now a null class in his
mind. It's an empty class. He can't have that class any more.
All the other three classes in the set can exist in this universe, and I won't specify, I'll leave this as
an exercise for you. There are three other classes in this set that can exist in this universe. But
that fourth class, that is both a person who wears a dress and is not a girl, that class can't exist in
his mind. There is no such animal he'll say. Once he makes the postulate 'if person wearing a
dress then a girl'.
The class of people who wear dresses who are non-girls don't exist in his world. No such animal
as far as he's concerned. And he will stand you out if you argue with him or talk to him on the
subject "They don't exist."
He'll just simply justify and rationalise for his postulate. You see that? So bear in mind, you can
lose all the freedom there is in this universe by injudiciously making relationship postulates, by
the injudicious making of relationship postulates. You can lose all the freedom there is in this
universe. You can dig yourself into a hole and jump into it. And you should understand that about
relationships, and relationship postulates. This is an important subject, very important subject,
relationships.
Well now, if you're going to convert all your relationship postulates you come across in your mind
into the form 'if A then B', you better be very familiar with what this postulate 'if A then B' really
means. And so forth. Well I can give you a little example here. Little something that will help you
to understand, something graphic. Or make it stick it in your mind, so that you understand what
we mean when we say 'if A then B'.
Tandem Bicycle
Supposing we live in a town and we see two men A and B, they have a tandem bicycle and B
always rides at the front of the bicycle. He's always at the front of the bicycle. And A always rides
behind him at the back of the bicycle. Follow that?
Now, sometimes when we go out walking around the town we see A and B on their tandem
bicycle. Going about there's B driving it at the front doing the steering and there's A behind him.
They're both going along. That's one possibility. Now, there's other times we go out walking
around the town, we see B on the tandem bicycle all by himself. On the front of it, he's all by
himself and there's no A at the back. A's just not there. See?
So we could see that possibility. Another time we go out walking around the town we don't see
either of them. There's no A, no B and no tandem bicycle. See that? But the one thing we can't
see is A and Not-B. Why can't we see A and Not-B? Well you can't drive a tandem bicycle from the
back, because you can't steer it. And A only rides at the back of the tandem bicycle. So if B isn't
there, if you don't see B on the tandem bicycle then you sure as hell ain't gonna see A.
So does that little example help you? There are the three sets you see, of the tandem bicycle. We
either see both A and B, or we see B and Not-A, or we see neither A nor B. But we never see A
and Not-B. and that gives you a graphic example of an 'if A then B' postulate in terms of the
tandem bicycle.
The Reverse Interpretation
The reason we never see A and Not-B is because if B is absent then A is absent. Now that is a very
important relationship. And we call that 'if Not-B then Not-A', we call the reverse proposition or
more precisely the reverse interpretation. George Boole called it the reverse interpretation. Well
he's a good enough authority on the subject.
We shall call it the reverse interpretation. We've got an 'if A then B' postulate. In other words if
'if A then B' is true then the reverse interpretation of that postulate is 'if Not-B then Not-A'. Now
that's not a deduction. It's simply another way of saying the postulate.
[Note: the postulate ‘if crow then bird’, has the reverse interpretation of ‘if not-bird then not-crow’]
Another way of saying 'if A then B' is to say 'if Not-B then Not-A'. Another way to say every time
that we see A on the tandem bicycle we see B on the tandem bicycle.
Another way to say that is to say that when we don't see B on the tandem bicycle we never see
A. It means exactly the same thing. It's a reverse interpretation of the 'if A then B' postulate.
So bear that in mind. Every 'if A then B' postulate has it's reverse interpretation, which is not a
deduction. It's just simply another way of saying it. In other words, instead of saying 'if A then B',
we might just as well say ‘if Not-B then Not-A’. It means exactly the same thing.
And the reverse interpretation of the postulate 'if Not-B then Not-A' is 'if A then B'. See that?
They share that relationship. Those two postulates share that relationship with each other. If one
is the reverse relationship or the reverse interpretation of the other. All right, so much for the
example of the two men on the tandem bicycle. I hope that helps you to understand what we
mean when we say 'if A then B'.
You should by now, if you've been following this, have a pretty firm grasp of what we mean when
we say 'if A then B'.
Bonding
Now next I'd like to talk a little more of this subject of bonding and why we call a relationship a
bonding. Well it's not immediately obvious why we call a relationship a bonding until you get into
the subject of 'if A then B', until you see the basics.
The basic relationship 'if A then B' which is the basic relationship. Once you get this basic
relationship you see its connection between the relationship and the subject of bonding. Now
when we say 'if A then B' we are virtually bonding A to B. A is bonded to B. Take the example of
the men on the tandem bicycle. B has no restrictions.
He can appear on the bicycle anytime he wants to, can't he? He can drive the bicycle any time he
wants. Or not drive it. He has no restrictions. But A is restricted. Once the postulate 'if A then B'
is made, A is restricted. If A exists then B exists, and that is a restriction. So, the 'if A then B'
postulate puts no restriction on B but puts a restriction on A.
In other words, B can use the tandem bicycle any time he wants to, but A can only use the bicycle
when B is using it. Get it? You see that example is a good example. It brings to light clearly this
fact on the bonding, that A is bonded to B. That B is not bonded to A, which is true in any 'if A
then B' postulate bonding.
When we say 'if A then B', the bonding is from A to B. There is no bonding from B. A is stuck to B
but B isn't stuck to A because B is free. But A is joined, is connected and is dependent upon B.
Now this subject of bonding is not immediately apparent when you're talking about sticking
wallpaper onto walls. But it becomes very apparent when you start getting down to relationship
postulates of 'if A then B'.
We stick the wallpaper onto the wall and the wallpaper is stuck to the wall but the wall is also
bonded to the wallpaper. Isn't it? So we tend loosely in life when we think of bonding we think of
two things bonded to each other. Well that might be true for wallpaper and walls but when it
gets down to postulates and bits and pieces in the mind, we can't use this rough look at it, we
have to get down to more precision.
And once we get down to the 'if A then B' postulate, we're getting very precise. We see that we
can have situations where A is stuck to B and B is not stuck to A. That's something which you
can't have with wallpaper and walls. You see? But you can have in your own psyche.
To give you another example of the bonding effect, you'll see it with the man who postulates 'if
person wearing dress then girl'. Now such a man can't think of a girl without necessarily thinking
of a person who is wearing a dress. He may think of a person who is wearing a dress when he
thinks of a girl, or he may not think of a person who wears a dress when he thinks of a girl.
But such a man cannot think of a person who is wearing a dress without thinking of a girl. Now
you see which way round the bonding is? The bonding is between the person who wears a dress
and a girl. There's no bonding between the girl and a person who wears a dress, in his mind. In
other words, in his mind the subject of people who wear dresses is stuck to the subject of girls.
But in his mind the subject of girls is not stuck to the subject of people who wear dresses. The
general rule of thumb to help you to remember the 'if A then B' relationship is in the 'if A then B'
relationship the front end of the relationship is stuck to the back end of the relationship.
But the back end of the relationship is not stuck to the front end of the relationship. Now that's
true for any 'if A then B' relationship. When you thoroughly grasp this you'll see why we say that
the technical subject of relationships is this subject of bonding. The technical subject is the
subject of bonding. And you should start to think of relationships in terms of bondings. When
you start thinking about relationships in terms of bondings you begin to really understand them.
Leave the subject of relationships to the psychoanalysts and the politicians and the sociologists
who like to skid over the surface of these things and just take rather a casual look. But when you
want to get down to real precision, as you need to do if you're going to take your mind apart,
then start seeing relationships in terms of bondings.
Then you'll start to really understand them.
'Then' is a Conjunction
Now there's two things you should know about the 'if A then B' postulate. It's got the word
"then" in it. Well, the first thing you need to know about the word "then" is we're not using it in a
temporal sense. We are not saying that 'if A "then" ten minutes later B', we're not using "then" in
that sense.
We're using "then" in the sense of exists. If A exists then B exists. There is no temporal gap
between A and B. We're not using the word then in its temporal sense. We're using it in the
connecting sense.
"Then" is a conjunction. We're using it in the connecting sense. Not in the temporal tense. So
when we say 'if A then B' it's a pure relationship. There's no temporal sense in it. There's no time
in the postulate. It's not a time postulate. There is no time implied in the "then".
'If A then B', we're not saying if A exists then a certain time after B exists. We are saying if A
exists then B exists. They can both be existing simultaneously.
‘If A then B’, every time we see A, we see B. There is no time in it. Get that? So "then" is not
temporal. And the other thing you need to know is that 'if A then B' is a pure relationship
postulate. It does not imply that A is the cause of B, or it doesn't imply that B is the cause of A. It
is not a causal situation, the relationship between A and B.
When we say 'if A then B' we are not implying that A is the cause of B or that B is the cause of A
or that Not-A is the cause of Not-B or that Not-B is the cause of Not-A, or any other sequence or
any other combination of AB, Not-A Not-B relationships in the set.
We're not implying anything causes it when we say 'if A then B'. We're simply saying when A
exists, if A exists then B exists. Every time we see A, we see B. And if we don't see B, we don't see
A, and A is bonded to B. That's all we're saying. There is no causative relationship, it's not a
causative relationship. Get that in mind. Get that very clear. No causation here.
Now though the 'if A then B' postulate doesn't imply any causation between the elements of the
postulate. The relationship postulate is a true postulate, like any postulate it is a causative
consideration. So the whole postulate 'if A then B', once postulated into the mind, into the
psyche, is causative. It's causative upon the individual and upon his surroundings. And so on.
So get it quite clear. The postulate itself is like any postulate. It is a causative consideration, but
when we say 'if A then B', there's no causation being implied between the elements of A and B
within the postulate. That's the whole point I'm trying to make.
Sufficiency and Necessity
Now, although there's no causation implied between the elements in an 'if A then B' postulate,
there is a necessity relationship between the elements and a relationship of sufficiency between
the elements, which I'll proceed to explain to you because you should know about them.
When we postulate 'if A then B' we are either postulating that the existence of B is a necessary
condition to the existence of A or we're postulating that the existence of A is a sufficient
condition for the existence of B. Here are a couple of examples to separate those two out, and to
clarify what I mean by the necessity bonding and the sufficiency bonding.
Sufficiency Bonding Example
First of all the sufficiency bonding. A man says to his son, "If the weather is fine tomorrow then
we will have a picnic." Now the relationship here... the postulate here is 'if fine weather then
picnic'. Well now the man is saying in essence that the fine weather is a sufficient condition for
the picnic. In other words that if the weather is fine then there will be a picnic tomorrow.
There may well be other things which are sufficient conditions for the picnic tomorrow. But fine
weather is certainly one of them. If the weather is fine there will be a picnic tomorrow. He will
take the lad out for a picnic. So that is an example of sufficiency. If fine weather then picnic. The
fine weather is a sufficient condition for the picnic.
Clearly it's not that the picnic is a necessary condition for the fine weather. That doesn't make
any sense, does it? The fine weather is not a necessary condition, so the picnic is not a necessary
condition for the fine weather. Now the correct relationship there is a sufficiency relationship.
That the fine weather is a sufficient condition for the picnic. Ok on that one? You see that is an
example of sufficiency.
Necessity Bonding Example
Now let's give an example of the necessity bonding. A young boy starts off at school and he
notices that all the other boys are wearing trousers and so is he. He notices that all the boys are
wearing trousers. And he's in the frame of mind to establish his masculinity.
And he has this bright idea that all the males and all the boys are wearing trousers so he might
be able to establish his masculinity, which is something he really wants to do, so he postulates 'if
boy then wearing trousers'. That's his postulate. When he's making that postulate, the idea is
he's bonding his masculinity to the wearing of trousers in these circumstances.
Because the trousers are a recognised and accepted male gender symbol in the society in which
he lives. So he's bonding his masculinity to the existing gender symbol, the trousers. Get it?
Now let's examine this in terms of sufficiency and necessity. Is being a boy a sufficient condition
for wearing the trousers? Well, no, no. and why not? Because it's being a boy that he is trying to
establish, you see that? He feels a lack of establishment of his masculinity.
It's the masculinity he's trying to establish by the wearing of the trousers. Now the correct
relationship there is it's a necessity bonding. That the wearing of the trousers is a necessary
condition for being a boy in his mind. The relationship is 'if boy then wearing trousers', with a
necessity relationship between the wearing of the trousers and being a boy.
Now there is an example of the necessity relationship. Now when you examine 'if A then B'
postulates you'll find that either A is a sufficient condition for B or B is a necessary condition for
A. It's always going to be one or the other. And sometimes, very rarely it means both.
Both Necessity and Sufficiency Example
I'll give you an example here that will be both and I'll explain how and under what circumstances
you get both being applicable. Let's take our example of the crows and the birds. If crow then
bird.
Now that's a true relationship in this universe on this planet. But, certainly being a crow is a
sufficient condition for being a bird. There is no doubt about that. Being a crow is sufficient
condition for being a bird. But on the other hand, being a bird is a necessary condition for being a
crow. You can't be a crow unless you're a bird. So, being a bird is a necessary condition for being a
crow. Both of them apply.
The crow is sufficient for bird. And bird is necessary for crow. Now how does this come about?
Well it comes about because of the way we define a crow. We define a crow as within the class of
a bird. A part of our definition of a crow is the fact that it is a bird. You see? It's a type of bird, is a
crow.
Once we define a crow as a type of bird we've put A within the class of B. We've made the 'if A
then B' postulate in our definition. And this shows up when we examine the postulate. That we
find the 'if A then B' is a sufficiency relationship and a necessity relationship. They're both
present. And it's known in logic as a logical tautology. It's a tautology. 'if crow then bird' is a
logical tautology.
Logical Tautology
And what we mean when we say it's a logical tautology we mean the relationship is true because
of the way we define A and the way we define B. You understand that? That is what we mean by
a logical tautology.
Now, I can prove that every time you find both a sufficiency and necessity relationship in an 'if A
then B' postulate, I can prove it logically, it's always in a logical tautology. That as a person you
are defining A and B that way and that's why it's coming out this way. So it's valuable to you. But
it's quite rare. It's quite rare. Never the less, again you should understand why the phenomenon
occurs when it does occur.
[Note: In the conditional statement ‘If P then Q’, Q is necessary for P, because the truth of Q is
guaranteed by the truth of P (equivalently, it is impossible to have P without Q). Similarly, P is
sufficient for Q, because P being true always implies that Q is true, but P not being true does not
always imply that Q is not true.
In general, a necessary condition is one that must be present in order for another condition to occur,
while a sufficient condition is one that produces the said condition. - Ref: Wikipedia]
Double Bonding
Well that completes our subject of the single bonding and I wish that that was the end of the
subject. The universe would be a far better place if there were only the single bondings extant.
But now we introduce you to the demon. The evil demon of the piece is the double bonding.
The Double Bind
Now what is a double bind? Well a double bind is a single bonding plus its reverse. When the
single bonding is 'if A then B', the reverse of 'if A then B' is 'if B then A'. So if we have a situation
where 'if A then B' maintains and coupled with 'if B then A' then that is a double bonding. We
now have A bonded to B, and B bonded to A. Now this is a deadly situation. It's something which
you will not discover until you get into the subject of relationships and get them down to 'if A
then B's.
The deadly nature of the double bind is not apparent until you get into this subject of
relationships and break them down into their 'if A then B' components. Then you begin to get
into the double binds and see their awful nature. While you're skidding over the surface and just
looking generally at human relationships you don't spot the double bind. It's only when you take
the relationship, reduce it to its 'if A then B' and you suddenly realise "My God the reverse is true
too." And then you realise the horror of what you're up against.
The double bind, the double bonding. Now we've met the double bind in the postulate set. There
is a double bind when games play becomes compulsive in the ordinary postulate set, in the 'To
Know' goals package or any other goals package. In the goals package when we find a false
identification between the elements of the goals package. Remember it? That's a double bind.
Well we can get a double bind in the postulate set in a relationship and it is equally as deadly. It
is equally entrapping as you would expect, and very hidden. The double bind is just as hidden in
relationships as in the goals packages. Just as hidden and just as deadly.
When I first came across the subject of the double bind in my research I called it the double lock
on the mind, because once the double bind is extant the person is virtually trapped within a
situation which has a double lock on it. Well what do I mean by a double lock? Well I mean that
lock A keeps lock B in place and lock B keeps lock A in place. There is a double lock. And he can't
unlock lock A because he is in lock B and he can't unlock lock B because he's locked in A.
Double Bind Example
I'll give you an example of the double bind and you'll see the shear horror of the situation. And
they do occur, they're very common in life relationship double binds are. They're not at all
unusual, but they're a great mystery. And people get caught in them. And a double bind can ruin
your life I can assure you. Many people have their life ruined by a double bind.
I'll give you an example of one. Now a young man leaves school and applies for a job and he's
told by the interviewer that he can't be given a job because he's inexperienced. So the young
man says "Well now how do I get some experience?" and the interviewer says, "Well the only way
to get experience is to get a job, which we can't give you because you're inexperienced."
And that's the end of the interview and the young man staggers off into the daylight feeling
completely crushed. Unless this young man is of particularly clear mental abilities or is a student
of logic or what have you, he's going to feel absolutely defeated. He's going to go around like a
rat in a maze, his mind is. He's going to say, "Wait a minute, I can't get a job because I'm
inexperienced, and the only way to get experience is to get a job, which I can't get because I'm
inexperienced. So I need to get experience to get a job. Wait a minute"
And he starts in again. And he goes round and round and round this thing "Well I need to get
some experience but I can't get any experience cause I haven't got a job and I can't get a job
because I'm inexperienced. And ah… I can't… without experience I can't get a job and without
the job I can't get any experience." "There is no way. I'm doomed. I can't get… I can't move… I'm
stuck" and he's right, he is.
The relationship here is, and this is why he is like a rat in a maze, the relationship is 'if employable
then experienced' and its reverse 'if experienced then employable'. The effect of the two
postulates, the two relationships is to reduce the set, the employable experienced set either to
both employable and experienced or neither employable nor experienced. The classes of
experienced and not employable and employable and not experienced don't exist in this set.
The two postulates make those into null classes. You see? And the unfortunate young man is
stuck in the class of neither experienced nor employable. And there is no way in the world he can
get across to the class of both employable and experienced. Why not? Well, the double lock, it's
a double locking mechanism. He can't go from inexperienced to experienced because he is not
employable, and he can't go from not employable to employable because he is not experienced.
See that?
And so he's trapped. He's trapped in the class of neither employable nor experienced. And there
is no way in the world he can get employed, while those postulates are extant, while he is
agreeing to those postulates.
There is no way in the world that he can get across from the class that he is in, neither
experienced nor employable, to the class of both employable and experienced. There's no way.
The double bind simply locks him out. He's locked out. You see the viciousness of the
mechanism. It's a double lock. It's a double lock device. And he's locked out much stronger than
he would be locked out by bands of steel. You know? I mean, iron bars have got nothing to the
power of the double bind.
When you start to get into some of these double binds in the human psyche you'll realise that
bands of steel have got nothing compared to the power of the double bind. It's truly a double
lock on the mind. Well let's finish the example off, how could the young man break the double
bind?
Well he could treat it as an incident in therapy in TROM. And he could take it apart at Level 4, and
if he knew about bondings and so forth, he could get it apart. Or at Level 5 eventually he'd get it
apart. He'd keep working at it and he'd get mighty curious about these relationships, these
bondings, eventually he'd come up with what the hell was going on.
But if he'd heard this tape he'd get it apart rather quickly. If he knew about the 'if A then B'
postulate, and the subject of relationships that I am talking about on this tape, he'd get it apart
rather quickly. Now most people have at some time in their life have been caught up with a
double bind situation.
Well the young man only has to examine the interview and write down the postulates that occur
during the interview and he would quickly say, "Well it's these two postulates 'if employable
then experienced' and 'if experienced then employable'. Bang. This is it."
Now are both these postulates true? Is it true, that all those who are experienced are
employable and all those who are employable are experienced? Now is it true? Well let's take
these postulates one at a time.
Let's take the postulate 'if employable then experienced'. Well now, is this a true postulate? Well
now, no it's not. It can't be a true postulate. Why not? Well if it were true that all those who were
employable were experienced then no one would have a job, because by necessity everyone is
inexperienced when they start their first job. You see that? So the postulate can't be a true
postulate in our society. If the postulate were true, no one would have a job in this society
because no one would ever get started at work. You see?
But people do work, are working, therefore the postulate is false. So that is a false postulate.
Now how about the other postulate, 'if experienced then employable'? Well this postulate is
probably closer to being true, but that can be true and cannot be true. Under certain
circumstances it's true, and under certain circumstances it's not true.
So we just have to say, "Well that's ok, that postulate is, it depends on the circumstances."
Now that's all right there's nothing wrong with that one. But the postulate 'if employable then
experienced' is a lie. That has to be false, that one. And once you see that postulate is false. The
double bind collapses.
Once the young man could spot it, He'd say, "Well that's false, that's a lie. They sold me a lie.
They got me to agree to the postulate, 'if employable then experienced'. And that's a false
postulate." Once he realised that they have hung a lie on him, he breaks out of the lie.
Now the double bind becomes a single bind and he's free. See the single bonding is not
entrapping. There is no entrapment in the single bonding. It's only the double bind that's the
trap. So he walks out the trap. He just gets very furious about the interviewer and is likely to go
down and punch him in the nose for trying to hang a lie on him. He's been conned in other words.
He'd be very annoyed, and rightly so. Now it's a strange thing about the entrapping effect of the
double bind. That when you examine them and take them apart, using the data I'm giving you on
this tape, you always, repeat always find that one of the postulates is a lie. There is always a lie
involved in a double bind.
You never find the 'if A then B' postulate and its reverse are both true. Both of them could be
false. But at least one of them is false. They can't both be true. You see that? They can't both be
true. If they were both true you wouldn't be trapped in anything.
Signs of a Double Bind
That fact that you're trapped and you're inconvenienced, you're emotionally disturbed by the
situation, and you've suffered a great loss of freedom, and you feel you're walking around in a
trap. You feel you're in a prison. Your mind feels like a rat in a maze. You're in a double bind mate.
Find it!
And the fact is that you're in this situation, one or the other or both of the postulates that you're
subscribing to are false. One or the other of the postulates in the double bind is false. In other
words there's always a lie present in a double bind, and that is a very important datum. It's up to
you to find where the lie is.
Only the truth will free you from the double bind. One of the postulates is false in the double
bind. It's false. There's a lie in there somewhere. There has to be. Just like the double bind in the
postulates in the goals packages, there is always a lie in the double bind. It's similar in the
relationship postulates, if there is a double bind in the relationships, in the 'if A then B'
relationships postulates then one or the other of the relationships is a lie. If they were both true
you wouldn't be trapped in anything I can assure you, if they were both true.
Now a double bind is deadly. It can ruin your life. Single bonding ok. Double bind awful. And
you'll find that some of the most sticky, awful incidents you have ever experienced in your life,
and ones that you've never really got away from contain double binds, and they probably contain
more than one.
So they stick out like beacons on your time track. If you're caught up in one you'll know all about
it mate. You won't have to search for them they'll come searching for you once you know what to
look for.
Just listening to this tape, if you're understanding what I'm talking about, you've got incidents
that are unresolved from the subject of double binds. These incidents will be wrapped around
your neck right now while you're listening to this tape.
Incidents will come searching you out, they will. Once you understand the mechanism the
incident will come and search you out and plead with you to resolve it, take the lie apart, to get
rid of the double bind. Ok, so much for the double bind. You understand the mechanism. You
understand how to take it apart.
Bonding Test
Alright, well now, let's look at a few practical aspects of this. How would you find if you had a
bonding in your mind? There is a very simple test for a bonding. If A is bonded to B in your mind
then every time you think of A you will think of B, it's as simple as that. If every time you think of
a person wearing a dress you think of a girl then I can assure you that you are subscribing to the
bonding 'if a person wearing dress then a girl'. You are subscribing to that postulate. You are
subscribing to that relationship. See that? There's the test. It's an infallible test. It will never let
you down. It's a very simple test.
There are more complicated tests but you don't need to know them so I won't bother to give
them to you. The simple test is infallible and will never let you down. If every time you think of A
you will also think of B. Ok.
If that happens then 'if A then B' is extant. Now what do you have to do about it in therapy?
Nothing, unless it hangs fire. Get me on this one. You don't do anything about these relationship
postulates in therapy unless they hang fire. You just do the steps as I've given them to you. Do
Level 1, do Level 2, do Level 3, and you do Level 4, and you do Level 5. And you don't concern
yourself with the relationship postulates unless they hang fire. Now the only place they're going
to hang fire eventually, and they might show up at Level 2, Level 3 and you note them and you do
take a bit of charge off them. Take a bit of charge off them at Level 2, a bit more charge at Level
3, and Level 4 you get a bit of charge, and at Level 5 more charge comes off then.
But the thing’s still hanging fire. Ok. You've got right at the top of Level 5. You've nulled the 'To
Know' goals package. You've run a lot of junior goals packages. You've run a lot of junior
universes. This damn double bind, this damned relationship is still hanging fire.
Make the Double Bind the subject of the Goals Package at 5C
Alright, what can you do about it? Well we can erase them out the mind. Now any 'if A then B'
postulate can be erased from the mind by making it the subject matter of the 'To Know' goals
package at Level 5C. I'll give it to you again. Any 'if A then B' postulate can be erased from the
mind by making it the subject matter of the 'To Know' goals package at Level 5C. But don't make
a big thing out of it.
Look, 999 out of a thousand bondings in your mind are going to come apart in routine therapy.
They're simply going to fall apart under the impact of the levels of therapy. There's just the odd
one or two that are going to hang fire and you need to know how to erase them. And the way to
erase them, you make them the subject matter of the 'To Know' goals package at Level 5C.
Now why does that erase them? It erases them because any postulate can be made the subject
matter of the 'To Know' goals package at Level 5C. It's an existence isn't it? Any existence can be
made the subject matter of that goals package, and is erasable at Level 5C. So that's the way you
will take them apart at Level 5C.
In other words, the technology, the final technology of erasure of the relationship of 'if A then B'
postulates from the mind is Level 5C. For god's sake put them into the form 'if A then B' before
you attempt to erase them. Put them into the 'if A then B' form and then erase them at Level 5C.
It's one of the last things you do in therapy, will be these sticky hanging fire 'if A then B'
relationships. Then you just knuckle down. One of the last things you do before the whole lot at
Level 5 blows will be to get rid of these sticky, hanging fire relationships in your psyche.
Exceptions to the Rule
One exception to this general rule that I've given you, they can all be erased at Level 5C with the
exception of those relationships that you hold in common with your body. And now these will,
almost exclusively, be relationships of a certain type on the subject of sex.
Masculinity Double Bind
Now I can tell you what they will be. So you won't be surprised when you come across them.
There is a double bind between the junior universe of masculinity and the postulate 'Must Sex'.
And a double bind between the junior universe of masculinity and the postulate 'Mustn't be
Sexed'.
Femininity Double Bind
There is a double bind between the junior universe of femininity and the postulate 'Must be
Sexed'. And there's a double bind between the junior universe of femininity and the postulate
'Mustn't Sex'.
Now they are the main ones. They are the main ones. You can erase them out of your psyche, but
the body will still be subscribing to them. So don't be surprised if they continue to hang fire. Just
become aware that they’re hanging fire because of their body relationships. They are part of
your bodies psyche as well as yours. So just separate them out and then they'll go. Otherwise
they'll go on forever.
Eating Double Bind
Now they are the only exceptions that I know of. Some people may have some relationships on
the subject of eating that also may hang fire. But I haven't come across them in my psyche. But
they could occur too. So look out for those as well. You could hold some relationships in common
with your body on the subject of eating.
OK, well that about wraps it up. I wish you luck with your subject of relationships and bondings,
and I wish you good luck in the erasure of these relationships in your psyche and in therapy. Bye
bye for now.
End of tape
Page updated
Report abuse