INDEPENDENCE

MP3 DOWNLOAD

Today is the 8th of November 1994 and the title of this short talk is 'Amplification Material on
the Subject of Independence'. This material has nothing to do with the IP (Insanity Point) tech. It
just happens to be on the same spool as the IP tech. I am just putting it on to fill up this side. It's
the usual piece of space to fill up. 

As mentioned on the tape on the subject of "Differences and Similarities" two things or two
propositions are independent from each other if they have no common class, or more precisely,
and this is the more usual one that you will find in the logical textbooks, that two things are
independent if they have no common deduction. 

[Note: the tape mentioned above is most likely – Articles ~ Tape #1 – Level 2 of TROM, 1994-01-04] 

In other words, you cannot make the same deduction from either proposition. One of the most
important aspects, as far as we are concerned in therapy, with this subject of independence is its
relationship to the 'if A then B' postulate. We already know that when we make the general
postulate 'if A then B', and bear in mind as I mentioned in the lecture on Bonding that any
relationship can be reduced to an 'if A then B' type of postulate. 

[Note: the lecture mentioned is most likely – Tape 8 – Bonding (Relationships), 1994-02-21] 

Bonding and Independence 

So, when we make this postulate 'if A then B' we are bonding A to B or we are putting A within
the class of B, but we must also understand that when we postulate 'if A then B' we are making
the classes of A and Not-B independent of each other. In other words we are separating those
two classes. So the 'if A then B' postulate has this double action. It bonds A to B, it puts A within
the class of B but in so doing, in putting A within the class of B it ensures and it postulates that A
cannot be within the class of Not-B. And therefore it separates A from the class of Not-B, or as
we  say  more  precisely  it  produces  a  state  of  affairs  where  A  and  the  class  of  Not-B  are
independent of each other. 

Now it's important to understand that this is brought about by the actual postulate, the actual
making of the postulate. Once one postulates 'if A then B' one has automatically, ipso-facto,
bonded A to B and also separated out the classes of A and Not-B and said that A and Not-B are
independent of each other. 

To give you an example here we'll dig up our old example I used in the earlier lecture of 'if A then
B'. A person postulates 'if a person wearing a dress then a girl', ‘If wearing dress then girl’. 

Well now a person makes that postulate they've not only bonded the class of people who wear
dresses to the class of girls but also have separated out and made independent the class of a
person wearing a dress and a non-girl. And if you were to examine a person who made such a
postulate 'if a person wearing dress then a girl' if you were to examine his psyche while he was
holding that postulate you would find that these two classes, that is the class of a person
wearing a dress and the class of a non-girl were quite independent in his mind. They have no
connection between them at all. And, more importantly, he would have, while he was in the class
of a non-girl, he could not conceivably get across into the class of a person wearing a dress. You
see that? 

The postulate would prevent him from doing so. That would be the independence you see,
because the two classes are independent they have no common class. Because they have no
common class he cannot occupy both simultaneously. So while he is in the class of a non-girl he
cannot get across into the class of a person wearing a dress. You see that? Now that is the single
locking mechanism of the 'if A then B' postulate. 

Remember I said the double lock is the double bind. The single 'if A then B' is the single lock.
Well that is the single lock it locks the person out. You get it? And it's via independence, done by
the subject of independence. A person in this situation where he cannot, while he's in the class
of a non-girl, finds that he cannot get across into the class of a person wearing a dress. 

In order to break this difficulty and regain his ability to achieve this thing all he would have to do
is review his postulate 'if a person wearing dress then a girl'. Once he reviews that postulate and
changes that postulate, or erases that postulate from his psyche he could then once again be
able to occupy the identity of a person who is not a girl and while occupying the identity of a
person who is wearing a dress. You get it? 

He would have regained his full ability on the subject and he would have broken the single lock
of the 'if A then B' postulate. So you see this subject of independence has some importance in
therapy doesn't it, has some importance. And when in therapy you find you are unable to move
from one class to another just hunt around and see if you can find the 'if A then B' postulate.
There's a postulate there somewhere. The postulate is there which is preventing you from
moving from one class to the other class and if you understand this material on independence
you should quickly be able to discover what the postulate is and, if you want to, to change the
postulate and so regain your freedom in this area. 

I won't bother to give you the logical proof in the general case which says that if you postulate 'if
A then B' then you have ipso-facto postulated that the class of A and the class of Not-B are 

therefore independent of each other. I won't give you that logical proof. It's not a difficult proof
but it's simply unnecessary. 

It's quite trivial but I can assure you it is so. That once you make an 'if A then B' postulate you
have ipso-facto made the classes of A and Not-B independent of each other. 

[Tape breaks for a moment here] 

Well that's all I wish to say on this subject. So we will wind up this little talk now. 

When we get to tape number 14 you'll find that we pick up the IP tech again. So thanks very
much. 

LECTURES MAIN PAGE