LEVEL 2 AFTER LEVEL 5

MP3 DOWNLOAD

Hello Greg, this is Monday January 3rd, 1994 and so far this year in Redland Bay it has been very
hot, extreme heat, with northerly winds, most trying. I am recording this on a very hot afternoon;
I am having to turn the fans off because the otherwise the sound of the fans will go on to the
tape through the microphone so it promises to be a hot afternoon. And since cutting the last
tape on the subject of Level 2 after Level 5, I realised so much more new material had come to
light that I really better call the last tape Part A and I will call this Part B. So the old tape is Part A
of Level 2 after Level 5 and this is Part B of Level 2 after Level 5. 

[Note: The tape referenced as Part A cannot be located] 

The Best Way to Run the Process 

I'll give you the best way to run this procedure that I know of to date. First of all running the
process itself, after you've done everything, you see, you've done your test, you’ve found your
bonding you’ve got your classes here, you’ve got your A and you’ve got your B and you're all
ready to break the bonding. 

[Note: The Common Class of AB here is a Null Class, the reasoning behind this is given earlier on in
the Practical section of After Level 5 : Tape 1 – Bonding. - Editor] 

Right, well this is the best way to run the process. 

First off you start to find some differences between A and B. Now you run that process until no
more answers. Now that is the best way to run that process, till no more answers. You run
differences between A and B until you have no more answers. 

Then you will switch over then to similarities. You then start finding similarities between A and B
and you will run this until you have no more answers. Then you will go back and do, differences
between A and B, again until no more answers, and back on to similarities between A and B until
no more answers, then back again. 

You go backward and forward until you have absolutely no more answers on either side of the
process. Follow that? And that is the best way to run the process. 

There is absolutely no point in sitting there comm-lagging the answers out. The reason being
that when you run differences you start as-ising the differences and then the similarities start to
show up. So you run the differences till you have no more then you are ready to run similarities,
you see. So then you start as-ising a few similarities, as-ising similarities till you have no more of
those and then differences start to show up again. 

So by running one against the other; you get the optimum gain from the process. It's simply
because it's a flip-flopper process. You're running differences and similarities back to back and
because you can do this you can run this process till no more answers. 

Flip-Flop Processes are Safe 

By the way that's a general principle of auditing. It's not a very well known principle of auditing
but it's a general principle of auditing that when you have a flip-flop back to back process of this
nature, where running one side stimulates answers on the other side and running the other side
stimulates answers on the first side, you could run either side to no more answers, then over to
the other side to no more answers it's quite safe to do this on a flip-flop type of process. 

For example you could run ARC Straightwire process, general ARC Straightwire on a person if
you wanted to, in ordinary Scientology auditing. You could run it to no more answers. You would
be quite safe because of the flip-flop type of process running. 

[ARC Straight-wire Commands: 

• "Recall something that was really real to you." 

• "Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone." 

• "Recall a time when you really liked someone." 

• "Recall a time you knew you understood someone." ] 

Running moments of high affinity triggers moments of good communication in the mind and
moments of reality or agreement till no more answers. So you could run affinity till no more
answers,  then  moments  of  good  communication  to  no  more  answers,  then  moments  of
reality/agreement to no more answers then back to good communication or back to high affinity
to no more answers. 

You see that? You could run an ARC Straightwire like that, to no more answers, quite safe to do
so, when you use a flip-flop type process like this. Not a generally well known principle of
auditing but it's true. When you are running a flip-flop type of process like this, when you arrive
at the point of no more answers, that will also be a point of no more change, so it doesn't violate
the general rule of auditing that you continue with a command until no more change. Because
when you've got no more answers you will find that's a point of no more change so it is quite
safe to leave it, OK so much for that. A little background material there. 

But bear in mind that it's not entirely safe to run all auditing commands till no more answers.
Some types of auditing commands, the non-flip-flop type, when you're just running a single
auditing command that should be run to no more change that is precisely correct. It's not
entirely safe to run all processes to no more answers but I think any therapist worth his salt
would know this. 

The Best Way to Run the Process (cont.) 

OK, that's the way  you  would run the  process,  you just  flip-flop  between  differences  and
similarities. Now as you ran the process you would find that terminal A and terminal B will start
to merge. 

You will get these merging phenomena of the two and as you start to complete the process the
process begins to run flat you will see the merging of the two into one single terminal. Now all
that indicates is that there is now a common class, that you can conceive of a common class there
of AB. In other words, this class now is no longer a null class and it's now got members in the
class so therefore the bonding is broken. 

As soon as you can conceive of a common class between A and B well obviously you've achieved
your goal. Your whole goal was to break the bonding and that's what you've succeeded in doing
once A and B have a common class, in other words they have some common qualities there. 

It's interesting to note that if you continue the process beyond this point that not only will you
get the merging but you will start to go into the erasure. You will see the terminal, even the
common terminal start to erase eventually and as the charge goes off it more and more and
more not only will you get the common class, but then this common class will start to fade out
and eventually you will find it extremely difficult to put up the two terminals. 

You put up one terminal and then you've got to mock-up the other terminal, you know, as you
mock-up the second terminal the first one vanishes, it erases, and you put the first one back up
the second one vanishes. 

You can't hold the two, in other words, you are working with an erasure process, so be prepared
for erasure. You are looking at erasure. Now this won't happen if you attempt this process prior
to Level 5. Remember that I am using this process after Level 5 has been flattened. See, it's been
run on a erased bank so of course you can expect to find that the matrix itself starts to break
down and you start to see that the terminals start to go into erasure even as you are trying to
work the process beyond the point when you should have finished it. It's not harmful to do so,
just note it in passing that you will go into erasure if you go past the point of merging so don't be
surprised if that happens, don't be surprised if your terminals erase and it becomes very difficult
to hold both of them in existence at the same time. 

So that's the final end point of the procedure. Would be the erasure not only of the two
terminals but after the erasure of the common terminal too you would be left with a handful of
nothing. That will be the end point there, the final end point. The process can be quite safely left
at the point where you can see that A and B do have a common class when you've broken the
bonding. 

After all that is the goal to break the bonding. But if you want to you can run the process
through to erasure. It only takes a few more commands to do so, I can assure you, and you go
through to erasure. 

Exceptions: Eating, Sex and Intrinsically Different 

Now there are only two exceptions, there are two areas of life and living where this won't occur: 

The first of them is when you are dealing with areas where the body is involved for example on
the subjects of eating and sex. Remember when I cut a lecture on the subject of sex I told you
that although you can erase sexuality from the human mind, you break the double bind of
sexuality in the mind, you can't break it from the body. 

So you will still find that with some of your A and B classes, associated with the subject of eating
or the subject of sex, that you won't get a clean erasure simply because the body itself will be
holding these things in existence still. Because the body will still be subscribing to the double
bind and will still be holding it in existence. So be prepared for that to happen. 

And the other area where you won't necessarily get a clean erasure is when the two (items?)
within the A and B by their intrinsic nature in the universe are separate. Do you follow that? For
example supposing your A was a living being, a living creature and your B was an object. Well
they are intrinsically different, aren't they? One is a living creature, one is alive and the other one
is not alive, so you wouldn't expect to get a merging there would you? You see, because you're
asking them – for this merge to this common class – to be both alive and not alive simultaneously
which is a contradiction. So it can't merge. You see? 

So if you bear that in mind, if your A and your B are intrinsically different by their very nature,
and if merging them would produce a contradiction, a logical contradiction, then of course you
won't get the merging and you won't get the erasure so just bear that in mind there. 

There are the two areas where you can expect not to get an erasure, not to get a clean merging.
One is where the body is concerned that's on the subject the body goals packages, which are
mainly on the subject of sex and less on the subject of eating. 

And the second area is where A and B are intrinsically different. You wouldn't expect to get a
clean erasure there or even a clean merging. 

RI 

OK, now the subject of RI, running of RI can be helpful in this procedure. The procedure, as I say,
is extremely fast. The matrix itself is a little sort of energy mass. It is strange but there it is. As
the matrix blows there is a slight loss of energy mass. 

So be prepared to run a little RI on this procedure don't be surprised if you need to run RI while
running Level 2 after Level 5 and it's correct to do so. You should run it just like you would run it
normally. You should run RI before you start the process, you should run it during the process, if
necessary, and you should run it at the end of the process. 

So don't neglect RI on Level 2 after Level 5. The theoretical reason for this is that loss of matrix is
also a loss of importance so you have to repair this importance. Be prepared to use your RI. OK? 

Now if you've been following this very carefully, following this through very carefully, you will
have realised that Level 2 after Level 5 is an erasure process, which tells us that Level 2 of my
technology is an erasure process, except for the interfering factor of the goals packages. 

Do you see that? Once we remove the interfering factor of the goals packages, the life goals
packages, you know that you've erased the 'To Know' goals packages and all the junior goals
packages that need to be run have also been run and the general 'To Know' goals packages have
gone through to erasure. Once you've handled the goals packages, Level 2 itself becomes an
erasure process. 

In other words you can take any two terminals, and I've checked this out and proven it quite
conclusively, you can mock-up any two terminals there and put them side by side in the mind and
start finding differences and similarities between them and within a few commands, run each
side to no more answers, and within a few commands you will be sitting there with a handful of
nothing. You can blow them. You can blow them. 

Now this won't happen on Level 2 before you run Level 5 but it happens when you run Level 2
after Level 5 so we would confidently expect to get the phenomena that we do get when we use
this process to break bondings. We would expect to walk into erasure, which is precisely what
does happen because Level 2 is an erasure process after you have run Level 5, so bear that in
mind. 

Level 3, by the way, is also an erasure process after you run Level 5. 

Level 2 and Level 3 are erasure processes after you have run Level 5. It tells you that if you
wanted to you could timebreak A and B after you have run Level 2 differences and similarities.
You could timebreak them, but you would have to be quick because I assure you that just running
the differences and similarities would eventually leave you holding a handful of nothing. 

So you better be quick with your timebreaking because Level 2 is going to erase them. They're
going to go on Level 2 you won't have anything to timebreak on Level 3, but similarly as a general
procedure Level 3 timebreaking is an erasure process after you've run Level 5. You see that? 

So just bear that in mind too, in passing. It's a technical datum. That Level 2 and Level 3 are both
erasure processes after you've run Level 5, after you have flattened Level 5 and the 'To Know'
goals package has gone through to erasure that signifies the erasure of Level 5. 

Running Assists with TROM After Level 5 

The main use of this sort of thing would be in an assist. After a person has finished Level 5 say,
and they, maybe, cut their finger all they'd have to do is just pick up the trauma of the cut finger.
You know, where the knife cut the finger and they just pick it up and just timebreak it, you know
just become simultaneously aware of the cut at the moment when it was occurring and of
present time around them now and the thing would blow, bang, just like that. 

Or they could find differences and similarities between the bits and pieces of the trauma of the
cut finger and that too would blow it. You know, simply timebreak it. So Level 2 or Level 3 can be
used there, above Level 5 as an erasure procedure which, of course, Level 2 and Level 3 are not
an erasure procedure prior to Level 5. 

You've got to do Level 5; Level 2 and Level 3 are not a substitute procedure for Level 5. You can
stay on Level 2 and Level 3 forever. They eventually go null as processes. And then you have to
do Level 5. 

But after you finish Level 5 you can go back and use them as erasure processes. Follow? Level 2
and Level 3 are not substitutes for Level 5. They were never intended to be such and they are not
a substitute. In other words, you can't blow the bank on Level 2 and Level 3. The only way you
will blow the bank is at Level 5. 

Rules for Level 2 after Level 5 

Rule 1 – Keep it Simple 

Now there are a few rules I can give you, which will make the running of Level 2 after Level 5 a
lot easier. Now the first of these rules: Rule 1 is keep it simple, if you're not careful with this
procedure you can work yourself into an enormous amount of complexity and the procedure just
drowns in complexity, the procedure does. 

Now the way to avoid all this complexity is right back at the beginning of the procedure, when
you do your test, when you’re testing to find if a bonding exists, you know where you think of A
and you think of B. When you think of A you think of both A and B, alright. Well keep A simple.
That's the secret. Keep A simple. 

If you make A complicated, then you're asking to get a complicated B. But if you keep A simple
the chances are you will get a fairly simple B pop up in your mind but if you go in for complicated
A's you're leaving yourself wide open for complicated B's and the procedure is going to become a
nightmare, if you have complicated A's and complicated B's. Do you see that? 

You can't control what is going to pop up. When you think of A then B pops up. Well you can
control A. You can keep A simple, but you can't control B. So keep A simple and you are doing all
you can to keep the procedure simple. 

Now let me give you an example of this. Supposing on this level you think of girl and every time
you think of a girl you think of a person wearing a dress. Ok, that's fine. That will be correct. But
wrong would be to think of a black girl. It's complicated; you've introduced the subject of
blackness. You've now got a black girl. You've now introduced the subject of blackness and non-
blackness into your procedure, which is quite unnecessary. 

Keep it simple a single terminal. Think of a girl. A girl is a person. You've got a girl person. Well all
girls are people. All girls are persons, so that's fine, a girl person, nice and simple. Black girl, no,
white girl, no, too complicated. See keep it simple, keep A down to a single class, you don't want
common classes for A when you are doing the test. 

Keep them down to single classes as far as possible. Keep A as simple as you can and you will win
all the time. You make A complicated and you will drown in a nightmare of complexity. So right at
the outset keep A simple then you will get a simple B. But if B shows up complicated well there is
nothing you can do about it you are just going to have to work with a complicated B. It's the way
your mind is stacked. You see? 

Keep A simple and you will go as far as you can on keeping B simple. 

Give you an example here: You think of a person wearing a dress and a black girl shows up. Well
there's nothing you can do with that. You're just going to have to work with a black girl I am sorry
that's the way your mind is stacked. You see? 

But you've kept it as simple as you can because your A was simple you thought of a person
wearing a dress. Well only people wear dresses, you've kept it as simple as you can. Haven't you?
So the golden rule is keep A simple when you are doing your test. But you must take whatever
shows up. Once B shows up don't try and modify B. Stay with B. You must accept what shows up;
because that's the way your mind's stacked. That's the bonding you're trying to break. You
mustn't muck around with B. Once you've set up A and a B shows up, well you're stuck with that
B. That's the one you are going to have to work with. Ok so much for that. That's Rule 1. Keep it
simple. 

Rule 2 – The Universe of Discourse Rule 

[Note: this is also really useful data for anyone running Level 2 before Level 5] 

Rule 2 is the 'Universe of Discourse' rule. Now no matter what A and B are when you're doing the
test, you know. You do the test and you got an A and a B pops up. And you've now got an A and
you've got a B. 

Now, no matter what the A and the B are, they have some universe of discourse in which they
both reside and it is up to you to find it. You're going to have to find it and the best time and
place to find it is right away. Best time to find it is right away. Find it right away. 

Now let's give you an example here of a universe of discourse. I'll give you more than one
example. You think of a person wearing a dress, and your mind offers you up a girl. Ok. Well
what's the universe of discourse? What universe do they both belong to? A person wearing a
dress and a girl well they're both people, aren't they? 

They're the universe of people, they're not the universe of inanimate objects or airy spaces.
They're in the universe of people. A person wearing a dress is a person and a girl is a person. So
really  what  your  saying  is:  'If  person  wearing  dress  then  girl  person'.  That  is  your  correct
proposition, is your correct bonding. So you have a person wearing a dress bonded to a girl all
within the class of people. Get it? But you must be aware that they are within the class of people
before you do the process, otherwise you can go badly astray, I can assure you. 

Example 

You can go very badly astray on this. I'll show you how badly astray you can go if you don't realise
that you're dealing with a common universe, a universe of discourse. So, ok, you do your test and 

you think of a person wearing a dress and a girl pops up in your mind you say "Ok, that's fine, so
now the terminals I am going to be working with will be a person wearing a dress and a non-girl." 

[Note: With the bonding ‘person wearing a dress’ as A and ‘girl’ as B, the common class AB is locked.
Forcing the class of A Not-B to be null, this is why we are processing this class to bring members into
it and break the fixed bonding of AB. This is further explained in the Practical section of After Level
5 : Tape 1 – Bonding] 

Ok, fine, there are your two terminals that you're going to be working with on the procedure.
Right, so you say a non-girl. Right. Well a caterpillar is a non-girl. So I'm going to find some
differences between a person wearing a dress and a caterpillar. Flunk. You didn't discover your
universe of discourse. 

This is the correct way to do it: 

So right now every time I think of a person wearing a dress I think of a girl. Ok I have a person
wearing a dress and a girl. Now they're both what? Well their both people. Girls are people and
persons wearing a dress are a person. So we have a person wearing a dress and a person who is a
girl. Ok, now the terminals we'll be dealing with will be a person wearing a dress and a person
who is a non-girl. Correct, correct. 

So your two terminals will be a person wearing a dress and a person who is a non-girl. And, now
you win. You start to find differences between those two, and the process runs, you see that,
because you found your universe of discourse. 

If you don't find the universe of discourse, it's an open ended process. You could just run it on
forever. You know you could say "Well now a caterpillar is a non-girl." So you could flounder on
finding differences and similarities between a person wearing a dress and a caterpillar. And you
will get no merging or it's very unlikely you'll get a merging because a person wearing a dress
who is also a caterpillar is not an easy thing to conceive of. It certainly does not exist in this
universe. So it is doubtful that you will get any merging and you'll simply be wasting time. So
you'll eventually bail out of that one after failure. 

And you think "Oh, well is there anything else that is a non-girl? So well you think a house brick is
also a non-girl." So you start finding differences and similarities between a person wearing a
dress and a house brick. And again you'll see everything you are finding is outside your universe
of discourse because the universe of discourse is a person so everything you've got to find there
should be a person. You see that? 

So you should be looking for a person who is a non-girl. That limits it down to a person who is a
non-girl. That limits it down considerably doesn't it? See that? And you'll win. You'll win. Now
some might argue that by doing this you're short-circuiting the end point of the process because 

finding a common universe that A and B are in you're short-circuiting the point that you want to
get. Well so what? Ha! Ha! Ha! 

You're going to have to find this anyway sooner or later so you might as will do it now. The
process won't run any other way. Right at the very beginning, you better find this universe of
discourse and work with it. And this gets you over your major difficulty when dealing with
negative classes. 

You will find early on in the procedure that until you discover the subject of "universes of
discourse" B quite often shows up as a negative class. If you're dealing with a positive class or
negative class or maybe you'll be dealing with two negative classes, but if you isolate your
universe of discourse it doesn't matter if you're dealing with a positive class a girl or a negative
class, say a non-girl. It doesn't matter. 

Once you’ve got your universe of discourse you can find examples inside your universe of
discourse, you see that, on either side, on the A or the B. It doesn't matter if A is negative or B is
negative once you've got your universe of discourse the process runs very easily and smoothly.
Until you've got your universe of discourse it's an open ended process and you are not going to
get anywhere with it on either side, on the A or the B. Can you follow? It doesn't matter if A is
negative or B is negative once you have your universe of discourse the process runs very easily
and smoothly. Until you've got your universe of discourse it's an open ended process and you are
not going to get anywhere with it. 

That was one of the major bugs I had to get out of the process. It's simply a matter of getting the
correct universe of discourse before you start doing the process. Well they are the only two
rules. The only two rules that are applied to the process, is the rule of simplicity, keep it simple,
keep A simple, the thing you think of when you are doing the test. Keep A simple. Keep it to a
single class A and you will win. And as soon as you get both your A and your B, you think of A and
B pops up in your mind so you've got B you've got your two things there. You've got what is
bonded, you've got your 'if A then B', you know, what is bonded to what. 

Next thing to do is find your universe of discourse and that's the second rule. And once you have
done those two things. You've followed those two rules. It runs like a well oiled dream, I can
assure you. 

But if you don't know those two rules, you are in real trouble with the procedure and you can
never make it run I can assure you. But with those two rules you will make the procedure run. It's
a beautiful little process. It's a beautiful procedure for bond breaking. 

Theory Material 

Differences 

I'd like to just finish off with a few theoretical ramification of this material so you will know
you've got your theoretical material very sound when you run the process. The concept of
differences in this universe, a concept that A is different from B, is essentially the concept that A
and B have no common class. In other words, if the common class of A and B is null and A and B
have no common class then A is different from B and that defines it. 

If A is different from B, then A and B have no common class, and if A and B have no common class
then A is different from B. But unfortunately in this universe you can't hold that phenomena. It
lacks conviction. In other words you have a couple of mock-ups here, you know. You mock-up
these two things and along comes your friend and you say, "Well I got these two mock-ups and A
is there and there's B and A is different from B." 

And he looks at them and he says "Well I can't see that A is different from B." He says "I can't see
how A is different from B." 

And you say, "Well, you know, there's A, look at them they look different." 

And he says "Well they don't look very different to me they look very much the same to me." He
actually is playing games with you. 

OK, how do you get over this? Well the only way to get over this is to bond A to some quality X
and bond B to some quality Not-X. Then when your friend trots up and you say "Look at these
two mock-ups and A is different from B." 

He says, "Oh, I don't think A is different from B." 

You say, "Yes it is. You see A has got the quality X and B has got the quality Not-X so that makes A
different from B." 

"Oh, yes," he says, "I can see it clearly now. A and B are different aren't they." 

You have convinced him, So the bonding of A to X and the bonding of B to Not-X is a conviction
phenomenon. The actual definition of difference in the universe is that A and B have no common
class. That's the truth of the matter and you will go a long way, I can assure you, to discover this
truth. It is a very deeply buried truth. It is not an obvious truth but it is true. That is the way it is. I
will say more about that in a few minutes. 

Similarities 

It's exactly the same thing with similarities. The definition of A is similar to B is that the class of A
and B has members in it. It is not a null class. If A and B is not a null class then A is similar to B. In
other words, A and B have something in common. 

That's another way of saying that AB is not a null class. You see that? So that's how we define a
similarity we say that A is similar to B if the AB class has members in it and by reverse if the AB
class has members in it then A is similar to B. But again we're up against this difficulty of
conviction. 

Along comes someone. You say "I’ve got these two mock-ups and A is similar to B." 

And he says perversely, "Well I don't see how they are very similar. They look very different to
me." He is playing games with you. 

But then you say, "You see A possesses this quality Y and B also possesses this quality Y so they
both possess this quality in common therefore they have a common class. They have something
in common so therefore they're similar aren't they?" 

"Oh yes," he says "I can see it now." 

So again it's the conviction phenomena. So the definition of a similarity is that simple thing, that
the class AB has members in it. 

These are Basic Definitions 

And the very basic definition of difference between A and B is when A and B are different then
the class AB is null. That's the basic definition of a difference. So bear in mind the basic
definitions but you can't use them in the universe. Well you should know them, but in games play
in actual practice, you have to bond A to X and bond B to Not-X in order to convince others that A
is different to B. 

Similarly you have to bond A to Y and bond B to Y to convince others that A is similar to B. Get it?
So it is not at all unusual in this universe to find two objects which are both different and similar.
With most objects in this universe you can find differences between them and you can also find
similarities between them. 

So there is no contradiction between the fact the two objects A and B can be different, you can
find differences between them and you can also find similarities between them. In fact that is
normally the case in this universe. That two objects will be different and similar simultaneously
and it's achieved by bonding A to this quality X and bonding B to the quality Not-X and bonding A
to the quality Y and bonding B to the quality Y and then you have done it. 

Then A and B are both different and similar. That's the way it works in the universe. And this is
very different from the way it looks when you look it up in the dictionary. When you look up the
word different in the dictionary you will find different defined as "not identical to," not identical
that's what different means not identical. So when a person says two things are different they
mean they are not the same. 

Well now logically you're in great trouble if you try and define difference in terms of non-
identity. You're in great trouble logically if you attempt to do this, although you can logically
define identity very precisely. I mean A is identical to B logically if the proposition 'if A then B'
and the proposition 'if B then A', if both those propositions maintain then A is identical to B or at
least it’s equivalent to B logically. 

But certainly if those two hold, 'if A then B' and 'if B then A', they both hold, you could say that A
is identical to B. Certainly that applies in the human mind, so the two will be identical there. No,
no, now you're in trouble here. You're really in logical difficulty because you're not easily able to
define the subject of non-identity. It's difficult to define it logically like you can define identity.
You can define identity very easily within the terms of the proposition 'if A then B' but you can't
define the non-identity with an 'if A then B' type of postulate. 

Non-identity is simply the absence of identity. It leads you into an illogic, what's known as a non-
equation. You end up with something which is not equal to naught. You see that? Instead of
something which is equal to naught. You don't end up with an equation you end up with non-
equations and it is impossible to arrive at a definition of anything when you are dealing with non-
equations. 

This is known in philosophy. And so you're in deep trouble if you subscribe to what's in the
dictionary on the subject of differences. The dictionary defined the differences as a non-identity.
And I don't think anyone has done any work in this area for 4 or 5 hundred years. I think what
happened,  about  4  or  5  hundred  years  ago,  somebody  said,  "Look  we  better  have  some
definition of a difference, you know. What is the word different? How to we define difference?
What do you think Joe?" 

And Joe says, "Well if two things aren't identical they must be different." 

And the guy says, "Oh ya, that's good. That's certainly true. Ya that'll do fine. That will do fine."
And it's been jogging down the time track ever since. You define difference in terms of non-
identity, and it doesn't work. You simply can't do it. You try and do it. You try to set up a logical
system,  the  difference  based  on  non-identity.  You  immediately  get  into  very  deep  logical
difficulties, logical trouble with your definition of a difference. And you end up with something
which bears no relationship to what actually happens in the real universe. 

But my definition of difference works exactly the way it works in the universe. And it explains
why two objects A and B can be both different and similar. So we don't get this difficultly we
have a very smooth run of it when we define differences and similarities the way I define them.
So I'm sure that my definition is correct. It feels right. It checks out and you can derive some very
workable  psychological  procedures  from  the  definition.  So  I  am  pretty  darn  sure  that  my
definition of a  difference  and  my  definition of  a similarity  is the correct definition in this
universe. The one in the dictionary is simply wrong, where they define a difference as a non-
identity. 

Two things are different if they are not identical. That is simply sloppy. It is simply wrong. It isn't
the way it is. 

Now there's no equivalent difficulty on the subject of similarities. Look up the word similarity in
the dictionary. It defines similarity as alike. Well two things are similar if they are alike. Ok, well
that's a bit wishy-washy, you can't do much with it. You know it's not a definition you can work
with. You couldn't do anything with it. But at least you don't get into any great difficulties with it
but you can't use it, logically speaking to try and work with. 

So my definition of similarities is the only one I know of. There is nothing in the dictionary that
helps you. I don't know whether there is any, accepted scientific definition of a similarity. I have
certainly never come across any in a scientific text book. 

It's  worthwhile  to bear  in mind  when  working  with  differences  and  similarities  to get  the
theoretical background of it exactly right, the actual definition of a difference is that if A and B
are different then their common class is null. That's it. That's the definition. 

If the common class of A and B is null then A and B are different. You see? That there is the
definition and similar with similarities, if A and B are similar then their common class is not null.
And if the common class of A and B is not null then A and B are similar. 

Now there are your basic definitions but because of the conviction phenomena in the universe it
works out the way I've given it by bonding to make A different from B you bond A to quality X
and you bond B to quality Not-X and to make A similar to B you bond A to a quality Y and you
bond B to a quality Y. 

[Dennis below mentions Part A, referring to difference and similarity, no other tape or document
referencing ONLY X as a quality can be located] 

On the tape Part A of this set by the way I use the symbol X for the qualities in both differences
and similarities and it made it a little bit confusing. It is best to keep it separate. When dealing
with difference use the quality X and when dealing with similarity use the quality Y and you keep
them separate. So, I can pretty well wrap this subject up now. 

I got this wrapped up and I am very pleased with this piece of technology. I am happy with it and I
am pretty sure I have got all the bugs out of it. I have been testing it for a couple of weeks, no
less than that, but a pretty exhaustive testing for the last week, or so. And I haven't come across
any more bugs. But it's a very useful piece of technology and it wraps up our 5 Levels very nicely. 

Why it's Called Level 2 after Level 5 

We go through Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 then when we go into bond breaking we go back and use Level
2, or even Level 3 if we want to, in the specialised application but we're still within the 5
procedures of Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 we still haven't gone outside it. 

We're just using Level 2 after Level 5, Level 3 after Level 5. You see that? But I will call this tape
Level 2 after Level 5 even though I do mention the idea of using Level 3 after Level 5. I can assure
you that the procedure is a very powerful procedure for breaking bonding in the mind and that
the only limitation is when you are dealing with the area where you've got the bodily goals
packages. 

Particularly the subject of sex and the subject of eating you won't be able to get much of any
erasure there or a breaking of the bonding there because the body simply is addicted to these
false identifications. It is addicted to this bonding. And, as I've also pointed out, you won't be
able to get a complete breaking of the bonding when you've got two objects which by their very
nature are intrinsically different. By their very nature as objects they're intrinsically different,
then, of course, you won't expect to get any blending or any erasure there. But within those
limitations the procedure is extremely powerful. 

In other words what I am saying is that if the difference between A and B is only being set up by
you and your psyche then you will knock it into a cocked hat by using Level 2 after Level 5. If the
difference is entirely subjective in your psyche and it's nothing to do with your body and it has
got nothing to do with the rest of the universe around you, if it's entirely something you
dreamed up one day, then Level 2 after Level 5 is for you. 

You can break that bonding and be free of it forever. You can erase it and say goodbye to it
forever by using Level 2 after Level 5. So again I wish you good luck with the procedure and bye
bye for now. 

End of tape