Ley Lines

[BobD]

From my endeavors here in the States to clarify the common names used for many energy formations, I've begun using the term "Aerial Grid Line" instead of "Ley Line". By this I mean 2 sets of 4 vertical, upward flowing, AC planes astride 1 set of 4 downward flowing, DC planes, 6’ wide in total. The pathway is straight when viewed over a distance but can meander a bit on close inspection. The entire 6-foot-wide pattern is duplicated, in parallel, at a distance of around 120 feet. And where the two parallel groups cross another group of two, the result is four highly energetic spots (one of which is centered on my bed). This energy makes for some rather light but restful sleep, and the resulting dreams are very vivid! Further details can be found on my website at http://www.GeoPathfinder.com/9442.

[Nigel]

It seems reasonable to say, having read the various post on this thread, that there really is no type of agreement about ley lines, or, indeed, any other type of energy line.

So, are we really, as individuals, all seeing the same thing or are we like the blind men examining an elephant, just seeing different parts of the same thing. Perhaps we're only just seeing what we want to see, or have been led to think that we should see.

I'm cautious about the whole naming thing. It seems a fruitless exercise to try and get common agreement about this. It just seems to proliferate more 'discoveries'.

I think that perhaps one aspect which might have some hope of commonality is to ask what it is we do with any lines we find. But I fear that might be a losing proposition as well.

Of course, the main question is why is this something worth doing? What will be the end result? And will it make any difference?

I suspect the answer to the latter is 'not at all'.

Perhaps the real point is getting people asking questions. As long as there's a readiness to accept the answers you don't want to hear or know about.

[Rory]

Surely if one wants an answer to these sort of questions, all one has to do is to change them from one open question to a series of closed questions (Agreed that is not easy). Then dowsing Yes/No will give you the answer. Just be sure to understand you question first with a degree of sincerity and life purpose and I am sure there will be a useful reply.

The words 'Ley lines' may well have become too general and abstract now. Best to create more words that are more specific - after all thats what science does best these days.

I am sure that all of you can come up with plenty of other suggestions for names. Here are a few lateral thoughts:-

Alpha lines, Interchange sheets, Interconnecting Membranes, Multi frequency shift zones, Universal connector paths, subquantum interconnects, Mental interface highways.

Next of course comes the rather difficult period of explaining this to other people and getting their buy in to your work.

All I can say about that is that the guys and gals that put this website together and run it could probably serve better than anyone else to determine the best way forward for Dowsing, its lingo and its progression.

If anyone does this by the way, I really would like to hear the results.

[Grahame]

Thank you for your vote of confidence, Rory!

The term 'ley line' is now so entrenched in popular speech that I doubt that we'll ever manage to eradicate it. The general feeling in the BSD is to try and use the terms 'visual ley' and 'energy ley' to distinguish between the Watkins-style alignments of sites and straight flows of energy, which may or may not coincide with a visual ley. Some people use the term 'energy line' or 'earth energy line' to denote non-linear energy flows.
Since dowsing, particularly energy dowsing, is so subjective and tied to individual consciousness and perceptions, it is extremely unlikely that we are all going to agree on a terminology for these things as long as they remain outside the realm of 'mainstream' science and someone comes up with an accepted means of detecting and quantifying them. Incidentally, my final 'Adventures in Dowsing' article in the September Dowsing Today has a bit more to say on the subject.
The best we can do is to compare results with each other wherever possible to see what similarities exist between different folks' findings, and hope that we can work towards a common vocabulary and share research. That's why being a member of the BSD or other dowsing group is so valuable for the budding dowser, and why we can work together to produce stuff like the EEG Glossary of Dowsing Terms; it's also why we have our educational curriculum, why we publish our quarterly Dowsing Today, why we host an annual conference, and why we maintain links with international dowsing groups through journal exchange agreements and so forth. OK, enough of the commercial....
But interesting thoughts so far, folks. Keep it up!

[Nigel]

it is extremely unlikely that we are all going to agree on a terminology for these things as long as they remain outside the realm of 'mainstream' science and someone comes up with an accepted means of detecting and quantifying them.

I still have reservations about waiting for 'mainstream' science to dictate an approach to what we do (whatever that is!). It is not because I am anti-science per se (that would be stupid as I wouldn't be having love affairs with computers othewrwise ). But I am concerned that dowsing often appears to be waiting for recognition / acceptance / understanding / proof / etc. which science can / will provide.

In some ways I am starting to think about having dowsing set up as an entirely separate validating system, running alongside science but not really touching it or wanting science to accept it.

Yes, I am aware that might be utopian, but it does act as a necessary buttress against always looking outwards from dowsing for more general awareness.

What we probably need is some huge mega-star multi-disciplinarian to come out publicly on TV with a pendulum and denounce / uphold some sacred cow. Sort of like Carl Sagan, but sexier!

Any volunteers?

[BobD]

I'm in polar disagreement with Nigel on this. I've worked hard to standardize a process for naming energy phenomena that centers on patterns and types, following in the Underwood tradition. It fits well with my extensive focus on physics, chemistry, and math as a youth, and my later ventures into computer science, psychology (mainly behavioral), and finally, philosophy (phenomenology) for my degree. While this has led to a number of "discoveries", they mostly have unique patterns. Those that don't have differing widths, directional flows, 3-D structure, etc.

As long as I can "prove" the validity of what I'm doing without relying on human belief systems by, for instance, diverting a well-worn animal trail and watching the animals wear in a new trail that follows the new energy pathway, that's good enough for a pseudo-science at least. And if we worked together to standardize our terminology, methods of inquiry, and techniques/standards for establishing valid proof, we'd be a lot further along as a science. The only thing remaining that makes it "pseudo" is the "fact" that not every Joe picked at random off the street can do this stuff. Personally, given enough exposure, education, and training, I'm not so sure.

So I'm not ready to chuck it all in, leaving science to it's path and dowsing/divination to another. And I'm simply not satisfied with terms that won't allow me to show anybody who comes along what I'm working with at the moment. By doing work on geopathics with clients I'm working to expand the recognition of energy work in my area and amongst my online clients wordwide. Nothing gets people's attention like their own self-interest. And nothing is quite so satisfying as doing a energy job at a client's home and hearing later about how their totally disbelieving spouse is now getting their first good night's sleep in 25 years!

[Geoff Stuttaford]

I wonder why some people try to link so called right brain dowsing with with so called left brain science.

Surely all that matters is that what you do works when you use your mind (intent) rather than your brain
which is a virtual computer that is programmed by the mind (according to my dowsing).

(BobD) "And nothing is quite so satisfying as doing a energy job at a client's home and hearing later about how their totally disbelieving spouse is now getting their first good night's sleep in 25 years! "

Exactly !

Geoff

[Nigel]

As long as I can "prove" the validity of what I'm doing without relying on human belief systems by, for instance, diverting a well-worn animal trail and watching the animals wear in a new trail that follows the new energy pathway, that's good enough for a pseudo-science at least. And if we worked together to standardize our terminology, methods of inquiry, and techniques/standards for establishing valid proof, we'd be a lot further along as a science.

I wonder why some people try to link so called right brain dowsing with with so called left brain science.

And there is the problem in a nutshell in those two quotes. Is dowsing a science or a skill? Or both? And as for practitioners, there's never going to be agreement as to a common protocol (for which, I think, I am grateful).

The question which needs answering (or at least addressing seriously) is why do we need to be further along as a science? I'm doing things differently now than what i did a few years ago. My approaches are different, my techniques are different, but the results are just as good, if not better than before. Now that's not good science, but it is good dowsing (at least, our clients think so).

While I respect BobD's polar opposite viewpoint, I can't help but notice that he says that

It fits well with my extensive focus on physics, chemistry, and math as a youth, and my later ventures into computer science, psychology (mainly behavioral), and finally, philosophy (phenomenology) for my degree.

.

Me? I am by nature extremely lazy, so I always look for the simplest, shortest, easiest route to achieve my desired goal. Over the years that has led me to dispose of many approaches to and classifications of earth energies. If I want the thing done, I now have simpler ways of doing it.

In other words, both BobD and myself have refined approaches which fit our beliefs better.

And that's the whole problem to general, accepted classification. I can describe things to myself which makes sense to me, but I have little chance of ever getting anyone else (let alone a majority) to agree with my outlook.

I'd be far more interested in the fixes which people find because some will undoubtedly play to my laziness and save me the problem of discovering them for myself!

[simonwheeler]

I always look for the simplest, shortest, easiest route to achieve my desired goal.

In other words..KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid)...another great way of summarising good practice! (and theory...if that's what you want to do).
Why do we, as a species, so often over-complicate things? Over-think. Over-explain.
Overkill.

[Helen-Healing]

Why do we, as a species, so often over-complicate things? Over-think. Over-explain.
Overkill.

Because we can!!

[BobD]

For me dowsing and science are both skills, both requiring both hemispheres working in tandem. Science is based on theories that come from a hunch/intuition (right brain) that are proved/disproved by a method (left brain). The divinatory dowsing I do relies on questions (left) formed by either logic (left), hunch (right), or instruction from ????? (right?, up?, down?, other dimension?). I'm not only by nature lazy, but I rely on someone/something that seems to be "other" to me to answer my questions! Then I put the youthful training to work (not a "belief" but simply a habit), which is also a mix of hemispheres. I couldn't stand it any other way. Where would the fun be?

I saw a good take on the scientific process that sums up what I'm seeing in this discussion. "Scientists strive for authoritative, objective knowledge - but they pursue it by taking leaps of imagination, following hunches, and trashing one another's ideas". John Whitfield in Aug.2008 "Discover" magazine. Science has always been a very messy process, and I'm sure that getting any two dowsers to agree, even on energy terminology or naming conventions, will be like herding cats. I'm just an optimist who writes as a pessimist and uses his left brain excessively while two-finger typing at a computer terminal. My real work with a Y-rod is much more balanced and satisfying.

Off to find a new energy pattern now, if the source allows.

[Geoff Stuttaford]

Definition of Ley Lines from Wikipedia < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_line >

"Ley lines are alleged alignments of a number of places of geographical interest, such as ancient monuments and megaliths that are thought by certain adherents to dowsing and New Age beliefs to have spiritual power. Their existence was suggested in 1921 by the amateur archaeologist Alfred Watkins, in his book The Old Straight Track"

In another thread on this forum I have stated that I have dowsed that Ley Lines do not contain any energy so I’m wondering what we are actually picking up using dowsing when we are on one of these leys. If it is not energy, then what is it ? I spent some time dowsing the various possibilities and eventually got confirmation that we are finding ‘ghost lines’ (that’s the nearest description I can get for the phenomenum). I have found before that a ghost (not a spirit) is part of the fabric of a location which also has a time line of some kind associated with it. I think it is fairly well known that men, animals, birds (and some say UFOs) follow these lines and have done for rather a long time and their passage has created lines of varying widths that can be located by dowsing so they too become part of the fabric of a location.

I also find that the term ‘ley line’ is often used in error when what has been found has been an energy line of some kind. .

I would appreciate any confirmation (or otherwise) of my findings above using dowsing rather than belief. I have put this in the General Section rather than Earth Energies because Ley Lines are not (so I have dowsed) connected with energies.

[Bonnie]

Hi Geoff. I dowse that ley lines are a function of entropy (compressed bits of information, rather like zipped files), which is another way of expressing the idea that these are "ghost lines," as you have dowsed. I dowse that ley lines are repositories of information, "packets" or deposits associated with cultural, natural and social history; they possess or have acquired (through a layering process) the potential for attraction (i.e., magnetism), but are not themselves ensouled, inspirited or actively energetic. As such, they are indeed woven within the fabric of a location.

[Geoff Stuttaford]

Many thanks, Bonnie, I like your description, too. Once again we seem to be using the same source of information and getting similar info from it.

[simonwheeler]

Geoff: Many thanks, Bonnie, I like your description, too.

Ditto!