On Seeing Things Differently

by Ann Procter

Whilst enjoying and digesting all the interesting and enlightening things that happened at the April meeting of the Earth Energies Group, it occurred to me how much the various participants differed in what they observed with their dowsing.  This seems entirely right to me, but I noticed that some people DID want others to agree with their own findings, as if there was something finite to be discovered by dowsing.

If you are looking for drinkable water, or a lost object, it has to be finite: its either there where you dowsed it, or it isn’t, and feedback is obvious.  This suits the scientific paradigm, as there is a material factual result, even if the means to getting there is a scientific anomaly.

I am not a scientist; my training and experience is in psychology and psychotherapy, and it seems to me that seeing things differently where there is no direct feedback is just about inevitable, except for beginners who tend to pick up what their teacher has found (Sig Lonegren’s first law).

Some explanation for this can be gleaned from the work of Edward de Bono in the 60’s.  He wrote about vertical and lateral thinking.

Vertical thinking happens when we form up a fact in a scientific way, then put another fact beside it so that a further one can be deduced – like building a brick wall. (I sometimes think that scientists build such high walls that they cannot see over the top!).

Lateral thinking is about every individual making a huge jigsaw puzzle with pieces gleaned from their observation of life around them.  You can see this happening very easily in young children: e.g. he fits together having his coat put on with going out she knows that when sat in her high chair she is likely to get food.

There are numberless pieces and no picture on the box, so every puzzle will turn out differently.  Its like living with a huge collection of hypotheses, which gradually form up into groups and become more established in an individual’s picture of life.  With luck, some of them are similar to the hypotheses of others.

To complicate matters further some attitudes to the matter in hand will affect the “truth” of findings whether thought out vertically or laterally.  It is extremely (difficult to set up scientific experiments that are entirely without bias; they have to start with a hypothesis on which to work anyway.  The individual’s background experience of geopathic stress or sacred space, or whatever, will form part of his or her concepts on which-their dowsing is based.

The role you are playing when focusing on dowsing will also make a difference: are you trying to help someone who has black streams or negative earth energies through their house, or are you enjoying detecting some lines of energy at a sacred site?  Are you in it for healing work, or for the pleasure of detection?

Traveling in our car the other day, we both remarked on something at the same time: Roy grumbled about a badly parked lorry which spoiled his sight-line at a junction, I remarked on the beauty of a wisteria growing on a cottage wall nearby.  It was his responsibility to drive safely.  As a passenger I could indulge in such a pleasure.  We were both making observations from almost exactly the same position, but had seen entirely different things.  This often happens in dowsing.

Sometimes when we are doing our “healing of sick houses” work, people send us sketch maps with lines or other dowsed features already marked on them.  We find this inhibits our work, as we are not able to heal using other people’s dowsed diagnosis.  It seems to work when the person(s) doing the healing dowse the features on which they will base that healing themselves.  This could apply to an individual dowser/ healer or to us as a couple, as we always do this work together.  When working in our “apprentice” group, the healing can only be done if we obtain a consensus among the members based on the diagnosis as seen by the person leading the healing.

So seeing things differently can be deemed highly subjective, but if that’s the way we get results, that is how it has to be done.  After all the tools we use are only like the hands on a clock, the mechanism is within the psyche of the dowser, and these are all uniquely different, and wonderfully so.  There is no way we can be boxed into identical observations or behaviours.

© 1999 Ann Procter & BSD EEG