{"id":298,"date":"2021-01-03T20:47:50","date_gmt":"2021-01-03T20:47:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/?p=298"},"modified":"2021-01-03T20:47:50","modified_gmt":"2021-01-03T20:47:50","slug":"reducing-the-complexity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/2021\/01\/03\/reducing-the-complexity\/","title":{"rendered":"Reducing the complexity"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Dowsers ae perhaps famed for their ability to discover\nunderground water, but there are a number of articles in the BSD journals that\ndescribe another ability \u2013 that of diverting<\/em> the flow of underground\nwater, without any apparent physical interaction. This ability was reported in\nthe early days of the Society\u2019s existence, when the work of dowsers was largely\nfocussed on divining for underground water, or minerals. Note that a dowser\nwalking along the ground experiences one or more a dowsing reactions<\/em>\nabove an underground stream. The idea in the early days, was  that water gave out some sort of \u201cemanation\u201d,\nor radiation, which was picked up by the dowser. From these actions and using\ntheir experience, they can deduce where to drill for water and how deep to\ndrill. From the beginning there was uncertainty about whether it was the\ndowsing reaction that was being diverted, or the actual \u201cstream\u201d of underground\nwater. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is another aspect to this. As time has progressed,\nwater divining has become a fringe activity in dowsing, replaced by concerns\nfor health. The notion arose that underground streams could be deleterious to\none\u2019s health, if they passed under homes or places of work.  For instance, there was the idea of the\n\u201cblack stream\u201d that was particularly nasty. So much attention in recent times\nhas been paid to the detection of these streams and how they could be diverted\naway from the places they supposedly flow under.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have outlined the discussion below, based on articles\nin the BSD journal.  This whole area of\ndowsing is confusing and opinionated. Apologies for the length of the post, but\nI think it is possible to tease out some interesting conclusions related to\ndowsing process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the first article, \n\u201cDowsing experiences in Australia\u201d, the transcript of a talk given by a\nMr Hawker to the BSD in December 1938.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog_extracts\/BSD_No22_1938_p263.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article is an interesting account of one diviner\u2019s\n20 year, during which he helped to find 300 successful boreholes. In the\narticle, he mentions another dowser (probably the renowned dowser,  Mr H. Busby), who demonstrated an\nextraordinary ability. It seemed that he could apparently divert the flow of an\nunderground stream, by placing a flat stone on the ground immediately above the\ncentre of the stream, and then striking this stone with a hammer for several\nminutes. In fact, what was actually observed was a divergence in the dowsing\nreaction<\/em> felt at the surface, indicating the path of the stream. After the\nhammering was stopped, the stream appeared to take up its original course\nagain. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several months later, this observation was taken up by\none of the greatest diviners of the 20th<\/sup> Century \u2013 Evelyn Penrose (the\nlife of whom has already been descried in the blog posts of 31-12-2020 and\n01-01-2021). She penned an article \u201cAn experience and a difficulty\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog_extracts\/BSD_No24_1939_p357.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this, she described repeating the hammer and stone test\nover an underground stream, with two other diviners. After several minutes\nthere was no effect. But after an hour, she recounts that despite the bedrock\nbeing granite, the water signal had diverted into a semicircle around her of 9\nfeet radius, and the water depth had risen by 70 feet. However, she was still\nunsure whether she had actually diverted the water, or only the dowsing\nreaction. Therefore, she suggested that it was necessary to repeat the test on\nan underground stream that clearly issued from the side of a bank or cliff. Any\neffect on the water might then be observed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his article, in issue No26, p65, \u201cThe Radial Track\u201d,\nMr A. Cook took up the report of Miss Penrose and performed some experiments of\nhis own. He concluded that, \u201cThe water is not affected with the striking of a\nstone above any stream, but the radiations from the stream are.\u201d Here the\n\u201cradiations\u201d refer to what he considered gave rise to the dowsing reaction at\nthe surface. He also concluded, \u201cIt is not necessary to have a stone to strike\n\u2013 just beat the earth with a hammer or stick, or even stamp heavily with the\nfoot.\u201d And in one instance the hooves of cattle had diverted the path of a\nstream which he had earlier surveyed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over time, other dowsers became interested in the\nobservation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a letter to the editor (issue No36, p83), a Mr\nMorton claimed to have diverted two streams using the hammering method. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

J. Wheeler wrote a letter to the journal, about \u201cdisplaced\nradiations\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog_extracts\/BSD_No46_1944_p120.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

He had dowsed the line of an underground stream and a\nborehole was being put down, but for various reasons, it was not positioned on\nthe dowsed streamline, but 10 feet to one side. He noticed that during the\ndrilling the course of his dowsing reactions over the stream had moved to lie\nalong a path directly over the bore hole, but when the drilling stopped, the\nreactions relocated to the original path of the stream. Later, by banging on\nthe ground to one side of the streamline, he was able to reproduce the movement\nof the line of reaction.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was sometime before a dowser found a convenient\nstream to test miss Penrose\u2019s ideas. R. Erlank, wrote to the BSD (issue No49,\np231), about their test on an underground stream, with a reasonable flow, that emerged\nfrom underground. It seems that this dowser successfully displaced the path of\nthe stream by several feet, but this had no obvious influence on the issuing\nflow. It appeared to them that the movement was only the stream indication at\nthe surface and not the water. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several months later, Miss Penrose wrote another\narticle \u201cUnblocking wells\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog_extracts\/BSD_No52_1946_p346.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It tells of her experiences using the hammering technique to unblock a well, in which the previously good supply of water flowing into the well, was now only a \u201ctrickle\u201d. By dowsing, the blockage appeared to be 10 feet from the well. She used the hammer\/stone technique to draw the water back to the blockage point and beyond, at which point no water was seen entering the well. From this she concluded \u201c\u2026 it was an absolute proof that water could be stopped from running in the ground.\u201d She then drove the water a further 16 feet away from the blockage, before ceasing the hammering action and allowing the water to return towards the well. She monitored the return journey by dowsing. The water passed the blockage and entered the well, but this time water entered the well as a stream. She had successfully unblocked the well. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In issues No81 and No103, p30 are reports by the\ndowser Countess Anka Von Knoblauch. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog_extracts\/BSD_No81_1953_p122.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

She appeared to specialise in diverting underground\nstreams. Such streams, she considered harmful, if they flowed under homes or places\nof work. This was an idea that had been introduced into European dowsing in the\n1930s. She seems to have heard about \u201c..an Australian dowser who found he could\nshift underground streams by beating two stones against each other..\u201d.  For her, hammering a piece of iron seemed to\nwork faster, so she used a hammer and specially made steel hand anvil. She\nnever appears to test for the actual presence of water through drilling and seems\nto have relied solely on using her dowsing reactions. One has to ask, was the\ndowsing effect really due to the actual presence of water?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Michael Guest submitted an interesting review article\n\u201cThrough dowser\u2019s eyes. A survey of Deraying Techniques\u201d (see also the blog\nentry – 16-06-2020 – Clearing energy lines)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog_extracts\/BSD_No209_1985_p111.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which he reviewed the new interests amongst British\ndowsers  from the late sixties \/early\n1970s, where the search for underground streams was increasingly replaced with\nthe notion that underground streams are somehow deleterious to health, especially\nif they flow under homes or places of work. Their  \u201cintent is to nullify or divert the influence\n: later it becomes to divert the streams themselves, in a literal physical\nsense.\u201d Interestingly as we saw above, he comments that early methods used\n\u201csonic means\u201d, such as \u201cstriking the ground with an iron rod\u201d. This was later\nsuperseded by a host of less violent\/physical methods and the introduction of\nmore passive \u201cdevices\u201d, such as crystals and coils.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What to conclude from all of this? Well, it is not a\nhuge body of evidence, but I would like to posit the following conclusions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Considering for the moment just underground water, it\nseems that the dowsing reaction is not caused directly by some physical\ninfluence arising from the water, eg radiation effect. Rather, it appears to be\nmore a manifestation created by the mind of the given dowser, as if the dowser\nis interpreting the information about what they are seeking and reducing this\nto some sort of  \u201cguide\u201d. Incidentally, rather\nthan treating the dowsing reaction along a line as a metaphor for the water\nflow, it is more often taken literally, to represent an actual stream flowing underground.\nThis often incites criticism from hydrologists who ague that water does not\nflow this way.  In the post of 30-09-2020\n\u2013 The Single-handed rod<\/em>, there was a discussion of the reaction bands on\neach side of a streamline, and how these may be used to obtain the depth of the\nstream (The Bishop\u2019s rule<\/em>). But for some dowsers, eg the former BSD\nchairman, Dr Arthur Bailey, the side-bands represent only half<\/em> the stream\ndepth, ie the true depth is double the distance of the first reaction band from\nthe central stream line. This fits better with the idea that the dowsing\nreaction arises from the dowser\u2019s unconscious, based on their presumptions\nabout the significance of the reaction (either conscious or unconscious). If we\nare dealing with a fundamentally mental phenomenon, then the intention of\ndiverting the dowsing reaction is perhaps more understandable. The banging\nprocess is simply some ritual behaviour to reinforce the intent, and could be replaced\nwith any<\/em> ritual which has the appropriate significance for the dowser. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The idea that the dowsing reaction to underground water\nappears to be mentally derived is quite intriguing. It is not only locating the\nwater, another aspect is estimating the depth of the water using dowsing, for\nwhich many methods have been used. For instance, simply standing over the\nstream and counting down in some unit of length, until a reaction is obtained,\nto the more elaborate \u201cThe point depth method\u201d, see the post of 02-09-2020 – How\nlong is a piece of string?<\/em> All the depthing methods utilise an anticipated\ndowsing reaction when the correct depth has been reached. The complexity of the\ndepthing exercise collapses into a single action. It\u2019s the same mechanism as that\nof locating the water. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then we might ask, is there any real difference between water and any other object a dowser may seek? We might extend this idea of reducing the complexity of the problem to any dowsing problem. And then we have to consider the so-called Earth energy lines, or whatever term is used for these lines or patterns that span the globe. This is too thorny an issue to consider here, but it does begin to seem that there is something of a \u00a0social construct<\/em> underlying these, see the post of 19-06-2020 \u2013 The Beadon Cube controversy<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is another conclusion to make; what about the\nobservations of Miss Penrose, when she was observed<\/em> to halt the flow of water,\nif not necessarily having diverted it? This does suggest a type of psychokinetic<\/em>\n(PK) action at a distance. It would be nice to have more accounts from other dowsers.\nHowever, within the BSD journals, we do find quite a few instances of the\napparent application of PK in various situations, from movement of the dowsing\ninstrument to perhaps even affecting the weather. We know that Miss Penrose was\nan extremely psychically talented individual, and so we might draw the\nconclusion that, at least a few exceptional individuals, are able to actually to\ncontrol the flow of underground water.   <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dowsers ae perhaps famed for their ability to discover underground water, but there are a number of articles in the BSD journals that describe another ability \u2013 that of diverting the flow of underground water, without any apparent physical interaction. This ability was reported in the early days of the Society\u2019s existence, when the work […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","views":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/298"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=298"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/298\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":299,"href":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/298\/revisions\/299"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dowsing-research.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}