Letter to Robin

#1
Hi,

I contacted the American Society of Dowsers seeking to know more about dowsing and they recommended a free downloadable manual, which I note that RedCairo and LD have recommended in previous threads:

http://www.lettertorobin.org/RBN_html/RBN_10_4_English.html

I want to second/third how useful the manual is. The author (Walt Woods) says it includes input from 150 or so other dowsers, to fine tune it. It has all-purpose charts to dowse from - that is, not just yes/no but also numbers, including scales of degrees, also letters. It is a short manual but covers quite a bit and is based on a lot of experience by the people who are as passionate about dowsing as we are about RV.

What particularly interests me is how they use 'programs'. You program your sub (or your dowser - the terminology some use) using explicit written out programs. The claim is that this puts the instructions into your sub once and for all - until you modify the program. It establishes a solid connection with your sub (or whatever term you want to use).

I am wondering if this is something we have been missing in RV - programming the sub. We use cooldowns, affirmations, meditation, hemi-synch CDs for theta or even high alpha dominance, instructions attached to the tag, etc. But 'formal programming' may have added benefits. Anyone tried that, either in connection with dowsing or not? (I'll copy the primary program into the next post.)

Another thing that caught my attention - the gentleman who recommended "Letter to Robin" said that he was trained in RV and dowsing - and he found dowsing more accurate.
Hmmm....

I like the direct input you get from the sub with a pendulum. It feels right. Haven't tried rods yet, but will.

Gawaine
 
#2
the primary program

From the Letter to Robin manual. There are other programs and one can devise one's own, they say, after a certain point in training:

"Primary Program is to be continually in effect until I choose to make changes.

· Covering the overall primary controls, limits, agreements and dowsing responses.

· The Purpose is to determine amounts, effects, conditions, circumstances, influences, times, measurements, distances, numbers, percentages and other requested areas.

· Communications and Support is to be intercooperative and restricted to my Superconscious, Spirit, Higher Self, My Awareness, Mind Systems, Subconscious and related systems and all other levels of my Total Being and their approved Spirit Guides/Guardian Angels, helpers and other chosen by me or any of the above.

· Influences such as misleading thoughts, imaging, wishes, or any other conditions or methods by any source, physical or non-physical of any kind, are not to take control of any of my systems or affect me adversely or cause incorrect dawsing answers without my permission.

· Time as related to dowsing is to be in my perceived time unless otherwise requested.

· Answers are to be selected from all available knowledge and information sources.

· The Method of Answering by the pendulum or any dowsing systems is to be:

(1) Swinging to (?) or other agreedon methods or systems, indicates ready for question.

(2) General, swinging or moving to "yes", "no" or other information indicating the most appropriate answer for the question asked, or other information methods or systems.

(3) Clockwise spin is for hold, indicating waiting, searching or other agreedon systems.

· Temporary Changes may be made by me while dowsing, reverting back after use.

· Program Changes like adding, deleting or changing may be made by me, but only by using a three step system of my choice. (Example p.4) End of Program, thank you".
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
#3
The Letter to Robin is the classic must-read intro info in the Dowsing field. I recommend anybody with an interest go through it.
 

LD

New Member
Staff member
#4
I've also thought about programming in dowsing and how that might be applied to RV. There's some really interesting differences between dowsing and RV. For instance, in remote viewing you can usually rely on intent to get you where you want to go. You don't even really need a target number or a stated 'task directive.' But with dowsing, it seems like a strong intent isn't quite enough. Most professional dowsers will tell you that the way you word your query is HUGELY important.

I would first think that it's just a belief thing, but I've heard pro viewers who are also proficient in dowsing say the same thing, that for some reason it just works different.

I think curiosities like this hold important keys if we can manage to puzzle them out a bit.
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
#5
That's a very good point. And in fact over time some people have obsessed over tasking verbage, and it's certainly worth being very exact, but it has always come out in the wash that the INTENT of the tasker is what carries, no matter what the tasking number or cue. Yet with dowsing, sure, I've always marveled at how a slightly different phrasing, one word even, could change results.

Then again remember that in dowsing, it's FORCED CHOICE. Dowsing done based on phrasing is usually pendulum dowsing as opposed to map/geocoord/land dowsing which can be anything but which is usually more intent oriented (find thing vs. answer question). In that case, it becomes a yes/no/maybe-other limitation (at least most of the time). Maybe the "free-response" nature of RV allows the psi to use the details loosely because intent is the primary driver, whereas in forced-choice, maybe one is following directions for right/wrong instead. The nature of dowsing forces a binary/trinary sort of option-set. So maybe the end result is rather like, RV being free-response gives you a marker set with at least 300 colors and pen-widths to draw with, and dowsing lets you choose one of three primary-color cards.

In terms of statistical accuracy, RV outweighs dowsing by a helluva margin (or science would still be doing card-guessing instead, which is when you think about it just another form of dowsing, all forced-choice scenarios are, only the methodology/process/tool may differ). I suspect somehow this issue comes down to the free response vs. forced choice part of the equation, and that being forced-choice is related to why the slightest change in verbage can so affect dowsing, even with the same tasker same intent, while it seems to have less effect on RV. (Not that tasking doesn't matter of course! Just that like you said, a one-word difference won't usually override the 'tasker intent'.)

Just rambling here...
 
#6
but it has always come out in the wash that the INTENT of the tasker is what carries
McMoneagle says otherwise: He stated, that only the intent of the viewer counts. Lately someone quoted him on this in another thread (First post on page 2 by LD):
http://www.tenthousandroads.com/wbbs/WBB.cgi?board=rvgenl;action=display;num=1178775396;start=10
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
#7
McMoneagle says otherwise: He stated, that only the intent of the viewer counts. Lately someone quoted him on this in another thread (First post on page 2 by LD):
http://www.tenthousandroads.com/wbbs/WBB.cgi?board=rvgenl;action=display;num=1178775396;start=10
Howdy Katz,

You say this as if it contradicts my point -- it doesn't really. It's a slightly different context for the comparison. Here we are talking solely about tasking itself, and whether the specific words vs. intent are likely to carry in free-response remote viewing. McMoneagle was referring to the viewing side of the equation and what can affect a viewer (in that example, not from the original taskers, but others attempting to psychically interfere). And yes -- IF the viewer WANTED the WORDS to matter and NOT the 'intent', then they should have the ability to make it so, because the viewer's intent is sovereign (if they choose to make it so). But if the intent of the tasker was not important to the equation and didn't carry into the equation, he would not refer to good vs. bad taskers. There would be no such thing: anybody who could use the language of the viewer decently could just write a command out. It is the norm in the field at large that if one has a tasker, one attempts to view what they are attempting to task. I suppose there may be some who would argue the semantics of tasking verbage instead, but one of the most powerful aspects of the psi is the viewer's ability to often pick up what the tasker wanted but didn't even know how to articulate.

(I might add (not for you but for the record) that this indirectly touches on another subject, that of selftasked, untasked or computer-tasked targets. There is no debate with me anyway that in a perfect world, we'd have a dedicated tasker, our own monitor, and a few other things, just like most basketball players would prefer to have a great indoor flex court and a great home team cheering. The fact that a tasker's intent is important to viewing doesn't mean good viewing can't be done without it. It'd be unfortunate to be dependent on it. Only that if a perfect world situation presents itself, a dedicated tasker is ideal.)
 
#8
PJ wrote:
In terms of statistical accuracy, RV outweighs dowsing by a helluva margin ... I suspect somehow this issue comes down to the free response vs. forced choice part of the equation, and that being forced-choice is related to why the slightest change in verbage can so affect dowsing, even with the same tasker same intent, while it seems to have less effect on RV. (Not that tasking doesn't matter of course! Just that like you said, a one-word difference won't usually override the 'tasker intent'.)
____________________

It seems that dowsing is more accurate for locations, however. (Which is why I got interested in it.) There are indications in the Stargate archives, for example, that RV is not good to find specific geolocations. (That's been my experience as well.) And dowsing is mentioned in the archives as an area to be explored. Perhaps the archive gets more specific - I haven't read that much there. I see that two or more of the former Stargate viewers use dowsing as well for locations and, I believe, incorporate it in their training modules.

I found it interesting that in looking at a brochure for a large conference on dowsing very very few of the hands-on presentations were going to deal with what looked to be easily confirmable issues. There was a lot on energy processing, healing and the like. I am not saying healing may not occur with dowsing. But as a newbie in that field, I would like to see hard-core confirmation. Kinda like seldom doing UFO objectives in RV because confirmation is usually very difficult or non-existent.

I don't have any experience with the accuracy of wording in dowsing. In regular RV work, though, I agree that tasker intent, which is hopefully in synch with viewer intent - that is, the team works well together - can outweigh let's say minor wording issues. But an inexperienced tasker or a careless tasking can also foul up the presentation of an objective. The wording and hence the intent may be obscure or confused.

On another aspect brought up in this thread, the three dowsers I have been in touch with, including a very highly recommended one (by a knowledgeable dowser), all say they prefer the rods to the pendulum, although they can use the pendulum as well. So far I prefer a pendulum.

Gawaine







 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
#9
If both arts got locational data we could maybe compare them, but for the most part they don't. Or rather they do, but differently and the focus in RV is descriptive instead. Dowsing's origin is literally for finding things, so I suppose it makes sense that it is more ideal for finding things! I think dowsing is very cool. Dowsers do get some descriptive intuitive info though, and viewers do get some gut feeling locational info though, so they overlap slightly. I still think the difficulty is that dowsing by its nature becomes a forced-choice type of psi experiment. In a perfect world, all viewers would be master dowsers like McMoneagle and seamlessly meld the two arts together. Not many people are that great at it though. Maybe that's because there are only so many hours in the day....! :)