Tamar Dowsers Talk
A big thank you to the Tamar Dowsers who invited me to talk at their meeting on Sunday.
It was a well attended meeting and gave me the opportunity to explore some ideas around Total Sensory Perception and a hypothesis that sensory acuity is at the core of a dowsers ability.
As you might imagine such a talk questions some ideas about ‘energy’ and accepted definitions of ‘earth energy lines’. We believe at the Cornwall School of Mysteries and Magick that it is important to question what we know and how we know things as well as accepting that ‘truth’ is a shifting perspective.
During the Question and Answer session (picture above – I don’t sit down all the time!) I was reminded of one of the key points of my talk … people hear what they want to hear especially when something is said which touches at their core of an emotionally held truth or conviction. Once a provocation has been tabled it seems to be the case that we stop thinking and start emoting. This by no means a criticism, but a psychological observation and a reminder of how hard we all have to work to listen what other people are saying.
This talk, which I hope to take to the Earth Energies and Wellness (Dowsing for Health) Group on 12th April in Cirencester…
One the the key questions I like to ask at every talk is built around the idea or ‘epsitemology’ – how do we know what we know…
I believe it was Marcus Aurelius who commented that a statement of truth is best considered as a statement of opinion and I therefore suggest that an opinion is a statement of perspective.
Personal learning can be through direct experience, a kind of trial and error leading to a series of stimulus and response kinds of behaviour (and attitudes perhaps), but ‘facts’ about ‘the world’ are often taken on trust. Our parents and friends tell us things; our teachers try ti teach us things and give us the capacity to research and think for ourselves – but ultimately we are encouraged to trust the people who have studied their subjects.
As a matter of necessity we have abdicated responsibility for ‘research’ to a select group of people. The New Age and Alternative Press use the word ‘scientists’ as if it were some kind of bad thing – a blemish on an otherwise pure society perhaps. Some even go as far to suggest that ‘scientists don’t know everything’ and of course such folks highlight their own scientific illiteracy in the process of making such a statement.
If scientists knew everything then they wouldn’t be doing what they do.
Scientists who make a systematic study of something have an approach based upon empiricism.
The scientific method is one which creates hypotheses and then methods of trying to falsify them. They then share the results so their ‘tests’ can be replicated by others.
If, after many many tests, the hypothesis sands its ground then it may be elevated to a statement of a ‘theory’ – which in essence is a model of what is known so far and which can be used as a reliable signpost for other hypotheses and ideas.
The great hullabaloo over the so called ‘God Particle’ , the search for the Higgs Boson, is the result of scientists having made ‘predictions’ based upon established theories that something else is to be discovered within the arena of subatomic particles.
Of the scientists I have spoken to many are of the opinion that to ‘prove’ (through empirical means – research, test, and experiment) the existence of this particle simply reinforces existing ideas Lets face it this is not about a random particle hunt (in the same way that some paranormal research is an anomaly hunt) it is a structured process of focusing attention in those areas which theory ‘predicts’ that there could be something.
To engage in any discussion about quantum physics without any understanding of the maths or the ideas behind the ideas is like pissing in the wind. A pleasant relief but with no certainty that you won’t be in a worse state (wet pants wise) than if you decided to wee yourself. Yet there are those who have opinions about such complex issues without having made any attempt to intellectually engage with the background…
These people could be said to be taking a ‘phenomenological’ approach to knowing. They are commenting upon their personal experiences and personal realities. Which of course is OK…. indeed I would argue vital.
The difference is that whilst the empirical, rational, approach is based upon logic and testable ideas, the phenomenological approach is subjective and therefore driven by emotions.
There are those who simply ‘know they are right’ but when asked to qualify their source defer to ancient texts read out of context (out of time with no real understanding of the culture within which they are written) OR refer to some deified, secret and intuitive knowledge that the cosmos, in its varied forms, has given to them.
So when you start to really think about how you know what you know it gets a little bit confusing.
Try these words on for size..
How do you know what you know ???
A question I think is well worth asking of yourself and others.