Blind Binary Dowsing

I know I posted this somewhere before but I can’t find it anywhere! Maybe in some part of Firedocs Remote Viewing that is no longer online, who knows. I wanted to point someone to it, so I’m putting it here so I’ll have a link.

I will probably include this and a gazillion other little essays and examples in a book I’m working on.

Sanity-Checking Tasking

Although “ask a specific question” seems like an easy enough instruction for a tasker, it helps to have a sanity-check of any question designated as a task.  Different psi frameworks (for example, Remote Viewing vs. Blind Binary Dowsing) may have many of the same problems when it comes to tasking clarity. The critical logic you apply to one kind of tasking, will usually be helpful when applied to another.

One big sign that you have a tasking problem is when you get a clear answer to your question and you realize you still “don’t really know what that means.” Think through your tasking ahead of time by imagining what kind of information would exactly answer your question. Imagine that the psychic work is over and done with, and pretend you now have to “do something” with that information. If this makes you suddenly realize that you have another question you hadn’t yet considered, then maybe your tasking did not have proper aim or sufficient scope for your need.

A question may seem simple in itself, but most people base questions on a variety of “assumptions.” Like the customer who gets “just what he asked for, but not what he wanted,” it’s easy to get lost in the words. Here’s a hands-on example of a sanity-check, in this case through a BBD ‘real-world’ task.

A client provides a tasker or project manager the following desired question for a viewer:
            “Will Company X purchase the land next to my home?”

This sounds straightforward on the surface. It’s a simple question, right? Maybe. Only if every built-in assumption the client has comes true. Aim and scope problems are likely.

Length of Time. They might not purchase it this week, but they could in a year, or in 120 years. To avoid ambiguity a specific time span (e.g., “Prior to Dec. 21, 2012?”) should be added.

Dated Changes. No matter how unlikely, you may end up owning a home elsewhere, and they could buy the land next to that. (e.g., “Next to my current house?”).

Identities. The company itself might not buy the land. The company might have divisions or owned corporate entities which technically are the ones who purchase the land. (e.g., “Company X or any entity on its behalf or as its agent?”)

Alternatives (1). The company doesn’t have to buy the land. They may end up leasing it for 40 years from the county, for example. They may trade the owner for another property the company holds. You just don’t know. (e.g., “…buy, acquire, or actively utilize the land…”)

Alternatives (2). Maybe in the end, it won’t be the land. They might buy mineral rights, right-of-passage, or other options that is not the land itself. This aspect is slightly covered in the option above, but just bear in mind you should evaluate every word of your question to see what hidden assumptions it might contain.

Location. Just to be specific, give a little more detail about that land’s placement or object than ‘next to’.  Unless you live on a 5 acre atoll or corner-cliff, there are probably at least 3 areas “next to” your home.

Complications (1). What if the company buys only part of the land in question?

Complications (2). What if they buy it tomorrow, but legal or other issues (from city regulations to destructive acts of nature) prevent their using it in any fashion, now or ever?

Searching for the Actual Question. If you expect that Company X would build commercial property on the land if they acquired it, and the question is related to the client’s interests in that outcome, then what you really want to know is not whether the company acquires the property, but whether commercial property will be erected on that land within a certain time period. So, ask that question instead.

Still searching for the Actual Question. If the end-result interest in the property is actually based on that new commercial property improving or harming the client’s own nearby property value, then the question you should ask, instead, is about the current property’s future value as of ___ date.

Outcome-related ‘fuzzy data’.  Maybe the client’s real concern is that “someone” will do “something” with the land which they are “very unhappy about,” regardless of whether that affects their own property value. Maybe there are nearly infinite possibilities for what could happen, by whom, and when. Binary tasking this would be unworkable, as too many questions are involved.  In that case, a better approach would be to drop the dowsing format and switch to remote viewing. Task the viewer on how the client “feels about” the usage of the land at a specific date in the future.

(Note: As this is nonphysical data, you may have to task the client or the land, initially, with mid- or back- info that directs the viewer to a retask (still double-blind of course) on the feelings part of the tasking, and you may need to be more open to symbolic data in this kind of task.)

Tasker errors are a constant problem in the layman’s remote viewing field, in part because the people most serious about viewing and doing it correctly, and who have done the most work that leads to self-education and understanding about tasking, tend to be the viewers rather than taskers (most of the time, not always).

When in doubt, go for what is the most clean, clear and simple. You could theoretically “caveat and qualify” a task until it sounds like a paragraph from a legal brief (and people have done so), but that has its own issues and impacts on the viewing. It is better to be simplified, even if it requires a follow-on session, than be overcomplicated and get back session data that is just as busy and bureaucratic as your tasking.

PJ