Improved eyesight! & Bates' method

Post by **Oscar** » Mon 06 Mar 2006 12:19

Thanks for the explanation.

Since I follow the Bates Method, I'm relearning the natural vision habits. Included in the method are palming and sunning, plus some acupressure.
For relaxation of the bigger muscles, I guess it's a matter of being aware of the muscle (being tense) and relaxing it.

sher · Post by **sher** » Mon 06 Mar 2006 14:12

I studied the Alexander Technique in College while studying vocal music. It really works.

tjfillion · Post by **tjfillion** » Thu 09 Mar 2006 01:37

Oh! Oscar, have you worked with panoramic vision yet? There's two types of seeing: focused vision and panoramic vision. With focused seeing, you focus on seeing the tiny details of whatever's in front of you. With panoramic vision, you still see an object, but open up your peripheral vision and see the entire room around you. For me, a big step in relaxing my eyes was integrating panoramic vision into my life. When I got glasses, I noticed that my field of vision was larger than what the glasses covered. I thought it was really annoying to see the edges of my lenses all day ... so I blocked them out. Without knowing it, I switched from panoramic to focused vision. Once I let go of glasses, I noticed how much more of the room I could see. And with some guidance, I was able to notice more and more. Right now, I can see the computer screen in front of me, but I can also see the two walls in my room ... things I used to 'block out'. I really think blocking out my glasses lense and cutting out panoramic vision was a large factor in my eyes deteriorating. I also notice that when my eyes feel tense they have been focusing on one object too intently. Once I open up my view my eyes relax. Try it!

huntress,
It definately helps dancers. I know that when my teacher trained, many of his fellow trainees were also dancers and it definately helped them out (enough that they felt compelled to train 1600 hours to teach it

)

sher,
Cool! Where did you go to college? I think only 4 or 5 universities teach it in their courses at the moment.

Keep an eye out for an Alexander Technique post in the general discussion.

-Tim

Post by **Oscar** » Thu 09 Mar 2006 01:58

I've experienced the seeing of the edges of my glasses, that's why I liked contact lenses so much better.

But it seems that panoramic vision gets awfully close to diffusion, or is there something I don't understand?

huntress · Post by **huntress** » Thu 09 Mar 2006 04:00

compelled to train 1600 hours

But I guess it is normal if they are full time dancers. I know many dancers who take Pilates and many other bodily movement, stretch, muscle and strength technique classes.

I'll try the Alexander Technique first and see how it goes.

*Waiting eagerly for your Alexander Technique posts*

tjfillion · Post by **tjfillion** » Sat 11 Mar 2006 19:45

Contacts? Oscar you're killing me! No, no, contacts are fine. Glasses are ust usually better when working to improve your vision just because you can take them off and give your eyes a chance to work. With contacts your eyes get less of a chance to do anything on their own unless you take them out.

What's diffusion? Is that where you lose focus on an object and see double and then practice merging the object and then let it release into 2 objects again?

Panoramic vision is just consciously employing peripheral vision more often. Eyebody talks about it a lot.

Huntress, glad you're excited!

-Tim

Post by **Oscar** » Sun 12 Mar 2006 01:13

I stopped wearing my contacts when I read Tom Quackenbush' book.

Diffusion is where you try to see the whole picture clear at once. This is anatomically impossible, and will put strain on the eyes, resulting in vision getting worse.

I read that Tom Q. and Grunwald had the same Bates teacher, Janet Goodrich. Tom often quoted her saying: "diffusion is confusion".

Also, since there is hardly any clear vision possible outside of the fovea centralis, I don't really understand what good employing peripheral vision would be, other than registering movements.

tjfillion · Post by **tjfillion** » Wed 15 Mar 2006 05:18

"Also, since there is hardly any clear vision possible outside of the fovea centralis, I don't really understand what good employing peripheral vision would be, other than registering movements."

Well, that's sort of the idea actually. It's based on the natural funtion of eyes. Focused vision is only the very center of your field of vision and everything out from there gets progressively less and less focused.

Ok so Mr. Hunter (ok he's not eating raw in this story, sorry) is looking for some prey. He walks through the forest, seeing everything but without focusing on any of the small details. He doesn't care about the frills on the leaves or that tiny mold. He can still see them, but they don't get any more attention than anything else. Then somewhere in his field of vision he sees a blur. He then switches to focused vision, trying to see the details of this animal. He then hunts and kills it and of course never thinks about cooking it. The end.

Now we have Mr. 21stcentury. He goes through his day going 'oh look at that billboard, what's on that sign, what is on my computer, what does that say? Does that girl have wrinkles, look at that pore on that person, omg does she have acne is she eating raw?" All he's doing is using his focused vision. He wants to see all of these details. Well unfortunately his eye was meant to see the whole picture most of the time and then switch to details once in a while. The muscles in the eye are becomming imbalanced. The 'big picture' ones are weak and unused and the 'focused' ones are strained and overused.

So it's not just about seeing movement (there isn't any if you're alone in a room) but allowing your eyes to function more how they are meant to even if you are in an unnatural setting.

I wish I could explain it better, but the book does a really good job. Once I got the idea things sort of pop out at me in a more 3d way than normal. Like, when I watch TV i normally just focus on the screen. It looks flat. When I switch to seeing the whole room (not the details, just the room in general) and then have the TV at the center of my vision, all of a sudden it becomes 3d and I swear I could reach my hand in the tv and feel around. It's weird because I used to try to block out the room and just focus on the TV so I could 'get in the zone' and really enjoy it ... but when I do the oppositve it's really much more fufilling. I dunno.

Alrighty,
Tim

Post by **Oscar** » Wed 15 Mar 2006 12:26

I just finished reading the book. It is certainly interesting, but also (naturally) kinda vague in certain aspects. If you're an Alexander adept, then I'm sure it's great and very helpful. Concerning panoramic vision, he does only mention in one sentence that you're not supposed to see the whole picture sharp at once.

The basic ideas are the same in both books, only for the Eyebody method I think one surely benefits greatly (if not to say necessarily) from a teacher. Tom Q's book contains a lot of information (more than one needs I think) and a very specific and clear method, which one can follow all by oneself.

In the end, the results from the Eyebody method might reach further than the Bates' method, though.

About 3-D seeing, Tom calls that one of the qualities of natural vision, which return with the natural vision habits. And that works as well (maybe even better) with one eye.

tjfillion · Post by **tjfillion** » Sat 18 Mar 2006 23:44

I definately agree that the book is vague and sort of ends in a cliff-hanger. Without a teacher one probably can't quite get perfect vision. Once I have a chance I'll check out Tom's book. I'm very interested.

CurlyGirl · Post by **CurlyGirl** » Thu 23 Mar 2006 21:52

A psychologist friend of mine (whom I very much respect) once told me that sometimes we lose our perfect vision because there are things in the world that we don't want to see. Perhaps we have realised that if we restrict our field of clear vision to one foot in front of us, we do not have to face directly some of the horrors of the world beyond that distance. I have given it some thought, and perhaps it is true, but I realise it sounds very New-Agey and dubious in the light of these very useful and interesting discussions about the musculature of the eye and the physical dynamics of good vision.

Post by **Oscar** » Thu 23 Mar 2006 22:20

I'm convinced it is one of the possibilities. Vision is purely mental to begin with, so the reasons for not using the natural vision habits anymore are manifold. Our eyes just do what our brain tells them to do.

dadasarah · Post by **dadasarah** » Fri 24 Mar 2006 05:28

A book I read said that nearsightedness is caused by living in the past and farsightedness from living too much for the future. Balance is living in the moment.

I would love to achieve normal vision. My eyes have already improved slightly (before this diet) so my glasses don't fit anymore and give me a headache. I've been reading Bates articles online, especially about vision and the imagination, and every thing he says is true. I have had horrible imagination since high school or so; I remember being able to vividly imagine scenarios in my head when I was young. Now, when I try to imagine even an single object, it stretches and jumps around and fades in and out in my head. This can't be healthy!

I've been able to temporarily see perfectly, but I haven't been able to keep it. I think I would improve faster with a trained instructor.

Post by **Oscar** » Fri 24 Mar 2006 08:31

You could mail Tom Quackenbush through http://www.naturalvisioncenter.com/. He originally comes from California, so he might know a good teacher near you.

Try leaving your glasses off as much as you can, until you get reduced prescriptions.

tjfillion · Post by **tjfillion** » Sat 25 Mar 2006 20:12

If you want a cheap pair of glasses, you could try http://www.39dollarglasses.com/

They're 39 bucks plus shipping. I'm very happy with them (I only use them for driving at night). Honestly for myself I just made up the prescription ... I went 50% less of my old one.

Tim