After reading most of David's blog posts, I can see a clear resemblance between the way he has described 'looking at stuff' and the chapter about 'analytical' looking in a book called 'the art of seeing'. This book is freely downloadable at
But it still left me with a question, which is the following : when shifting my view over a distant (or a close object) object, while looking at the details that I still 'can see' in the blob of blur, how would I know what the speed of my shifting should be ? I mean, I could look at a blurred out detail and then move to something a few centimeters away ... but that seems like a big shift ... What I understand is that the shifts should be as small as possible ? Doing that seems almost impossible because of the blur, since when I do a small shift, I will only see the same blurred detail ...
Maybe my post is a little unclear, but it's pretty hard to describe what I mean ...
My understanding is that this is about learning to see in a dynamically relaxed way without inertia, and to do this it is important to learn how you shall shift direction with your eyes in a most relaxed way without any locking feeling cause by inertia due to strain. This implies that at least three points must be involved in a triangle, but it could also be okay with two points which you repeat shifting inbetween (but it gets boring in the long run). In the very moment when you shift direction with your eyes there shall be no tendency that the eyes try to lock due to inertia. Instead there shall be no strain also in this direction shifting moment. I actually realized this early this spring when there were troubles with my car breaks that were always slightly on, and someone told me that I could drive up a hill, stop without breaking, and then let the car roll down, then there should be no inertia in the very stop moment, sorry bad english, cannot describe it better, but I hope you got it. So the shorter distance you shift the more direction shiftings you will be able to handle and thus get easier to learn to see dynamically relaxed without inertia, as a biofeedback tool. So the faster you are able to shift and the shorter you are able to shift in arelaxed way will improve your vision. But, you will also realize that relaxed eyes means that you are much more aware of the whole vision field due to that the eyes are simply much better in the task of taking in information from lots of points around you in a more bit processing way. It is actually like to compare a fast computer with a slow computer. The slow computer is nothing to have, and it would be better to see everything all clear at once, and to get glasses. The fast computer on the other hand is improving clarity, depth, precision, colors, awareness, etc. such that you don't need glasses and also cannot live without this new way of seeing when you once have gotten it.
You are right that Bates already have discovered this (incredible genious), but the problem with his method is that it is very hard to understand Bates theory and to apply it. I think David has contributed a lot in his work to describe how to apply the method in a more understandable way.