+- Eyesight Improvement Forum (https://www.iblindness.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Complementary Methods (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia (/showthread.php?tid=1463)
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 07-20-2010
I gave up on this topic becoming 'sticky' (?); No one seems interested. Now all I use this forum topic for is the development of the theory. I plan to condense the whole thing - again - and see if I can decide how best to finish it. Then I'll do something else I guess. My eyesight continues to improve. I predicted a 1 or 2 year duration for achieving 20/20 and that seems to be on track. But who knows - it could probably all collapse if I'm ultimately wrong or unlucky. But I tend to be right and lucky.
:-\
8)
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - 2xtreme2fit - 07-20-2010
Pity. No one seems interested probably because its not so universal a problem. I guess you'd better share your techniques and memories rather than theories.
Personally, I think memory & imagination work best, more than palming, shifting & swinging or anything else - no cup-in-a-cd device, no Egyptian Sungazing techniques, no plus lenses, no lower strength glasses - just absolutely fantastic imagination & unparalleled memories.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 07-21-2010
It's fast becoming a universal problem; although the general attitude against overuse of antibiotics, as well as greater parental awareness and rejection of unnecessary procedures done to newborns, may help arrest the routinely required instillation of neonatal eye antibiotics, alleviating the problem by serendipity.
But without an understanding of the truth, the practice will continue - just as doctors continued for decades to perform multiple bloody medical procedures without washing their hands because they thought the germ theory of disease was ridiculous - until it was proven beyond a doubt.
Worse, since the eye antibiotics have been in use for nearly a century now, we have already created many generations of parents who are too myopic themselves to ever help their nearsight-fixated children.
Reliance on techniques and memories without an understanding of root causes is self-defeating. It is the real reason why the Bates Method was and continues to be rejected. Unless I start from a knowledge of a root cause, I cannot focus and control my efforts, and no one else will be able to successfully apply my techniques to their own condition because of human variability.
But if I can prove that normal babies who receive eye antibiotics (always administered within the first 60 minutes of birth) are X times more likely to develop common myopia than babies who do not receive it, and that the first eye to receive the treatment is X times more likely to develop worse (or better) vision, that would be the beginning of the end of the practice, and the beginning of reversal of the myopia epidemic.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 07-22-2010
Yesterday I had another insight wherein I combined/matched up certain observations and thoughts I'd had previously, and came up with another piece of the puzzle.
1. Ancient cave drawings and Egyptian/Greek writings indicate an interest/awareness of light emanating from the eyes, not just being received by them.
2. Nearsight-fixation disease is a result of mis-alignment, mis-coordination and mis-timing/synchronization of the entire visual system.
3. A peripheral glare stimulus (cd-in-a-cup) flashing across the eyes improves distance acuity.
4. On rare occasions I have noticed a momentary strange light on, for instance, the computer screen, and now realize that it was actually just a reflection of light off my own eye(s)!
5. Combining these observations and ideas, I thought, what if clear vision requires not only the correct visual alignment/timing for reception of light at the correct angles, but also for reflection of light off my corneas to illuminate the object/point(s) being looked at? Diabolical!!
6. My father used to jokingly call me 'shady'. There is a picture of me at 5 years old wearing cowboy gear, with my eyes shaded by the hatbrim.
7. While doing 'mirror work' I have paid attention to the alignment of my head/ears/eyes/pupils, and noticed that I tend to half-shade my pupils with my eyelids and head angle. I'm working to keep the pupils unshaded and glare points clearly reflected on the corneas.
8. Now, after palming, while swing/shifting within the peripheral glare points of my cd-cups or other stimuli, I keep in mind that light is also being reflected off of my corneas, and I try to direct that light as well. It is working. But the whole enterprise seems Diabolically Difficult.
8)
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - Nancy - 07-23-2010
Another reason to stop with the sunglasses-wearing smilies: the light can't get OUT of their eyes!
I've recently become aware that I'm narrowing my gaze in an unconscious attempt to get more clarity, like trying to introduce a pinhole or squinting effect, so I'm trying to stop doing this every time I notice it.
Jesus or other spiritual masters have been depicted with light emanating from their eyes. I wonder if people who see clairvoyantly or see energy auras around people need to take their glasses off to be able to do this.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - 2xtreme2fit - 07-23-2010
Nancy Wrote:Another reason to stop with the sunglasses-wearing smilies: the light can't get OUT of their eyes!Can you tell more about this light emanating from the eyes? It sounds magical but if there's even a little bit of truth about it, its all good.
I've recently become aware that I'm narrowing my gaze in an unconscious attempt to get more clarity, like trying to introduce a pinhole or squinting effect, so I'm trying to stop doing this every time I notice it.
Jesus or other spiritual masters have been depicted with light emanating from their eyes. I wonder if people who see clairvoyantly or see energy auras around people need to take their glasses off to be able to do this.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 07-23-2010
Nancy Wrote:Another reason to stop with the sunglasses-wearing smilies: the light can't get OUT of their eyes!I'm thinking it's more like trying to get/keep the light properly reflected off of my eyes/corneas (rather than 'out of' them) so as to avoid a self-imposed glare-blur effect.
I've recently become aware that I'm narrowing my gaze in an unconscious attempt to get more clarity, like trying to introduce a pinhole or squinting effect, so I'm trying to stop doing this every time I notice it.
Jesus or other spiritual masters have been depicted with light emanating from their eyes. I wonder if people who see clairvoyantly or see energy auras around people need to take their glasses off to be able to do this.
I think energy auras are another illusion - I can induce it while looking at myself in a mirror and slightly crossing my eyes. I think clairvoyance and mind-reading are also fun illusions, brought on by the innate human imitative abilities.
Here is another interesting illusion I have discovered: When traveling to a place I've never been, it always seems to take much longer to get there than it does to return to the starting point, using the reverse route. A time-elapse illusion.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 07-26-2010
Today it occurs to me that one test of my theory might require me to recreate the conditions. To actually put some inert blurring substance into each eye, unequally and a few seconds apart, and see what happens now that I know what's going on. Scary. But I think that is one of the methods used in aversion/phobic therapy. And it would make sense. The minutes-old infant in my unconscious knows nothing, but his misperceptions and misthinkings are very controlling. A few sessions of forced blur and subsequent return to 'normal' vision may be very enlightening. I'll have to do some more research... Maybe I can just imagine the scenario now that I am about halfway unfixated.
But I just took a walk and remembered that last year I had posted about keeping my eyes moist and not wiping away the focusing tear film (an actual term from my research on vision). I still occasionally use artificial tears or my own spit, but my eye dryness has greatly improved since about 6 month ago.
On an unrelated note, during my walk I realized that my new walking posture is like the old '60s cartoon about 'Keep On Truckin'" - with the hippie kind of leaning back as he strode along.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - DaniFixe - 07-27-2010
Have you already think that the difference between two eyes is because we have 2 different sides ? Look at the mirror,put a vertical paper near the nose. You will see 2 different persons in each side of the face. My right eye is -3.0 and my right side of the body is where i have more power,i kick with the right foot and knock with the right hand. My left eye is -3.25 and my left side is the weaker,and have no power like the right side. In my opinion the different about the eyes is here.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 07-27-2010
We have two each of many if not most parts of the body, and the symmetry and strength between them is extremely similar - especially for those over which we have little or no control and which most often work together rather than separately (lungs, kidneys, nostrils, ears, teeth, practically everything without controllable muscles); why the big difference with the eyes? And, in people who have not received the eye antibiotics, there is most usually little if any difference. Ask around.
Left and right hands, arms and legs very often have to work independently. There is probably a measurable difference in the size of your controllable right and left arm and leg muscles - where is the measurable physical difference in eyeball or lens size? There is none. Because it has to do with alignment and timing, not strength.
Here is something I have defined for myself: For distance vision, if I keep my face slightly turned left, my vision improves slightly and clear flashing occurs; this would probably be because my left eye has worse distance vision than the right since shortly after birth, and I have been unconsciously favoring it ever since. For near vision, the opposite seems true.
I'm starting to think the new-and-improved eye ointment in use since 1956 is actually producing worse nearsight-fixation in most cases.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 07-27-2010
It is amazing to me how much so many people want to disagree with my ideas about nearsight-fixation disorder. I guess I sound like an idiot or a bully or a robot or something. If so, I am sorry about that. I'm actually a very sensitive person who loves life and who laughs and cries a lot. But I've also been trained to think and fight and argue.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - 2xtreme2fit - 07-27-2010
JMartinC4 Wrote:It is amazing to me how much so many people want to disagree with my ideas about nearsight-fixation disorder. I guess I sound like an idiot or a bully or a robot or something. If so, I am sorry about that. I'm actually a very sensitive person who loves life and who laughs and cries a lot. But I've also been trained to think and fight and argue.
Well, you may sound like an idiot or a robot (a popular insult for me over IM, BTW) but that shouldn't keep you from expressing your opinions.
What you believe is correct for you is correct for you regardless of the truth.
Experience changes your ways, Dreams change your belief, Failures change your life, Successes change your enemies.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 07-27-2010
I also prefer facts to opinions. I thought that was what this website was ultimately about. Opinions can provide great entertainment, and can help us uncover the facts if they are honest and unbiased. But facts are what move us all forward and improve conditions. Lies, half-truths, innuendo, and self-serving myths do not.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - 2xtreme2fit - 07-27-2010
JMartinC4 Wrote:I also prefer facts to opinions. Always. I thought that was what this website was ultimately about. Opinions can help us uncover the facts if the opinions are honest and unbiased. But facts are what move us all forward.
What do you think about the site now?
Facts do not necessarily move us forward, they sometimes shove us back. Accepting the truth is truly difficult.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 07-27-2010
2xtreme2fit Wrote:What do you think about the site now? Facts do not necessarily move us forward, they sometimes shove us back. Accepting the truth is truly difficult.Hmm... If certain 'facts' shove us back, then we were probably off track and needed shoving. I believe facts always move us, individually and as a species, in the best direction forward. Sometimes we think we're going forward when we're actually going astray. Facts get us back on track. Facts are true; opinions vary.
I believe the site has many users who prefer their own opinions to facts. That is why they don't appreciate the fact of neonatal eye antibiotics and my opinion of them being a probable root cause of nearsight-fixation disorder.