+- Eyesight Improvement Forum (https://www.iblindness.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Bates Method (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: pure Bates method (/showthread.php?tid=1667)
Re: pure Bates method - JMartinC4 - 12-07-2010
seetheleaves Wrote:... Thoughts?We need a comprehensive survey with standardized questions to answer. A form and dedicated location for each of us to complete the survey. So, first we all need to submit the questions we think would be helpful. Background: birthdate, location; birth method: natural; c-section; etc. Any complications, or normal birth? ...
It is going to be a long survey though. But if we whittle away at it, it could be done in a couple months.
Re: pure Bates method - seetheleaves - 12-07-2010
JMartinC4 Wrote:seetheleaves Wrote:... Thoughts?We need a comprehensive survey with standardized questions to answer. A form and dedicated location for each of us to complete the survey. So, first we all need to submit the questions we think would be helpful. Background: birthdate, location; birth method: natural; c-section; etc. Any complications, or normal birth? ...
It is going to be a long survey though. But if we whittle away at it, it could be done in a couple months.
With respect, that's not really what I meant. I had hoped to get thoughts regarding an agreement to dedicate some real practice time to both Bates Method and newer exercises like David's Looking at Details (since that's what started this thread). Since the faltering point seems to be that alot of us don't treat this as physical-therapy per-se but go about our NVI whenever we can fit it in, I thought some of us might be willing to commit to a more substantial block of time and see what we learn from increased practice.
Surely this trial could highlight some common progress and pitfalls (across all levels of visual acuity and NVI experience) regarding what works and what doesn't work on the road to vision improvement ...
Re: pure Bates method - Oleg K. - 12-07-2010
I think David is making two wrong assumptions here:
1. That people understand Bates method, but because the method is flawed, they need a better method.
2. That David's "looking for details" is based on the Bates method and is an extension to it.
I would bet that almost nobody understands the Bates method by oneself, at first. A quick examination here would reveal how terribly wrong people interpret any of its fundamentals. It takes a great length of time to comprehend it by oneself. Any technique can be practiced in a wrong way. People do not need a better method, all they need is to understand AT LEAST this Bates method, because it is really the simplest! Just compare it with any other book.
The common failure to understand the method does not stem from any flaw in the Bates method, but from the fact that people's minds are so deeply stuck in strain that they simply cannot perceive their own condition. Words -- any words -- are never enough. There is a certain part of Bates method practice that cannot be expressed with words, but when it is experienced on practice, over and over again, it can be eventually comprehended. As we see, even simple and concise words of great Dr. Bates do not guarantee that everyone will understand them correctly. Now look at the books of all Dr. Bates successors: McCracken, Huxley, and others. Have they added any value? It's very doubtful. We don't see many people making more success with those books (actually, quite the contrary the case). David, do you think you are more intelligent and experienced than all those authors, than Dr. Bates himself, with his >30 years of practice and thousands of patients? It's arrogance to say the least. By inventing new words and composing new sentences you will still fail to make people understand the experimental part of it. People need to "get traction" first.
Now, the other mistake is thinking that the Bates method can be improved by suggesting something that is contradicting with the fundamentals of Bates method. I haven't heard any resolution to the contradictions in "looking for detail" I have pointed out. Am I the only one who sees them?
At the bottom line, David is trying to do the wrong thing, using a wrong method.
Bates method is not a dogma, and it is not a problem to improve and expand it, including modern knowledge. You are again attacking a point that I was not making. If you read BEMs, you'll see how Dr. Bates permanently invented new things and shifted away from other things. But as I see it, it should be done by direct communication between an (almost) cured person and a patient (as opposed to confusing chats between peer newbies), and by receiving immediate feedback from the patient, the teacher needs to explain some subtle moments to the patient and ask him to try different things, looking to push him eventually into the right state of the mind, basing on what usually helps the teacher himself. In other words, it should be like Emily and her patient in the office of Dr. Bates
That's imho the secret of their success.
Re: pure Bates method - otto - 12-07-2010
True, Oleg, the Bates method is not a dogma, but I suspect you are treating it as one. You seem to think Bates' word were written in tablet form and handed to you and anyone that comes at this stuff from a different angle is deceiving themselves. If you do not think a thing can be improved or expanded upon you must be new to this universe. I think Bates words should be guarded carefully because he had huge insight into vision and dedicated his life to it but Sir Isaac Newton was perhaps even a greater genius and we now know since the early part of the 20th century that his theory was not altogether accurate.
That said, I am glad you are here to balance things out!
Re: pure Bates method - JMartinC4 - 12-08-2010
Here's some reality: There are (or have been) over 500 Bates Method practitioners just on this website - and yet only a very small percentage of us have gotten any real, permanent 'traction' using the Bates Method. We are all intelligent people who can follow directions. What is the problem? Something is missing. What could it be? It's been 100 years - most things/ideas IMPROVE in 100 years (fire; the wheel; engines; race relations; etc.). The Bates Method seems to have gone backwards - Why?
Re: pure Bates method - Oleg K. - 12-08-2010
Bates method is mostly a DISCOVERY OF FACTS about mind and vision, not an INVENTION or FACILITY. Can you see the difference? Facts do not get outdated, unlike inventions. Especially the facts about our mind, they never change at all.
Dr. Bates has discovered the fundamental facts, such as central fixation, swing, shifting, benefit of bright light, role of imagination and memory. From these facts he suggested a METHOD. Anyone can elaborate his own method after demonstrating himself the facts, and this is a good thing to do.
The part that is missing for most people is that they are unable to demonstrate these facts to themselves. They need much time and intelligence, or a help from a more experienced practitioner. This is what we should be doing!
Re: pure Bates method - otto - 12-08-2010
Oleg wrote:
"Bates method is not a dogma, and it is not a problem to improve and expand it, including modern knowledge. You are again attacking a point that I was not making. If you read BEMs, you'll see how Dr. Bates permanently invented new things and shifted away from other things. But as I see it, it should be done by direct communication between an (almost) cured person and a patient (as opposed to confusing chats between peer newbies), and by receiving immediate feedback from the patient, the teacher needs to explain some subtle moments to the patient and ask him to try different things, looking to push him eventually into the right state of the mind, basing on what usually helps the teacher himself. In other words, it should be like Emily and her patient in the office of Dr. Bates That's imho the secret of their success."
"Dr. Bates has discovered the fundamental facts, such as central fixation, swing, shifting, benefit of bright light, role of imagination and memory. From these facts he suggested a METHOD. Anyone can elaborate his own method after demonstrating himself the facts, and this is a good thing to do.
The part that is missing for most people is that they are unable to demonstrate these facts to themselves. They need much time and intelligence, or a help from a more experienced practitioner. This is what we should be doing!"
Excellent points and ones I can't disagree with. I don't know where I stand on looking for detail as a general method or addendum to Bates but I continue to experiment with it and it more often than not alleviates strain and lets me see further down on the chart. But I've been working with Bates for a long time (too long for my improvement, 2006) and can avoid strain better than most newbies.
Re: pure Bates method - JMartinC4 - 12-08-2010
Oleg K. Wrote:Bates method is mostly a DISCOVERY OF FACTS about mind and vision, not an INVENTION or FACILITY. Can you see the difference? Facts do not get outdated, unlike inventions. Especially the facts about our mind, they never change at all. Dr. Bates has discovered the fundamental facts, such as central fixation, swing, shifting, benefit of bright light, role of imagination and memory. From these facts he suggested a METHOD. Anyone can elaborate his own method after demonstrating himself the facts, and this is a good thing to do. The part that is missing for most people is that they are unable to demonstrate these facts to themselves. They need much time and intelligence, or a help from a more experienced practitioner. This is what we should be doing!Actually, no, I don't see any 'difference', and I don't think Dr. Bates couched his method in terms of just being a bunch of 'facts'. It is a method - a system - a procedure - based on facts, to improve and reverse a physical condition. I think Dr. Bates would be APPALLED at the legislation that approved a procedure that blinds all newborns within 60 minutes of their birth, for periods of hours, days and weeks, with no consideration whatsoever of the possible and probable side-effects on the newborn. And if you don't think that procedure can and does seriously disturb the normal development of eyesight, then I don't know what else to say.
Re: pure Bates method - Pikachu - 12-08-2010
@Oleg K.: So you think that the Bates method is nothing more than a set of facts? I don't have anything bad to say about Bates, but I find it difficult to believe that anyone can definitively define his life work as fact. You're telling me that the man was infallible; everything he found, did, said, and wrote were 100% based on incontrovertible truth with NO exceptions? That not only was he a perfectionist when it came to his vision improvement method, but also that he was better than any author in the history of the world in expressing his ideas? I say with a clear conscious that all of the things he found such as central fixation, movement, etc. are almost certainly true FACTS, but to say that his entire method was factual would be difficult to argue. I don't know of any person in the history of the world who has this god-like status. As otto mentioned, Newton was not perfect; I don't believe Einstein, Edison, or any other genius was ever even remotely close to perfection. What set them apart and gave them their "genius" statuses was because they found ideas that no one else had ever come close to before. I would put Bates into this category without a moment's hesitation. That said, all of the aforementioned geniuses were not perfect; colleagues and future scientists would improve on their work and add to it. In a sense, the Bates' spirit lives on today through the many Bates practitioners and teachers out there constantly trying to find a way to improve upon the method. Are they all right? Of course not! In fact, I'd be surprised if even 1% of them could make even one lasting contribution, but that doesn't mean that we reject ALL of the suggestions and say that the Bates method is a perfect system that cannot be improved upon.
Like you said, much of the Bates method is a demonstration of fact and facts never get outdated. I'm fine with that statement. However, the actual demonstration of these facts is in fact some sort of invention. You can say that the eyes MUST be relaxed to see properly, FACT. You cannot say that swinging is the only way to achieve relaxation. In fact, I believe Bates spent much time finding as many ways to bring about relaxation, movement, and central fixation along with his other principles as possible. I believe that the reason behind this is that all minds are different. If we all had the same minds, then the same method and course of action would work for everyone, but that's not the case. In this "gray area", there really cannot be much definitive factual stuff, in my opinion.
That said, I must say that I enjoy reading your posts (did you just call us all newbies?
). One of your old posts struck me as interesting. You said that Bates was right in everything he said, but that it couldn't be understood easily. Once one truly understood the method, you said, he couldn't help but express it in the same language as Bates did. To be honest, I think this tells more about Bates' writing style than anything else. Obviously, if not many can understand it on the first read, then there must be a better way to write it so that it CAN be understood (or are you going to tell me that it cannot be improved upon)? It seems to me that you understand this stuff much better than before. Perhaps you could help us all and point us all toward certain things you picked up along the way that helped you understand (the article about imagining a period was enlightening for me)? Rather than fight David every step of the way, maybe you could promote your own beliefs by writing posts that support them?
Re: pure Bates method - andreifromMDRep. - 01-06-2011
First of all I would like to comment a little bit about David's "The Method Explained" introductory article and here I tend to agree with Oleg K. and others who are for "pure Bates Method". IMO, in an attempt to make it simple for newbies and despite his good intentions David has gone too much astray from the original Bates principles putting the emphasis on "looking for details".
"Looking for details" in Bates language would mean simply central fixation and that's all. Central fixation is an important principle in Bates Method but it is not th whole picture. What about the universal swing, and imagining things moving? Central fixation must go hand in hand with the swing. In my experience I found that the the experience of universal swing is far more beneficial than "looking for details". I don't think people, especially with advanced myopia will benefit much from "looking for details", but contrary - will put an additional strain to see on their eyes. Most of the time normal vision is more like a radar or scanner creating the ilusion that you see the whole object at once (but the fact is of course that you see a very tiny part of the object only for a fraction of a second), and at certain times the vision goes more "specific" so to say and is focusing on a single detail (still swinging it of course). Now, one might say that different things works for different people, and that not every technique will work for everybody but the facts remain nonetheless and the facts are:
- There is no clear vision unless there is central fixation too.
-There is not clear vison unless the vision swings at the same time.
-There is no clear vision unless the mind is relaxed. (IMO that includes accepting the blur and not trying to see clearly)
Everyone can demonstrate these facts to themeselves by his own experience and that should be the basis for the permanent cure of unclear vision. That being said I hope David would reconsider his introductory article and guiding the newbies to find the real basics of the Bates Method. As of now his article my be called "My interpretation of the Bates Method" or "A technique I found useful for improving central fixation" etc. but not "The Bates Method Explained" because it doesen't explain it as intended by DR. Bates.
p.s. I think Bates once said that people might be cured and after that even forget how they were cured. I suspect, in a slight degree that is what happened to David - he forgot that his cure took more that "looking for details" but I could be wrong of course.
Re: pure Bates method - otto - 01-06-2011
Just for a moment let's forget about whether David is right or wrong to suggest looking for details and whether he should change the name of the post.
andreifromMDRep. Wrote:I don't think people, especially with advanced myopia will benefit much from "looking for details", but contrary - will put an additional strain to see on their eyes.The problem with many of the Bates exercises is that they are pretty passive and, in my experience, it is easy to get into a mode where I am just blog-watching. In "accepting the blur" I am accepting the world to be blurry, which it isn't. When I bring my attention to the detail while still shifting I am more aware that there is something out there to connect to and it is not blurry. It is clear! Needless to say, I have to accept what I get and not strain!
Re: pure Bates method - Pikachu - 01-06-2011
Do you know what I think the biggest problem here is? I think it's communication. We're getting cut down by the way we are expressing our thoughts. Think about it. We all have our own way of expressing our thoughts, and what happens is that when we read Bates' book, we tend to summarize it in our own words. I believe that what we see in David's article is the way he sees Bates, in his own words. The more I look at it, the more it resembles Bates.
"Accepting the blur" is something I didn't get until I started doing it...under a different name, which I call "letting the image come to you".
"Searching for details" is the same thing as "imagining you see the smallest point you can see and shifting".
It's really interesting, in my opinion, how we can interpret things so differently sometimes, and that, when we happen to interpret things similarly, how we can misconstrue the meaning of the author.
Then again, I might be wrong, but what do you guys think?
Re: pure Bates method - andreifromMDRep. - 01-07-2011
otto,
by " accepting the blur" I mean not more than to stop trying to see, or stop trying to make the image clear which is equal to straining to see. I only used different words to describe the same thing Bates was talking about.
During the day I catch myself doing this very thing - I'm kind of testing my vision, for example glancing at the test card or out through the window or trying to see clearly something which is always a pessimum for me and unconsciously I resent my unclear vision and involuntary putting an effort to see, which is contrary to how normal vision works. Anyway...."Accepting the blur" means - Just let it be, and paradoxically when you let it be it begins to clear out. But ultimately, we could be using different words to describe the same experience.
About the passivity of Bates exercises I would say - The vision is supposed to be passive in the first place.... We are not supposed to do something which will lead to effort lest we strain. Anyhow, I don't think I state anything new here...
Pikachu,
I agree that we all have different ways and words to express our thoughts or ideas, or to summarize things, but ultimately we use language to be able to convey as accurately as posible truths and meanings and facts. In the light of this I believe David conveyed or summarized far from accurately what Bates really intended to convey. And following this I don't agree that article be called "The Method Explained". As I said before, It could be called "How I see the method" or "My set of techniques I found most beneficial" etc.
"Searching for details" may indeed mean "imagining you see the smallest point you can see and shifting" but to me it suggests an effort to see, especially the way David describes it: "Take a moment to do this, but if it's still blurry after 30 seconds or so, move to another object. 30 seconds is again an arbitrary time; the point here is to only spend a long enough time on an object or small area that you give yourself a chance with it, with a few blinks, before moving on to another object and keeping your interest engaged.". Doesn't it sound a little bit like a suggestion to stare at an object (for 30 seconds!!!)?
Of course maybe David didn't intend it to sound like a suggestion to stare, but what if somebody takes it as such?
Isn't better to first present the basics, the facts and principles that everybody can demonstrate to themseves:
-Relaxation
-Swinging
-Central fixation
IMO the long swing is the easiest way people can demonstrate to themselves that vision can improve.
To conclude: When talking about a specific meaning we should be using the the words which will convey as accurately as possible that meaning with least possible room for interpretation. If David wanted to convey to newbies what Bates Method is really about he should have used the words and phrases and ideas which would convey that as better as possble. But if he wanted to give just his opinon or interpretation of if - he should have named it as such.
Re: pure Bates method - Pikachu - 01-07-2011
Yes, I suppose he might have called it an interpretation, but then again, the way I see it, an interpretation is just an explanation that comes from your brain.
I'm looking at this from as many sides as possible. It may be likely that David considered Bates' writings to be a bit insufficient in reading. As we discover in repeat readings, there is much subtle stuff that cannot be understood on the first read-through. Possibly, David was trying to articulate what he was able to get out of them in subsequent readings, but it is actually quite a feat to be able to express something so deep and vast in words and perhaps that is the real problem here. Bates might have written in the way he did because there was no way to be more specific without conveying the wrong message or giving false impressions about stuff. It doesn't take a genius to see what David is promoting in his article, but as some people here say, there seem to be a few places that might be misunderstood by the beginner simply because he/she does not have a grounding in the Bates method. I know that I myself get lost in language sometimes as well.
Re: pure Bates method - Andrea Major - 01-07-2011
There is a right way to summarize it and that has been done best by children in the BEM's. Like that school boy, with perfect vision who said, that if you cannot see something, you look away. That's all. It is only after a certain age we become so hard-headed that we begin to argue with this simple fact.