Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is this the Bates method?
#1
I'm at a bit of an impasse with what to call what I've been writing about in my latest blog posts and am working on fleshing out with feedback from others. Do I call it the Bates method? I feel like it's in agreement with most of what Bates wrote, but it's got a different spin on it, and it certainly isn't the norm for what later writers and teachers have presented as the Bates method. I don't mind if people call it the Bates method too, but it's causing a little confusion. To me calling it the "Bates method" feels more like a tribute to someone that's 80 years dead than an accurate term.
Site Administrator

"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Reply
#2
I see it as part of Bates' method. Reading Bates' stuff has helped me understand your stuff better. Maybe you could call it the David sub-branch of Bates' method? The DSB... O0
Reply
#3
In law school I learned that after a few decades of case law goes by, the original premises/principles are updated to reflect current understanding and called a 'Restatement'. Maybe calling it the 'Bates Method Restatement' would work? Or for general use, maybe 'Contemporary Bates Method'?
Reply
#4
What if you called yours a 'String Theory of Vision'? That would also connect it nicely with physics' 'string theory' of the universe - which says that the smallest piece of existence in the universe is actually string-like instead of particle-like, which helps account for things like vibrations.

Your idea of the necessity of seeing a string of points is pretty brilliant in conjunction Wink with the string theory of the universe. One implication is that although the universe is comprised of points/particles, no one point/particle can exist (or be perceived) on its own - necessitating the creation of strings!

When we then look at the physical corollary of the retina's composition - millions of tiny pointheads - the meshing of the theories gets even better. Only in the fovea is there a 1-to-1 relation of pointhead-to-nerve fiber -- but we have two foveas which have to be unified in the brain/mind.

Grand Unified Theory Of The Universe, anyone?
Reply
#5
Maybe you could call it 'a practical application of Bates' (fundamental) principles' or 'how to apply Bates" principles in everyday's seeing process'- or something like that.
Just to make clear that Bates is the basis of a further development to a more practical realization.
Reply
#6
I agree with Nini's post there. It's difficult to call it the Bates method when it isn't exactly what Bates himself suggested (palming, shifting, swinging, etc.), but considering that it is founded on Bates principles, I see no reason why it can't be called an application of the Bates method.

If I recall correctly, Bates himself said that there are an infinite number of ways to strain and so there must be an equally varied amount of ways to relieve it, or something like that. Your idea is this just one of these ways.
Reply
#7
With the G.U.T. you could help Stephen Hawking get rid of his glasses. 8)
Reply
#8
JMartinC4 Wrote:What if you called yours a 'String Theory of Vision'? That would also connect it nicely with physics' 'string theory' of the universe - which says that the smallest piece of existence in the universe is actually string-like instead of particle-like, which helps account for things like vibrations.

Your idea of the necessity of seeing a string of points is pretty brilliant in conjunction Wink with the string theory of the universe. One implication is that although the universe is comprised of points/particles, no one point/particle can exist (or be perceived) on its own - necessitating the creation of strings!

When we then look at the physical corollary of the retina's composition - millions of tiny pointheads - the meshing of the theories gets even better. Only in the fovea is there a 1-to-1 relation of pointhead-to-nerve fiber -- but we have two foveas which have to be unified in the brain/mind.

Grand Unified Theory Of The Universe, anyone?
Spirals are all around us, and a string is a part of that spiral and a point is part of that string and nothing should be part of that point and nothing should be part of nothing creating some quantum chaos I guess. This concerns the battery of life and the healing of the body too:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Y7xyz1Uag&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Y7xyz1 ... re=related</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYOIBtxxark">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYOIBtxxark</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#9
hammer Wrote:Spirals are all around us, and a string is a part of that spiral and a point is part of that string and nothing should be part of that point and nothing should be part of nothing creating some quantum chaos I guess. This concerns the battery of life and the healing of the body too: ...
But it takes two (points or particles) to tango! And two points or particles could be called a string.
Reply
#10
All good thoughts. I guess I'll just take my time and see what happens. Calling it string theory is funny, but I feel like it's not really about the string, at least not primarily.

I'm still having a hard time trying to communicate it in a way that people can just follow instructions. My blog posts still don't really capture what I'm thinking. Some things just can't be described in one shot. I think it needs to be a whole program, laid out as a process where a person slowly progresses through steps. It's just not feasible to address every possible mistake. Going through steps isn't technically necessary, because people can get clear flashes and suddenly "get it" at any time, but that's so unlikely to happen permanently, and people generally need to be guided through a learning process that's going to keep them on a track to where they need to go. It doesn't even have to be the best track. But at least it will minimize potential mistakes and keep them moving forward through a process. Ideally it would include some kind of little test to find out when they are able to pass a certain step and move to the next, but I don't know if that can be self-evaluated. Too often people think they suddenly "get it", but really they only got part of it, and they don't understand where to go from there when what they thought they understood doesn't quickly result in stabilized clear vision.

I guess what I'm saying is understanding how to do it and teaching it are two completely different things!
Site Administrator

"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Reply
#11
keep teaching, and I think you will find your answer Smile as you feel like you master teaching, look to see what your students call what you teach.

I think Dr. Bates didn't name his method the Bates method, his followers did.



... that sounded way too zen-ish... sorry
Reply
#12
hereford_picnic Wrote:With the G.U.T. you could help Stephen Hawking get rid of his glasses. 8)
I'll bet Dr. Hawking could easily imagine a perfect black circle or period - black holes are his specialty!
But he probably doesn't have 'ordinary' myopia.
Reply
#13
JMartinC4 Wrote:
hereford_picnic Wrote:With the G.U.T. you could help Stephen Hawking get rid of his glasses. 8)
I'll bet Dr. Hawking could easily imagine a perfect black circle or period - black holes are his specialty!
But he probably doesn't have 'ordinary' myopia.
Oh, c'mon man. It's worth a shot, ain't it? Oh yeah, and after him David should get to Dalai Lama. His credibility suffers a great deal from wearing glasses.
Reply
#14
JMartinC4 Wrote:
hammer Wrote:Spirals are all around us, and a string is a part of that spiral and a point is part of that string and nothing should be part of that point and nothing should be part of nothing creating some quantum chaos I guess. This concerns the battery of life and the healing of the body too: ...
But it takes two (points or particles) to tango! And two points or particles could be called a string.
... and it takes three to spiral!
But one cannot stand by itself for long....
Reply

Perfect Sight Without Glasses free download