09-22-2012, 08:29 AM
I just had an interesting thought the other day, and I wanted to share it with you guys and see what we think about this.
I have noticed two very interesting things about the Bates method: When you truly "get" a certain idea (or a subset of that idea), Bates' writings and other people's writings on that specific point seem clear and obvious. When you don't get something, there's always another question to be asked, another clarification to be made. What accounts for this disparity?
I remember when I first started out in the Bates method. There was a topic somewhere on these forums discussing how to best approach vision improvement. I remember thinking (and perhaps making a post too) that Bates may have had a very deep understanding of the subject, but he may not have been a good enough writer to express it all lucidly. Years later, I'm leaning towards the other side. I think that there is a limitation to what can be expressed in any language.
In my opinion, the fundamental limit of language is the fact that we are all very different people with different perceptions. But beyond that, it is also very difficult to convey a message perfectly. Certain simple words are bound to cause problems. Allow me to cite a few examples.
Central fixation. I don't have a dictionary or a Bates book out, but I think central fixation is more or less defined as the ability of the eye to see the center best. What exactly does it mean to "see" something best? Maybe it was obvious to many of you, but when I first came across that, I actually constricted my visual field down to a small area in the center. It's like my subconscious was saying, "Hey, if you block out the peripheral vision, then you're seeing the center best, right?" I think it's a natural myopic reaction. Another mistake I made was thinking that I needed to have my eyes "point out" what I was looking at. This always involved squeezing the eyes, so you can imagine how that turned out. Of course, I have since learned that blocking out anything is a bad idea and that "seeing" does not require any physical push of any sort.
Effortlessness. It sounds incredibly simple. Take effort out of the equation and your eyes will be relaxed. But what does it mean exactly to not use effort? When I first tried this, I found myself holding the entire visual field and trying not to look at anything. After all, for a myope like myself, it seemed a lot more convenient to grab everything at once and not pay attention to anything. Two weeks later, my vision had gotten slightly worse and I realized how dumb I had been. I can't say that I've discovered what effortlessness is yet, but I think I'm getting there.
Imagination. Bates said to imagine black or imagine something pleasant. But what exactly is "imagining"? Initially, I thought it was like painting a picture. I would try very hard (red flag right there!) to put all of the colors together, like I was solving a jigsaw puzzle. And when it didn't work, I would try even harder, because clearly, the imagination needed pushing (haha, how clueless I was!). Today, I still stink at imagining things, but I think I have the right idea now (someone check me on this): when you imagine, the image should just appear, sort of like it's coming out of thin air. I still can't really "see" the object, but it's like I can sense there is an object floating in the middle of my imagination field. If that makes any sense. Regardless, I've most of the effort out of the equation.
Anyway, my point is this: when we explain things or we are being explained to, we make all sorts of assumptions about what something means. This, I think, is unavoidable. But I think that if we understand that this problem exists (hopefully, I am not the only one who has this problem!), then perhaps we will be better equipped to help others on these forums or to be able to ask the right questions when we are being helped.
What do you guys think? Does this make any sense at all? And if so, what can be done to work around it?
I have noticed two very interesting things about the Bates method: When you truly "get" a certain idea (or a subset of that idea), Bates' writings and other people's writings on that specific point seem clear and obvious. When you don't get something, there's always another question to be asked, another clarification to be made. What accounts for this disparity?
I remember when I first started out in the Bates method. There was a topic somewhere on these forums discussing how to best approach vision improvement. I remember thinking (and perhaps making a post too) that Bates may have had a very deep understanding of the subject, but he may not have been a good enough writer to express it all lucidly. Years later, I'm leaning towards the other side. I think that there is a limitation to what can be expressed in any language.
In my opinion, the fundamental limit of language is the fact that we are all very different people with different perceptions. But beyond that, it is also very difficult to convey a message perfectly. Certain simple words are bound to cause problems. Allow me to cite a few examples.
Central fixation. I don't have a dictionary or a Bates book out, but I think central fixation is more or less defined as the ability of the eye to see the center best. What exactly does it mean to "see" something best? Maybe it was obvious to many of you, but when I first came across that, I actually constricted my visual field down to a small area in the center. It's like my subconscious was saying, "Hey, if you block out the peripheral vision, then you're seeing the center best, right?" I think it's a natural myopic reaction. Another mistake I made was thinking that I needed to have my eyes "point out" what I was looking at. This always involved squeezing the eyes, so you can imagine how that turned out. Of course, I have since learned that blocking out anything is a bad idea and that "seeing" does not require any physical push of any sort.
Effortlessness. It sounds incredibly simple. Take effort out of the equation and your eyes will be relaxed. But what does it mean exactly to not use effort? When I first tried this, I found myself holding the entire visual field and trying not to look at anything. After all, for a myope like myself, it seemed a lot more convenient to grab everything at once and not pay attention to anything. Two weeks later, my vision had gotten slightly worse and I realized how dumb I had been. I can't say that I've discovered what effortlessness is yet, but I think I'm getting there.
Imagination. Bates said to imagine black or imagine something pleasant. But what exactly is "imagining"? Initially, I thought it was like painting a picture. I would try very hard (red flag right there!) to put all of the colors together, like I was solving a jigsaw puzzle. And when it didn't work, I would try even harder, because clearly, the imagination needed pushing (haha, how clueless I was!). Today, I still stink at imagining things, but I think I have the right idea now (someone check me on this): when you imagine, the image should just appear, sort of like it's coming out of thin air. I still can't really "see" the object, but it's like I can sense there is an object floating in the middle of my imagination field. If that makes any sense. Regardless, I've most of the effort out of the equation.
Anyway, my point is this: when we explain things or we are being explained to, we make all sorts of assumptions about what something means. This, I think, is unavoidable. But I think that if we understand that this problem exists (hopefully, I am not the only one who has this problem!), then perhaps we will be better equipped to help others on these forums or to be able to ask the right questions when we are being helped.
What do you guys think? Does this make any sense at all? And if so, what can be done to work around it?