 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2008What Is Perfect Sight?
In many of my posts I frequently use the word 'Perfect Sight'. But many are left wondering what exactly I mean by the reference; i.e. how perfect sight can be defined. So, very simply and concisely, let me explain the criteria by which it is met: 1) Ability to see 20/10 in all conditions or life without glasses of any kind 2) Ability to see fine print at 6 inches or less in dim light without glasses of any kind 3) Ability to prevent pain by remembering a black dot mentally 4) Ability to use one's own imagination faculties to see more than 20/10 if necessary. Zetsu > In many of my posts I frequently use the word 'Perfect Sight'. But > many are left wondering what exactly I mean by the reference; i.e. how [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 4) Ability to use one's own imagination faculties to see more than > 20/10 if necessary. I particularly like the last one. When in doubt, just make it up. Imagine you're seeing better. The scale doesn't verify that I've lost any weight, but I sure /feel/ lighter. Is that it? Thanks for making it /abundantly/ clear why you're always being asked to restrict your posts to alternative sites -- NOT sites intended for information supported by the scientific method. Like this site. > > In many of my posts I frequently use the word 'Perfect Sight'. But > > many are left wondering what exactly I mean by the reference; i.e. how [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Like this site. Actually improving your vision is largely a matter of improving your imagination. You can see if you can imagine. If you cannot see the big C clearly, close your eyes and imagine it sharper and blacker than what you saw. Open your eyes again for a second. Repeat at least twenty times, moving your head from side to side. Pay attention at the letters below the C. What happens ? Tell me. > > > In many of my posts I frequently use the word 'Perfect Sight'. But > > > many are left wondering what exactly I mean by the reference; i.e. how [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > What happens ? Tell me. Blinking stabilizes the tear film. If you stare, without blinking, for a duration longer than your tear breakup time, conversely, your vision will blur. You understand so little, and yet you talk/post so much. Ironic and sad, really. > > > In many of my posts I frequently use the word 'Perfect Sight'. But > > > many are left wondering what exactly I mean by the reference; i.e. how [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > What happens ? Tell me. You have to be either ten years old or mentally retarded. Or both? In article <15aa8e88-f830-4bbd-91fa-82645bca20ee@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > You have to be either ten years old or mentally retarded. Or both? That would be an insult to ten year olds and the mentally disadvantaged. Zetsu lives in la la land. In other words--is a kook.  SignatureCharles Why insult me? Is this the only way you are able to terminate arguments? Why not have an open mind to the fact that imagination might actually be able to improve your sight. Sure be skeptical a little bit, that can only be healthy. Heck so was I when I first read about it in the Bates book, when I myself was suffering from imperfect sight. Who could possibly venture to think that such a simple method could possibly relieve so many years of reliance on glasses? There's no harm or unusualness in that. But the way you ridicule a method which could potentially cure so many thousands of your own patients, before even trying it for yourself, is beyond my understanding. And why call me a ten year old as if that is some kind of insult to my intelligence? I have a ten year old cousin who is superbly intelligent, much more than a lot of you here I'm afraid. Why, I'd be proud if I were ten years old. Anyway Neil, we weren't on the subject of tear film and blinking. How did that arise? I believe we were discussing imagination as an aid to vision. And since you all have so little understanding of it, I will suggest you to first read Dr.Bates' chapter which describes the method in detail. I will post it (in a new thread) so that everyone can read it. In article <95bedce8-1a2a-436d-9154-5a346e217105@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > Why insult me? I am not insulting you. Just stating a fact. That you are a kook, probably not a ten year old or mentally deficient. > But the way you ridicule a method which could potentially cure > so many thousands of your own patients, before even trying it for > yourself, is beyond my understanding. Only a kook would think that if such a method existed all these years that it would not be used. It is only in your imagination that it could work. It is beyond your understanding because you are a kook and a crackpot. SignatureCharles > Why insult me? Because you post drivel and call it science, while it's so obvious you've never taken a statistics course or actually learned any physiology. You insult us by making up your own science and posting it here as gospel. You insult us by using this newsgroup for your personal banter with other adolescents. > Is this the only way you are able to terminate arguments? Why not have > an open mind to the fact that imagination might actually be able to > improve your sight. Because that's FAITH HEALING and it's OFF TOPIC in this newsgroup. > And why call me a ten year old as if that is some kind of insult to my > intelligence? Because you act like one. We don't want to insult you. We want you to shut up and learn, or go somewhere else. But instead you preach at us like you have the ONLY solution. Because you're gullible. If you think Bates cured retinitis pigmentosa with "rest methods" then GULLIBLE is the word. > I believe we were discussing imagination as an aid to vision. No, YOU were discussing that. It isn't science and it isn't medicine and it isn't really welcome here. No matter, you're going to monopolize the entire newsgroup with your BS. > I will > suggest you to first read Dr.Bates' chapter which describes the method > in detail. And WE suggest you take some physiology and statistics instead of flaunting your ignorance and gullibility. > I will post it (in a new thread) so that everyone can read > it. Oh, god, THAT's what we need. More tripe from the teen corner. Preach it, brudder. -MT > In article > <15aa8e88-f830-4bbd-91fa-82645bca2...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Charles What is it you hope to accomplish by insulting me? Do you somehow imagine that I will become upset by your little banter? Do you think I will leave this newsgroup as a result? Don't be so foolish. You are nothing to me. You are simply mistaken - your insignificant words can and will do no damage, nothing whatsoever - get that straight in your silly head. I have bigger things on my mind than to overcome the skepticism of a small majority in this newsgroup, sci.med.vision. I have to consider the fact that others are coming to this place, seeking help to their vision problems; how can I morally, ethically, humanely not devote my time to advocating Dr.Bates' methods when I know they may offer a chance of relief to this person? When I know that they WILL cure the person? How can I stand by and let them continue to suffer? Make no mistake, your insults are an encouragement to me. They are both an encouragement in that they remind me of the hardship and ridicule Dr.Bates himself had to face in the 1920s - it only inspires me to continue with greater devotion to the dissemination of the cure of imperfect sight. Go ahead and insult me, I will endure them with a real pleasure in my heart - with the knowledge that insults directed on another is simply just another way of expressing oneself's own weaknesses and fears. In article <168de023-15a9-45aa-a927-e523ec915599@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Don't be so foolish. You are nothing to me. You are simply mistaken - > your insignificant words can and will do no damage, nothing whatsoever LOL. You sure spent a lot of words replying to a few words that you claim are insignificant to you. > Go ahead and insult me, I will endure them with a real pleasure in my > heart - with the knowledge that insults directed on another is simply > just another way of expressing oneself's own weaknesses and fears. LOL. All can tell from your own words that you are certifiable. SignatureCharles >Only a kook would think that if such a method existed all these years >that it would not be used. Please try to understand that humans are not always reasonable beings, as Dr.Bates has stated. Inertia, is one of the greatest weaknesses of mankind. Unwillingness to change, depart a little from the orthodox. A heavily set disposition over what is 'quackery' and what is real. How do I know this? I see it everywhere - this newsgroup is flooded with inertia - people who are unwilling to try something different. People who are so comfortable with their glasses that they couldn't possibly imagine going without them for a small while and try curing themself; people who coddle their eyes very much, so very much that it blinds them. I ask you to demonstrate something that will take, what, a couple of minutes at most. I ask you nice and politely, please will you demonstrate a truth? Many simply refuse, because they know that by demonstrating the truth that all defects of the eye are curable, their position of authority, as a person who is valuable in this society, vanishes. Everything they've worked so hard for, gone to Uni, gone to medical school, got a degree, got a masters, got a Ph.D. All those falsehoods they've been taught, all the lives of patients' eyesight who they've not been able to help, all those strong convictions destroyed, shattered before their eyes in that little space of time. The establishment crumbles into sand. Many on the other hand, are somewhat more reasonable and willing to demonstrate. But they are still lazy and will, no matter how much you tell them not to, make such a strain to see, such a great effort in the demonstration of the methods, that the first basic tenet of Perfect Sight is no longer present - relaxation, rest, complete and utter absense of effort. >It is only in your imagination that it could work. Yeah! That's the whole point! Sight is more something of the mind than of the physical impression on the retina. It's mostly mental - imaginary. Did you not read what Dr.Bates has written in his 1920s book? I took the trouble to post it up just for you to read and understand! ;) >It is beyond your understanding because you are a kook and a >crackpot. Please ridicule me more. I love it! You are just reinforcing what I said about inertia, unwillingness to change. But anyway, we'll see who's the kook when people start waking up from their sleep. When people start thinking 'Okay, maybe Zetsu, Bates, Jason, Rishi et al could be right about this. Let's give it a go, let's take an earnest and honest approach to the Bates Method. Let's stop ridiculing him and try to help myself and relieve myself of this poor vision.' >LOL. You sure spent a lot of words replying to a few words that you >claim are insignificant to you. They are insignificant to me - significant to you however. From your very own words that come out of your mouth you can learn where you are going so wrong. I will spend very much time explaining these things, and trying to promote the cure of imperfect sight, because I think people can be helped by it. I also think you can be helped if you keep a softer tongue. Harshness towards others is not the way to perfect sight. Calmness, friendliness, and an open mind is, though. Hmmm, all I can say is Zetsu is right and Charles is wrong. And yes, I would know. > Do you think I will leave this newsgroup as a result? No, you're conVINCED we deserve the benefits of your ignorance. Please, continue to embarrass yourself. -MT >>> In many of my posts I frequently use the word 'Perfect Sight'. But >>> many are left wondering what exactly I mean by the reference; i.e. how [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > What happens ? Tell me. Ok, I'll bite. What is the purpose of imagining the big C? From a lay persons perspective, I think, well, what if it's a big G instead, but because I can't see it, I close my eyes and imaging a big C... Are you talking about some kind of preliminary preventative work, imagining to begin with to free your vision so you can see at a later time without imagination? Or are you just saying you should just imagine everything around you? Cya Simon Huh? Sorry I don't understand what your saying. Can you say it again clearer? What do you mean 'preliminary preventive work'? > Huh? Sorry I don't understand what your saying. Can you say it again > clearer? What do you mean 'preliminary preventive work'? You are aware of the idea of prevention? Preliminary means "before". So, Ok... The lay person, such as myself, says OK, that's all very well and good. We have a big chart that you can't see properly, but you imagine a big C to improve your vision. I presume someone has told you that it is a big C in the first place. What happens, if someone substitutes the chart so now you have a big G, only, no one told you, do you continue imagining a big C, even though there is no big C on the chart? What Im trying to get to, is when you talk about "imagining", is this imagining work something you do to improve your vision before you go out into the big world and try to read? Is it a technique you use so that at a later time, you can see in the "real world" without imagining? Or are you proposing that people should just imagine everything around them? I don't much care who's proposal this is, it is you Im talking to right now. But if it is the latter you propose (constant imagination), Im sure you will agree how dangerous that can be and must rely on either a) having read the same piece of paper before, or b) being told what it is so so that the person who can't see too well can imagine it. Cya Simon Sorry I'm tired... need sleep... Sorry if my speech becomes slurry... I'll try and answer your questions the best I can... Anyway yeah, basically the Bates Method is something you practice all the time. You don't just practice it for five minutes and expect to get benefit out of it if you don't learn to change the way you use your eyes and mind etc. Otherwise you'll never attain a permanent improvement, you'll just get a couple of clear flashes and that's it. That's a mistake which a lot of people make and fail to improve their sight. What we say is that everyone who has normal sight, is naturally a practitioner of Bates Method. That's all the Bates Method is - what normal people with normal vision do to keep up that normal vision. Dr.Bates was not the inventor of the cure of imperfect sight - he just figured out how to manipulate nature's own methods to attain Perfect Sight. Dr.Bates studied many different cases and he found that in every case where the patient's vision was normal, that they could see a number of illusions which are principle in sustaining normal vision, 24/7. Read his chapter about illusions and stuff, he explains it far better than I possibly could. These are illusions like, you know when you are reading some text, if you bring your attention to it, you can notice it - the spaces between the lines are whiter than the part on the outside in the margin part. You've got normal sight haven't you Simon? Why don't you demonstrate it right now? Problem is, it's pretty hard to explain the illusions by just talking about them - you gotta' really experience them to know what Bates is talking about. The way you are talking about imagination shows that you aren't getting what I'm on about. That's why you got to read the original Bates book, 'The Cure of Imperfect Sight Without Glasses'. Don't read the edited version, 'better sight without glasses', that's crap. Bates introduces all his concepts in his first 1920s book. Just read it dude and you'll see... Oh sorry, I forgot to answer the first part of your question. What happens when someone substitutes a G when you are still imagining a C? Well, the answer is pretty simple... If you are imagining you see a 'C' when it's really a G then you've got imperfect sight at that moment. Imperfect sight is a result of imagining wrongly. If you imagine that whites inside the lines are less white than the outer parts, you'll get imperfect sight straight away. Right in that instantaneous moment. On one occasion Emily (Bates' assistant and wife later) intentionally used a chart there's a number '5' on the fifth line to test her patient. That's kind of a little trick to test if the patient can detect something different, that it's not all letters. Anyway, this one patient, born blind, with severe atrophy and a very severe level of imperfect sight (started off with barely perception of light) of the nerve was able to see it. The way she was able to see it was very strange. Since she always used the Braille system she had no idea what number looked like (their form, size, shape etc.) so she had to learn them from the cuttings her little sister made for her. To the surprise of the spectators, she managed to succeed in detecting the 5'. How'd she do it then? It was her imagination. She was able to imagine the shape and form of the 5 from the memory of touching the cuttings. So even though she'd NEVER EVER in her whole life seen that number before, she could see it. This is a really wonderful illustration of the of just what imagination can accomplish. It's one of the most powerful techniques in the Bates heritage. But it's also one of the most difficult concepts to grasp, unfortunately... but anyone can do it, you just need to devote yourself! So, do you understand now, or is there still confusion?? Hehehe Zetsu I think I'm beating you to the land of PerfectSight. By that I mean all I have to do is look at a word, to the Bates method a little, and I already know the word. Use your imagination man, remember!!!!!!!!!!11 hehe. ;) No way! I'll get there before you Jason, mark my words! I'm close, dammit. REALLY CLOSE! I just need to overcome this barrier that effort will ever improve my sight. When you get over that obstacle everything becomes so easy and clear. It just hits you right in the face. Every single word that Dr.Bates writes makes sense, when you just understand that little thing... Gosh I think I will be fully cured in 4 days time max. if this keeps up. lol ^^ Well I think what is somewhat interesting to note, among the participants here in sci.med.vision, is that upon the mention of words such as 'imagination' or 'illusion' I am often met with ridicule as though such words do not belong to a 'place of science'. Just look at the beginning of this thread, at how Neil responds - 'thanks for making it abundantly clear why you should restrict your posts to alternative sites -- not sites intended for support by the scientific method'. Then take a look at the list of responses that follow - all of a sudden I am 'unintelligable', 'a quack', 'a kook', 'a ten year old', 'mentally retarded'; and so the names go on. This strikes me as being in a number of ways. Immediately we can infer that these two words, imagination and illusions, seem to carry some kind of air of mysteriousness around them - like they're some kind of absract things you don't see in normal life, something wierd or unusual. Something unscientific. Yet this is so ironic in that the absolute contrary is the case, as Dr. Bates writes. Let me say this to all of you naysayers: Words such as 'imaginary' and 'illusions' are not words to be reacted to with a mocking tone, or ridicule. Nor are they 'abstract'. What we must ask ourselves is how we define 'seeing'. By the word 'seeing' are we talking about the numerous and complex processes that precede the actual act of sight? Of course not! When people say things like 'hey, 'look' at that scenery! or 'did you 'see that?' they refer not to the process that had to take place for the act of seeing, but the experience of seeing itself! Who would be so mad as to say 'hey Bob. remember when the light rays reflected off that beautiful grass strand and entered your retina, after which it travelled through the optic nerve allowing you to experience it'? No one would be so mad, that's who! So, it is established that sight, at least for the layman has got nothing to do with all the organic biochemical process and whatnot, right? What we refer to is the actual experience of seeing. And how is that experience created? Is it somehow magically entered into our mind? Of course not! We IMAGINE IT! HOW ELSE DOES ONE 'SEE' IF NOT BY IMAGINING? I ask this question to all of you naysayers. > Oh sorry, I forgot to answer the first part of your question. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > So, do you understand now, or is there still confusion?? Wow, Zetsu...I just that and it was simply amazing! Actually I've never given much thought to how it would be almost impossible to cure blindness by imagination or memory of visual impression. It kinda reminds me of one of Dr. Bates' medical articles called "A Study of Imagination": http://www.central-fixation.com/batesmed/imaginationstudy.htm As far as me personally, I usually have much trouble using the imagination cure on myself. It usually just makes me frustrated by proving how bad my imagination is, LOL! Sometimes I do have some success with it, but for only short periods of time. I'm interested in knowing what specific imagination methods/habits you use while studying (you mentioned this on the iblindness.org forum). I think I need a little help in improving my imagination! :) Another thing: do you know if the blind girl in the story was ever completely cured? Sorry, I meant "I just *read* that..." lol Imagine whatever is easy to imagine. However, in almost all people memory or imagination of FINE PRINT is _wonderfully_ effective and secures you a deep and intense level of mental rest in an extremely short time. Get some fine print. Go in a bright place at first. Practice reading it at the closest distance where it is possible, or where it is comfortable. If you are unable to read it at first, then don't worry, just appreciate its vivid blackness. Or, look at the white spaces between the lines. Then remember a letter of the fine print with your eyes closed, or a part of the letter or a period. Then keep alternating that (practice flashing) and do all that sort of thing. Then, whenever you are out and about, or studying/revising or whatever then just remember it. The more familiar you can become with the fine print the better, because you have a stronger memory. So you could follow what I did in my thread 'how to cure near point eye trouble' and then cut out the card and keep it with you wherever you go. That way the memory becomes massively strengthened because of the repetition. Bates had immense success doing the same thing with his patients. He'd give them a small card with the 'seven truths of normal sight', printed in diamond or microscopic type, or else a portion of the Bible in photographically reduced type.. (Obviously, microscopic size print is far superior than diamond if you can read it!. We are certainly fortunate living in a time where it is so easy to print out our own materials for practice, from the computer. Back in Bates time, hardly anything was printed in 1.5 point (it would've been considered insane!). They had to go off to town and pay a fee just to get it printed from the retail shops, because no one would've had their own computer at home! Now that is really weird for me to imagine.) A tip is: don't remember a period if you don't want to , remember something that comes to mind with ease and comfortably. Another tip is: If your memory falters or you get distracted by what you are seeing (in real life), try reciting a word or sentence that you read to bring back the visual memory of it. Keep this up, remembering the letters or period etc. whenever you look into the distance. You'll be amazed how fast you can acheive clear flash, and remain with it! The results can be phenomenal improvement in a very short space of time. Anyway, Bates explains it a lot better than me of course. >Another thing: do you know if the blind girl in the story was ever >completely cured? No, in Emily's account, Anna Bernard (the blind girl) never acquired normal sight. Still, the improvement she did get was nothing short of amazing! She went from only a bit of light perception to being able to read the newspaper in good light. But, we don't know what happened afterwords. She might have continued the treatment and got further success, and even got normal vision! You know, it's actually not at all improbable , given her immense dedication and enthusiasm to the practice. Her story is found in 'Stories from the Clinic - No.48-50'. I've also posted the story here for the interest of any readers: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/2248e5fc9e7 12cb3/f109b9ae5e103817?#f109b9ae5e103817 http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/0b0d8daf574 d75fb/6142734a61df5e21?#6142734a61df5e21 http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/9843526043e 65c23/6298f744da4ee8bb?#6298f744da4ee8bb >> In many of my posts I frequently use the word 'Perfect Sight'. But >> many are left wondering what exactly I mean by the reference; i.e. how [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > When in doubt, just make it up. Imagine you're seeing better. God. Could you imagine that as a defence in court with a traffic accident? "Yes sir, I thought a vehicle may have been heading in my direction, it was all a bit blurry, so I closed my eyes and imagined, and I imagined an empty highway, so I knew there was no cars there... this guy just came out of nowhere". > In many of my posts I frequently use the word 'Perfect Sight'. But > many are left wondering what exactly I mean by the reference; i.e. how [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Zetsu Now that was just plain RIGHT-ON. I will take all your advice from now on! Right after posting my message I got a horribly dreadful pain in my back and abdomen. I got up from my laptop and did the long swing 100 times with hardly any benefit whatsoever. I still feel the pain. I don't think the long swing improved my sight that time either - I usually have to spend a great amount of time on the long swing before I get any benefit. I know the long swing works, it's just that I feel sort of mentally-strained right now. Argh lol... Got advice, Zetsu? Oh now the pain left me. I just kinda forgot about it, or "dodged it," and it eventually left! lol ^^ Well I think what is somewhat interesting to note, among the participants here in sci.med.vision, is that upon the mention of words such as 'imagination' or 'illusion' I am often met with ridicule as though such words do not belong to a 'place of science'. Just look at the beginning of this thread, at how Neil responds - 'thanks for making it abundantly clear why you should restrict your posts to alternative sites -- not sites intended for support by the scientific method'. Then take a look at the list of responses that follow - all of a sudden I am 'unintelligible', 'a quack', 'a kook', 'a ten year old', 'mentally retarded'; and so the names go on. This strikes me as being truly peculiar. Immediately we can infer that these two words, imagination and illusions, seem to carry some kind of air of mysteriousness around them - like they're some kind of absract things you don't see in normal life, something weird or unusual. Something unscientific. Yet this is so ironic in that the absolute contrary is the case, as Dr. Bates writes. Now let me say this to all of you naysayers: Words such as 'imaginary' and 'illusions' are not words to be reacted to with a mocking tone, or ridicule. Nor are they 'abstract'. It's something right in front of you - you reading the text right here right now in this message - that's an illusion - imaginary. You ARE imagining it! I'll expand some more. First off, what we must ask ourselves is how we define 'seeing'. By the word 'seeing' are we talking about the numerous and complex processes that precede the actual act of sight? Of course not! When people say things like 'hey, 'look' at that scenery! or 'did you 'see that?' they refer not to the process that had to take place for the act of seeing, but the experience of seeing itself! Who would be so insane as to say 'hey Bob. remember when the light rays reflected off that beautiful grass strand and entered your retina, after which it traveled through the optic nerve allowing you to experience it'? Who would be that crazy! So, it is established that sight, at least for the layman has got nothing to do with all the organic biochemical process and whatnot, right? What we refer to is the actual experience of seeing. And how is that experience created? Is it somehow magically entered into our mind? Of course not! We IMAGINE IT! Sight (retinal impression) without imagination is equal to nothing. Imagination is a necessity, ALWAYS. Even when the eye has been reduced with scars, external shards, and other kinds of damage, the imagination remains unharmed. That's why people can still retain good eyesight even when they have Sight is a culmination of different things, not just the light rays that enter the head. They got to travel through the optic nerve. Then the brain has to generate that image. What do you call that process of image generation? You could call it IMAGINING, no? HOW ELSE DOES ONE SEE IF NOT BY IMAGINING? I present this question to the ridiculers of Bates.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.