Body's inner clock, sleep & studying / Bates method
-
- Posts: 235
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Tue 13 Dec 2005 01:01
Hi Oscar,
Thank you for sharing the information. The scheme that you say about glasses and contact lenses is certainly true in the West, but in China, people have ALWAYS preferred a natural way of improving eyesights: acupunture, self-massage, eye-movement, etc. That includes the doctors because back when I was a kid, doctors had no profit to make, they were part of the Communist regime's service to the people. (Plus, I lived in a physicist community and the doctors were often family members of physicists who lived in our neighborhood, and we knew everybody very well. The man from the wheelchair, by the way, also lived in our community for more than 20 years. So we knew that he really was handicapped, thank you very much. Not to mention that he was not the only person that was healed by the Qi Gong master. You would think that to fool the community of best physicists in China, you have to come up with a cheating device that's a bit more sophisticated!)
When I first became near-sighted, my ophtalmologist suggested me to not wear glasses immediately, but to try alternative methods, which have been proven to work in early stages of myopia. There's another thing that people don't do in the West: in China, the eyeglass prescription is often weaker than the actual chart reading because we think that by leaving room for improvement, there's a chance that the eyesight can get slightly better. How commercial do you think is that? I think Bates' method is much more commercial because from what I heard, it's quite expensive - correct me on that one, whereas in China, eye exercises are freely given at school and there are scheduled times that we do them in school.
There's also a lot of research on diet to see why Asians are more often near-sighted than Westerners, so there's a long tradition and a huge data accumulation on natural methods. This is how I found out that there are no miracles, but I'm still willing to get my mind challenged!
Now, I think that any alternative healing has validity in it even if science cannot back it up and I personally look at everything, even outside of science. How can we enlarge the circumference of science if we do not do that? My Western doctor in Paris has been doing a lot of comparative research between Western and alternative medecine. He has told me that in medical school, they've studied miracle healing and he thinks that faith can heal, in certain cases, even though there's no possible way to scientifically back it up. If not, why would Placebo's effect exist?
Therefore, I have no reasons to question Bates' method, what I question is the belief that you cannot see well because you don't want to see. I think that's a belief that simply cannot be backed up by science and is furthermore disempowering! I don't think that bad eyesight is entirely genetic, nor entirely dietery or environmental, but a complex number of factors.
Why do you think the Dalai Lama wears glasses? Does that make him more myopic (in the symbolic sense that your belief seems to imply) than George Bush, or Arnold Schwarzennegar?
Thank you for sharing the information. The scheme that you say about glasses and contact lenses is certainly true in the West, but in China, people have ALWAYS preferred a natural way of improving eyesights: acupunture, self-massage, eye-movement, etc. That includes the doctors because back when I was a kid, doctors had no profit to make, they were part of the Communist regime's service to the people. (Plus, I lived in a physicist community and the doctors were often family members of physicists who lived in our neighborhood, and we knew everybody very well. The man from the wheelchair, by the way, also lived in our community for more than 20 years. So we knew that he really was handicapped, thank you very much. Not to mention that he was not the only person that was healed by the Qi Gong master. You would think that to fool the community of best physicists in China, you have to come up with a cheating device that's a bit more sophisticated!)
When I first became near-sighted, my ophtalmologist suggested me to not wear glasses immediately, but to try alternative methods, which have been proven to work in early stages of myopia. There's another thing that people don't do in the West: in China, the eyeglass prescription is often weaker than the actual chart reading because we think that by leaving room for improvement, there's a chance that the eyesight can get slightly better. How commercial do you think is that? I think Bates' method is much more commercial because from what I heard, it's quite expensive - correct me on that one, whereas in China, eye exercises are freely given at school and there are scheduled times that we do them in school.
There's also a lot of research on diet to see why Asians are more often near-sighted than Westerners, so there's a long tradition and a huge data accumulation on natural methods. This is how I found out that there are no miracles, but I'm still willing to get my mind challenged!
Now, I think that any alternative healing has validity in it even if science cannot back it up and I personally look at everything, even outside of science. How can we enlarge the circumference of science if we do not do that? My Western doctor in Paris has been doing a lot of comparative research between Western and alternative medecine. He has told me that in medical school, they've studied miracle healing and he thinks that faith can heal, in certain cases, even though there's no possible way to scientifically back it up. If not, why would Placebo's effect exist?
Therefore, I have no reasons to question Bates' method, what I question is the belief that you cannot see well because you don't want to see. I think that's a belief that simply cannot be backed up by science and is furthermore disempowering! I don't think that bad eyesight is entirely genetic, nor entirely dietery or environmental, but a complex number of factors.
Why do you think the Dalai Lama wears glasses? Does that make him more myopic (in the symbolic sense that your belief seems to imply) than George Bush, or Arnold Schwarzennegar?
Yes, we are doing the Bates Method.Chin-Chin wrote:I know that Corinne and Oscar are trying these natural methods to better their eyesight...
Yes, because vision is mental. The brain sends impulses to all muscles in your body, including the eye muscles.Chin-Chin wrote:...and apparently, there's a theory that you are somehow psychologically responsible for your eyesight.
If buying one book is expensive, then yes it is.Chin-Chin wrote:I think Bates' method is much more commercial because from what I heard, it's quite expensive
Chin-Chin wrote:I don't want to ridicule their theory because they seem to be really convinced, but is there any scientific basis to this? I highly doubt it.
So what is the value of science in your opinion??Chin-Chin wrote:Now, I think that any alternative healing has validity in it even if science cannot back it up...
Well, since you seem to know everything about Dr Bates and his method, can you please explain to me, where his reasoning failed? And maybe you can give me a definition about scientific evidence too, because apparently I'm completely clueless in that aspect.Chin-Chin wrote:Just try not to blame yourselves for everything that happens to you and then spread it as scientific evidence...
Well, I'm very glad to hear that it wasn't a hoax. But what does it prove?Chin-Chin wrote:The man from the wheelchair, by the way, also lived in our community for more than 20 years. So we knew that he really was handicapped, thank you very much. Not to mention that he was not the only person that was healed by the Qi Gong master.
I don't have anything to prove I just had to correct you on the hoax part since it was someone we knew.
I'm only questioning if your theory about the vision being entirely mental is proven, and if so how? And by mental, do you mean that by reversing the mental processing, myopia will return to normal?
Science for me is a set of results from a given, controlled situation. Once the testing protocol is written, it can be tested and retested by another scientist. This is why I think it cannot encompass every phenomenon in life, because there are always parameters that we do not control.
I have a lot of respect for science, but it does not tyrannize my life. And I think when you purport a theory such as bad vision is not wanting to see clearly, unless if it's backed up by hard data beyond the shadow of a doubt, it will only have subjective reality for you.
The reason that I thought Bates' was commercial was because I thought there were workshops and schools surrounding it. I am not pursuing vision improvement actively though. Having bone degeneration and ADHD on my list is already a lot to work on at the moment.
I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway. Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut! It just pained me to see CurlyGirl beating herself up about being mentally responsble for her eyesight when that's not even necessarily true...
I'm only questioning if your theory about the vision being entirely mental is proven, and if so how? And by mental, do you mean that by reversing the mental processing, myopia will return to normal?
Science for me is a set of results from a given, controlled situation. Once the testing protocol is written, it can be tested and retested by another scientist. This is why I think it cannot encompass every phenomenon in life, because there are always parameters that we do not control.
I have a lot of respect for science, but it does not tyrannize my life. And I think when you purport a theory such as bad vision is not wanting to see clearly, unless if it's backed up by hard data beyond the shadow of a doubt, it will only have subjective reality for you.
The reason that I thought Bates' was commercial was because I thought there were workshops and schools surrounding it. I am not pursuing vision improvement actively though. Having bone degeneration and ADHD on my list is already a lot to work on at the moment.
I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway. Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut! It just pained me to see CurlyGirl beating herself up about being mentally responsble for her eyesight when that's not even necessarily true...
I never said vision is entirely mental, but it's actually not far from the truth. The brain controls where you look, how you look, and what you actually see. The eyes themselves are merely data collectors, and our brains interpret the data.Chin-Chin wrote:I'm only questioning if your theory about the vision being entirely mental is proven, and if so how? And by mental, do you mean that by reversing the mental processing, myopia will return to normal?
That's what Dr Bates (and other scientists who have researched eyes(ight)) did. I think he published most of his articles in the New York Medical Journal.Chin-Chin wrote:Science for me is a set of results from a given, controlled situation. Once the testing protocol is written, it can be tested and retested by another scientist.
I agree. What we think isn't there, or cannot measure (yet), doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't anything.Chin-Chin wrote:This is why I think it cannot encompass every phenomenon in life, because there are always parameters that we do not control.
Where did I say that??Chin-Chin wrote:And I think when you purport a theory such as bad vision is not wanting to see clearly,
There are people who teach it in workshops, but you can also do it by just reading the book. The workshop we did was fun and helps, but is not an necessity.Chin-Chin wrote:The reason that I thought Bates' was commercial was because I thought there were workshops and schools surrounding it.
For sure! How is it going with that?Chin-Chin wrote:Having bone degeneration and ADHD on my list is already a lot to work on at the moment.
No need for that! I don't mind a little arguing back and forth.Chin-Chin wrote:Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut!
If you study up on Bates, you'll see this isn't what he's trying to say. As the Alexander technique shows us, we all have bad physical habits that are completely unconscious. However, by becoming conscious of them, we can correct them. This includes back muscles in posture and tiny eye muscles in our head. By linking visualization to the performance of these eye muscles, Bates was able to improve children's vision in minutes and reverse most (all?) eye problems with extended therapy. Even if you don't understand his methods, his observations and achievements are fascinating.bad vision is not wanting to see clearly
I think everything is entirely mental.
The East and West have so much to learn from each other! When my doctor told me my vision had improved in college, I was amazed. No one had ever told me that was possible. He said it was probably from "not squinting so much", but he didn't give me any advice on how to continue improving.
"Dada is the sun. Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police." - Richard Huelsenbeck
I definitely continue to learn!
The mental is pretty powerful if it can bend eyeballs out of shape!
I've had several people tell me that they got their eyesight back from the massage technique (digital acupuncture) that we learn at school. But usually, these are people who don't have a family history of myopia...
Did your eyesight improve with Bates' method?
The mental is pretty powerful if it can bend eyeballs out of shape!
I've had several people tell me that they got their eyesight back from the massage technique (digital acupuncture) that we learn at school. But usually, these are people who don't have a family history of myopia...
Did your eyesight improve with Bates' method?
My eyesight improved randomly in college, and has improved slightly more since then from becoming healthier in general; I think from -2.5 to about -2. I quit contacts and only occasionally use an old pair of glasses that is a bit too strong. When I started studying Bates several weeks ago, I would get short-lived improvements from experimentation, almost perfect vision for a few minutes. But I didn't continue with it, and my vision is back to the way it was before, I think. I haven't checked my eyes lately. I still have flashes of excellent vision though, so I know if I really committed myself to practicing every day, my eyesight would steadily improve. Maybe if I went 100% Wai it would help as well. After every munch food I eat, my eyes get temporarily worse.
Oscar, I know this is the wrong thread, but how is your vision going?
Oscar, I know this is the wrong thread, but how is your vision going?
"Dada is the sun. Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police." - Richard Huelsenbeck
Interesting to hear, Sarah!
My eyesight improves slowly, but steadily. It also fluctuates, depending on circumstances, 'stressy' vision situations, whether I can leave my glasses off for most of the day or not, etc. Aside from the fluctuations though, my vision keeps improving. I can already function perfectly with glasses which are 2 diopters less than my original prescription.
If you would need glasses sometimes, you might want to get a reduced pair, like -1 or something, depending on what you need them for.
My eyesight improves slowly, but steadily. It also fluctuates, depending on circumstances, 'stressy' vision situations, whether I can leave my glasses off for most of the day or not, etc. Aside from the fluctuations though, my vision keeps improving. I can already function perfectly with glasses which are 2 diopters less than my original prescription.
If you would need glasses sometimes, you might want to get a reduced pair, like -1 or something, depending on what you need them for.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Thu 29 Dec 2005 01:01
- Location: South Africa (soon to be USA)
- Contact:
Just thought I would tell everyone that it was I who first suggested in this thread that poor eyesight may have something to do with not wanting to 'see' certain things in my life... this theory of mine was based on the work of Louise Hay who argues that physical diseases/problems often have roots in psychological disruptions/obstructions, so by changing the mental pattern, we can change the physical dimension. In this way, what I said does seem to align itself somewhat with Oscar's description of the Bates theory.
Unfortunately, today I am not procrastinating with regard to my work (!!), so I won't write as much as I usually would on the forum. But I will say this - Chin-Chin, I appreciate that it pained you to see me 'beating myself up' about something that might not be my fault! However, I am not beating myself up so much as conscious that many of my small, niggling physical complaints (and more serious ones like poor vision) could have their roots in my psyche and I am therefore willing to explore this possibility.
Unfortunately, today I am not procrastinating with regard to my work (!!), so I won't write as much as I usually would on the forum. But I will say this - Chin-Chin, I appreciate that it pained you to see me 'beating myself up' about something that might not be my fault! However, I am not beating myself up so much as conscious that many of my small, niggling physical complaints (and more serious ones like poor vision) could have their roots in my psyche and I am therefore willing to explore this possibility.
Beware of the
Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique! eeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhh!
Sorry, too early to get carried away
For some time now my vision has been getting worse- I just can't see up close anymore. I found however when making a fist and looking through the tiny opening of light- to the computer screen, I could focus the words. Similarly poke a pinhole in a piece of paper and look through it and see how focus improves without a lens.
That is so interesting to me. Then I remembered the pinhole glasses commercials a few years ago and just looked it up again today- and there they were.
http://www.altered-state.com/index2.htm ... inhole.htm
This plus some eye aerobics seems more logical to me.
Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique! eeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhh!
Sorry, too early to get carried away
For some time now my vision has been getting worse- I just can't see up close anymore. I found however when making a fist and looking through the tiny opening of light- to the computer screen, I could focus the words. Similarly poke a pinhole in a piece of paper and look through it and see how focus improves without a lens.
That is so interesting to me. Then I remembered the pinhole glasses commercials a few years ago and just looked it up again today- and there they were.
http://www.altered-state.com/index2.htm ... inhole.htm
This plus some eye aerobics seems more logical to me.