Format: HTML
Quality: EBook
Description
To everyone who suffers from various visual impairment, but wants to get rid of them himself and protect his children, this book will become a valuable help and guide to action.In it, the famous English writer Aldous Huxley (1894–1963) vividly and fascinatingly tells how he struggled with impending blindness, following the methods of the American ophthalmologist W. G. Bates.
Aldous Leonard Huxley
(eng. Aldous Huxley; July 26, 1894, Godalming, Surrey, UK - November 22, 1963, Los Angeles, California, USA) - English writer. Author of the famous dystopian novel Brave New World.
On both his paternal and maternal sides, Huxley belonged to the British cultural elite, which produced a number of outstanding scientists, writers, and artists. His father is the writer Leonard Huxley, his paternal grandfather is the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley; On his mother's side, Huxley is the great-grandson of the historian and educator Thomas Arnold and the great-nephew of the writer Matthew Arnold. Huxley's brother Julian and half-brother Andrew were famous biologists.
Huxley's mother died when Aldous was 13 years old. Three years later he developed an eye infection and subsequently his vision deteriorated significantly. In this regard, he was exempted from military service during the First World War. Own experience of vision correction he later described in a pamphlet " How to correct vision"(The Art of Seeing, 1943).
His novels deal with the loss of humanity by society in the process of technological progress (the dystopia “Brave New World!”, There is also the book “Return to the Brave New World” (1958 Brave New World Revisited) written 20 years after the first (in which Huxley describes the opposite state of the first book and develops the idea that in reality everything will be much worse and worse than in the first). He also touched upon pacifist themes.
In 1937, Huxley moved to Los Angeles, California, with his guru Gerald Gerd, hoping that the Californian climate would benefit him. deteriorating vision. It was here that his main creative period began, for which a more detailed consideration of human essence was a new feature. Huxley met Jiddu Krishnamurti in 1938. Under the influence of the latter, he turns to various wisdom teachings and engages in mysticism.
The accumulated knowledge is visible in his subsequent works: “The Perennial Philosophy”, most clearly in “After Many a Summer...” and also in the work “Time must have a stop”.
In 1953, he agrees to participate in an experiment conducted by Humphrey Osmond. The purpose of this experiment was to study the effect of mescaline on human consciousness.
Subsequently, in correspondence with Osmond, the word “psychedelic” was used for the first time to describe the influence of mescaline.
The essays “The Doors of Perception” and “Heaven and Hell” describe observations and the course of the experiment, which the author repeated about ten times until his death. "The Doors of Perception" became an iconic text for many radical intellectuals of the 1960s and gave its name to the famous group The Doors.
The effect of psychotropic substances affects not only his work. So in his last novel, “Island,” he described a positive utopia, which was diametrically opposed to his dystopia, “Brave New World.”
Huxley died in 1963 in Los Angeles from throat cancer. Before his death, he asked for an intramuscular injection of LSD - 100 mcg. Despite the doctors' warnings, his wife complied with his request. She admitted this in an interview she gave in 1986 to the British television company BBC as part of the documentary project “LSD: The Beyond Within.” Shortly before his death, all his manuscripts were burned in a fire in his own house.
The book provides a table with which you can do exercises to correct vision.
The book is intended for a wide range of readers of all ages.
FROM THE TRANSLATOR
PREFACE
Conventional treatment for impaired vision
Healing or alleviating symptoms?
Causes of visual impairment: boredom
Causes of visual dysfunction: illness and emotional disturbances
APPENDIX No. 2.
APPENDIX No. 3.
FROM THE TRANSLATOR
Before you, reader, is a very unusual book. It was written by a man who was practically blind in his youth, and when it seemed that there was no hope not only for improvement, but even for slowing down the deterioration, he was lucky: he met Dr. Bates' original technique who saved him.
We are talking about the famous writer Aldous Huxley, author of the dystopian novel Brave New World. He was born in 1894 in England, his father Leonard Huxley was the editor of the Cornhill magazine, his brother Julian was a famous biologist and philosopher, and his grandfather Thomas Henry Huxley (in Russian transcription - Huxley) was a famous biologist. Another prominent ancestor of his is the English critic and essayist Matthew Arnold.
Family traditions, of course, influenced the fate of young Huxley. Despite a serious eye condition that left him almost completely blind at the age of 16, he successfully completed college at Eton and received a BA with first-class honors in English from one of Oxford's most honorable institutions, Balliol College.
In 1916, the first book of his poems was published, followed by two more. A collection of short stories, Limbo, was published in 1920. A year later, the novel Crome Yellow is published, and Huxley achieves recognition. His productivity is amazing. He publishes poetry, novels, short stories, travel essays, historical biographies, and critical essays on literature, painting, and music.
Most of the 20s of the XX century. Huxley lived in Italy, but in the 1930s he moved to Toulon, where he wrote the novel Brave New World. In 1937, he moved to California, believing that the climate there would be more beneficial for his sore eyes. Many of Aldous Huxley's novels have been translated into Russian: "Crome Yellow" (1921), "The Jester's Round Dance" (1923), "Brave New World" (1932), "The Monkey and the Essence" (1948), etc. However, some of Huxley's works are still little known in Russia, and one of them is “The Art of Seeing” (“How to Correct Your Vision”) (1943). In this book, Huxley talks about ways to combat various visual defects. He experienced all this on himself - and as a result, one can say without much exaggeration, he began to see the light.
This is not a miracle or mysticism. Every person has a huge reserve of strength and energy in order to maintain and restore their health; they just need to be able to mobilize this internal reserve. Improving Dr. Bates's technique, Huxley shows how lost vision can be restored without outside help. At the same time, it makes the reader think about the properties of human nature in general.
Huxley's recommendations are clear and simple, and although this book of his was first published 60 years ago, its practical value has not diminished and continues to be republished in many countries around the world. I hope that getting to know her and following her recommendations will bring improvement, relief, and ultimately complete restoration of vision to those in need. I can testify that this book helped me personally, who has been suffering from myopia for 20 years. For the first time I watched TV without glasses. At first there was a rather unpleasant sensation (about five minutes), but then I began to see much better, the picture became clear. The same thing happened when I then went outside without glasses. At first there was the same discomfort, but after 5-7 minutes the vision improved noticeably. Visit to ophthalmologist a few years later revealed what happened improvement of vision by several units.
Of course, only surgery can save someone. But even then Huxley’s technique will not be superfluous. There are cases when only she, after surgical operations, helped relieve tension, which is necessary for recovery.
Therefore, do not rush to put on contact lenses or glasses, try your own strength first. Perhaps this will bring you more benefit.
PREFACE
At the age of sixteen I had an acute attack of Keratitis punctata*, and after eighteen months, during which I remained in a state close to blindness (I had to master Braille**, and obediently follow a guide on walks), one of my eyes was able to see only a two-hundred-foot letter in the Snellen table***, and then from a distance of only ten feet, while the other could hardly distinguish day from night.
The misery of my situation was mainly due to the clouding of the cornea; but there was also hypermetropia**** and astigmatism*****...
For the first few years, doctors recommended that I use a strong magnifying glass to read. Then glasses took over. With their help it was possible to decipher a seventy-foot line (again from a distance of only ten feet!) and to read quite passably - provided that the pupils were dilated with atropine to such an extent that a kind of clear "windows" were formed on the cornea around the cloudy center. Of course, the cost of this was enormous stress, and at times I felt literally gutted.
All this continued until 1939, when I suddenly discovered that reading was becoming more and more difficult and tiring even with powerful glasses.
* Keratitis punctata (lat.) - punctate keratitis, inflammation of the cornea of the eye, accompanied by clouding and decreased vision.
** Braille - French scientist Louis Braille, who developed a raised dot font for writing and reading by the blind.
*** Snellen table - a table with letters and symbols of various sizes, designed to test visual acuity; named after the Danish ophthalmologist Hermann Snellen. In most Western European countries and the United States, the table is designed to be examined from a distance of 20 feet (6 m), and the rows are designated by the distance (in feet or meters) from which they are clearly visible with 100% vision. Thus, a two-hundred-foot letter on the Snellen chart is the letter that normal eyes can see from a distance of 200 feet.
****Hyperopia is a form of farsightedness in which a person cannot clearly see either distant or nearby objects.
***** Astigmatism is an optical defect of the eyes, which is usually caused by unequal curvature of the cornea or irregular shape of the lens, which is why different refractions are combined in one eye.
There was no doubt: my already flawed ability to see is rapidly declining. And just when I was anxiously wondering what kind of life awaited me if reading became unavailable, someone started talking about visual retraining. It looked quite harmless, inspired hope, and I, who had nothing to lose, decided to try it.
After a couple of months, I was already reading without glasses and, what’s even more surprising, without stress or fatigue. Moreover, there were obvious signs that the clouding of the cornea, which had accompanied me for more than twenty-five years, was beginning to clear up. Now my vision, although far from normal, is almost twice as sharp as it was when I wore glasses and still knew nothing about vision correction techniques; the cornea has cleared so much that the eye, which had difficulty distinguishing between light and darkness, recognizes a ten-foot line from a distance of one foot.
This is what prompted me to sit down and read the book; by writing it I wish to repay the debt and express my gratitude to the pioneer of visual re-education, the late Dr. W. G. Bates, and his follower, Mrs. Margaret D. Corbett, to whose teaching talent I owe my vision.
There are other works on the topic of visual retraining; Among them I will especially mention the following: "Perfect Sight Without Glasses" by Dr. Bates (New York, 1920), "How to Improve Your Eyes" by Mrs. Corbett (Los Angeles, 1938) and "Improving Vision by Natural Methods" by K. S. Price (London, 1934). Each of them is valuable in its own way; but in none (at least of the ones I read) did I come across an attempt to correlate the methods of visual retraining with the latest achievements of psychology and philosophy. This is the gap I am going to fill; my task is to demonstrate that these methods are nothing more than the practical application of certain theoretical principles believed to be true.
They may ask: Why haven’t traditional ophthalmologists put these generally accepted principles into practice?? The answer is simple. From the moment ophthalmology became a science, doctors paid attention only to the physiological side of the complex visual process. They were busy with the eyes and forgot about the mind, which uses the eyes to look and see. I have been treated by men of the highest rank in their profession; but not one of them even mentioned that there can be a mental side to vision, or that there are wrong ways to use the eyes and mind, just as there are right ones.
After checking my diseased eyes - I must admit, with skill and virtuosity, they prescribed me artificial lenses and released me. Whether I used my mind and my glasses-wearing eyes well or poorly was completely immaterial to them. For Dr. Bates, on the contrary, such questions and the answers to them were by no means indifferent, and over many years of experimentation and clinical practice he developed his own method of visual retraining. The fact that this technique is correct is proven by its effectiveness.
My example is by no means unique; thousands of other similar sufferers have benefited by following the simple rules for improving vision for which we are indebted to Dr. Bates and his followers. Making these rules and methods widely known is the ultimate goal of this book.
Appendix No. 1. Perfect vision without glasses September 13, 1941
After I had finished writing this book, one of my correspondents sent me a copy of an article that appeared unsigned (probably as an editorial) in the British Medical Journal.
Dr. J. Parness's letter in this issue encourages us to pay attention to a recent radio talk by Dr. Julian Huxley. It was about the practice of correcting visual impairments without the use of glasses... Before condemning this practice, it is good to consider the evidence in support of it. There are many methods based on hypotheses, varying in their ingenuity.
The system set forth by W. H. Bates has only this advantage over competing systems, that its principles are publicly stated. Bates believes that the state of refraction is dynamic and constantly changing. Changes in refraction are carried out by the external neuromuscular tissues of the eyes, while the lens itself does not play any role in accommodation. Impaired vision belongs to the field of mental phenomena; a disease of the brain centers first upsets the macula, and then the entire retina. The treatment aims to promote "mental relaxation" because when the mind is at rest, vision returns to normal. In his 30 years of work on refraction, Bates found a small number of people who were able to maintain "perfect vision" for more than a few minutes at a time, and he often observed "refractive changes of six times or more per second." Since no ophthalmologist is physically capable of noticing six or more changes in refraction within a second (this can be called “blitz retinoscopy”), no one can refute Bates’s basic dogma.
And ophthalmologists still remain faithful to the theory, based on physiological data, that accommodation is carried out by changing the curvature of the lens. Bates illustrates the influence of the mind on refraction by the effect of tension. Since tension involves mental anxiety, changes in refraction occur in all conditions that cause such anxiety.
Thus, “a 25-year-old patient had no refractive error when he looked at a blank wall without trying to see anything on it (that is, in a state of complete relaxation and lack of tension); but when he said that he was 26 years, or someone else convinced him of the same thing, he became myopic (as Bates' blitzretinoscopy showed). The same thing happened when he claimed or tried to imagine that he was 24 years old. But if he gave the true data, his vision returned. norm." Bates also cites the case of the little liar. The retinoscope detected a change towards myopia when asked: “Have you eaten ice cream?” - she answered: “No.” If the girl was telling the truth, the retinoscope did not note any refractive errors. This gives the impression, so to speak, of a physical manifestation of the inner voice of conscience.
There is also a set of dubious data that purports to prove that lens-removed patients can read small print while wearing distance glasses. And the fact that the daily experience of ophthalmologists contradicts this may have some significance, but, obviously, not as significant as the isolated examples recorded by Bates, and which, by the way, have a completely different explanation, as everyone knows , familiar with related work.
In fact, there is a lot of different and contradictory literature regarding the actual mechanism of change in the shape of the lens during the process of accommodation; the facts themselves are not disputed by anyone - except Bates, who cites what he calls experimental - data that removing the lens of a fish does not affect accommodation. The experiment with fish is abundantly illustrated with photographs, but nowhere is it even mentioned that accommodation in fish is physiologically and anatomically different from accommodation in mammals.
There are also facts about experiments on mammals, mainly rabbits and cats; and here amazing information appears: as if if you cut a nerve or muscle, and then reconnect and bandage it, the impulse will be transmitted in this state, although physiologists would be in no hurry to report the results without waiting at least a few days or even weeks. These experiments also shed light on the anatomy of mammals.
It turns out that the conventional wisdom that cats are naturally blessed with superior oblique muscles is not true. It should be noted that this is only a side observation; the main thing is that pharmacologists are mistaken in believing that atropine acts only on smooth muscles, since Bates discovered that this medicine paralyzes the external muscles that provide accommodation. From the experiment illustrated in the figure it appears that the dead fish still has a living mind - its brain is punctured to cause paralysis - or, according to Bates, relaxation.
The treatment based on these revolutionary observations has as its aim mental relaxation, and the killed fish seems to be its symbol.
The Bates system, however, has many adherents. True, in 1931 the Prussian Ministry of Public Health made a statement denouncing this system as quackery, but in Hitler’s Germany, multi-volume works on similar topics elevated it to a cult; there appears to be no shortage of Batesian practitioners or patients.
First of all, we note that this article contains two main lines of argument.
First, the Bates visual learning method cannot be correct because it is used by the Germans.
Second, Bates's method of visual learning cannot be correct because certain experiments designed to confirm the hypothesis to which Bates sought to explain the success of his method were not carried out properly.
The first argument is a copy of the one with which they tried to discredit the stethoscope a century ago - due to sheer prejudice against the French. Those familiar with the work of John Alleyson will recall the description of this most absurd episode in the history of medicine. It took more than twenty years before Laennec's discovery became widely used by English doctors.
In exactly the same way, only for even longer, hypnosis was banned by official British medicine. And all because of prejudice against hypnotists. Half a century had passed since Braid formulated his classic hypothesis, and Esdaile performed a number of serious operations with hypnotic anesthesia, but the British Medical Association continued to believe that there was nothing in hypnotism except fraud and quackery.
The history of medicine is blindly following the path of repeating its mistakes, and it seems that visual retraining will have to share the fate of hypnotism and the stethoscope.
I can add that the argument from the standpoint of rejection of Nazism is hardly justified in this matter. The visual restoration technique was developed by an American physician and is now widely taught in the United States and England. In Germany, there were “vision schools” for many years. Some of these schools were undoubtedly bad and deserved the condemnation of the Prussian Ministry of Health, but others, as can be seen from an article written in 1934 by a military surgeon for the Deutsche Meditsinische Wochenschrift, were simply remarkable.
In this article, Dr. Drenkhan mentions that in many cases of abnormal refractions, shooting results among recruits were better for those who did not wear glasses but took a course in vision rehabilitation at the vision school. For those who notice even the slightest deterioration in their vision, Dr. Drenkhahn's advice is: do not immediately go to an eye specialist, who will usually prescribe glasses for you, but consult with your family doctor, and after he takes steps to correct your overall physical and mental condition, go to the school of vision and learn how to properly use the eyes and mind.
This concerns the first line of argumentation. The second, equally incongruous, is based not on prejudice, but on confusion of thoughts and bad logic. Paradoxically, the author of the article is completely unable to distinguish between two completely different things: primary data confirming the existence of a certain phenomenon, and secondary data confirming the hypothesis explaining this phenomenon. The phenomenon which Bates sought to explain by means of his unconventional theory of accommodation was that marked improvement in vision which invariably followed the performance of certain rehabilitative exercises. The existence of such a pattern can be evidenced by thousands of people who, like me, have benefited from following the proposed procedures.
If the author of the anonymous article really wanted to understand the essence of the problem, he could contact trusted teachers and ask permission to observe their work. Instead, he tries to discredit the very idea of visual retraining by denying the value of the experiments Bates conducted to support his hypothesis.
Needless to say, the idea of visual retraining will survive all attacks unscathed. Even if the secondary data is proven to be wrong, even if the hypothesis itself is proven to be wrong, this will have absolutely nothing to do with the facts that the hypothesis was intended to explain. The existence of an incorrect explanation of a fact does not deny the existence of the fact itself, since in it the objective laws of nature, previously unknown, make themselves felt, and in the history of mankind, the ability to use has always preceded the ability to correctly explain.
For example, people were engaged in metallurgy long before, on the basis of accumulated data, hypotheses were formulated that satisfactorily explain the processes of melting, hardening, etc. If we follow the logic of the nameless author of the article, then we must admit: if these hypotheses turned out to be delusions and errors, any work with metal would become impossible. As for medicine, it probably shouldn't exist at all. Our knowledge about man and the human body is incomplete, limited, superficial, much is unknown, the hypotheses put forward are refuted or contradict each other, theory does not keep up with practice. Nevertheless, effective medical experience exists, despite the obvious fact that in the future many modern provisions will be recognized as outdated, new ones will appear, which current doctors do not even dare to guess about.
Dr. Bates' Theory of Accommodation may turn out to be as naive as the 18th century explanations of the reasons for the effectiveness of lime juice against scurvy. However, scurvy can be cured by drinking lime juice, and Bates's method of visual retraining improves vision.
Appendix No. 2
U myopic There is often quite poor posture. In some cases, it can be directly caused by poor vision, which contributes to slouching and a crooked neck. And vice versa: myopia, albeit partially, can be a consequence of poor posture. F. M. Alexander describes a case in which a short-sighted boy, after he was taught to hold his head and back straight, regained normal vision.
In adults, correcting posture alone is not a sufficient condition for restoring normal vision. But improvement in vision can be accelerated if you learn to replace incorrect habits of using the body (as a whole) with correct ones; but simultaneous mastery of visual abilities is mandatory.
Buy or download the book
All files on the site, before they are posted, checked for viruses. Therefore, we give a 100% guarantee of file purity.
" target="_blank" > Download the book ◄
Aldous HUXLEY
How to correct vision
Adous Huxey "The Art of Seeing"
FROM THE TRANSLATOR
Igor Sirenko
PREFACE
PART ONE: MEDICINE AND IMPAIRED VISION
Essence of vision
Example
Causes of visual impairment: boredom
Causes of visual dysfunction: illness and emotional disturbances
PART TWO: RELAXATION
Passive relaxation: palming
BLINKING AND BREATHING
Normal and Abnormal Blinking Habits
Normal and Abnormal Breathing Habits
EYE, ORGAN OF LIGHT
Common Fear of Light
Causes of photophobia
Banishing Fear
Practical methods
Harmlessness of solarization
CENTRAL FIXATION
METHODS OF TRAINING EYE AND MIND MOBILITY
Wiggles
Other mobility aids
QUICK LOOKS
Unconscious vision
Quick glance technique
MOVE
Calendar exercise
MENTAL SIDE OF VISION
MEMORY AND IMAGINATION
Memory to help vision
Improving letter memorization
MYOPIA
Her reasons
Retraining the Myopic
farsightedness, astigmatism, strabismus
Astigmatism and squint
Eye diseases
SOME HARD TO VIEW SITUATIONS
Reading
Looking at unfamiliar objects
Movies
LIGHTING CONDITIONS
APPENDIX No. 1
PERFECT VISION WITHOUT GLASSES September 13, 1941
APPENDIX No. 2
FROM THE TRANSLATOR
Before you, reader, is a very unusual book. It was written by a man who was practically blind in his youth, and when it seemed that there was no hope not only for improvement, but even for slowing down the deterioration, he was lucky: he became acquainted with the original method of Dr. Bates, which saved him.
We are talking about the famous writer Aldous Huxley, author of the dystopian novel Brave New World. He was born in 1894 in England, his father Leonard Huxley was the editor of the Cornhill magazine, his brother Julian was a famous biologist and philosopher, and his grandfather Thomas Henry Huxley (in Russian transcription - Huxley) was a famous biologist. Another prominent ancestor of his is the English critic and essayist Matthew Arnold.
Family traditions, of course, influenced the fate of young Huxley. Despite a serious eye condition that left him almost completely blind at the age of 16, he successfully completed college at Eton and received a BA with first-class honors in English from one of Oxford's most honorable institutions, Balliol College.
In 1916, the first book of his poems was published, followed by two more. A collection of short stories, Limbo, was published in 1920. A year later, the novel Crome Yellow is published, and Huxley achieves recognition. His productivity is amazing. He publishes poetry, novels, short stories, travel essays, historical biographies, and critical essays on literature, painting, and music.
Most of the 20s of the XX century. Huxley lived in Italy, but in the 1930s he moved to Toulon, where he wrote the novel Brave New World. In 1937, he moved to California, believing that the climate there would be more beneficial for his sore eyes. Many of Aldous Huxley's novels have been translated into Russian: "Crome Yellow" (1921), "The Jester's Round Dance" (1923), "Brave New World" (1932), "The Monkey and the Essence" (1948), etc. However, some of Huxley's works are still little known in Russia, and one of them is “The Art of Seeing” (“How to Correct Your Vision”) (1943). In this book, Huxley talks about ways to combat various visual defects. He experienced all this on himself - and as a result, one can say without much exaggeration, he began to see the light.
This is not a miracle or mysticism. Every person has a huge reserve of strength and energy in order to maintain and restore their health; they just need to be able to mobilize this internal reserve. Improving Dr. Bates's technique, Huxley shows how lost vision can be restored without outside help. At the same time, it makes the reader think about the properties of human nature in general.
Huxley's recommendations are clear and simple, and although this book of his was first published 60 years ago, its practical value has not diminished and continues to be republished in many countries around the world. I hope that getting to know her and following her recommendations will bring improvement, relief, and ultimately complete restoration of vision to those in need. I can testify that this book helped me personally, who has been suffering from myopia for 20 years. For the first time I watched TV without glasses. At first there was a rather unpleasant sensation (about five minutes), but then I began to see much better, the picture became clear. The same thing happened when I then went outside without glasses. At first there was the same discomfort, but after 5-7 minutes the vision improved noticeably. A visit to the ophthalmologist several years later showed that my vision had improved by several units.
Of course, only surgery can save someone. But even then Huxley’s technique will not be superfluous. There are cases when only she, after surgical operations, helped relieve tension, which is necessary for recovery.
Therefore, do not rush to put on contact lenses or glasses, try your own strength first. Perhaps this will bring you more benefit.
Igor Sirenko
PREFACE
At the age of sixteen I had an acute attack of Keratitis punctata, and after eighteen months, during which I remained in a state close to blindness (I had to master Braille and obediently follow a guide on walks), one of my eyes was able to make out only a two-hundred-foot letter in the Snellen table, and then from a distance of only ten feet, while the other could hardly distinguish day from night.
The misery of my situation was mainly due to the clouding of the cornea; but there was also hypermetropia and astigmatism...
For the first few years, doctors recommended that I use a strong magnifying glass to read. Then glasses took over. With their help it was possible to decipher a seventy-foot line (again from a distance of only ten feet!) and to read quite passably - provided that the pupils were dilated with atropine to such an extent that a kind of clear "windows" were formed on the cornea around the cloudy center. Of course, the cost of this was enormous stress, and at times I felt literally gutted.
But even so, I could read, and I was happy.
All this continued until 1939, when I suddenly discovered that reading was becoming more and more difficult and tiring even with powerful glasses.
There was no doubt: my already flawed ability to see was rapidly declining. And just when I was anxiously wondering what kind of life awaited me if reading became unavailable, someone started talking about visual retraining. It looked quite harmless, inspired hope, and I, who had nothing to lose, decided to try it.
After a couple of months, I was already reading without glasses and, what’s even more surprising, without stress or fatigue. Moreover, there were obvious signs that the clouding of the cornea, which had accompanied me for more than twenty-five years, was beginning to clear up. Now my vision, although far from normal, is almost twice as sharp as it was when I wore glasses and still knew nothing about vision correction techniques; the cornea has cleared so much that the eye, which had difficulty distinguishing between light and darkness, recognizes a ten-foot line from a distance of one foot.
This is what prompted me to sit down and read the book; by writing it I wish to repay the debt and express my gratitude to the pioneer of visual re-education, the late Dr. W. G. Bates, and his follower, Mrs. Margaret D. Corbett, to whose teaching talent I owe my vision.
There are other works on the topic of visual retraining; Among them I will especially mention the following: "Perfect Sight Without Glasses" by Dr. Bates (New York, 1920), "How to Improve Your Eyes" by Mrs. Corbett (Los Angeles, 1938) and "Improving Vision by Natural Methods" by K. S. Price (London, 1934). Each of them is valuable in its own way; but in none (at least of the ones I read) did I come across an attempt to correlate the methods of visual retraining with the latest achievements of psychology and philosophy. This is the gap I am going to fill; my task is to demonstrate that these methods are nothing more than the practical application of certain theoretical principles believed to be true.
It may be asked: why haven’t traditional ophthalmologists put these generally accepted principles into practice? The answer is simple. From the moment ophthalmology became a science, doctors paid attention only to the physiological side of the complex visual process. They were busy with the eyes and forgot about the mind, which uses the eyes to look and see. I have been treated by men of the highest rank in their profession; but not one of them even mentioned that there can be a mental side to vision, or that there are wrong ways to use the eyes and mind, just as there are right ones. After checking my diseased eyes - I must admit, with skill and virtuosity, they prescribed me artificial lenses and released me. Whether I used my mind and my glasses-wearing eyes well or poorly was completely immaterial to them. For Dr. Bates, on the contrary, such questions and the answers to them were by no means indifferent, and over many years of experimentation and clinical practice he developed his own method of visual retraining. The fact that this technique is correct is proven by its effectiveness.
My example is by no means unique; thousands of other similar sufferers have benefited by following the simple rules for improving vision for which we are indebted to Dr. Bates and his followers. Making these rules and methods widely known is the ultimate goal of this book.
PART ONE MEDICINE AND IMPAIRED VISION
Medicus curat, natura sanat - the doctor heals, nature heals... This old aphorism perfectly defines the possibilities of medicine and its task: to provide the suffering body with such conditions that its own self-regulating and restorative forces are revealed. Without vis medicatrix naturae, natural healing powers, medicine would be helpless, and any disorder, even a minor one, would immediately kill or lead to chronic illness.
When conditions are favorable, the suffering body strives to get rid of the disease using its inherent powers of self-healing. If relief does not occur, this means that either the case is hopeless or the conditions are unfavorable, i.e., in other words, the treatment used by medicine does not achieve the goal that adequate treatment is designed to achieve.
Conventional treatment for impaired vision
In light of these basic principles, let us analyze how modern medicine treats visual impairment. In the vast majority of cases, the only treatment option is the selection of artificial lenses designed to correct the specific refractive error that is considered responsible for the disorder. Medicus curat; and most often the patient is rewarded with an immediate improvement in vision. By the way, what about nature and its healing effects? Do glasses eliminate the cause of impaired vision? Do the visual organs have the opportunity to restore normal functioning? There is only one answer to these questions: NO. Artificial lenses neutralize symptoms, but do not eliminate the causes of disorders. Moreover, eyes equipped with these devices tend to become progressively weaker and require stronger and stronger lenses to neutralize the symptoms detected. In a word, medicus curat, natura non sanat. And here you have to choose one of two things: either disorders of the visual organs are incurable in principle and can only be mitigated by mechanical means, or the modern treatment method itself is incorrect.
Traditional ophthalmology opts for the first, absolutely pessimistic position, and insists that mechanical neutralization of symptoms is the only method of treatment. (I am not talking about special cases where immediate surgery is required, but only about those widespread conditions that are currently treated with artificial lenses).
Healing or alleviating symptoms?
If the traditional view is correct, and the organs of vision do not have the power of self-healing, then the eyes must be fundamentally different from all other parts and organs of the body, which, under favorable conditions, tend to become free from their disturbances. And when they show any symptoms of weakness, it will be the greatest folly, according to the traditional theory, to make serious attempts to get rid of the causes of these painful manifestations; It will be a waste of time to even try to find a treatment that will help nature do its job of healing. Diseased eyes, ex hypothesi, are practically incurable; they lack vis medicatrix naturae; the most that ophthalmology can do for them is to provide mechanical means to neutralize unwanted symptoms. This is the logic of this strange theory.
Here, for example, are relevant excerpts from the book "Vision and Human Welfare" by Dr. Matthew Lakisch, director of the General Electric Research Laboratory. Glasses (those "valuable crutches," as Dr. Lakish calls them) "neutralize the effects of heredity, age, and abuse; they do not deal with causes."
"Suppose that crippled eyes could be turned into crippled legs. What heartbreaking scenes we might witness on a busy street! Almost everyone would walk with a limp. Many would be on crutches, and some in wheelchairs. How many of these injuries are due to poor conditions for vision, that is, indifference to vision? There are no statistical data, but knowledge about vision and what it needs suggests that some diseases could be avoided altogether, and the development of others could be delayed by adequate and appropriate conditions.”
"Even refractive errors and other eye disorders caused by abuse are not necessarily permanent. When we fall ill, nature does its work, and if we do ours, a speedy recovery follows. At least to a certain extent, the eyes have a variety of restorative properties." strength; reducing irritating factors by improving the conditions for vision always benefits them, and there are many examples where significant improvement was achieved precisely by such means. Indeed, without eliminating the cause of irritation, the disorder quickly progresses.
This encouraging recognition gives hope that what will follow is the description of a new and truly etiological method of treating disorders; which will take the place of the currently popular treatment of symptoms. But the hope is not destined to come true.
“Poor lighting,” continues Dr. Lakish, “is one of the most important and common causes of eye strain, often leading to progressive problems and disorders.”
His entire book is a development in detail of an old theme. But I hasten to add that, within its own framework, this is a wonderful book. For those suffering from visual impairments, the importance of good lighting cannot really be overstated, but Dr. Lakish deserves special credit for scientifically justifying the principle of “good lighting” in standard units of measurement such as the footcandle.
Some people, however, may be dissatisfied: they say, footcandles alone are not enough. True: when treating other organs or parts of the body, doctors are not content with improving only the external functioning conditions; they also strive to improve the internal physiological conditions in the suffering organ. Thus, when limping, doctors do not allow their patients to rely on crutches alone. Nor do they consider drawing up rules to avoid accidents as a sufficient "cure" for a lame patient. On the contrary, they consider the use of crutches to be a temporary measure, and thus, "while paying attention to external conditions, they do everything possible to improve the internal ones, thereby helping nature to do its work of healing. Some of these measures (rest, massage, warming) do not appeal directly to the patient's mind, but are aimed directly at the affected organs, their goal is to relax, improve blood circulation and maintain mobility; others are educational and involve teaching the patient the coordinated actions of the mind and body. This appeal to the psychological factor often achieves amazing results. a doctor, using the correct technique, is able to lead a victim of an accident or his own negligence to the complete restoration of the lost functions of the musculoskeletal system, and through the restoration of functions - to the restoration of the health of the affected organ as a whole. But if this is possible with crippled legs, then why a similar approach. Can't it be applied to sore eyes?
Traditional science has no answer to this question; it is taken for granted that eyes with disorders are incurable and cannot, despite their close connection with the psyche, relearn normal functioning. This logic, even at first glance, is so absurd and untrue that an unbiased person can only be amazed at why they follow it so obediently and blindly. However, the power of habit and authority is such that everyone follows it. Except for those who have had the opportunity to see from their own experience how wrong it is.
I happened to become one of them. I had the opportunity to experience for myself that the eyes do not suffer from the absence of vis medicatrix naturae, that the alleviation or neutralization of symptoms is not the only way to treat diseased eyes, that vision can be relearned and restored to normal with proper coordination of body and mind, and that Finally, improvement in functioning leads to improvement in the condition of the damaged organ. My personal experience is confirmed by the experience of many others who have undergone the same process of visual retraining. Therefore, it no longer seems possible for me to accept modern traditional theory with its hopelessly pessimistic practical conclusions.
VISUAL REEDUCATION METHOD
Even in the early years of this century, Dr. W. G. Bates, a New York ophthalmologist, realized that he was dissatisfied with traditional methods of eye treatment. In an effort to find a replacement for artificial lenses, he tried to find out whether it was even possible to return impaired vision to normal?
The result of his work with numerous patients was the conclusion that the vast majority of visual disorders are functional, and their cause is rooted in erroneous usage habits. He found that these habits were invariably associated with a state of increased fatigue and tension. Taking this into account, Dr. Bates developed an appropriate technique to relieve tension; those who were not too lazy to master it experienced an undoubted improvement in vision, and refractive errors tended to self-correct. The practice of the training technique served to create good visual habits to replace bad ones, and in many cases visual function was completely and finally normalized.
Now this is a well-established principle: improving functions entails improving the organic state of associated tissues. The eye, as Dr. Bates discovered, is no exception to the general rule. When the patient has learned to relieve tension and acquired proper visual habits, the vis medicatrix naturae is given a chance to manifest itself; as a result, as a rule, the improvement in function was followed by a complete restoration of the health and organic integrity of the diseased eye.
Dr. Bates died in 1931, but until his death he continued to improve methods of improving visual function. Using and developing them, his followers and students successfully retrain vision for many unfortunates suffering from visual disorders. It would never occur to anyone who is familiar with these cases or has undergone similar retraining to doubt that there is, finally, a way to eliminate not the symptoms, but their physiological and psychological causes!
And yet, despite the long history with which Dr. Bates's method has been known, despite the quantity and quality of the results, it still remains unrecognized by the orthodox. This strangeness, I think, is worth understanding.
Reasons for Orthodox Rejection
First of all, the very fact that the method is not officially recognized serves as a kind of invitation to all kinds of adventurers, always ready to profit from human suffering. There are several dozen, perhaps even hundreds, scattered throughout the world, well-trained and conscientious followers of Dr. Bates. But besides them, there is a much larger number of charlatans and half-educated people who know a little more about the system of methods than what it is called. And no wonder. Since the Bates technique is not generally recognized, anyone is free to declare himself an expert in it, without any fear that he will be subject to the standard qualification requirements that would be applied to any specialist in any other field. Potentially huge clientele, desperate need for help - and yet no questions regarding knowledge, recommendations and abilities! These are ideal conditions for quackery, how can you not take advantage of this opportunity! But are crooks and impostors an unprecedented case in this or that science? Does their presence denigrate everyone who works in it? No, the second does not at all follow from the first.
But, alas, as the history of virtually all professional groups clearly shows, for the orthodox point of view the second always follows from the first. This, by the way, is one of the reasons why the Bates treatment, despite its amazing results, is indiscriminately and uncompromisingly declared quackery. However, the cure for it is not suppression of the initially correct method, but proper training in the method and supervision of specialists.
The second reason for the rejection of this technique can be formulated in three words: habits, authorities, corporatism. Traditional treatment of eye disorders has been going on for centuries, has been perfected and, within its limits, is quite successful. If in certain cases the proper results are not achieved, then this is not the fault of science or its luminaries, but a state inherent in the nature of things... The highest medical authorities have defended this position for years, but who dares to ask questions of recognized authorities? Of course, not colleagues bound by the espri de corps, the spirit of corporatism, and ardently defending the honor of their uniform.
In addition, the production of optical glass and its marketing is a very profitable business, where only those who have undergone special training or made large investments are allowed. It is quite natural that these privileged layers do not accept innovations, especially those involving the abandonment of glasses. But even if Bates' methods were accepted, the likelihood that the consumption of optical glass would be significantly reduced is very small. Visual retraining requires a certain mindset, time and effort, and this is exactly what most modern men and women will not consent to, unless life confronts them with a strict necessity. And those who use visual aids will never dare to part with them, even if they know that there is a training system that could not only alleviate the symptoms, but also relieve them of the causes of visual impairment. And as long as vision correction methods are not taught in schools along with other disciplines, opticians do not have to worry about their income; human laziness and inertia guarantee that they will retain at least nine-tenths of their current turnover.
The fourth reason for the rejection of Bates' methods is of a purely empirical nature. Ophthalmologists and optometrists claim that they have never witnessed the phenomenon of self-regulation and self-healing described by Bates. Naturally, the conclusion is drawn that such a phenomenon simply does not exist.
Yes, we agree, ophthalmologists and optometrists have never had to observe the phenomena mentioned, but only because they have not had to deal with those who have mastered the Bates technique. As long as the organs of vision are used under conditions of mental and physical stress, vis medicatrix naturae does not manifest itself, therefore, visual disturbances will persist and even worsen.
Ophthalmologists and optometrists will be able to observe the phenomenon of self-regulation and self-healing only when they learn to relieve stress in their patients using the Bates visual retraining technique. This phenomenon cannot manifest itself under the conditions imposed by traditional practice, but it does not follow that it will not manifest itself when the conditions are changed and the healing powers of the body, no longer restrained, begin to act freely.
To this empirical reason for rejecting the Bates technique, it is necessary to add one more, this time from the field of theory.
While working as an ophthalmologist, Bates questioned the value of Helmholtz's hypothesis, which attributed the eye's ability to accommodate to the action of the ciliary body on the lens. Faced with various cases of impaired vision, Bates observed many facts that Helmholtz's hypothesis was powerless to explain, and after numerous experiments he came to the conclusion that the ability to accommodate is not provided by the lens, but by the rectus muscles of the eye, and that focusing on near and distant objects is carried out by contracting the eyeball as a whole.
It is not for me to judge whether Bates was right or wrong in rejecting Helmholtz's hypothesis. Yes, this doesn’t worry me too much, because my subject is not the anatomical mechanism of this or that process, but a method of correcting vision that does not depend on any physiological hypotheses. But the orthodox, having recognized that Bates' theory of accommodation was incorrect, concluded that his technique of visual retraining was also incorrect.
An unfounded conclusion, which owes its appearance to a reluctance to understand the nature of the cure or the psycho-physical attitude that corrects vision.
Essence of vision
Each psycho-physical ability, including the ability to see, exists according to its own laws. These laws are empirically known by people who have decided to acquire certain skills, such as playing the piano, singing or walking on a tightrope, and who, through long practice, have discovered the best and most economical methods for achieving the goal. Such people may have the most fantastic ideas about physiology; but this will make absolutely no difference as long as their theory and practice are consistent with the goal. If psycho-physical abilities depended in their development on knowledge of physiology, no one would be able to learn any art. It is unlikely, for example, that Bach thought about the physiology of muscle activity; if he did think about it, it was probably wrong. However, this did not stop him from using his muscles, playing the organ with divine inspiration. Any art, I repeat, exists exclusively according to its own laws; These laws are the laws of effective psycho-physical functioning, applied to specific activities related to this type of art. The ability to see occupies a worthy place among such fundamental psycho-physical abilities as the ability to speak, walk and use hands; they are usually laid down in infancy and reinforced through the process of unconscious self-learning. Normal visual habits take several years to develop, and they - just like the habits of using the throat, tongue, lips and palate to speak or the legs to walk - become automatic. But if a very serious mental or physical shock is required to disrupt the automaticity of speech or walking, the habits of correct use of the visual organs may be lost as a result of a relatively minor disturbance. Habits of correct use are replaced by habits of incorrect use; vision suffers; in some cases, diseases and even organic eye disorders occur. Sometimes nature carries out a spontaneous healing, and old habits of vision are restored, but most are forced to consciously re-learn a skill that they, as children, could comprehend unconsciously. This relearning technique was developed by Dr. Bates.
The principle underlying the comprehension of any skill
Someone will ask: is there any confidence that this particular technique is correct? The best proof that pudding is pudding is to eat it; The first and most convincing argument in favor of the method is its effectiveness, that is, the correspondence of the result to expectation.
Bates's methods are based on the same principles that underlie all educational systems ever developed and successfully applied. Whatever skill you are trying to master - be it acrobatics or violin, meditation or golf, singing, dancing, whatever - there is something that a good teacher will never tire of reminding you of: “Learn to combine relaxation* with be active; learn to do what you want without stress; work hard, but never overexert yourself."
The call to combine activity with relaxation may seem paradoxical; in fact, there is nothing paradoxical in this. There are two types of relaxation: passive and dynamic. Passive relaxation is achieved through conscious relaxation; as an antidote to fatigue, as a way to relieve excessive muscle tension (and the mental tension that always accompanies it), it is excellent. However, life is such that hardly anyone can afford the luxury of being in constant relaxation, in blissful idleness. And here something that is quite appropriate to give the name of dynamic relaxation comes to our rescue. Dynamic relaxation is a state of body and mind that is consistent with normal and natural functioning.
It happens that some organs lose their normal and natural functioning, and tension arises. Typically, this happens when the conscious self encounters instinctively acquired habits of correct use, or when you try too hard to do something and do it well, or experience excessive anxiety about possible failures. In the acquisition of any psycho-physical faculty, the conscious Self must give orders, but not too much; it must see to the formation of habits of correct functioning, but without fuss, modestly and self-denial. The great truth, known by the masters of the spirit: “Where there is more “I”, there is less God,” was revealed again and again at the psychological level to masters of various arts: “Where there is more “I”, there is less nature” - i.e. correct and normal functioning. The role played by the conscious “I” in lowering the body’s resistance and, as it were, preparing it for illness, has been recognized by medical science for a long time. When it is too worried, too afraid, too upset and grieves for too long and too intensely, the body can be brought into such a state that stomach ulcers, tuberculosis, coronary disease and a whole bunch of other ailments of any severity take root. Even tooth decay in children, as practice shows, is often associated with emotional overstrain experienced by the conscious “I.” And the fact that vision, which is closely connected with our physical, mental and spiritual life, one might say, ensures this life, should suffer due to the tensions arising in the conscious “I” is simply unimaginable!
When using the technique of visual retraining, “infinite limits” are discovered to which the intervention of the conscious “I” in the process of vision can reach. And it intervenes - just as it interferes when we sing or play tennis and are too concerned about the results. But in vision, as in other psycho-physical abilities, restless efforts to do everything well lead to the opposite: to the destruction of the very means of achieving the goal, since restlessness creates mental and physical stress, and the stress is incompatible with the proper use of this means due to the disruption of normal and natural functioning.
Sensation + choice + perception = vision
Before proceeding with a detailed description of the methods used by Dr. Bates, I propose to take a closer look at the process of vision itself. Such an introduction, I hope, will serve to highlight the main arguments in favor of these methods; otherwise, some of them may seem unclear and controversial.
When we look, we perceive our surroundings using our tools: the eyes and the nervous system. In the process of vision, the brain, eyes and nervous system are connected in the most intimate and inextricable way; the impact on one of the elements of the triad affects all the others; As a result, we have a more or less unified and complete picture. In practice we find that only the eyes and the mind can be directly influenced, but the nervous system that connects them can receive or exert influence only indirectly.
The structure and mechanics of the eye have been studied in detail for a long time; their descriptions are available in any textbook on ophthalmology or physiological optics. So it makes no sense to return to them and retell what is known again. And they interest me not in themselves, but as components of the process of vision - a process in which these structures and mechanisms provide the mind with visual impressions. In what follows, I will use the vocabulary used by Dr. Brod in the book “Mind and Its Place in Nature” (for its insightful and exhaustive analysis, for its clarity of thought and presentation, it is rightfully ranked among the masterpieces of modern philosophical literature).
What is felt is a set of sensa within the sphere of observation. The visual sensum is one of the spots of color that form the raw visual material and can be felt at any given moment; the totality of such color spots is the visual field.
So, the first stage of the vision process is sensation.
The sensation is followed by selection, that is, as a result of which a part of the visual field is recognized and distinguished from the totality of all other images. Physiologically, this process is based on the fact that the eye focuses its clearest images in the very center of the retina - in the macula with its microscopic fovea, the point of sharpest vision. There is, of course, a psychological basis for selection; in any given visual field there is always something that attracts or interests us more than anything else; It is this something that attracts us that we strive to highlight more clearly and distinctly than other parts of the field.
The final stage of the process is perception. At this stage, recognition of the sensed and selected sensum occurs in the form of physical objects existing in the external world. Remember, this is important: physical objects are not given as initial data, only a set of sensa is given; and sensum, in Dr. Brod's language - something without relation - in other words, sensum, as such, are just spots of color, not having any relation to physical objects. Physical objects become visible only when we consciously select a sensum and use it for perception. It is our mind that interprets sensum as visible physical objects in space.
If you observe children, it becomes obvious that we are not born ready to perceive objects fully. The newborn feels a mass of vague, unclear sensa, which for him is not even the sum of individual physical objects; step by step he learns to recognize and select sensa (which, by virtue of its special purpose, has great interest and significance), and with this selected sensa he gradually, through a process of appropriate interpretation, comes to perceive external objects. This ability to interpret sensa in terms of external physical objects is probably innate; but for adequate manifestation it requires a large reserve of accumulated experience and a memory capable of maintaining such a reserve. Interpretation of sensa in the language of physical objects becomes quick and automatic only when the mind has something to draw from to successfully interpret sensa.
In adults, all three stages - sensation, choice and perception - occur almost simultaneously. We are aware only of the general process of seeing objects, and are not aware of the auxiliary processes that culminate in vision. By restraining the activity of the interpretive mind, it is possible to catch echoes of the raw sensum as it appears to the eyes of a newborn. But such echoes are incomplete and extremely short-lived. It is possible for an adult to experience pure sensation again, without the perception of physical objects, only in certain states, when the higher levels of consciousness are disabled by drugs or illness. Such an experience cannot be viewed from within while it is going on, but it can be recalled when the mind returns to normal. By recalling these memories, we can provide ourselves with genuine knowledge of the processes of sensation, choice and perception through which the vision of physical objects in the external world is realized.
Example
Here, as an example, I will give an account of an experience I had while recovering from the effects of an anesthetic drug in the dentist's chair. The return of consciousness began with purely visual sensations, completely devoid of meaning. These were not, as far as I remember, objects existing "out there" in the familiar three-dimensional world of everyday experience. These were just spots of color, existing in themselves, by themselves and for themselves, not connected not only with the immediate environment and with the whole world, but also with me, since self-awareness was still completely absent, and these meaningless and unattached impressions of sensations were not mine; they just were. This went on for a minute or two; then the effect of the anesthetic decreased a little more, and noticeable changes occurred. Color spots were no longer perceived only as color spots, but began to be associated with certain objects “outside”, in the external three-dimensional world - the facades of houses in the window opposite the chair in which I was reclining looked very specific. Attention slid across the visual field, selecting its parts one after another and perceiving these selected parts as physical objects. From vagueness and meaninglessness, sensa developed into the manifestation of certain things belonging to familiar categories and located in the familiar world of solid objects. Recognized and qualified, these perceptions (I do not call them my perceptions, since the "I" had not yet appeared on the scene) immediately became clearer, while details and particulars, not noticed until the sensa lacked meaning, were now perceived and appreciated. What was now perceived was no longer a set of color spots, but became a mosaic of a known, remembered world. Famous and remembered... To whom? At first there was no indication of the answer. But after some time, imperceptibly, gradually, my self, the subject of experience, arose. With her appearance, as far as I remember, came further clarity of vision. What was at first a raw sensa and then became, through interpretation, a collection of familiar and varied objects, a little later transformed into objects associated with my personality by a system of memories, habits and desires. Thanks to this connectedness, the perceived objects became even more visible, since the person with whom they came into connection was interested in more and more variety of external reality than when he was simply a psychological being sensing spots of color; and the more developed, but still “in itself,” conscious being perceived these sensa as manifestations of familiar objects, but there, in a familiar world. The "I" has now returned; and since the “I” became interested in architectural details and their history, the objects visible through the window immediately began to be perceived in new categories: not just houses, but houses of a particular style, time, with characteristic features noticeable even to such visually impaired eyes, which ones I had at that time. These features were perceived not because my vision had suddenly improved, but simply because my mind was again able to seek and imprint their meaning...
This experience is not exceptional, but illustrates certain facts which every student of the visual arts must constantly bear in mind.
These facts can be formulated as follows:
sensations are not the same as perceptions;
the eyes and nervous system sense, the mind perceives;
perception is related to the individual's accumulated experience - in other words, to memory;
clear vision is the result of accurate sensation and correct perception;
any increase in the power of perception tends to lead to an improvement in the power of sensation and that total result of sensation and perception, which is vision.
Memory-based perception
That increased power of perception leads to increased individual power of feeling and seeing is evident not only in such extraordinary circumstances as I have described, but also in ordinary life. Walking through the forest, a city dweller will be blind to the diversity of vegetation, while a natural scientist will easily notice everything. A sailor will pay attention to objects that simply do not exist for a landman... and so on, ad infinitum. In all these cases, improved vision is the result of increased powers of perception, which depend on the memory of similar situations in the past. In traditional treatment of visual disorders, attention is paid to only one element in the overall process of vision, namely: the physiological mechanism of the sensory apparatus. Perception and the ability to remember are completely ignored. Why and on the basis of what theories, God knows.
Considering the enormous role that the mind is known to play in the process of vision, it becomes obvious that any adequate and truly etiological treatment of impaired vision must take into account not only sensations, but also the process of perception, the process of memorization, without which perception is impossible. Dr. Bates's methods are precisely aimed at improving perception and its necessary condition: memory.
Inconstancy of physical and mental functions
The most general fact about the functioning of the body or any part of it is that it is not constant, subject to fluctuations. Yesterday we felt great, today we felt worse; yesterday our stomach coped with its duties properly, now something incomprehensible is happening to it; In the morning we took the most unpleasant news with humor, in the evening every trifle makes us angry... This non-uniform implementation of functions is the price we pay for living and being self-aware organisms, constantly involved in the process of adaptation to changing conditions.
The functioning of the organs of vision - the sensory eye, the transmitting nervous system and the mind that selects and perceives - is no less variable. People with healthy eyes and correct habits of using them have, let's say, a wide field of visual safety. Even when their visual organs are not functioning well, they can still see well enough to cope with most practical tasks. Therefore, they do not feel as acutely the instability of visual functions as those who have spoiled visual habits and impaired vision. The latter have a very small or no safety field at all, so any decrease in visual power causes a noticeable and often sad result.
The eyes can suffer from various diseases. Some of them affect only the eyes directly, others hit the eyes, so to speak, with a ricochet - in this case, eye suffering is a sign of a disease of some internal organs: kidneys, almond gland, etc. Many diseases do not cause any organic violations, but affect functioning - often this is expressed in the form of a decrease in general tone.
Poor diet and posture can also have a negative impact on your vision.
There are also purely psychological reasons for poor visual functioning. Grief, anxiety, irritation, fear, and any other negative emotions can cause dysfunction of varying duration and severity.
In light of these facts, the absurdity of the behavior of most people when their vision deteriorates is exposed. Ignoring the general condition of the body, they rush to the nearest pharmacy and purchase a suitable pair of glasses. Unaware that the weakness of vision could be caused by temporary dysfunction due to a physical or psychological disorder, the buyer takes artificial lenses and, after some discomfort, is pleased to note the improvement in vision. This improvement comes at a cost. Most likely, he will never be able to do without what Dr. Lakish calls “valuable crutches”; on the contrary, the strength of the “crutches” will have to be increased, since the ability to see will progressively decrease under their influence.
In children, visual functions are especially easily impaired; Anything can be to blame: emotional shock, anxiety, fear, tension. But instead of understanding the child’s psychological state and finding out why he complains that it is difficult for him to look, the parents immediately take him to an ophthalmologist, who is always ready to alleviate the symptoms with optical glasses. Thus, the little person finds himself in lifelong bondage to a mechanical device, which can indeed neutralize the symptoms of imperfect functioning, but, as it turns out, at the cost of aggravating its causes.
Impaired eyes may have glimpses of normal vision
Early in the visual relearning process, a surprising discovery is made. It's as follows. As soon as the impaired organ of vision reaches a certain level of what I have called dynamic relaxation, glimpses of almost or completely 100% vision arise; sometimes they last a few seconds, sometimes longer.
It happens that after this, old and bad habits of improper use disappear immediately and forever, and with the return of normal functioning, vision is completely restored. In the vast majority of cases, however, the glimpse goes away as unexpectedly as it appeared. Old habits of misuse reassert themselves; and there will be no other glimpse until the eyes and mind return to the state of dynamic relaxation in which alone perfect vision is possible. For those who have long suffered from eye problems, the first glimpse is often accompanied by such a shock that they cannot restrain themselves from screaming and even from tears. But, as the art of dynamic relaxation is comprehended, glimpses of better vision become more frequent and longer, until finally they merge into one continuous duration of normal vision. To preserve such glimpses forever is the purpose and meaning of the training developed by Dr. Bates and his associates.
Glimpses of improved vision are an empirically established fact, and can be demonstrated to anyone who decides to fulfill the conditions on which their manifestation depends. The fact that at the moment of the flash the subject can clearly see objects that are usually blurred or not visible at all shows that by mitigating mental and muscular tension it is possible to improve function and eliminate refractive error.
Changeable eyes - permanent glasses
When conditions change, the eyes are able to change the degree of deformation imposed on them by habits of improper use. But this ability is weakened or even suppressed by artificial lenses. The reason is simple: each artificial lens is designed to correct one specific refractive error; this means that the eye cannot see clearly through the lens unless it matches exactly the abnormality that the lens is designed to correct. Any attempt by the eyes, saddled with glasses, to show their natural variability is immediately restrained, as it always leads to deterioration of vision. This is true even when the eye varies toward normal vision, since without errors in refraction it cannot see clearly through a lens designed to correct an error that no longer exists in it.
Thus, the use of glasses forcibly keeps the eyes in a state of structural immobility. In this respect, artificial lenses resemble not the crutches to which Dr. Lakish compared them, but surgical splints, metal clamps and plaster casts.
Here, I think, it is appropriate to recall the achievements in the treatment of infantile paralysis associated with the name of Elizabeth Canny, an Australian nurse. According to the old method, paralyzed muscle groups were supposed to be fixed by applying splints and plaster casts. Sister Kenny refused to deal with these funds. Instead, she uses a wide variety of exercises aimed at relaxing and re-training the affected muscles, some of which are in a spastic state of too strong contraction, while others, unable to move due to spasms in neighboring muscle groups, have already forgotten their inherent functions. Physiological procedures, such as warming up, massage, are combined with an appeal to the patient’s mind - through suggestion, persuasion,
Aldous HUXLEY
How to correct vision
Aldous Huxley "The Art of Seeing"
Igor Sirenko
PREFACE
At the age of sixteen I had an acute attack of Keratitis punctata, and after eighteen months, during which I remained in a state close to blindness (I had to master Braille, and obediently follow a guide on walks), one of my eyes was only able to make out a two-hundred-foot letter in the Snellen table, and then from a distance of only ten feet, while the other could hardly distinguish day from night.
The misery of my situation was mainly due to the clouding of the cornea; but there was also hypermetropia and astigmatism...
For the first few years, doctors recommended that I use a strong magnifying glass to read. Then glasses took over. With their help it was possible to decipher a seventy-foot line (again from a distance of only ten feet!) and to read quite passably - provided that the pupils were dilated with atropine to such an extent that a kind of clear "windows" were formed on the cornea around the cloudy center. Of course, the cost of this was enormous stress, and at times I felt literally gutted.
All this continued until 1939, when I suddenly discovered that reading was becoming more and more difficult and tiring even with powerful glasses.
There was no doubt: my already flawed ability to see was rapidly declining. And just when I was anxiously wondering what kind of life awaited me if reading became unavailable, someone started talking about visual retraining. It looked quite harmless, inspired hope, and I, who had nothing to lose, decided to try it.
After a couple of months, I was already reading without glasses and, what’s even more surprising, without stress or fatigue. Moreover, there were obvious signs that the clouding of the cornea, which had accompanied me for more than twenty-five years, was beginning to clear up. Now my vision, although far from normal, is almost twice as sharp as it was when I wore glasses and still knew nothing about vision correction techniques; the cornea has cleared so much that the eye, which had difficulty distinguishing between light and darkness, recognizes a ten-foot line from a distance of one foot.
This is what prompted me to sit down and read the book; by writing it I wish to repay the debt and express my gratitude to the pioneer of visual re-education, the late Dr. W. G. Bates, and his follower, Mrs. Margaret D. Corbett, to whose teaching talent I owe my vision.
There are other works on the topic of visual retraining; Among them I will especially mention the following: "Perfect Sight Without Glasses" by Dr. Bates (New York, 1920), "How to Improve Your Eyes" by Mrs. Corbett (Los Angeles, 1938) and "Improving Vision by Natural Methods" by K. S. Price (London, 1934). Each of them is valuable in its own way; but in none (at least of the ones I read) did I come across an attempt to correlate the methods of visual retraining with the latest achievements of psychology and philosophy. This is the gap I am going to fill; my task is to demonstrate that these methods are nothing more than the practical application of certain theoretical principles believed to be true.
It may be asked: why haven’t traditional ophthalmologists put these generally accepted principles into practice? The answer is simple. From the moment ophthalmology became a science, doctors paid attention only to the physiological side of the complex visual process. They were busy with the eyes and forgot about the mind, which uses the eyes to look and see. I have been treated by men of the highest rank in their profession; but not one of them even mentioned that there can be a mental side to vision, or that there are wrong ways to use the eyes and the mind, just as there are right ones. After checking my diseased eyes - I must admit, with skill and virtuosity, they prescribed me artificial lenses and released me. Whether I used my mind and my glasses-wearing eyes well or poorly was completely immaterial to them. For Dr. Bates, on the contrary, such questions and the answers to them were by no means indifferent, and over many years of experimentation and clinical practice he developed his own method of visual retraining. The fact that this technique is correct is proven by its effectiveness.
My example is by no means unique; thousands of other similar sufferers have benefited by following the simple rules for improving vision for which we are indebted to Dr. Bates and his followers. Making these rules and methods widely known is the ultimate goal of this book.
PART ONE
MEDICINE AND VISUAL IMPAIRED
Medicus curat, natura sanat - the doctor heals, nature heals... This old aphorism perfectly defines the possibilities of medicine and its task: to provide the suffering body with such conditions that its own self-regulating and restorative forces are revealed. Without vis medicatrix naturae, natural healing powers, medicine would be helpless, and any disorder, even a minor one, would immediately kill or lead to chronic illness.
When conditions are favorable, the suffering body strives to get rid of the disease using its inherent powers of self-healing. If relief does not occur, this means that either the case is hopeless or the conditions are unfavorable, i.e., in other words, the treatment used by medicine does not achieve the goal that adequate treatment is designed to achieve.
Conventional treatment for impaired vision
In light of these basic principles, let us analyze how modern medicine treats visual impairment. In the vast majority of cases, the only treatment option is the selection of artificial lenses designed to correct the specific refractive error that is considered responsible for the disorder. Medicus curat; and most often the patient is rewarded with an immediate improvement in vision. By the way, what about nature and its healing effects? Do glasses eliminate the cause of impaired vision? Do the visual organs have the opportunity to restore normal functioning? There is only one answer to these questions: NO. Artificial lenses neutralize symptoms, but do not eliminate the causes of disorders. Moreover, eyes equipped with these devices tend to become progressively weaker and require stronger and stronger lenses to neutralize the symptoms detected. In a word, medicus curat, natura non sanat. And here you have to choose one of two things: either disorders of the visual organs are incurable in principle and can only be mitigated by mechanical means, or the modern treatment method itself is incorrect.
Traditional ophthalmology opts for the first, absolutely pessimistic position, and insists that mechanical neutralization of symptoms is the only method of treatment. (I am not talking about special cases where immediate surgery is required, but only about those widespread conditions that are currently treated with artificial lenses).
Healing or alleviating symptoms?
Aldous Huxley "The Art of Seeing"
Igor Sirenko
PREFACE
At the age of sixteen I had an acute attack of Keratitis punctata, and after eighteen months, during which I remained in a state close to blindness (I had to master Braille, and obediently follow a guide on walks), one of my eyes was only able to make out a two-hundred-foot letter in the Snellen table, and then from a distance of only ten feet, while the other could hardly distinguish day from night.
The misery of my situation was mainly due to the clouding of the cornea; but there was also hypermetropia and astigmatism...
For the first few years, doctors recommended that I use a strong magnifying glass to read. Then glasses took over. With their help it was possible to decipher a seventy-foot line (again from a distance of only ten feet!) and to read quite passably - provided that the pupils were dilated with atropine to such an extent that a kind of clear "windows" were formed on the cornea around the cloudy center. Of course, the cost of this was enormous stress, and at times I felt literally gutted.
All this continued until 1939, when I suddenly discovered that reading was becoming more and more difficult and tiring even with powerful glasses.
There was no doubt: my already flawed ability to see was rapidly declining. And just when I was anxiously wondering what kind of life awaited me if reading became unavailable, someone started talking about visual retraining. It looked quite harmless, inspired hope, and I, who had nothing to lose, decided to try it.
After a couple of months, I was already reading without glasses and, what’s even more surprising, without stress or fatigue. Moreover, there were obvious signs that the clouding of the cornea, which had accompanied me for more than twenty-five years, was beginning to clear up. Now my vision, although far from normal, is almost twice as sharp as it was when I wore glasses and still knew nothing about vision correction techniques; the cornea has cleared so much that the eye, which had difficulty distinguishing between light and darkness, recognizes a ten-foot line from a distance of one foot.
This is what prompted me to sit down and read the book; by writing it I wish to repay the debt and express my gratitude to the pioneer of visual re-education, the late Dr. W. G. Bates, and his follower, Mrs. Margaret D. Corbett, to whose teaching talent I owe my vision.
There are other works on the topic of visual retraining; Among them I will especially mention the following: "Perfect Sight Without Glasses" by Dr. Bates (New York, 1920), "How to Improve Your Eyes" by Mrs. Corbett (Los Angeles, 1938) and "Improving Vision by Natural Methods" by K. S. Price (London, 1934). Each of them is valuable in its own way; but in none (at least of the ones I read) did I come across an attempt to correlate the methods of visual retraining with the latest achievements of psychology and philosophy. This is the gap I am going to fill; my task is to demonstrate that these methods are nothing more than the practical application of certain theoretical principles believed to be true.
It may be asked: why haven’t traditional ophthalmologists put these generally accepted principles into practice? The answer is simple. From the moment ophthalmology became a science, doctors paid attention only to the physiological side of the complex visual process. They were busy with the eyes and forgot about the mind, which uses the eyes to look and see. I have been treated by men of the highest rank in their profession; but not one of them even mentioned that there can be a mental side to vision, or that there are wrong ways to use the eyes and the mind, just as there are right ones. After checking my diseased eyes - I must admit, with skill and virtuosity, they prescribed me artificial lenses and released me. Whether I used my mind and my glasses-wearing eyes well or poorly was completely immaterial to them. For Dr. Bates, on the contrary, such questions and the answers to them were by no means indifferent, and over many years of experimentation and clinical practice he developed his own method of visual retraining. The fact that this technique is correct is proven by its effectiveness.
My example is by no means unique; thousands of other similar sufferers have benefited by following the simple rules for improving vision for which we are indebted to Dr. Bates and his followers. Making these rules and methods widely known is the ultimate goal of this book.
PART ONE
MEDICINE AND VISUAL IMPAIRED Medicus curat, natura sanat - the doctor heals, nature heals... This old aphorism perfectly defines the possibilities of medicine and its task: to provide the suffering body with such conditions that its own self-regulating and restorative forces are revealed. Without vis medicatrix naturae, natural healing powers, medicine would be helpless, and any disorder, even a minor one, would immediately kill or lead to chronic illness.
When conditions are favorable, the suffering body strives to get rid of the disease using its inherent powers of self-healing. If relief does not occur, this means that either the case is hopeless or the conditions are unfavorable, i.e., in other words, the treatment used by medicine does not achieve the goal that adequate treatment is designed to achieve.
Conventional treatment for impaired vision
In light of these basic principles, let us analyze how modern medicine treats visual impairment. In the vast majority of cases, the only treatment option is the selection of artificial lenses designed to correct the specific refractive error that is considered responsible for the disorder. Medicus curat; and most often the patient is rewarded with an immediate improvement in vision. By the way, what about nature and its healing effects? Do glasses eliminate the cause of impaired vision? Do the visual organs have the opportunity to restore normal functioning? There is only one answer to these questions: NO. Artificial lenses neutralize symptoms, but do not eliminate the causes of disorders. Moreover, eyes equipped with these devices tend to become progressively weaker and require stronger and stronger lenses to neutralize the symptoms detected. In a word, medicus curat, natura non sanat. And here you have to choose one of two things: either disorders of the visual organs are incurable in principle and can only be mitigated by mechanical means, or the modern treatment method itself is incorrect.
Format: HTML
Quality: EBook
Description
To everyone who suffers from various visual impairment, but wants to get rid of them himself and protect his children, this book will become a valuable help and guide to action.In it, the famous English writer Aldous Huxley (1894–1963) vividly and fascinatingly tells how he struggled with impending blindness, following the methods of the American ophthalmologist W. G. Bates.
Aldous Leonard Huxley
(eng. Aldous Huxley; July 26, 1894, Godalming, Surrey, UK - November 22, 1963, Los Angeles, California, USA) - English writer. Author of the famous dystopian novel Brave New World.
On both his paternal and maternal sides, Huxley belonged to the British cultural elite, which produced a number of outstanding scientists, writers, and artists. His father is the writer Leonard Huxley, his paternal grandfather is the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley; On his mother's side, Huxley is the great-grandson of the historian and educator Thomas Arnold and the great-nephew of the writer Matthew Arnold. Huxley's brother Julian and half-brother Andrew were famous biologists.
Huxley's mother died when Aldous was 13 years old. Three years later he developed an eye infection and subsequently his vision deteriorated significantly. In this regard, he was exempted from military service during the First World War. Own experience of vision correction he later described in a pamphlet " How to correct vision"(The Art of Seeing, 1943).
His novels deal with the loss of humanity by society in the process of technological progress (the dystopia “Brave New World!”, There is also the book “Return to the Brave New World” (1958 Brave New World Revisited) written 20 years after the first (in which Huxley describes the opposite state of the first book and develops the idea that in reality everything will be much worse and worse than in the first). He also touched upon pacifist themes.
In 1937, Huxley moved to Los Angeles, California, with his guru Gerald Gerd, hoping that the Californian climate would benefit him. deteriorating vision. It was here that his main creative period began, for which a more detailed consideration of human essence was a new feature. Huxley met Jiddu Krishnamurti in 1938. Under the influence of the latter, he turns to various wisdom teachings and engages in mysticism.
The accumulated knowledge is visible in his subsequent works: “The Perennial Philosophy”, most clearly in “After Many a Summer...” and also in the work “Time must have a stop”.
In 1953, he agrees to participate in an experiment conducted by Humphrey Osmond. The purpose of this experiment was to study the effect of mescaline on human consciousness.
Subsequently, in correspondence with Osmond, the word “psychedelic” was used for the first time to describe the influence of mescaline.
The essays “The Doors of Perception” and “Heaven and Hell” describe observations and the course of the experiment, which the author repeated about ten times until his death. "The Doors of Perception" became an iconic text for many radical intellectuals of the 1960s and gave its name to the famous group The Doors.
The effect of psychotropic substances affects not only his work. So in his last novel, “Island,” he described a positive utopia, which was diametrically opposed to his dystopia, “Brave New World.”
Huxley died in 1963 in Los Angeles from throat cancer. Before his death, he asked for an intramuscular injection of LSD - 100 mcg. Despite the doctors' warnings, his wife complied with his request. She admitted this in an interview she gave in 1986 to the British television company BBC as part of the documentary project “LSD: The Beyond Within.” Shortly before his death, all his manuscripts were burned in a fire in his own house.
The book provides a table with which you can do exercises to correct vision.
The book is intended for a wide range of readers of all ages.
FROM THE TRANSLATOR
PREFACE
Conventional treatment for impaired vision
Healing or alleviating symptoms?
Causes of visual impairment: boredom
Causes of visual dysfunction: illness and emotional disturbances
APPENDIX No. 2.
APPENDIX No. 3.
FROM THE TRANSLATOR
Before you, reader, is a very unusual book. It was written by a man who was practically blind in his youth, and when it seemed that there was no hope not only for improvement, but even for slowing down the deterioration, he was lucky: he met Dr. Bates' original technique who saved him.
We are talking about the famous writer Aldous Huxley, author of the dystopian novel Brave New World. He was born in 1894 in England, his father Leonard Huxley was the editor of the Cornhill magazine, his brother Julian was a famous biologist and philosopher, and his grandfather Thomas Henry Huxley (in Russian transcription - Huxley) was a famous biologist. Another prominent ancestor of his is the English critic and essayist Matthew Arnold.
Family traditions, of course, influenced the fate of young Huxley. Despite a serious eye condition that left him almost completely blind at the age of 16, he successfully completed college at Eton and received a BA with first-class honors in English from one of Oxford's most honorable institutions, Balliol College.
In 1916, the first book of his poems was published, followed by two more. A collection of short stories, Limbo, was published in 1920. A year later, the novel Crome Yellow is published, and Huxley achieves recognition. His productivity is amazing. He publishes poetry, novels, short stories, travel essays, historical biographies, and critical essays on literature, painting, and music.
Most of the 20s of the XX century. Huxley lived in Italy, but in the 1930s he moved to Toulon, where he wrote the novel Brave New World. In 1937, he moved to California, believing that the climate there would be more beneficial for his sore eyes. Many of Aldous Huxley's novels have been translated into Russian: "Crome Yellow" (1921), "The Jester's Round Dance" (1923), "Brave New World" (1932), "The Monkey and the Essence" (1948), etc. However, some of Huxley's works are still little known in Russia, and one of them is “The Art of Seeing” (“How to Correct Your Vision”) (1943). In this book, Huxley talks about ways to combat various visual defects. He experienced all this on himself - and as a result, one can say without much exaggeration, he began to see the light.
This is not a miracle or mysticism. Every person has a huge reserve of strength and energy in order to maintain and restore their health; they just need to be able to mobilize this internal reserve. Improving Dr. Bates's technique, Huxley shows how lost vision can be restored without outside help. At the same time, it makes the reader think about the properties of human nature in general.
Huxley's recommendations are clear and simple, and although this book of his was first published 60 years ago, its practical value has not diminished and continues to be republished in many countries around the world. I hope that getting to know her and following her recommendations will bring improvement, relief, and ultimately complete restoration of vision to those in need. I can testify that this book helped me personally, who has been suffering from myopia for 20 years. For the first time I watched TV without glasses. At first there was a rather unpleasant sensation (about five minutes), but then I began to see much better, the picture became clear. The same thing happened when I then went outside without glasses. At first there was the same discomfort, but after 5-7 minutes the vision improved noticeably. Visit to ophthalmologist a few years later revealed what happened improvement of vision by several units.
Of course, only surgery can save someone. But even then Huxley’s technique will not be superfluous. There are cases when only she, after surgical operations, helped relieve tension, which is necessary for recovery.
Therefore, do not rush to put on contact lenses or glasses, try your own strength first. Perhaps this will bring you more benefit.
PREFACE
At the age of sixteen I had an acute attack of Keratitis punctata*, and after eighteen months, during which I remained in a state close to blindness (I had to master Braille**, and obediently follow a guide on walks), one of my eyes was able to see only a two-hundred-foot letter in the Snellen table***, and then from a distance of only ten feet, while the other could hardly distinguish day from night.
The misery of my situation was mainly due to the clouding of the cornea; but there was also hypermetropia**** and astigmatism*****...
For the first few years, doctors recommended that I use a strong magnifying glass to read. Then glasses took over. With their help it was possible to decipher a seventy-foot line (again from a distance of only ten feet!) and to read quite passably - provided that the pupils were dilated with atropine to such an extent that a kind of clear "windows" were formed on the cornea around the cloudy center. Of course, the cost of this was enormous stress, and at times I felt literally gutted.
All this continued until 1939, when I suddenly discovered that reading was becoming more and more difficult and tiring even with powerful glasses.
* Keratitis punctata (lat.) - punctate keratitis, inflammation of the cornea of the eye, accompanied by clouding and decreased vision.
** Braille - French scientist Louis Braille, who developed a raised dot font for writing and reading by the blind.
*** Snellen table - a table with letters and symbols of various sizes, designed to test visual acuity; named after the Danish ophthalmologist Hermann Snellen. In most Western European countries and the United States, the table is designed to be examined from a distance of 20 feet (6 m), and the rows are designated by the distance (in feet or meters) from which they are clearly visible with 100% vision. Thus, a two-hundred-foot letter on the Snellen chart is the letter that normal eyes can see from a distance of 200 feet.
****Hyperopia is a form of farsightedness in which a person cannot clearly see either distant or nearby objects.
***** Astigmatism is an optical defect of the eyes, which is usually caused by unequal curvature of the cornea or irregular shape of the lens, which is why different refractions are combined in one eye.
There was no doubt: my already flawed ability to see is rapidly declining. And just when I was anxiously wondering what kind of life awaited me if reading became unavailable, someone started talking about visual retraining. It looked quite harmless, inspired hope, and I, who had nothing to lose, decided to try it.
After a couple of months, I was already reading without glasses and, what’s even more surprising, without stress or fatigue. Moreover, there were obvious signs that the clouding of the cornea, which had accompanied me for more than twenty-five years, was beginning to clear up. Now my vision, although far from normal, is almost twice as sharp as it was when I wore glasses and still knew nothing about vision correction techniques; the cornea has cleared so much that the eye, which had difficulty distinguishing between light and darkness, recognizes a ten-foot line from a distance of one foot.
This is what prompted me to sit down and read the book; by writing it I wish to repay the debt and express my gratitude to the pioneer of visual re-education, the late Dr. W. G. Bates, and his follower, Mrs. Margaret D. Corbett, to whose teaching talent I owe my vision.
There are other works on the topic of visual retraining; Among them I will especially mention the following: "Perfect Sight Without Glasses" by Dr. Bates (New York, 1920), "How to Improve Your Eyes" by Mrs. Corbett (Los Angeles, 1938) and "Improving Vision by Natural Methods" by K. S. Price (London, 1934). Each of them is valuable in its own way; but in none (at least of the ones I read) did I come across an attempt to correlate the methods of visual retraining with the latest achievements of psychology and philosophy. This is the gap I am going to fill; my task is to demonstrate that these methods are nothing more than the practical application of certain theoretical principles believed to be true.
They may ask: Why haven’t traditional ophthalmologists put these generally accepted principles into practice?? The answer is simple. From the moment ophthalmology became a science, doctors paid attention only to the physiological side of the complex visual process. They were busy with the eyes and forgot about the mind, which uses the eyes to look and see. I have been treated by men of the highest rank in their profession; but not one of them even mentioned that there can be a mental side to vision, or that there are wrong ways to use the eyes and mind, just as there are right ones.
After checking my diseased eyes - I must admit, with skill and virtuosity, they prescribed me artificial lenses and released me. Whether I used my mind and my glasses-wearing eyes well or poorly was completely immaterial to them. For Dr. Bates, on the contrary, such questions and the answers to them were by no means indifferent, and over many years of experimentation and clinical practice he developed his own method of visual retraining. The fact that this technique is correct is proven by its effectiveness.
My example is by no means unique; thousands of other similar sufferers have benefited by following the simple rules for improving vision for which we are indebted to Dr. Bates and his followers. Making these rules and methods widely known is the ultimate goal of this book.
Appendix No. 1. Perfect vision without glasses September 13, 1941
After I had finished writing this book, one of my correspondents sent me a copy of an article that appeared unsigned (probably as an editorial) in the British Medical Journal.
Dr. J. Parness's letter in this issue encourages us to pay attention to a recent radio talk by Dr. Julian Huxley. It was about the practice of correcting visual impairments without the use of glasses... Before condemning this practice, it is good to consider the evidence in support of it. There are many methods based on hypotheses, varying in their ingenuity.
The system set forth by W. H. Bates has only this advantage over competing systems, that its principles are publicly stated. Bates believes that the state of refraction is dynamic and constantly changing. Changes in refraction are carried out by the external neuromuscular tissues of the eyes, while the lens itself does not play any role in accommodation. Impaired vision belongs to the field of mental phenomena; a disease of the brain centers first upsets the macula, and then the entire retina. The treatment aims to promote "mental relaxation" because when the mind is at rest, vision returns to normal. In his 30 years of work on refraction, Bates found a small number of people who were able to maintain "perfect vision" for more than a few minutes at a time, and he often observed "refractive changes of six times or more per second." Since no ophthalmologist is physically capable of noticing six or more changes in refraction within a second (this can be called “blitz retinoscopy”), no one can refute Bates’s basic dogma.
And ophthalmologists still remain faithful to the theory, based on physiological data, that accommodation is carried out by changing the curvature of the lens. Bates illustrates the influence of the mind on refraction by the effect of tension. Since tension involves mental anxiety, changes in refraction occur in all conditions that cause such anxiety.
Thus, “a 25-year-old patient had no refractive error when he looked at a blank wall without trying to see anything on it (that is, in a state of complete relaxation and lack of tension); but when he said that he was 26 years, or someone else convinced him of the same thing, he became myopic (as Bates' blitzretinoscopy showed). The same thing happened when he claimed or tried to imagine that he was 24 years old. But if he gave the true data, his vision returned. norm." Bates also cites the case of the little liar. The retinoscope detected a change towards myopia when asked: “Have you eaten ice cream?” - she answered: “No.” If the girl was telling the truth, the retinoscope did not note any refractive errors. This gives the impression, so to speak, of a physical manifestation of the inner voice of conscience.
There is also a set of dubious data that purports to prove that lens-removed patients can read small print while wearing distance glasses. And the fact that the daily experience of ophthalmologists contradicts this may have some significance, but, obviously, not as significant as the isolated examples recorded by Bates, and which, by the way, have a completely different explanation, as everyone knows , familiar with related work.
In fact, there is a lot of different and contradictory literature regarding the actual mechanism of change in the shape of the lens during the process of accommodation; the facts themselves are not disputed by anyone - except Bates, who cites what he calls experimental - data that removing the lens of a fish does not affect accommodation. The experiment with fish is abundantly illustrated with photographs, but nowhere is it even mentioned that accommodation in fish is physiologically and anatomically different from accommodation in mammals.
There are also facts about experiments on mammals, mainly rabbits and cats; and here amazing information appears: as if if you cut a nerve or muscle, and then reconnect and bandage it, the impulse will be transmitted in this state, although physiologists would be in no hurry to report the results without waiting at least a few days or even weeks. These experiments also shed light on the anatomy of mammals.
It turns out that the conventional wisdom that cats are naturally blessed with superior oblique muscles is not true. It should be noted that this is only a side observation; the main thing is that pharmacologists are mistaken in believing that atropine acts only on smooth muscles, since Bates discovered that this medicine paralyzes the external muscles that provide accommodation. From the experiment illustrated in the figure it appears that the dead fish still has a living mind - its brain is punctured to cause paralysis - or, according to Bates, relaxation.
The treatment based on these revolutionary observations has as its aim mental relaxation, and the killed fish seems to be its symbol.
The Bates system, however, has many adherents. True, in 1931 the Prussian Ministry of Public Health made a statement denouncing this system as quackery, but in Hitler’s Germany, multi-volume works on similar topics elevated it to a cult; there appears to be no shortage of Batesian practitioners or patients.
First of all, we note that this article contains two main lines of argument.
First, the Bates visual learning method cannot be correct because it is used by the Germans.
Second, Bates's method of visual learning cannot be correct because certain experiments designed to confirm the hypothesis to which Bates sought to explain the success of his method were not carried out properly.
The first argument is a copy of the one with which they tried to discredit the stethoscope a century ago - due to sheer prejudice against the French. Those familiar with the work of John Alleyson will recall the description of this most absurd episode in the history of medicine. It took more than twenty years before Laennec's discovery became widely used by English doctors.
In exactly the same way, only for even longer, hypnosis was banned by official British medicine. And all because of prejudice against hypnotists. Half a century had passed since Braid formulated his classic hypothesis, and Esdaile performed a number of serious operations with hypnotic anesthesia, but the British Medical Association continued to believe that there was nothing in hypnotism except fraud and quackery.
The history of medicine is blindly following the path of repeating its mistakes, and it seems that visual retraining will have to share the fate of hypnotism and the stethoscope.
I can add that the argument from the standpoint of rejection of Nazism is hardly justified in this matter. The visual restoration technique was developed by an American physician and is now widely taught in the United States and England. In Germany, there were “vision schools” for many years. Some of these schools were undoubtedly bad and deserved the condemnation of the Prussian Ministry of Health, but others, as can be seen from an article written in 1934 by a military surgeon for the Deutsche Meditsinische Wochenschrift, were simply remarkable.
In this article, Dr. Drenkhan mentions that in many cases of abnormal refractions, shooting results among recruits were better for those who did not wear glasses but took a course in vision rehabilitation at the vision school. For those who notice even the slightest deterioration in their vision, Dr. Drenkhahn's advice is: do not immediately go to an eye specialist, who will usually prescribe glasses for you, but consult with your family doctor, and after he takes steps to correct your overall physical and mental condition, go to the school of vision and learn how to properly use the eyes and mind.
This concerns the first line of argumentation. The second, equally incongruous, is based not on prejudice, but on confusion of thoughts and bad logic. Paradoxically, the author of the article is completely unable to distinguish between two completely different things: primary data confirming the existence of a certain phenomenon, and secondary data confirming the hypothesis explaining this phenomenon. The phenomenon which Bates sought to explain by means of his unconventional theory of accommodation was that marked improvement in vision which invariably followed the performance of certain rehabilitative exercises. The existence of such a pattern can be evidenced by thousands of people who, like me, have benefited from following the proposed procedures.
If the author of the anonymous article really wanted to understand the essence of the problem, he could contact trusted teachers and ask permission to observe their work. Instead, he tries to discredit the very idea of visual retraining by denying the value of the experiments Bates conducted to support his hypothesis.
Needless to say, the idea of visual retraining will survive all attacks unscathed. Even if the secondary data is proven to be wrong, even if the hypothesis itself is proven to be wrong, this will have absolutely nothing to do with the facts that the hypothesis was intended to explain. The existence of an incorrect explanation of a fact does not deny the existence of the fact itself, since in it the objective laws of nature, previously unknown, make themselves felt, and in the history of mankind, the ability to use has always preceded the ability to correctly explain.
For example, people were engaged in metallurgy long before, on the basis of accumulated data, hypotheses were formulated that satisfactorily explain the processes of melting, hardening, etc. If we follow the logic of the nameless author of the article, then we must admit: if these hypotheses turned out to be delusions and errors, any work with metal would become impossible. As for medicine, it probably shouldn't exist at all. Our knowledge about man and the human body is incomplete, limited, superficial, much is unknown, the hypotheses put forward are refuted or contradict each other, theory does not keep up with practice. Nevertheless, effective medical experience exists, despite the obvious fact that in the future many modern provisions will be recognized as outdated, new ones will appear, which current doctors do not even dare to guess about.
Dr. Bates' Theory of Accommodation may turn out to be as naive as the 18th century explanations of the reasons for the effectiveness of lime juice against scurvy. However, scurvy can be cured by drinking lime juice, and Bates's method of visual retraining improves vision.
Appendix No. 2
U myopic There is often quite poor posture. In some cases, it can be directly caused by poor vision, which contributes to slouching and a crooked neck. And vice versa: myopia, albeit partially, can be a consequence of poor posture. F. M. Alexander describes a case in which a short-sighted boy, after he was taught to hold his head and back straight, regained normal vision.
In adults, correcting posture alone is not a sufficient condition for restoring normal vision. But improvement in vision can be accelerated if you learn to replace incorrect habits of using the body (as a whole) with correct ones; but simultaneous mastery of visual abilities is mandatory.
Buy or download the book
All files on the site, before they are posted, checked for viruses. Therefore, we give a 100% guarantee of file purity.
" target="_blank" > Download the book ◄