Last week, particularly on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, I experienced a considerable feeling of relaxation from seeing. I was not seeing things that clearly any more, but instead everything became more like a mosaic of light and shade. I am writing in the past since I already have a different experience by now.
When I would look at something, I would see its neighborhood with some level of clarity, but then the next "ring" would be darker and less clear, then next "ring" even darker and even less clear, and so on. When I look at something, I often saw a cone emanating in all directions, gradually getting darker and less clear. Furthermore, the cone was moving or alive: certain areas were getting darker or lighter, boundaries between different parts were moving back and forth, and overall I felt relaxation and clarity.
For example, among other things, I took some yoga classes on Saturday. I noticed that sometimes a teacher would offer to close the eyes presumably to relax, go inside, go deeper, and so on, but I found it easier to keep my eyes open. When I was sitting in Virasana on the floor without any padding, it was very with my eyes closed, and I wanted to get out of it, but there was only some discomfort with my eyes open. It felt as if I look at something, touched it with my gazed, and the relaxation traveled back through the air to and into me.
However, I carried this relaxation a little bit to the extreme. Over the course of several days my gaze started increasingly wobbling around as I concentrated on seeing the periphery rather than on seeing what's in front of me, and the squinting increased a lot. In other words, relaxation also affected the effort to keep the eyes together.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Eyebody method - part 3: exercising
Most people are familiar with some form of gym-style exercises. Those exercises may be with or without weights or machines, either way the eyes and the eye-body connections are of utmost importance.
On Wednesday I was in a 40-minute class with a workout focusing on abdominals and back muscles that I have taken for 40-50 times, but this time applying the Eyebody principles. For me this meant doing the exercises from the upper visual cortex and keeping my peripheral vision wide, which although not technically an Eyebody principle, but a big issue for me.
It is amazing how many people close their eyes or make faces while exercises. In dance a lot of attention is paid to the expression of the face and the eyes even while doing something physically strenuous, and this is so for artistic reasons. In yoga this is not considered so central, yet self-awareness and calm mind are considered important, so a good teacher would sometimes bring it up with a student who has a desperate facial expression while doing asanas.
A yoga teacher may advise you to not "struggle with the struggle", that is, when you are in the middle of a difficult asana, do not make it even more difficult by reflecting on how difficult it is and how much pain you are experiencing in the morning, and by hoping that this torture is going to end soon. This sounds like a great idea, but it may not be so clear, how to accomplish it. Lastly, if you are lifting weights in the gym, you may never be told that closing your eyes, making faces or making sounds like a wounded bear may not be very productive. I am claiming this with considerable confidence even though I have very little experience actually lifting weights.
Just like Peter says, the key is letting the intensity rise to the upper visual cortex and staying with the intensity. The tendency is to under- or over- focus to avoid staying with the intensity, regardless of what kind of intensity it is, not necessarily physical. When people ask me what yoga is good for, I explain that they will be able to stay calm when they miss their plane or someone hits their car. In essence, yoga can teach you to stay with the intensity.
The magic of the Eyebody method, however, is that it is so simple. There is no mystical ingredient to look for. There is magic, of course, but the method works even without it. Act from your upper visual cortex, keep your eyes open and making contact with the environment. Let the sound waves come in, let the light waves come in, yet without attachment. It works. It is not that you suddenly become all-powerful and feel no pain and no fatigue. However, you don't feel emotional pain from how tired or frustrated you are. Because of that, you are not changing your breathing and not tensing or unnecessarily relaxing different parts of the body in an attempt to under- or over- focus.
Certain things, such as exercises for your abdominal muscles, are just not as difficult as you think. The Eyebody method can help you eliminate 95% of difficulties that you are creating for yourself, leaving only 5% of the difficulties that are essential for the activity.
Fundamentally, every exercise, and every communication, and every activity is a whole body experience, including eyes. If there is anything in your life that does not feel like a whole body experience, you are probably under- or over- focusing.
On Wednesday I was in a 40-minute class with a workout focusing on abdominals and back muscles that I have taken for 40-50 times, but this time applying the Eyebody principles. For me this meant doing the exercises from the upper visual cortex and keeping my peripheral vision wide, which although not technically an Eyebody principle, but a big issue for me.
It is amazing how many people close their eyes or make faces while exercises. In dance a lot of attention is paid to the expression of the face and the eyes even while doing something physically strenuous, and this is so for artistic reasons. In yoga this is not considered so central, yet self-awareness and calm mind are considered important, so a good teacher would sometimes bring it up with a student who has a desperate facial expression while doing asanas.
A yoga teacher may advise you to not "struggle with the struggle", that is, when you are in the middle of a difficult asana, do not make it even more difficult by reflecting on how difficult it is and how much pain you are experiencing in the morning, and by hoping that this torture is going to end soon. This sounds like a great idea, but it may not be so clear, how to accomplish it. Lastly, if you are lifting weights in the gym, you may never be told that closing your eyes, making faces or making sounds like a wounded bear may not be very productive. I am claiming this with considerable confidence even though I have very little experience actually lifting weights.
Just like Peter says, the key is letting the intensity rise to the upper visual cortex and staying with the intensity. The tendency is to under- or over- focus to avoid staying with the intensity, regardless of what kind of intensity it is, not necessarily physical. When people ask me what yoga is good for, I explain that they will be able to stay calm when they miss their plane or someone hits their car. In essence, yoga can teach you to stay with the intensity.
The magic of the Eyebody method, however, is that it is so simple. There is no mystical ingredient to look for. There is magic, of course, but the method works even without it. Act from your upper visual cortex, keep your eyes open and making contact with the environment. Let the sound waves come in, let the light waves come in, yet without attachment. It works. It is not that you suddenly become all-powerful and feel no pain and no fatigue. However, you don't feel emotional pain from how tired or frustrated you are. Because of that, you are not changing your breathing and not tensing or unnecessarily relaxing different parts of the body in an attempt to under- or over- focus.
Certain things, such as exercises for your abdominal muscles, are just not as difficult as you think. The Eyebody method can help you eliminate 95% of difficulties that you are creating for yourself, leaving only 5% of the difficulties that are essential for the activity.
Fundamentally, every exercise, and every communication, and every activity is a whole body experience, including eyes. If there is anything in your life that does not feel like a whole body experience, you are probably under- or over- focusing.
The Eyebody method - part 2: communication
Have you ever tried to express your thought or feelings but failed? Regardless of the particular situation or circumstances, perhaps you felt shy and couldn't even start, or your voice failed at the critical moment, or you were so nervous and confused that everyone who was listening couldn't understand what you were talking about or, even worse, you were totally misunderstood. Would it be great to avoid those moments altogether? Do you ever envy those people, particularly in the movies, who just stand up and say what they want to say?
Perhaps you even prepare or rehearse whatever is it that you are trying to say or communicate. It may be an important business negotiation, a job interview, a date, an oral examination, a street protest. It may be an unpleasant encounter with a police officer, a trial where you don't want everyone to assume that you are guilty just because you are totally embarrassed and lack confidence, and are so ashamed of being charged with a crime.
Certainly, do you homework. However, if you write down every single word you are planning to say and simply memorize the speech, this is not going to work very well. You will not be present. After you have done your homework, plan thinking from your upper visual cortex. Plan, what qualities you are going to bring to the situation, rather than what exactly you are going to do. Even as you do your homework such as preparing your speech, do it from the upper visual cortex. First of all, the preparation process will be more efficient and you may memorize more of what you have prepared. Secondly, it is important to let go of attachments during the planning phase.
Most importantly, during the actual communication the first and foremost thing is to stay present. You may think you need confidence to express what you think. You are starting to say something, and suddenly you feel very self-conscious, you voice changes, you posture changes, and so on. Of course, this "struggle with the struggle" makes it even more difficult for you to accomplish whatever it is that you are trying to accomplish with your speech, but that is not the point. The point is: self-consciousness takes you out of the experience. Fear, anger anything that rises in the limbic brain, takes you out of the experience.
Before you start or even when you find yourself in the middle of a conversation, renew your intention to stay present. You may add an intention for connection, or whatever it is that you want: trust, clarity, or intimacy. You can only really add this intent if you are already present, otherwise it will be just general underfocusing with overfocusing on the idea of setting an intent. Watch your peripheral vision. If it starts shrinking, you are probably under- or over- focusing.
Another indicator is the voice. In Alexander technique it is known that your spine-neck-head alignment can change how your voice sounds: at some point the voice suddenly becomes much more resonant and acquires the power and the projection that so many people are trying to develop. For me, the feeling of my peripheral vision expanding seems to correlate with the feeling that my voice became louder and more resonant, that is, the two feelings often come together.
From a practical point of view, keep your peripheral vision wide, and your voice will be heard so much better. Of course, you can also thinking about freeing your neck, if you have studied Alexander technique for a long time, or listen to your breathing as you are speaking. I suspect that it may lead to the same result. However, focusing on the vision seems so much better since it does not distract you from the conversation. On the contrary, focusing on the vision and making and keeping your peripheral vision wider takes you deeper into the conversation, and allows you to stay more present.
As you become (more) present, I suspect that you will get all those things that are known to lead to presence because the relevant connections in the brain are probably bidirectional: you voice will get louder, your spine, neck, and head will move into alignment. Tension will be relieved because of alignment. Breathing will stabilize. Both of these will again make your voice resonant, and your voice can only be resonant after you have released most of the tension from your shoulders, chest, and neck (not overfocusing), but not all of the tension so you do not collapse all the way to the floor (not underfocusing). Lastly, this will probably lead you to start thinking, speaking, and acting out of your upper visual cortex. Even though under- and over- focusing allegedly originate in the lower visual cortex, I will prefer to not make this distinction for quite some time. If I get accustomed to the idea that every time I become (more) present and see my peripheral vision widen, then I automatically go to my upper visual cortex, and conversely, then this will actually happen. All that is without the need to ask or to understand.
Perhaps you even prepare or rehearse whatever is it that you are trying to say or communicate. It may be an important business negotiation, a job interview, a date, an oral examination, a street protest. It may be an unpleasant encounter with a police officer, a trial where you don't want everyone to assume that you are guilty just because you are totally embarrassed and lack confidence, and are so ashamed of being charged with a crime.
Certainly, do you homework. However, if you write down every single word you are planning to say and simply memorize the speech, this is not going to work very well. You will not be present. After you have done your homework, plan thinking from your upper visual cortex. Plan, what qualities you are going to bring to the situation, rather than what exactly you are going to do. Even as you do your homework such as preparing your speech, do it from the upper visual cortex. First of all, the preparation process will be more efficient and you may memorize more of what you have prepared. Secondly, it is important to let go of attachments during the planning phase.
Most importantly, during the actual communication the first and foremost thing is to stay present. You may think you need confidence to express what you think. You are starting to say something, and suddenly you feel very self-conscious, you voice changes, you posture changes, and so on. Of course, this "struggle with the struggle" makes it even more difficult for you to accomplish whatever it is that you are trying to accomplish with your speech, but that is not the point. The point is: self-consciousness takes you out of the experience. Fear, anger anything that rises in the limbic brain, takes you out of the experience.
Before you start or even when you find yourself in the middle of a conversation, renew your intention to stay present. You may add an intention for connection, or whatever it is that you want: trust, clarity, or intimacy. You can only really add this intent if you are already present, otherwise it will be just general underfocusing with overfocusing on the idea of setting an intent. Watch your peripheral vision. If it starts shrinking, you are probably under- or over- focusing.
Another indicator is the voice. In Alexander technique it is known that your spine-neck-head alignment can change how your voice sounds: at some point the voice suddenly becomes much more resonant and acquires the power and the projection that so many people are trying to develop. For me, the feeling of my peripheral vision expanding seems to correlate with the feeling that my voice became louder and more resonant, that is, the two feelings often come together.
From a practical point of view, keep your peripheral vision wide, and your voice will be heard so much better. Of course, you can also thinking about freeing your neck, if you have studied Alexander technique for a long time, or listen to your breathing as you are speaking. I suspect that it may lead to the same result. However, focusing on the vision seems so much better since it does not distract you from the conversation. On the contrary, focusing on the vision and making and keeping your peripheral vision wider takes you deeper into the conversation, and allows you to stay more present.
As you become (more) present, I suspect that you will get all those things that are known to lead to presence because the relevant connections in the brain are probably bidirectional: you voice will get louder, your spine, neck, and head will move into alignment. Tension will be relieved because of alignment. Breathing will stabilize. Both of these will again make your voice resonant, and your voice can only be resonant after you have released most of the tension from your shoulders, chest, and neck (not overfocusing), but not all of the tension so you do not collapse all the way to the floor (not underfocusing). Lastly, this will probably lead you to start thinking, speaking, and acting out of your upper visual cortex. Even though under- and over- focusing allegedly originate in the lower visual cortex, I will prefer to not make this distinction for quite some time. If I get accustomed to the idea that every time I become (more) present and see my peripheral vision widen, then I automatically go to my upper visual cortex, and conversely, then this will actually happen. All that is without the need to ask or to understand.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Peripheral vision and central fixation
It seems that I have not been really using much of my peripheral vision for a very long time, or perhaps even for my whole life. The amount of information is overwhelming. Furthermore, the moments when I am losing some of the peripheral vision seem to be the moments of under- or overfocusing. This is very convenient since otherwise it is very difficult for me to detect under- and overfocusing in myself.
I suspect I haven't really used much of my peripheral years for most of my life since I recall much difficulty with tasks that are supposedly relying on peripheral vision. Looking for mushrooms is one thing. I recently learned that this is like a Bates-style exercise of "color days": pick a color for today and notice all things that have this color. (This exercise was not mention in the Bates' book, but one website presents it as a Bates method exercise.) The idea is that one can look for mushrooms in the same way: just notice all things red, then check if these are mushrooms. I, however, recall picking chunks of territory a few meters in diameter and specifically looking there to check if there is a mushroom. Then I would move to the next chunk, then to the next. I eventually found some mushrooms following this strategy, but it seems I could have done much better.
Also, I recall several experiences, particularly from my childhood, when someone would say "See this bird on a tree?", "See this person with a long beard?", "See this window in the house with the curtains?", and so on. I would usually not see whatever it is that they are talking about. After some time I figured out it was easier to simply underfocus until it was too late anyway or to pretend I saw it and then change the topic of the conversation. However, before I mastered those nice tricks, I recall diligently trying to look at every branch of the tree, one after the other, in a futile attempt to guess the particular branch that contained a bird. I think I even managed to do it on some rare occasions.
Later my concept of peripheral vision transformed into some form of eccentric fixation. I became aware of it in the context of the Bates' concept of central fixation. You know how people would explain: look at this thing, but see other things in the periphery. That's, I guess, exactly what I did: look at A, then try to see B while looking at A. By any means, it was certainly a new concept for me that I could see whatever I am looking at better than everything else.
I recall one book on photography that I saw a couple years ago. The book explained the difference between a camera looking at something and a human looking at something. It first showed a picture of a room. Then it showed the same picture, but some particular object, perhaps a vase with flowers standing on a shelf or on a table, was enlarged and very clear, while everything else was darker. I remember I didn't quite get it why some objects were supposed to increase in size in some sense, although I didn't think about it too long. This is, of course, again about central fixation.
In fact, I remember explicitly trying to see many things equally well at the same time: a face, an object, a room. Somehow I though or felt that this was the normal mode of seeing: you are looking at an object and you are seeing an object. Then, at the same time I was confused with the notion of focusing. Everyone is always talking about focusing the eyes on some object. Yet when I tried to do this thing with seeing the whole object equally well, which I perceived as "focusing on the object", my eyes didn't feel quite focused. So later, not quite consciously, I replaced it by picking a random point on the object and trying to focus on this point. I certainly felt focused on the object in the sense that it was difficult to see anything else, and this agreed with the "common notion" of being focused (intense concentration), which is really being overfocused.
Right now when I am trying to look at something, I can feel that the peripheral vision is shrinking. I am not quite sure in which sense, but the experience is unambiguous and I can reproduce it every time. If I decide to look at something and then I look at it, the peripheral vision is shrinking right away. I can stay in this mode for any amount of time - in fact, I am staying there by default. Also, If I am trying to look at something, I usually end up seeing the whole object equally well. When I let go a little bit, proprioceptively, a part of the object becomes less clear and a part of the object becomes more clear. I know by now that this is how it is supposed to be, but it still feels like I am feeling worse or like I am not focusing hard enough. At the same time the peripheral vision expands. What happens it the following: after I start seeing the boundaries of the object less clear than some area in its center where I am looking more directly, the boundaries then start to merge with the rest of the periphery. This is in contrast with seeing the whole object equally well when the boundaries of the object are fairly clear, thanks to the eccentric fixation, and they do not allow the rest of the periphery to enter the picture.
It feels a little bit like grabbing the object. It is like people who never studied Alexander technique tend to grab their toothbrush or shaver in an overfocused attempt to accomplish their immediate goal instead of taking it gently, with an appropriate amount of effort. Of course, this analogy is not exactly right, since the light waves come on their own, whereas toothbrushes and shavers don't. Even looking gently still seems to leave a lot of tension; in fact, I am not quite sure if there is such a way as looking gently or if this is just another trick.
There are many difficulties with "just looking". One difficulty that I found is the attachment to clarity. After you get accustomed to seeing the object as a whole, it is very uncomfortable to not be able to see (equally) clearly even a small part of it. Furthermore, if I am moving my head so my eyes can shift from object to object, I can feel proprioceptively as the eyes go from a farther object to a closer object and vice versa. It feels like there is a slight release as the eyes are moving to a farther object and a slight increase in tension as the eyes move to a closer object. The shift from a closer object to a farther object is particularly scary. As I am coming near the edge to the closer object, the tendency is to prepare and then jump to the farther object, since otherwise it feels like I am falling through the space from the edge of the closer object to the farther object. It feel like I am not in control, which is uncomfortable. Also, with more peripheral vision everything looks darker, so shifting the gaze farther feels like falling in the darkness, whereas bringing the gaze closer feels like trying to climb out of the darkness towards safety and comfort.
I suspect I haven't really used much of my peripheral years for most of my life since I recall much difficulty with tasks that are supposedly relying on peripheral vision. Looking for mushrooms is one thing. I recently learned that this is like a Bates-style exercise of "color days": pick a color for today and notice all things that have this color. (This exercise was not mention in the Bates' book, but one website presents it as a Bates method exercise.) The idea is that one can look for mushrooms in the same way: just notice all things red, then check if these are mushrooms. I, however, recall picking chunks of territory a few meters in diameter and specifically looking there to check if there is a mushroom. Then I would move to the next chunk, then to the next. I eventually found some mushrooms following this strategy, but it seems I could have done much better.
Also, I recall several experiences, particularly from my childhood, when someone would say "See this bird on a tree?", "See this person with a long beard?", "See this window in the house with the curtains?", and so on. I would usually not see whatever it is that they are talking about. After some time I figured out it was easier to simply underfocus until it was too late anyway or to pretend I saw it and then change the topic of the conversation. However, before I mastered those nice tricks, I recall diligently trying to look at every branch of the tree, one after the other, in a futile attempt to guess the particular branch that contained a bird. I think I even managed to do it on some rare occasions.
Later my concept of peripheral vision transformed into some form of eccentric fixation. I became aware of it in the context of the Bates' concept of central fixation. You know how people would explain: look at this thing, but see other things in the periphery. That's, I guess, exactly what I did: look at A, then try to see B while looking at A. By any means, it was certainly a new concept for me that I could see whatever I am looking at better than everything else.
I recall one book on photography that I saw a couple years ago. The book explained the difference between a camera looking at something and a human looking at something. It first showed a picture of a room. Then it showed the same picture, but some particular object, perhaps a vase with flowers standing on a shelf or on a table, was enlarged and very clear, while everything else was darker. I remember I didn't quite get it why some objects were supposed to increase in size in some sense, although I didn't think about it too long. This is, of course, again about central fixation.
In fact, I remember explicitly trying to see many things equally well at the same time: a face, an object, a room. Somehow I though or felt that this was the normal mode of seeing: you are looking at an object and you are seeing an object. Then, at the same time I was confused with the notion of focusing. Everyone is always talking about focusing the eyes on some object. Yet when I tried to do this thing with seeing the whole object equally well, which I perceived as "focusing on the object", my eyes didn't feel quite focused. So later, not quite consciously, I replaced it by picking a random point on the object and trying to focus on this point. I certainly felt focused on the object in the sense that it was difficult to see anything else, and this agreed with the "common notion" of being focused (intense concentration), which is really being overfocused.
Right now when I am trying to look at something, I can feel that the peripheral vision is shrinking. I am not quite sure in which sense, but the experience is unambiguous and I can reproduce it every time. If I decide to look at something and then I look at it, the peripheral vision is shrinking right away. I can stay in this mode for any amount of time - in fact, I am staying there by default. Also, If I am trying to look at something, I usually end up seeing the whole object equally well. When I let go a little bit, proprioceptively, a part of the object becomes less clear and a part of the object becomes more clear. I know by now that this is how it is supposed to be, but it still feels like I am feeling worse or like I am not focusing hard enough. At the same time the peripheral vision expands. What happens it the following: after I start seeing the boundaries of the object less clear than some area in its center where I am looking more directly, the boundaries then start to merge with the rest of the periphery. This is in contrast with seeing the whole object equally well when the boundaries of the object are fairly clear, thanks to the eccentric fixation, and they do not allow the rest of the periphery to enter the picture.
It feels a little bit like grabbing the object. It is like people who never studied Alexander technique tend to grab their toothbrush or shaver in an overfocused attempt to accomplish their immediate goal instead of taking it gently, with an appropriate amount of effort. Of course, this analogy is not exactly right, since the light waves come on their own, whereas toothbrushes and shavers don't. Even looking gently still seems to leave a lot of tension; in fact, I am not quite sure if there is such a way as looking gently or if this is just another trick.
There are many difficulties with "just looking". One difficulty that I found is the attachment to clarity. After you get accustomed to seeing the object as a whole, it is very uncomfortable to not be able to see (equally) clearly even a small part of it. Furthermore, if I am moving my head so my eyes can shift from object to object, I can feel proprioceptively as the eyes go from a farther object to a closer object and vice versa. It feels like there is a slight release as the eyes are moving to a farther object and a slight increase in tension as the eyes move to a closer object. The shift from a closer object to a farther object is particularly scary. As I am coming near the edge to the closer object, the tendency is to prepare and then jump to the farther object, since otherwise it feels like I am falling through the space from the edge of the closer object to the farther object. It feel like I am not in control, which is uncomfortable. Also, with more peripheral vision everything looks darker, so shifting the gaze farther feels like falling in the darkness, whereas bringing the gaze closer feels like trying to climb out of the darkness towards safety and comfort.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Eyebody method - part 1
Here are some of my reflections on the 6-day Eyebody retreat that I attended. The retreat was led by Peter Grunwald and took place at the Menla Mountain retreat center in upstate New York near Woodstock. For more information on the Eyebody method developed by Peter Grunwald see http://www.eyebody.com/
Why study the Eyebody method?
1. The Eyebody method can improve your vision. I am not even talking about the number of lines you see on the Snellen chart or the refractive error that the ophthalmologist can measure. In many cases these things can undoubtedly be achieved by changing the way you are using your visual system, however it seems that for most adults it is essential to not (over)focus on objectively measurable vision improvement. When I talk about improving your vision I mean enhancing your visual experience so you can see and notice more things, so the environment (things and people) you see are more alive and you feel more connected to the environment. I mean making vision a source of joy rather than a burden, which it often is for me, even when I see very clearly whatever I need to see.
2. The Eyebody method can be viewed as, and I think it is, a new mind-body integration technique.
3. The Eyebody method contains some pieces that were missing from the Alexander technique. Specifically, a lot of postural, movement, and other habits seem to be connected to the visiual system. By changing the way we are using the visual system many of those habits can be undone almost instantly. Releasing tension in the visual system can probably release tension from the corresponding parts of the body. The Eyebody method can probably complement other techniques such as the Feldenkrais method in a similar way.
4. The aspects of the Eyebody methods related to thinking, emotions and spirituality are, in my opinion, still in the early development phase. I, however, expect many discoveries that have been beyond our imagination.
5. The Bates method had a lot of good things in it. However, it is far from universally applicable, since, as far as I understand, it depends on people "getting it". However, I have never worked in private with a natural vision teacher (e.g. a Bates teacher) like I work with an Alexander technique teacher.
It seems that the existing way to teach Alexander technique is more universally applicable than the existing way to teach the Bates method, although I don't know enough about either to state it with confidence. Then we should expect that the Eyebody method could also be taught more reliably than the Bates method. "More reliably" means that a certified teach should be able to teach the method to virtually any student, provided that the student is very motivated, and that there is time and space for learning to take place.
In this case, many of the more esoteric benefits of the Bates method may be realized, such as the elimination of pain by imagining a black dot. I know that imagining a black dot is a trick, but perhaps the Eyebody method could lead to a more organic approach with the same result, almost complete elimination of the pain felt by the person at the moment.
Perhaps, every mind-body integration technique should be ultimately capable of that. Yoga is one clear example.
Why study the Eyebody method?
1. The Eyebody method can improve your vision. I am not even talking about the number of lines you see on the Snellen chart or the refractive error that the ophthalmologist can measure. In many cases these things can undoubtedly be achieved by changing the way you are using your visual system, however it seems that for most adults it is essential to not (over)focus on objectively measurable vision improvement. When I talk about improving your vision I mean enhancing your visual experience so you can see and notice more things, so the environment (things and people) you see are more alive and you feel more connected to the environment. I mean making vision a source of joy rather than a burden, which it often is for me, even when I see very clearly whatever I need to see.
2. The Eyebody method can be viewed as, and I think it is, a new mind-body integration technique.
3. The Eyebody method contains some pieces that were missing from the Alexander technique. Specifically, a lot of postural, movement, and other habits seem to be connected to the visiual system. By changing the way we are using the visual system many of those habits can be undone almost instantly. Releasing tension in the visual system can probably release tension from the corresponding parts of the body. The Eyebody method can probably complement other techniques such as the Feldenkrais method in a similar way.
4. The aspects of the Eyebody methods related to thinking, emotions and spirituality are, in my opinion, still in the early development phase. I, however, expect many discoveries that have been beyond our imagination.
5. The Bates method had a lot of good things in it. However, it is far from universally applicable, since, as far as I understand, it depends on people "getting it". However, I have never worked in private with a natural vision teacher (e.g. a Bates teacher) like I work with an Alexander technique teacher.
It seems that the existing way to teach Alexander technique is more universally applicable than the existing way to teach the Bates method, although I don't know enough about either to state it with confidence. Then we should expect that the Eyebody method could also be taught more reliably than the Bates method. "More reliably" means that a certified teach should be able to teach the method to virtually any student, provided that the student is very motivated, and that there is time and space for learning to take place.
In this case, many of the more esoteric benefits of the Bates method may be realized, such as the elimination of pain by imagining a black dot. I know that imagining a black dot is a trick, but perhaps the Eyebody method could lead to a more organic approach with the same result, almost complete elimination of the pain felt by the person at the moment.
Perhaps, every mind-body integration technique should be ultimately capable of that. Yoga is one clear example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)