Quantity, Quality, Quantum: A Paradigm of Simplicity – Part 1September 1, 2017
Part one examines the concepts of an integrated consciousness and the seemingly opposing view of classic Newtonian science. Dr Christian examines the traditional approaches to optometry, driving him to seek out integrative methods to improve vision.
When it comes to primary eye care, you should first consider the following questions:
- What is good vision?
- Who determines this?
- How do you know that you have good vision?
- Are you at ease or under duress with your vision?
- Is vision based just on genetic inheritance, or is it rather an active, integrative, and motivational process?
These are questions of awareness. When they are answered well, new possibilities of vision can occur. So let us consider various aspects of this light-directed process.
Vision is unique to the individual. No two people see in exactly the same way; if they did, they would be in the exact space-time paradigm. Seeing is perception, giving meaning to light (particles and/or a wave) reflected off matter in all its forms—whether solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. Interestingly, no one can see light directly or even within space (between objects) but rather reflectively from all objects it interacts with. In truth, it is unseen!
We really do not see objects; we see their imagery (and therefore their interpretation). We cannot see no-thing! To see anything requires myriad physiological processes involved in this, all occurring in parallel to determine the following: detail discrimination, spatial context, stationary and dynamic position in space, brightness, colour, saturation, and contrast sensitivity.
Biochemical processes, neuronal conduction, muscle posture and movement, vestibular interaction, proprioceptive cues, kinesthetic reflexes, and thought and emotional processes all have to be coherent for us to see well. They are all required to be phase coherent with respect to the speed of light, so direct and contextual meaning can occur in a state of ‘easefulness’.
Vision requires coherence to thought processes, emotional value, posture, and balance interaction, which are enacted spontaneously or voluntarily via the motor system. Vision is simultaneously a projection of consciousness into space and a reception of information to consider cognitively, emotionally, and spiritually. As we see in our individual ways and in a commonality of agreement (what we would consider normal for the population), there is a requirement for balance between conscious observation (awareness) and all the processes that support this (in conscious unawareness) that are occurring simultaneously and automatically in the pre-, sub-, para-, and supra-consciousness domains.
At the outset, this appears to be complicated, particularly in the manifestation of functional visual anomalies of myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, and presbyopia. After this, if physical pathologies such as cataracts, macular degeneration, glaucoma, and other ailments occur, all of these are treated only within the physical paradigm of Newtonian understanding. What is really happening?
First, there is an unease functionally, which, if not brought into check by homoeostatic processes, may lead to greater unease or a pre-disease state. When this unease comes to a breakdown of process, disease ensues. There is a plethora of information in the literature on how to treat functional and pathological ophthalmic issues according to Newtonian scientific thinking, but there exists absolutely minimal information as far as a quantum perspective is concerned.
This is not the fault of current practitioners, who perform their crafts in the science that they know, but rather it is due to the advent of new thinking that is not only based on deterministic rationale but also inclusive of heart, soul, and spirit. This knowledge—or more so, knowing—is gathering momentum. It is reconnecting all the dissociated parts or disciplines of learning into cohesive creative possibility.
If there is creative possibility, there needs to be an understanding of what is wrong and what is right. With all the intricacies and complexities of what is wrong, there is also right before us (when we make time to see) the simplicity of connection. This is consciousness. This is the ground of our being. When we are (the unity of time), then our doing, our functioning, our working, and our playing have great effect. These activities are in harmony, because they have a greater depth of being or a poise of stillness (of time) affecting the coherence of doing in space. This is ease.
The Newtonian paradigm tends to isolate entities into states of separate observation. The greater the observation, the greater the disconnection. Even eye examinations tend to dissociate the back of the eye from the front of the eye and from the surrounding tissues: anterior segment, posterior segment, and the adnexa.
The problems of the eye are looked at in isolation, categorized, and then compared to statistical normality for consensus. Specialties are set up, such as a corneal specialist, retinal specialist, vitreo-retinal specialist, etc. This is a flow-on effect of isolation—dynamic but disconnected. The quantum world of observation, on the other hand, is in a flux or flow between potentiality and actuality (the seen and unseen), surprise, and even shock. A complementarity exists between what is observed and what is thought to be possible.
This is a focus of actuality and of the mind’s imaginings. It means that vision is in a state of flow between interpreted objects and subjective possibility, certainly not objective, as the Newtonian belief would have us believe or understand. This model is therefore incomplete.
Reading letter charts and cards in dimly illuminated rooms is not a true gauge of vision. In 1862, even Dr. Hermann Snellen, a Dutch ophthalmologist, did not design them to be the present-day (publicly entrenched) gospel of 20/ 20 vision or better. He designed them only to be guides of detail discrimination. These charts and cards do not even consider the dynamic of changing from distance viewing and close viewing to a larger or smaller spatial context. Everything with respect to them is black and white, other than various shades of grey, with contrast-sensitivity charts, which are viewed at fixed distances.
All these tests have a certain type of validity, as they are performed worldwide every day. But there is no dynamic; there is no flow. There is no complementarity between motion and stillness or between dynamic and stationary. Everything is measured and given a quantification (in a stationary state), but qualities are not even considered in the mix of how the eyes feel. Are they more relaxed, more open, more comfortable even in movement?
So why this preamble? In my quest to facilitate improved vision for patients, I intuitively, more than twenty years ago, started to consider the relationships among stationary measurement, dynamic movement, their quantities, their qualities, and how they interfaced with one another.
The quest seemed daunting, as I was going against the general grain of doctrine that vision could not improve with the wearing of glasses. But this did not matter; I was out for an adventure nonetheless.