Читать книгу The Art of Seeing - Aldous Leonard Huxley - Страница 6

Table of Contents

In the early years of the present century Dr. W. H. Bates, a New York oculist, became dissatisfied with the ordinary symptomatic treatment of eyes. Seeking a substitute for artificial lenses, he set himself to discover if there was any way of re-educating defective vision into a condition of normality.

As the result of his work with a large number of patients he came to the conclusion that the great majority of visual defects were functional and due to faulty habits of use. These faulty habits of use were invariably related, he found, to a condition of strain and tension. As was to be expected from the unitary nature of the human organism, the strain affected both the body and the mind.

Dr. Bates discovered that, by means of appropriate techniques, this condition of strain could be relieved. When it had been relieved—when patients had learnt to use their eyes and mind in a relaxed way—vision was improved and refractive errors tended to correct themselves. Practice in the educational techniques served to build up good seeing habits in place of the faulty habits responsible for defective vision, and in many cases function came to be completely and permanently normalized.

Now, it is a well established physiological principle that improved functioning always tends to result in an improvement in the organic condition of the tissues involved. The eye, Dr. Bates discovered, was no exception to this general rule. When the patient learnt to relax his tenseness and acquired proper seeing habits, the vis medicatrix naturæ was given a chance to operate—with the result that, in many cases, the improvement of functioning was followed by a complete restoration of the health and organic integrity of the diseased eye.

Dr. Bates died in 1931, and up to the time of his death he continued to perfect and develop his methods for the improvement of visual function. Furthermore, during the last years of Dr. Bates’s life and since his death his pupils, in various parts of the world, have devised a number of valuable new applications of the general principles which he laid down. By means of these techniques large numbers of men, women and children, suffering from visual defects of every kind, have been successfully re-educated into normality or towards normality. For anyone who has studied a selection of these cases, or who has himself undergone the process of visual re-education, it is impossible to doubt that here at last is a method of treating imperfect sight which is not merely symptomatic, but genuinely aetiological—a method which does not confine itself to the mechanical neutralization of defects but aims at the removal of their physiological and psychological causes. And yet, in spite of the long period during which it has been known, in spite of the quality and quantity of the results obtained through its employment by competent instructors. Dr. Bates’s technique still remains unrecognized by the medical and optometrical professions. It is, I think, worth while, before going any further, to enumerate and discuss the principal reasons for this, to my mind, deplorable state of things.

Reasons for Orthodox Disapproval

In the first place, the very fact that the method is unrecognized and lies outside the pale of orthodoxy is a sufficient invitation to the petty adventurers and charlatans who hang upon the skirts of society, ever ready and eager to take advantage of human suffering. There exist, scattered about the world, some scores or perhaps hundreds of well trained and thoroughly conscientious teachers of Dr. Bates’s method. But there are also, unfortunately, a number of ignorant and unscrupulous quacks, who know little more of the system than its name. The fact is deplorable, but not at all surprising. The number of those who fail to obtain relief from the current symptomatic treatment of visual defect is considerable, and the Bates Method has a high reputation for effectiveness in such cases. Moreover, the technique is unorthodox; therefore no standards of competence are legally imposed upon its teachers. A large potential clientele, a desperate need of help, and no questions asked as to knowledge, character and ability. These are the ideal conditions for the practice of charlatanism. What wonder, then, if certain unscrupulous people have taken advantage of the opportunities thus offered? But because some unorthodox practitioners are charlatans, it does not logically follow that all must be. I repeat that it does not logically follow; but, alas, as the history of almost any professional group clearly demonstrates, orthodox opinion would always very much like it to follow. That is one of the reasons why, in this particular case, the unwarranted assumption that the whole business is mere quackery is widely accepted, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The cure for charlatanism is not the suppression of an intrinsically sound method, but proper education for, and control of, its teachers. Proper education and control are equally the cure for that licensed charlatanism among opticians, which has been described and denounced in articles appearing in The Readers Digest (1937) and the New York World-Telegram (1942).

The second reason for the non-acceptance of the method may be summed up in three words: habit, authority and professionalism. The symptomatic treatment of defective sight has been going on for a long time, has been carried to a high degree of perfection, and, within its limitations, is reasonably successful. If it fails in a certain proportion of cases to provide even adequate palliation of the symptoms, that is nobody’s fault, but a condition inherent in the nature of things. For years, the highest medical authorities have all asserted this to be the case—and who will venture to question a recognized authority? Certainly not the members of the profession to which the authority belongs. Every guild and trade has its own esprit de corps, its private patriotism, which makes it resent all rebellion from within and all competition or criticism from without.

Next there is the matter of vested interest. The manufacture of optical glass is now a considerable industry, and its retail sale, a profitable branch of commerce, to which access can be had only by persons who have undertaken a special technical training. That there should be, among these licensed persons, a strong dislike to any new technique, which threatens to make the use of optical glass unnecessary, is only natural. (It is perhaps worth remarking that, even if the value of Dr. Bates’s technique were generally recognized, there would be small likelihood of any immediate or considerable decline in the consumption of optical glass. Visual re-education demands from the pupil a certain amount of thought, time and trouble. But thought, time and trouble are precisely what the overwhelming majority of men and women are not prepared to give, unless motivated by a passionate desire or an imperious need. Most of those who can get along more or less satisfactorily with the help of mechanical seeing-aids, will continue to do so, even when they know that there exists a system of training which would make it possible for them, not merely to palliate symptoms, but actually get rid of the causes of visual defect. So long as the art of seeing is not taught to children as a part of their normal education, the trade in artificial lenses is not likely to suffer more than a trifling loss by reason of the official recognition of the new technique. Human sloth and inertia will guarantee the opticians at least nine-tenths of their present business.)

Another reason for the orthodox attitude in this matter is of a strictly empirical nature. Oculists and optometrists affirm that they have never witnessed the phenomena of self-regulation and cure, described by Bates and his followers. Therefore they conclude that such phenomena never take place. In this syllogism the premises are true, but the conclusion is unsound. It is quite true that oculists and optometrists have never observed such phenomena as are described by Bates and his followers. But this is because they have never had any dealings with patients who had learned to use their organs of vision in a relaxed, unstrained way. So long as the organs of vision are used under a condition of mental and physical tension, the vis medicatrix naturæ will not manifest itself, and the visual defects will persist, or actually become worse. Oculists and optometrists will observe the phenomena described by Bates as soon as they begin to relieve the strain in their patients’ eyes by means of Bates’s method of visual education. Because the phenomena cannot occur under the conditions imposed by orthodox practitioners, it does not follow that they will not occur when these conditions are changed, so that the healing powers of the organism are no longer hindered, but given free play.

To this empirical reason for rejecting the Batesian technique must be added one more—this time in the realm of theory. In the course of his practice as an oculist, Dr. Bates came to doubt the truth of the currently accepted hypothesis regarding the eye’s power of accommodation to near and distant vision. This matter was for long the subject of heated debate, until finally, a couple of generations ago, orthodox medical opinion decided in favour of the Helmholtz hypothesis, which attributes the eye’s power of accommodation to the action of the ciliary muscle upon the lens. Working with cases of defective vision, Dr. Bates observed a number of facts which the Helmholtz theory seemed powerless to explain. After numerous experiments on animals and human beings, he came to the conclusion that the principal factor in accommodation was not the lens, but the extrinsic muscles of the eyeball, and that the focussing of the eye for near and distant objects was accomplished by the lengthening and shortening of the globe as a whole. The papers describing his experiments were printed in various medical journals at the time, and have been summarized in the opening chapters of his book, Perfect Sight Without Glasses.

Whether Dr. Bates was right or wrong in his rejection of the Helmholtz theory of accommodation, I am entirely unqualified to say. My own guess, after reading the evidence, would be that both the extrinsic muscles and the lens play their part in accommodation.

This guess may be correct; or it may be incorrect. I do not greatly care. For my concern is not with the anatomical mechanism of accommodation, but with the art of seeing—and the art of seeing does not stand or fall with any particular physiological hypothesis. Believing that Bates’s theory of accommodation was untrue, the orthodox have concluded that his technique of visual education must be unsound. Once again this is an unwarranted conclusion, due to a failure to understand the nature of an art, or psycho-physical skill.^[1]

The Nature of an Art

Every psycho-physical skill, including the art of seeing, is governed by its own laws. These laws are established empirically by people who have wished to acquire a certain accomplishment, such as playing the piano, or singing, or walking the tight rope, and who have discovered, as the result of long practice, the best and most economical method of using their psycho-physical organism to this particular end. Such people may have the most fantastic views about physiology; but this will make no difference so long as their theory and practice of psycho-physical functioning remain adequate to their purpose. If psycho-physical skills depended for their development on a correct knowledge of physiology, then nobody would ever have learnt any art whatsoever. It is probable, for example, that Bach never thought about the physiology of muscular activity; if he ever did, it is quite certain that he thought incorrectly. That, however, did not prevent him from using his muscles to play the organ with incomparable dexterity. Any given art, I repeat, obeys only its own laws; and these laws are the laws of effective psycho-physical functioning, as applied to the particular activities connected with that art.

The art of seeing is like the other fundamental or primary psycho-physical skills, such as talking, walking and using the hands. These fundamental skills are normally acquired in early infancy or childhood by a process of mainly unconscious self-instruction. It takes apparently several years for adequate seeing habits to be formed. Once formed, however, the habit of using the mental and physiological organs of vision correctly becomes automatic—in exactly the same way as does the habit of using the throat, tongue and palate for talking, or the legs for walking. But whereas it takes a very serious mental or physical shock to break down the automatic habit of talking or walking correctly, the habit of using the seeing organs as they should be used can be lost as the result of relatively trivial disturbances. Habits of correct use are replaced by habits of incorrect use; vision suffers, and in some cases the mal-functioning contributes to the appearance of diseases and chronic organic defects of the eyes. Occasionally nature effects a spontaneous cure, and the old habits of correct seeing are restored almost instantaneously. But the majority must consciously re-acquire the art which, as infants, they were able to learn unconsciously. The technique of this process of re-education has been worked out by Dr. Bates and his followers.

Basic Principle Underlying the Practice of Every Art

How can we be sure, it may be asked, that this is the correct technique? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the first and most convincing test of the system is that it works. Moreover, the nature of the training is such that we should expect it to work. For the Bates Method is based upon precisely the same principles as those which underlie every successful system ever devised for the teaching of psycho-physical skill. Whatever the art you may wish to learn—whether it be acrobatics or violin playing, mental prayer or golf, acting, singing, dancing or what you will—there is one thing that every good teacher will always say: Learn to combine relaxation with activity; learn to do what you have to do without strain; work hard, but never under tension.

To speak of combining activity with relaxation may seem paradoxical; but in fact it is not. For relaxation is of two kinds, passive and dynamic. Passive relaxation is achieved in a state of complete repose, by a process of consciously “letting go.” As an antidote to fatigue, as a method of temporarily relieving excessive muscular tensions, together with the psychological tensions that always accompany them, passive relaxation is excellent. But it can never, in the nature of things, be enough. We cannot spend our whole lives at rest, consequently cannot be always passively relaxing. But there is also something to which it is legitimate to give the name of dynamic relaxation. Dynamic relaxation is that state of the body and mind which is associated with normal and natural functioning. In the case of what I have called the fundamental or primary psycho-physical skills, normal and natural functioning of the organs involved may sometimes be lost. But having been lost, it may subsequently be consciously re-acquired by anyone who has learnt the suitable techniques. When it has been re-acquired, the strain associated with impaired functioning disappears and the organs involved do their work in a condition of dynamic relaxation.

Mal-functioning and strain tend to appear whenever the conscious “I” interferes with instinctively acquired habits of proper use, either by trying too hard to do well, or by feeling unduly anxious about possible mistakes. In the building up of any psycho-physical skill the conscious “I” must give orders, but not too many orders—must supervise the forming of habits of proper functioning, but without fuss and in a modest, self-denying way. The great truth discovered on the spiritual level by the masters of prayer, that “the more there is of the ‘I,’ the less there is of God,” has been discovered again and again on the physiological level by the masters of the various arts and skills. The more there is of the “I,” the less there is of Nature—of the right and normal functioning of the organism. The part played by the conscious “I” in lowering resistance and preparing the body for disease has long been recognized by medical science. When it frets too much, or is frightened, or worries and grieves too long and too intensely, the conscious “I” may reduce its body to such a state that the poor thing will develop, for example, gastric ulcers, tuberculosis, coronary disease and a whole host of functional disorders of every kind and degree of seriousness. Even decay of the teeth has been shown, in the case of children, to be frequently correlated with emotional tensions experienced by the conscious “I.” That a function so intimately related to our psychological life as vision should remain unaffected by tensions having their origin in the conscious “I” is inconceivable. And, indeed, it is a matter of common experience that the power of seeing is greatly lowered by distressing emotional states. As one practises the techniques of visual education, one discovers the extent to which this same conscious “I” can interfere with the processes of seeing even at times when no distressing emotions are present. And it interferes, we discover, in exactly the same way as it interferes with the process of playing tennis, for example, or singing—by being too anxious to achieve the desired end. But in seeing, as in all other psycho-physical skills, the anxious effort to do well defeats its own object; for this anxiety produces psychological and physiological strains, and strain is incompatible with the proper means for achieving our end, namely normal and natural functioning.

[1]	See Appendix I.