Necessity of Active Focus, from a Different Perspective

My sort of explanation / theory of this is that you can’t look at blurry vision as one problem. Blurry vision is a symptom that can be from different problems. Like axial length and ciliary muscles can both cause blurry vision but from different sources so to speak. Each of those have separate stimuli that reduces symptom from that specific cause. These 2 are well defined and everybody here can tell the difference between axial length myopia and NITM. In my opinion there are more of these sources that can give you blurry vision. That’s why one person is doing sth and has different result that the other guy. Because they have something different but the same symptom.


I do this now and starting during my recent 100 day challenge. In my mind, everything is perfectly clear.


When I do it, I start feeling really excited. Goodness, I’m so pumped not to be reliant on glasses anymore! Looking around and seeing things in the distance without a piece of glass in front of it… will be amazing. dreamy sigh


There is no severe myopic deforcus for my -1 right eye, which is getting plenty of references to clarity at different distances, and this is why I brought up the Snellen chart issue. I have a landscape to look at with varied distances, up to the Pyrenees at 60 km. I have a reference point about 2 km away where there is a house with white shutters at the back of the house that are always closed - a good target for AF. The cattle in the field sloping away from it are just beige blurs, but sometimes I can actually count them, if not see them in detail. The very blurry binocular 20/20 I get on my 6m Snellen without correction would not predict that I could see that well that far.
My -5.50 left eye is a different story. Here I am indeed far undercorrected, but any attempt to wear full correction for that eye is hell on my visual cortex, dealing with such a big difference in size when it has not been asked to do much of this for 30 years. The most I can tolerate for that eye in binocular vision is -2, with a -.75 lens for the right. Any higher correction for the left eye makes my binocular vision worse. I am not sure this will do anything useful for the left eye, but I do wear this for about 15 minutes each day to look at the landscape.

The ‘obvious’ solution would be to do a bit of patching with what would be a normalised correction for the left eye for distance, or a differential correction for screen distance. I have tried both and can only tolerate 5 minutes of this. An added complication is that the only left lenses I have suitable as norms or diffs have cylinder correction with an axis that is no longer appropriate, as the axis of astigmatism (opto confirmed 9 months ago) in my left eye has changed considerably since I bought them. A cylinder correction which gave me a clear 20/20 on the Snellen 9 months ago now gives me a deformed chart as well as deformed letters. A diff lens that works for 50 cm screen distance, even with only half of the original cylinder correction, gives me ‘wobbles’ in the frame of the text I am now typing, as well as some slanting letters. I can no longer measure the axis of astigmatism clearly, as I could do at the start, and I have no intention of buying a whole new set of reductions, even if I could get the axis right. I do not want to inflict incorrect cylinder on my left eye.

The highest lens without cylinder that I have for the left eye is -3, and I might get to being able to use that as a diff in the future. This gives me 28cm to blur at present, so not much use right now. The reason I bought reductions so far ahead for the left eye is that my right eye was improving faster than the reductions I was buying. What looked like a ‘solid’ reduction plan based on EM principles and assuming that the axis of astigmatism does not change rapidly did not work for me.

Obviously I do not want my left eye to get worse, and I am still measuring daily to make sure of this.

I do not think that bringing my left eye on board ‘focally’ will improve my vision in any meaningful way. It is fully on board for stereopsis, and improves my binocular focal distance from 65cm onwards, as well as cancelling out some remaining astigmatic defocus in my right eye. The fact that it does so is a completele mystery to me. I have not been able to find an explanation on internet. I have mentioned this before in some of my posts, but nobody on the forum has ventured an explanation.


Exactly. If we talk about placebo like it’s a given - why can’t this stuff work?
Think I’ll start doing it. 5 minutes a day imagining beautiful beaches and waves and how I can see…

Sorry, my bad then!! Still - go for 20/20 :wink:
And yeah, I hope you will care at 80❣️

Oh Hannie, plleeaaaasee, I want a video of you climbing trees for close up leaves active focus :heavy_heart_exclamation::joy::+1:t2:

Oh yeah, dirty glasses for example :joy:

No need to climb trees for that. I have to duck under the branches of some of my trees when I am mowing the grass, to prevent the leaves from actually getting into my eyes - active leaf dodging is required. :crazy_face: :evergreen_tree: :deciduous_tree: :herb: :leaves:


The question this poses is part of the basis of the Janet Goodrich method which she refers to as the near far swing activity. In the beginning, (years ago) I did not notice a lot of effect. But now I find I can look in the distance, close my eyes briefly and imagine what I was seeing in the distance as clearer and I open my eyes and it is clearer - at least momentarily. Which brings to mind the notion of unconscious habits/patterns of not having interest in the distance to begin with and then breaking that pattern by using imagination to create that interest and clear it up.


I really like this. The notion of aiming which can encompass vision, motivation, intent. The idea of reshaping your life with this. I feel this can be a helpful tool in many ways. Thanks for this!!