Today my eyes are much more reconciled. For days or it seemed like weeks, they were warring over dominance. What should have only been perceived with one eye was a merge of both. To see clearly I had to close one eye. With both eyes open there was a mutual blur contaminating everything. And a grid of dark black lines superimposed that looked like the grid of a mosaic, circular, angular, not vertical and horizontal.
The last day or two my eyes have begun working together. It is not perfect but it is greatly improving.
If I can have two eyes that do not agree, how or why do we expect any two different persons eyes to agree?
It is a matter of both perspective and processing. Although the expresson, “a matter of perspective” has become a cliche, it is still valid, and I do not think we usually take into account the importance of processing. Even the need for glasses make a difference. But we do not take this into account either.
Yet whether taken into account or not the differences of perspective, the need for glasses and the deviations of inner processing are all going to change each person’s understanding, point of view, perception and understanding of the world.
How can different people from different changing vantage points to ever agree?
I love the old expressions, the expressions that are commonly thought worn out. When I examine them they freshen up.
I have one eye currently that sees one type of sights and another that sees more or less conventionally. One eye sees sharp and clear, the other eyes sees like a Van Gogh painting. Between the two there is often a disagreement that hurts my head. Even the division is not clear between them. It is not a straight line up and down, one side this, one side that, but a wavy line on a sloping angle.
When I was younger people used to say Van Gogh and other similar painters painted as they saw the world. I thought that was impossible. If they saw the world as they painted how could they paint the picture they did, I would say? All they would have to do is paint an ordinary painting, and when they looked at it, it would look the same as one of their celebrated paintings. They had to have alternate perspectives.
I suspected visions, drugs and other intoxicants, maybe even intermittent craziness recreated in more lucid moments. And that was likely the case much of the time. But I now realize it was also possible they had one good eye and one distorting eye. For a different perception all they would have to do is switch back and forth between the eyes. And if one eye was regularly changing, as mine is, then they would perpetually have different visions.