Nalini Ramji
· March 5, 2026
This is the first of a series of posts I will be sharing on the application of holistic frameworks such as Jungian psychology to natural vision improvement.
Dr. William H. Bates, founder of the Bates Method, was 15 years old when Carl Jung was born.
The Scientific Revolution of the 1600s, shaped by thinkers such as Isaac Newton and René Descartes, separated mind from matter and depicted the universe as a vast clockwork machine governed by precise mathematical laws. A century later, the Enlightenment glorified reason and rational analysis above subjective experience and spiritual insight. Author Charles Dickens has vividly portrayed the social impact that swept through the lives of ordinary people by the 1800s as the Industrial Revolution hastened the mechanization of labor and the large-scale exploitation of Nature.
By the turn of the twentieth century, Eastern teachings such as Vedanta and Buddhism had begun seeping into Western thought, not only through translations of ancient contemplative texts but also through emissaries such as Swami Vivekananda, whose soul-stirring speech at the 1893 Parliament of World Religions in Chicago broadcast a message of the oneness of humanity and spiritual universality.
William James and Carl Jung among others were deeply influenced by these principles, which contributed to a global paradigm shift by the early 1900s.
William James, often called the father of modern psychology, challenged strict materialism in favor of lived experience, consciousness, and mysticism. F.M. Alexander refuted the Cartesian mind-body split, proving that unconscious habits of thought affect posture and movement. Albert Einstein overturned Newtonian absolutes of space and time, revealing them to be relative and interwoven as spacetime. The discovery of quantum theory by Max Planck laid the foundation for the understanding that reality is fundamentally probabilistic and inseparable from the conditions of observation (an important point for vision: the act of observing or measuring can impact the observation). Rudolf Steiner and Sri Aurobindo sought to integrate spirituality with modern thought, while Mahatma Gandhi was developing and practicing satyagraha, or nonviolent resistance. Maria Montessori reimagined education around the child’s innate intelligence and capacity for self-development, and Annie Besant bridged spirituality and political activism. Meanwhile, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung explored the depths of the unconscious, and William Horatio Bates questioned the prevailing view of the eyes as static mechanical structures, proving both scientifically and empirically that vision is dynamic and affected by mental and nervous states.
These great pioneers and many others helped transcend the boundaries of the seen world to shine a light on the unseen – shifting our dependence from a reductionistic, inert model of reality to a dynamic, participatory understanding of existence in which consciousness is foundational and Nature is an interconnected living whole. Just like a fractal, the parts cannot be isolated: the whole both encompasses and is incorporated in its components.
A fundamental difference between the two frameworks is that one sees humans as outside Nature which, though powerful, lacks intelligence and can be controlled and refined through technology, while the other understands that not only are we an intrinsic part of Nature but that true healing comes from aligning ourselves with Her innate wisdom.
It is quite interesting to note that while the growth of scientific knowledge has birthed not only modern medicine but also the ubiquity of technology to which we are now growing accustomed, its principles of observation and empirical reasoning have been supporting this burgeoning holistic understanding and shedding light on the impact of a one-sided approach to our minds, bodies, and Nature.
The scientific model promises control and predictability through specialization and separation – in an objective world in which our participation doesn’t impact the outcome – whereas the consciousness-founded framework prompts us to step into our full potential without any promise of an external “reward.” It is the awakening process that is the reward, if you will, and the outcome becomes the by-product.
By focusing on reward and outcome, the reductionist mindset increases the individual’s sense of separateness from their communities and larger mystery of Life, perpetuating, as author Gabor Maté writes, “the small-t trauma of not being seen or known.” In such a world, the offshoots of the consciousness-based approach become a healing balm.
In Jungian terms, the scientific rational side is masculine in nature. (Each of us has both masculine and feminine sides.) We see that since the 1600s, as that viewpoint began to dominate, the feminine energy of spirituality and holistic thinking became marginalized.
Jungian analyst Robert Johnson writes in Femininity Lost and Regained, referring to the myth of Oedipus:
“We work very hard…for our masculine, patriarchal achievement. This is ‘founding the city’ and is a specifically masculine accomplishment. It is the pride and joy of the Western world! But the myth tells us that it is only half of reality and the feminine –– that boundless, formless aspect of reality –– will destroy the new masculine creation if it is not honored and drawn into the creation.”
The ultimate goal is to integrate these perspectives — that is, to prioritize consciousness and interrelatedness with the aid of scientific knowledge.
The basis of natural vision improvement is how rather than what we see.
From a visual perspective, the purely scientific approach represents an overemphasis on details, or looking up close. In the visual system, this is known as nearsightedness, or myopia. (This myopia is now being experienced as a disconnection from family, community, and meaning. It is interesting that myopia is escalating around the world!) Similarly, only seeing the whole without looking at details is known as farsightedness, or hyperopia (from a young age) and presbyopia (starting in middle age).
Problems arise when we attempt to apply the reductionist approach to a holistic system. I see this routinely with clients who “perform” practices such as swinging, sunning, and palming like a timed exercise routine without connecting to the person within. Perhaps this is instead an invitation to understanding the role of movement and letting go, energy and participation or being seen, and stillness and darkness in our lives?
By the principles of “as above, so below,” we too can inquire how we can balance our masculine and feminine natures: our need for control and rationality with our connection to our body, our intuition, and the mystery of Life.
The Latin root videre (“to see”) is cognate with the Sanskrit root vid (“to know”). From the former, we get video, visitor, and evidence; the latter gives us vidya and Veda.
When we understand that seeing comes from a deeper place rooted in the innate intelligence of the organism, our task becomes to work with the one who sees (the Seer) rather than the visual clarity of the environment (the Seen). Through this process, the person themselves can develop an increasing sense of agency – not through control but through alignment with their inner knowing (heart-based rather than head-based).
Including the whole person rather than just focusing on their eyes as static and problematic has the potential to facilitate a deeper transformation which can positively impact the eyes as well – again, the whole contains the parts, and the parts, the whole.
The participation of the person — their willingness to see and to be seen — becomes vital in this process, as well as their relationship with the vision teacher, or coach, in order to move towards greater interconnectedness and trust in their inner knowing.
