I just had my eyes checked because even with my rather thin eyeglasses, the world has been blurry lately, starting from about five feet out and continuing out about – and this is a rough estimate — continuing out into the depth of infinite space. Most noticeable when trying to watch tv.
Although I say it was “the world” that has been blurry, in fact I overcame that ego-based assumption about four years ago when I first realized I needed glasses, so again today I went for an eye checkup on the assumption that the problem was again, a problem with my own eyes.
Good news and, well, really it was all fine news unless you’re a fretful sort like I can be.
In which case I heard some frightening remarks about how the depth of my “macula” (the scoop at the very back of your eye where your central vision, your detail vision, is resolved) is a bit bigger or deeper than most people’s — and therefore more at risk than other people’s eyes if and when I ever experience any problems. Not quite sure why that would be, but evidently if I ever developed extra pressure in my eyes, my eyesight would be permanantly damaged more rapidly than other people’s. Or maybe it was that the optic nerve connected to the back of that scoop would be more quickly damaged. Either way, it sounded like it would suck.
Good news was I am pretty sure she mentioned that after my glasses prescription was fixed I should have 20/15 vision. 20/15 vision is better than 20/20. I always thought 20/20 was perfect vision, that’s the ratio that is famous, but actually that’s not so! 20/10 is considered the best most primo vision one could hope to be born with, and 20/20 is what most folks are born into and is thought of as the defacto standard. I guess they don’t promote the “20/10” bit much so as to prevent the majority of the world from getting jealous and rising up in revolution against the 20/10s.
20/15 is better than most even if it isn’t the ultimate. So I’d be pleased to have that. I’ll probably be spared when the revolution comes, particularly since that would be my vision after putting on a pair of glasses, not before.
Anyway I was thinking, if she really said that my vision would be back to 20/15, does that mean that all my life I have had better than average vision, and now what I consider to be blurry, unsatisfactory vision is what other people consider to be normal????
I could muse about this more if I was sure she said 20/15. Because if on the other hand she said my vision would be “15/20,” well that’s not good vision at all, that’s the wrong direction, that’s in the bad direction. I think she didn’t say that, but I could be wrong.
I think she said 20/15. So I’ll just assume that, and consider that to be good news.
Unfortunately (and leave it to me to find the unfortunate aspect of this) even if my vision will be 20/15 once my replacement glasses are ready, my vision still won’t be as perfect as when I was younger. Today, due to age I guess, even perfectly focused things have a hairline “out of focus” superimposition over them (caused, my eye doctor told me today, by my eyes lenses not being perfectly spherical anymore – thanks to gravity they’re more oval now, which means that the light which converges upon my retina converges in two spots, rather than the ideal of 1. One spot of light is perfectly focused, the other is just a fuzzy artifact, just enough off from the other to make a detail minded person say “what the freak is that haloe?”. I should be grateful that it is barely noticeable… it really is only noticeable when I am looking at a monitor, doing graphics where I am looking at things pixel-by-pixel, or looking at text. Unfortunately, my work tends to involve looking at things pixel-by-pixel or text on a screen. So while this would be good news if I climbed trees for coconuts all day, it is still only a “satisfactory” result for a person who works on a monitor doing graphics.
I should be happy. But I still feel like I’m on a slippery slope to blindness.
Why the hell are you reading this blog? Man, sometimes a blog is just a diary.