[stylist] Terms of blindness

Tue Apr 16 02:43:35 UTC 2013

Actually, it takes months for a baby to acquire full vision and even then, a 
child has its best vision between the ages of six and ten--if I remember my 
college stuff correctly.
Barbara

Writing free verse is like playing tennis with the net down.--Robert Frost
-----Original Message----- 
From: Eve Sanchez
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:05 AM
To: Writer's Division Mailing List
Subject: Re: [stylist] Terms of blindness

Discussion is not necessary, but I think it is an interesting point to
ponder. I will point out though, that babies are not born with perfect
vision. There vision develops in their first days and that is one of the
reasons of why touch, smell and voice are so important for the new born to
identify their mother.  Blessins, Eve

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Bridgit Pollpeter
<bpollpeter at hotmail.com>wrote:

> Eve,
>
> It sort of comes down to semantics in the end, I guess.
>
> I see what you're saying (smile) and on a more philosophical level, you
> have a great point for discussion, but by *fully-sighted,* I mean one
> who is not legally blind.
>
> Many on this list have always been diagnosed as legally blind, or have
> conditions like RP that will eventually diagnose one as legally blind.
> Some may have conditions that go undiagnosed, as in your case, Eve, and
> this certainly could include a lot of people who don't currently
> consider themselves blind in any sense of the word.
>
> But, when I hear the term partially blind, I think of a person who has
> limitations with their vision that glasses can not correct. When I hear
> totally blind, I think of a person who can not use their vision visually
> in any way. I include people with light perception or even vague shadowy
> shapes in my definition of totally as this is what my vision *looks*
> like, but you can not *use* this vision. By fully-sighted, I think of a
> person with the ability to use their eyes for all those things us blind
> people can not, which I understand is up to argument in and of itself as
> a definition. Perhaps other than babies, no one has *perfect* vision,
> and even within the fully-sighted category, there are varying levels of
> vision, but again, this becomes semantics because most will know what
> you mean when I say fully-sighted.
>
> I agree with you that ultimately it doesn't matter, and I typically
> don't like the labels because they usually denote distinctions of vision
> and therefore are deemed great, better, worse and terrible on a scale of
> vision. A lot of perceptions and prejudices have been, and still are, in
> large part due to these labels. But this drudges up a discussion we had
> months ago, and my intention is not to debate this topic again, smile.
>
> I only used the term fully-sighted to explain to Tessa that I wasn't
> always blind and therefore have a visual understanding of the world, and
> perhaps I could have simply stated it that way. This is not a good or
> bad thing; I just was trying to demonstrate that I have a first-hand
> knowledge I can draw upon when writing visual descriptions for many
> things, so I do not know from personal experience what it is to write a
> visual description based on second-hand knowledge.
>
> Again, interesting point to discuss nonetheless.
>
> Bridgit
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:11:35 -0700
> From: Eve Sanchez <3rdeyeonly at gmail.com>
> To: "Writer's Division Mailing List" <stylist at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [stylist] Visual scenes
> Message-ID:
>
> <CACdbYKWKBpfumwpvv7Q+dCqR02CgjnPSt8+v2GmP1EVnaPD9BA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Bridget, What is fully sighted? I find that term to be even more vague
> and meaningless than partially sighted. Im not meaning to be a smart
> ass. Just thinking about it. I had always thought I was a sighted
> person, but came to learn that I had always been what is legally blind.
> I saw though. I saw in my own way that is and since that is how I saw, I
> thought it was full normal vision. I wonder if anyone really does see
> things the same way as another. Oh we could describe things that are
> recognizable to each other, but it perhaps is more that we know what is
> being described and we know what it looks like to us. I hope this is
> clear though my sight is not. I am just thinking there is more to sight
> and the lack of, than we all consider. Perhaps none of it really matters
> either. Blessings, Eve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Writers Division web site
> http://www.writers-division.net/
> stylist mailing list
> stylist at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/stylist_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> stylist:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/stylist_nfbnet.org/3rdeyeonly%40gmail.com
>
_______________________________________________
Writers Division web site
http://www.writers-division.net/
stylist mailing list
stylist at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/stylist_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
stylist:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/stylist_nfbnet.org/poetlori8%40msn.com 