Thank you for the quick answers, however, I feel that my argument for convergence vs divergence is not being understood correctly.
To Elmo9: I find it no more difficult or hard to converge my eyes than when I diverge them, in fact - anytime you look at something and it is in focus - your eyes are converging onto that object - one would expect that this is not too stressfull since all day long we are constantly looking at everything around us. Also - you mentioned that you were not using the divergent gaze (which would allow you to see the blib page), you instead are using the soft focus technique which occurs when you relax your lenses such that your focal plane moves to infinity though your eyes remain converged onto the center of the book. Which brings me back to the original question which was, upon looking at something closer than the book and then relaxing my eyes (soft focus) is this not all that is needed to attain "photofocus"? To further clarify, with a convergent gaze, I am essentially doing everything the same as with a divergent gaze (soft focus and the creation of a blip page). Incidently, I do not plan on using this as a normal method for photoreading, I find it simply as a mere curiousity, as it would surely look funny to be in the library with a pencil or string hanging from my hat as a quickly flip through pages - laugh...
To Dana Hanson: Thank you for the reference to pages 44-46. I, at first, wondered about the closing off the peripheral vision you mentioned. Thus I tested it by placing my hands oustretch and see how far to the sides I can see them while using the divergent type of gaze; and then went into convergent type of gaze - and indeed - you are correct - it does close off some peripheral vision - though less than five percent. And to address the other aspect of your answer concerning seeing the page with my peripheral vision - the convergent technique has your center view pegged right in the middle of the object at which you are staring (which lines up directly with the center of the blip page) and everything else including the two pages is seen with the peripheal vision just as with the divergent gaze. Thus - no real difference in the two techniques exist with regard to seeing the two pages with peripheral vision (except that technically - with a divergent gaze, your left eye's peripheral vision sees the left page and the right eye's peripheral vision sees the right page and in a convergent gaze the exact opposite would be true).
Which actually brings up another question - would it make a difference to what percentage the two pages take up your peripheal vision - I would naturally think that the larger the percentage the two pages covers my peripheal vision the more attention the subconcious brain gives it...???
Lastly, I hope that I am not sounding antagonistic with this response- for I am merely curious, thus if I have come across aggressively - it is purely unintentional.
Also - to Elmos9's credit - I have no idea if the soft focus/convergent gaze gives the same relaxed deep alpha or light theta state attained with the soft focus/divergent gaze. Though to me - they aappear to be the same feeling - until an actual scan of someone's brainwaves using the two techniques is performed, that answer will remain unresolvable.
Thus for any newbies who happen to read this who are just learning - I would recomend sticking to Elmo9's advice of using the methods already taught (and not the convergent gaze technique).
