🚀 go-pugleaf

To begin with, my eyes have always been subpar.
I've worn glasses since whenever I can remember, for myopia with a
strong astigmatism and had surgery to correct amblyopia (not sure which
eye) when I was about 6 or 7.
Then back in the fall of '79, when I was 13, I awoke with floaters in my
left eye, which becane inflamed with a rip roarin' case of
chorioretinitis (at the time they suspected it was caused by
toxoplasmosis), with the vision deteriorating to less than 20/200.
The inflammation cleared up and, while technically my vision returned to
20/20, the field was reduced by scarring around the edges and the
vitreous was--at least partly--detached.
Fast forward to Jan.'89 when, one morning, I suddenly noticed a couple
of small, pure black spots in the near center vision of my right eye.
It turned out to be a "cold sore" on my optic nerve!  Like my left eye,
10 years earlier (which they now believe may have also been caused by a
herpes infection, not toxo), the right eye became inflamed, started to
recover, then reinflamed, this time totally cooking it, to be followed
in a few months by a trauma induced cataract!  P=(
So now I am totally blind in one eye and half blind in the other (in the
sense of the field is reduced and the detached vitreous has greatly
reduced the quality of the remaining vision in that eye:  It takes
longer for the eye to adjust to darkness {and, even then, it's only
about half--or even less--sensitive than my [previously] "good" eye},
there is a mild reduction in overall "brightness contrast" {a slight
"film" caused by the vitreous?}--though, since that is the only eye I
see out of, I don't notice it--and there is a mostly transparent {except
when I squint, when it looks "bubbley/sudsy"} wrinkly wad of "raw
pie/cake dough" {i.e., when you stir or kneed the dough, it holds
together but "wrinkles"} swishing around in my vision, which sometimes
looks--albeit, usually faintly and out of focus--like either a fishing
net sprawling around in water or a dim puff of smoke).
In the past few years, I've had a few--what I believe are--"vitreous
events", where, when I shifted my vision, I'd notice a litte spot (or
strand?) that visually seemed to slightly flap or pull--it didn't look
like the retina, but maybe a piece of loose but tethered vitreous (at
least one of them looked like a small air bubble under a transparent
sticker stuck to a window).  After a couple of weeks or so, it would
seem to have just about disappeared when, suddenly, (at the
correspondingly opposite side of my vision field?) I'd notice a real
vivid, small patch or strand of floaters that was tethered/anchored to
that one area.  After 2-3 weeks that tethered patch/strand would start
to "weather" and fade into the background, never completely disappearing
(other than the accompanying floaters), just adding to the vitreal
artifacts.
A couple of years ago, I had a couple of similar episodes, though these
times the eye fluid (vitreous?) became not blurry, hazy or
cloudy--suggesting inflammation--but a bit "gooey", yet certain things I
could see off in the distance, relatively clear, while at the same time
the facial features of someone standing 20-30 feet away may be a
blur--it actually looked like if you squinted to *almost* a blur.  As it
cleared up, the (vitreous?) fluid had a slight, but definite, greasy,
shiny slick to it. It was after those episodes cleared up that I started
noticing that real small print--like the newspaper stock market
results--started to become difficult (albeit, just slightly) to read.
Then, last Feb ('04), another episode started, this time to the point of
causing (besides the "gooiness") some mild inflammation:  The distant
"wall chart" vision remained relatively close to 20/20, but I needed a
magnifying glass to be able to read even regular newspaper size print!
Even a couple of months after the inflammation cleared up, it was
apparent I now needed reading glasses/bifocals:  Do I need reading
glasses because of the event, or was the vitreous event caused by my eye
(focus) muscles changing?
The recent eyeglass history for my left eye is so:

(Sph = "Sphere", Cyl = "Cylinder", Axs = "Axis";
  Adj.Sph, Adj.Cyl = Adjusted Sph, Cyl = Sph/Cyl + Add)

     Year    Sph     Cyl    Axs
     ====   =====   =====   ===
*** 1976?  -1.50   +3.25    80 (Right eye = -1.25  +3.75  105)
     1988?  -0.25   +2.75    80
     1990   -3.00   +4.00    85    Add    Adj.Sph   Adj.Cyl
     2002   -2.00   +3.00    80   =====   ======= =======
     2004   -2.00   +3.00    85   +1.25    -0.75     +4.25
     2005   -2.00   +3.00    85   +1.75    -0.25     +4.75

The vision didn't really change between 1988-90, it was just that, until
the right eye went down the tubes, I had used my eyes complementarily:
My (then) "bad" (left) eye was used for close-up vision and the (then)
"good" (right) eye was used for distance.
Once the right eye became useless, the left eye was re-evaluated.
A couple of other characteristics/properties that may be contributing
factor(s):

--- The left eye pressure is relatively low (7-13--whereas the right eye
is usually 1 or less!)--so don't even THINK of suggesting anything
surgical (vitrectomy, LASIK, etc.)!  P=/
--- The left eye also has a slight "reverse sided" cataract (whereas a
"normal" cataract develops on the outside of the lens, this one, caused
by the inflammation and scarring, is on the *inside* of the lens).

With all that said, here is the $50 question:  Is there such a thing as
"dual focus"?
In other words, could my distance vision be both -2.00/+3.00 *AND* about
-0.25/+2.75 Sph, with perhaps some tweaking of the Cyl and/or Axs?
It was during the time I had my order in for my first pair of bifocals
last summer, that I tried on all of my old glasses and found that my
"1988" pair seemed perfect for reading--and not half bad for distance!
Over the past year, since I got the bifocals, I've checked my distance
vision through the bifocal and it seems less and less clear:  When I
first looked though the "1988" glasses and the bifocals, the distance
didn't really look blurry, everything just had a slight "ghosting" to it
(like looking though binoculars or a telescope that is out of focus:
When you adjust the focus of the binoculars/telescope, are you changing
the Sph, Cyl, both or neither?); recently, though, I've found that
looking in the distance through the new bifocals (and "1988" glasses)
does introduce a definite blurriness, besides the "ghosting" (which my
oculist said was going to start happening as the "Add" increased, even
at mid-distance, thus requiring either trifocals or progressives--which
I *have* considered).
Even more "perverse", if I turn my glasses backwards so that the outside
face of the glasses is "facing my face" with the (normally positioned)
left eyeglass in front of my left eye and the (normally positioned)
right eyeglass hanging off to the left of my head:  If I rest the top
edge of my left eyeglass against my left eyebrow, tilt the bottom of the
resting eyeglass out/up slightly (15°-30°--The Sph and/or Cyl
component/action?)) and turn the tilted glass slightly counterclockwise
(5°-15°--The Cyl and/or Axs component/action?), (albeit, everything
looks a little smaller) looking through the upper part of the bifocal
section, the distance looks almost as clear as through the regular
distance part of the lens!  The kicker is that when I turn my attention
to up close (intended "bifocal") vision, holding the glasses in the same
position, at the same angle, looking out through the same area of the
bifocal, I can still read up close, perfectly clear (maybe even
*slightly* better than via the prescribed way!), whereas the non-bifocal
part is just as fuzzy as the other way!!

*** Now, just a few days ago, I found a few more pairs of even older
glasses (maybe even my first two pairs???--I don't even think the lenses
are even an inch high and the bulky black --> grayish-white framed
{i.e., classic "geek" glasses} earpieces only go back to about .5-.75
way to my ears!), and one of the more recent of them (I suspect from
about 1976, well before my left eye became afflicted:  They actually
half fit!)--I kid you not--provides ALMOST PERFECT vision, both for
distance AND close-up!!!
The distance looks almost as good as through my current distance
lens--and a lot better than the bifocals/"1988" pairs--while the near
and far intermediate distances seem about right (whereas both the
distance and bifocal parts of my current glasses appear a bit fuzzy) and
the close-up is also mildly to moderately fuzzy (as compared to major to
severe fuzziness with my distance lens--almost like I'm not wearing
glasses!), *BUT* there *is* the classic urge to move away whatever it is
I am looking at (and it *does* lessen the fuzziness a bit), unlike with
the distance lens, where the fuzziness appears constant, even as you
move it away!  And, like with the "1988" pair, if you turn the "1976"
pair backwards and tilt them a certain way, it seems to improve the
vision (at all distances) slightly (as well as by looking out the
extreme edge, where the frame seems to modulate it slightly, like when
you look through pinholes).

Thus the main question:  Is it possible to have two (or more) equally
valid focal values, at least for distance?
One difference I notice is that, looking through the regular distance
lens, the "vitreous wad" is more like a "puff of smoke" and out of
focus, whereas, through the bifocal, everything looks "watery" (at
times, anyways, even a little greasy?), like I am looking through a
clear piece of "Saran Wrap" that is spread out but anchored underwater
(i.e., I am looking *through* the vitreal fluid--at least more--in focus?).
Another, related analogy is fresh vs. salt water:  A "normal" eye sees
things through fresh, clear pond water, whereas I'm looking through
relatively clear, but still slightly hazy, salty seawater.
Could the "ghosting"/slight double imaging (at least partly) be the
image reflecting (refracting?) off of the vitreous, like looking through
a double paned window, thus what may be my "natural" 20/20 vision with
-0.25/+2.75 is "ghosted" by the "double pane" effect of the vitreous,
which is cancelled out with the -2.00/+3.00 values--and now that it is
starting to present itself, presbyopia isn't compatible with the
-2.00/+3.00 values???
Can the Cyl and Axs have two different values for bifocals or does the
bifocal and rest of the glass have to have the same values?
Another possible culprit/"irritant" I've wondered about is the lens type.
These newly found ("1976") glasses--I believe--have pure glass lenses,
while the "1988" pair have simple plastic lenses.  All the more recent
pairs, however, are "UV coated" (polycarbonate?--that option isn't
circled on the prescription:  But isn't all "UV coated" lens
polycarbonate?) plastic, which seems prone to fogging/greasing up in the
upper inside corner of the lens (by the nose), and which the optician
advises should be cleaned with a wet (not dry) cloth/tissue.
It *could* just be my imagination, but it seems that the bifocal in my
current glasses gives a slightly hazier view than the "1988" pair (and
they both work out to a Sph of -0.25, though there is a 2.00 difference
in Cyl), with, maybe, even slightly lesser haziness with the "1976" pure
glass lens.
Given the compexities of my situation, would it be advisable to consider
finding an optometrist (who may be up on all of the obscure optic tricks
  of optometry) rather than have my regular opthamologist do it--or is
an opthamologist just as advancedly versed as an optometrist, in terms
of lens and glasses (I'm thinking like, while a general opthamologist
may be *qualified* to treat my retinal problems, at the onset of my
right eye's event, I was referred to a retinologist, with all of the
special equipment, etc.)?
After finding the "1976" pair and having the prescription evaluated, it
*is* between my current distant and close-up vision--though a lot closer
to the distant value, and there seems to be a lot less fuzziness
close-up (and even intermediate) than with my current distance lens,
given that there is only a 0.50 Sph and 0.25 Cyl difference between the
two, the fuzziness difference between the two doesn't right!?!--so
considering trifocals or even progressives does seem a lot more
palatable now.
                                Trifocals
     _______________         _______________         _______________
    |               \       |               \       |               \
    |                |      |________________|      |_______________|
    |     ___________|      |                |      |               |
    |    |___________|      |                |      |               |
    |    |           |      |----------------|      |    +----------|
    |    |          /       |               /       |    |         /
    |    |         /        |              /        |    |        /
    \_____\_______/         \_____________/         \_____\______/
      Traditional                      Other Variations?

While the first figure is the traditional trifocal, are there any
variations (my optician says that there is one that he knows of, known
as "computer glasses"{?}--but they are real expensive)?

-"Dick DeadEye"