There is only one authority in establishing a healthy lifestyle for your practice member. It is not the M.D. or the D.C. It is the innate intelligence of that person’s own body.
There is only one authority in establishing a healthy lifestyle for your practice member. It is not the M.D. or the D.C. It is the innate intelligence of that person’s own body.
So obvious the masses miss it. The intelligence of the living body has but one role: strive to survive and does so tp the best of its ability with respect to the circumstances. Our job is to educatedly decide a better circumstance.
Joe,
I believe you have written that people can be subluxation free and have diseases. Therefore – they can be diseased in spite of the lifestyle innate urges them to have. We know that much of disease is lifestyle related. How do you account for this?
Eric,
1. Disease is a medical term. A person can be adapting to a virus (without VS) and have the symptoms of coryza9 the commn cold.
2. A person can have their subluxations corrected but due to limitations of time and matter still have a disease.
3. Heredity and genetic diseases L. of M. can exist in absense of VS.
How many of us really listen to or even hear “innate urges”?
Joe,
Your three examples are certainly worth addressing, and I hope we can get to them. But your final comment to me, in light of your initial post, is a bit perplexing. You say that neither DCs nor MDs are authorities on establishing lifestyles. And you say in your reply to me:
“How many of us really listen to or even hear “innate urges”?”
I assume that it is a rhetorical question – you being of the opinion that people don’t follow their innate urges (fair enough for now).
So taken from what you say:
1. There is no authority on a person’s lifestyle other than that person’s own innate.
2. People don’t “listen” to innate when it comes to lifestyle.
If 1 and 2 are correct – then are suggesting we are all doomed?
(You do know that 2.5 million Americans croak prematurely each year from conditions that are arguably lifestyle related – a number that has been on the rise for decades)
SUBLUXATIONS KILL HUMAN BEINGS AT AN ASTRONOMICAL RATE. –
– ALL PEOPLE LIVING OF THE EARTH ARE BETTER OFF WITHOUT SUBLUXATIONS. –
– 7,000,000,000 PEOPLE LIVE ON PLANET EARTH. –
– 70,000 CHIROPRACTORS LIVE ON PLANET EARTH. –
– 100,000 PRACTICE MEMBERS PER OFFICE TO SERVE AT A RATE OF 10 VISITS PER YEAR AMOUNT TO 1,000,000 OFFICE VISITS PER YEAR OR A LITTLE LESS THAN 3,000 OFFICE VISITS PER DAY/7 DAYS PER WEEK. –
– THAT IS A MIGHTY SERVICE TO RENDER TO A HUMANITY THAT NEEDS IT SO MUCH. –
– THAT’S A BIG JOB FOR CHIROPRACTORS TO DO AND THERE IS NO TIME TO MEANDER IN THE BUSINESS OF THERAPEUTICS AND PREVENTION OF DISEASES… THAT BELONGS TO OTHER PROFESSIONS, NOT CHIROPRACTIC. –
– THE WORLD DEFINITELY NEEDS MORE CHIROPRACTORS TO LACVS. DON’T YOU THINK EVERYONE?
Funny here Claude,
If you in NTOSC are not willing to speculate that subluxations can cause things like headaches or other conditions, how can you suggest that they kill people at an astronomical rate?
Eric, in response to your commnts:
“1. There is no authority on a person’s lifestyle other than that person’s own innate.” I think/hope you would agree with that. The exception would be adapting us to our external environment which is an educated function. The best thing we can do is follow the “dictates” of the ii (if the ii could make educated decisions, but it cannot.) Eg. My ii tells me it’s cold ouside but I’m too busy to take the time to go inside and put on a coat.
“2. People don’t “listen” to innate when it comes to lifestyle.” Sometimes I think that the only time many people listen to the ii of their body is when it tells them to empty their bladder!
As John Maynard Keynes, the socialist-economist said when asked if his theories would work in the end, is reported to have said “in the end we will all be dead.” Having an ADIO perspective on health will likely put off the end to a later time. BUT allowing someone elses ei to dictate to you what your lifestyle should be is a poor substitute for listening to your own ii, and worse it fosters outside-in thinking IMO. Unfortunatetly, people are willing to listen to someone (MD or DC) dictate/prescribe a lifestyle for them than to develop one for themselves based of ADIO thinking.
Joe,
Of course I agree with you on most of this. However I believe there is more to this picture than what you reveal, and there is a bit of long and heady editorial that can be generated on this subject (all from an ADIO perspective). I won’t go into any of this here and now, unless you would like to see and discuss it. Your call.
Eric,
Good OBSERVATION! I take back WHAT I wrote about VS killing people at an astronomical rate. Thank you for checking my slipping. –
– ALL people are better off without subluxation and we do have a BIG job to do YOU and I, don’t we?
Claude don’t be so quick to back peddle, you said nothing wrong. I’m not sure where Eric came up his incorrect assumption. NTOSC does not say vs cannot cause headaches or other conditions. What NTOSC DOES say is there is no way for us to know whether any particular condition in any particular person is caused by a vs. For those who wish to speculate on that, go for it and good luck! A headache or other condition can exist in the presence or absence of vs and vice versa. The point that NTOSC emphasizes is that all people under all circumstances express more life without vs than with and that vs by its very presence robs people of life, hence they do kill people.
Tom,
Sorry if I’m mistaken. From your NTOSC perspective, is headache not a medical condition? And as such, I was under the impression that you did not speculate about such things at all? NTOSC is about LACVS allowing greater expression of life – PERIOD. Right?
Thanks Tom.
Just wondering if everyone commenting above is operating with the same definition of LIFE.
Is the medical, chiropractic and even theological definition of life the same?
Is there a subtle, unique or otherwise significant difference between TSC and NTOSC definition of Life or “life-robbing” effects of the vs?
Could it be that these maybe the reasons for the misunderstandings in the blog posts above? Maybe someone can clarify?
Don,
I’ll give it a go.
TSC meaning of life – Unification of spirit and matter.
NTOSC meaning of life – Intelligence expressed through matter.
Medical meaning of life – What does it matter?
Osteopathic meaning of life – It used to matter.
Homeopathic meaning of life – A little matter goes a long way.
Ayurvedic meaning of life – Nothing matters.
Chiropractic Medicine meaning of life – Whatever sells matters.
Don,
Chiropractic principle #2: The EXPRESSION of this intelligence through matter is the chiropractic meaning of life AND that is WHO the NTOSChiropractor chooses to BE in accepting of the meaning of life. 😉
… with that said, Don, WHO is it in your opinion, that is choosing to CHANGE chiropractic principle #2?
Don,
With that said, WHO is it in your opinion, that is choosing to CHANGE chiropractic principle #2? –
– I maintain, that the NTOSC accepts the 33 principles AS THEY ARE, without changing them or their meanings. Furthermore, it is the NTOSC WHO chooses to practice the objective of chiropractic which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body (which is reasonably deduced from the 33 principles). PERIOD! –
– Please answer my question if you can. Thank you.
Wonderful response! Thanks Dr. Seiler.
Eric, you were quick to define the meaning of life for a number of professions (and I found them very entertaining). But why did you feel compelled to address four that you do not practice but neglected one that Don asked (theological). AND most important why did you define the NTOSC meaning of life as BJ et al did but change the definition for TSC. That was totally out of character!
Eric,
You wrote: “TSC meaning of life – Unification of spirit and matter”… NTOSC meaning of life – Intelligence expressed through matter”. –
WHEN I read the 33 chiropractic principles, as they are written by RWS, it is principle #2 that is addressing the chiropractic meaning of life. In your “giving it a go” and with the GREAT humor of your previous post, you are correctly identifying NTOSChiropractors as espousing the EXACT chiropractic meaning of life as stated within principle #2. I personally thank you for seeing that clearly. –
– Eric, from having read your many blogs, I see that it is you WHO is choosing NOT to change your beliefs. Instead, you seem to FINALLY have followed your advice and made your move regarding the “changing” of the principles of chiropractic to fit YOUR personal beliefs. After all, you did change #1, the major premise, by saying universal intelligence is “God” and now you are changing #2 by saying that the chiropractic meaning of life is “unification of spirit and matter”. –
Well said, Claude!
Claude,
Spirit and intelligence in the context of traditional chiropractic philosophy really do mean the same thing. Some traditional chiropractors are willing to admit this. NTOSC is simply in denial and perpetuals a falsehood in the name of some perceived the “greater good”.
In light of all of the concrete and conceptual evidence I have presented for the original and authentic origin and meaning behind UI, for you to make the kind of statement you just did confirms that you really do live in your own world. One where history, linguistics and hermeneutics are “conditionally” appreciated and often abused. It’s not such a bad world though, and I do enjoy visiting because I believe you guys are good at heart.
Hey Eric
Traditional chiropractic philosophy originated with BJ as it was he and his fellows that filled out the philosophy as we know it today. Don’t you find it odd that he chose to leave out the phrases you seem to hold so tightly too. Terms like god, spirit and created are no where in the philosophy I read (Principles 1 through 33 ). You can twist the words around all you wish but I tend to think those words were available at the time and for some ( I think very good ) reason not included. I too admire DD Palmer for his discovery of and contribution to the A, S and P of chiropractic but it was BJ who developed what we call traditional philosophy. Maybe it is you who is trying to make this clearly defined, logical MP and conclusion some thing it is not?
Hey Steve!
Respectfully, your opening statement is one of the most amazing ones have seen thus far! Minus the concepts of ui, ii, and subluxation there “is no” traditional chiropractic philosophy, and these are all concepts and terms that DD brought to the table.
Furthermore, I doubt any number of examples of the use of words like God, Creator and Spirit in the writings of DD, BJ, Craven and RWS would satisfy you because you have found a haven for your worldview in the NTOS permutation of chiropractic, and as such, you will likely not be easily moved by any brand of evidence. (psycho emotional attachment).
There is nothing wrong with your worldview, or your bias when it come to chiropractic. I just sincerely believe that all the best evidence suggests that you are calling what is clearly an apple, an orange. In the long run, how can that be good for you or the profession?
Hey Eric,
I did not say BJ originated the terms, I said he and his wrote the philosophy as we know it today, the traditional chiropractic philosophy. The 33 principles were not from DD. If you are familiar with BJ’s book Radio Salesmanship you might understand his affliction for precise writing. Maybe a fundamentalist philosophy would best describe your view as you seem to hold closer to the father than the son. As a point of dispute , I’m not sure DD originated any of the terms except maybe Innate Intelligence, as it seems they were all in use already. (UI, subluxation, adjustment )
Hey Steve,
Given that this goes straight to the heart of the matter, can you demonstrate then how BJ’s definition of UI differs fundamentally from that of his father? I believe I have provided several that show they were in fact fundamentally the same. Perhaps you can produce some quotes that prove otherwise.
Strength of D. D. Palmer’s Chiropractic is that it disregards narrow and conceited opinions of religious educations. Chiropractic is broad enough to accept that backbones have no creed, subluxations have no sect,
adjustments have no denomination; Innate is a broad, all-universal law, irrespective of narrowed religious opinions to contrary.
D. D. Palmer followed no sect, creed, or denomination. If he leaned to any, it was to principle of spiritualism, and then only to its religious aspect. Did he ever intend to make a religion out of Chiropractic? That depends upon what constitutes a religion. If, by “religion” is meant setting up one particular savior of souls of mankind, such as Christ, then this was not his idea of his service to sick mankind. If, by religion, is meant establishment of a church, of a one-day-of-the week Sunday, with a ritual of hymns, sermons, robes, preachers, etc., this also was repugnant to his concept of universality of Chiropractic vertebral subluxation and its adjustment. If, by religion, is meant that sins, souls, saviors, to save them, need be established, then that was revolting to his idea that anybody anywhere could get sick and get well whether sick person believed in any, all, or none of them.
Who is the devil whom D.D. recognized early in his day? It’s the man who could not see THE BROAD
APPLICATION; on contrary, narrowed it to some constricted and restricted application to those who prescribed a certain limited creed, whether it be medicine, surgery, Christianity, or what have you.
BJ 1950 Vol 24
Thanks for the replies.
Dr. Seiler when you wrote “If you in NTOSC are not willing to speculate that subluxations can cause things like headaches or other conditions, how can you suggest that they kill people at an astronomical rate?”
I think this would depend on what definition of killing people or to kill we are operating with.
I recognize it is not TSC but was there a medical definition you had in mind when writing this response? I only suggest it because headaches and other conditions seem like a medical condition to me? Could you clarify? Thanks.
Don,
Actually I find it funny at times how we can get caught up in these semantics games. Realistically, headaches, death and any other “condition” you or I care to describe are not the “property” or exclusive purview of medicine, chiropractic, or anything else for that matter. They just are. Life is a terminal condition, killing has been around since Cain slew Abel, and headaches have been around since the first couple got married.
If you want a definition of “killing” from a NTOSC perspective – ask Claude (since he said it) , or even better…get a hold of the video “Subluxation – the Silent Killer” by the late great Dr. Reggie Gold. I believe he is highly revered among this sect ( as well as mine), and so I should imagine his dissertation will be as good as it gets on this subject from the NTOSC perspective.
Thanks but I was only interested in your thought/definition when you asked the question of Dr. Lessard. Did you use the TSC definition and what would it be?
My guess would be a loss of the unification of spirit and matter.
Please let me know. Thanks.
Dr. Selier, I should mentino that I don’t mean to imply that I don’t agree with everything you said in your last response. I just want you to fill in the blanks for me. Thanks again.
Sorry for the late reply Dr. Lessard. For some reason there is no reply button below your last post so I’ll post it here.
You wrote
“With that said, WHO is it in your opinion, that is choosing to CHANGE chiropractic principle #2? –
– I maintain, that the NTOSC accepts the 33 principles AS THEY ARE, without changing them or their meanings. Furthermore, it is the NTOSC WHO chooses to practice the objective of chiropractic which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body (which is reasonably deduced from the 33 principles). PERIOD! –
– Please answer my question if you can. Thank you.
My opinion is that the person who believes something other than prin. #2 or misunderstands it is the person that is choosing to change prin. #2.
Don,
Thank you for your answer.
You are welcome. 🙂
Is it fair to say that the manifestations of less expression of innate intelligence can amount to less life.
If that is true is it philosophically sound to inform the public that subluxations
a) lessen quality of life
b) lessen the length of life
c) kill (sorry yes, I need closure on this one Dr. Seiler 🙂 )
d) all of the above
e) none of the above
I have mine but I would love to hear other reasons why. Thanks.
Don,
Innate intelligence can ONLY have 100% expression (pri.22). No more. No less. –
– That being said: –
– The function of matter is to express FORCE (pri.13). There can be interference with the TRANSMISSION of innate forces (pri.29). –
– Interference with TRANSMISSION in the body is always directly or indirectly due to subluxations in the spinal column (pri.31). –
– We can reasonably deduce that subluxations alter the TRANSMISSION of innate forces. Therefore, we can logically conclude that the manifestations of the altered expression of innate forces, by matter, will violate principle #32 by causing a lack of harmonious action of the parts of an organism. –
– It is for YOU to know this. It is for YOU to LEARN it by LIVING it. It is for YOU to LIVE it by developing an educational program that will EDUCE from the public the answer that is ALREADY within them (they just don’t know it yet). –
– It is you WHO is FREE to choose to CREATE a program and an environment suitable to that end. Then, it is the public WHO will be FREE to choose to come to their own conclusions regarding subluxations. –
– Trust chiropractic! –
-Trust your educational program! –
– Trust the public! –
– ….. and, MOST importantly, trust WHO you choose to BE. – 😉
I stand corrected. I should have posted the following…
Is it fair to say that the manifestations of the altered expression of innate forces, by matter, by causing a lack of harmonious action of the parts of an organism can amount to less life?
If that is true is it philosophically sound to inform the public that subluxations
a) lessen quality of life
b) lessen the length of life
c) kill (sorry yes, I need closure on this one Dr. Seiler 🙂 )
d) all of the above
e) none of the above
I have mine but I would love to hear other reasons why. Thanks.
Don,
While all those statements are true, I think there is a problem in saying those things without the proper context. Surely in explaining chiropractic they can and should be covered but putting an ad in the local paper saying SUBLUXATIONS KILL without the context is not good PR in my opinion. Sub luxations do not kill by themselves. The just contribute to the inability of the body to adapt and we do not know how great that contribution is. We must always be aware of what the publice reads and hears, not just what we write and say.
Don,
We are experiencing a disappearance that I had posted for you last night.
Don,
The page came back. It’s all good. 🙂
Claude,
In you last post you say that you choose to increase internal resistive forces through the LACVS. Are you sure that is what you want to say? I thought you simply left it at “LACVS to allow full expression of life”. Do you now suggest that beyond this, LACVS “increases internal restive forces?” And if so, how? And in what predictable or measurable way? Is this an affirmative or speculative increase in internal resistive force?
(just checking)
Don,
If subluxations compromise the body’s ability to adapt then:
a) They will adversely effect quality of life
b) They can reduce duration of life
c) Any condition which causes you to live a moment less than you might have minus that condition could be said to have “killed ” you (hence Reggie’s “Silent Killer”).
TSC-tors can only speculate on the kind of quality and duration of life issues a patient may experience if subluxated. This kind of speculation apparently is not part of NTOSC.
Subluxation is the cause of dis-ease (compromised adaptation)
Habitual adverse chemical, physical and emotion stressors are the cause of disease (without the hyphen). Disease (without the hyphen) is adaption to habitual adverse stress and is therefore a PRODUCT of innate intelligence ( this is where the NTOSC guys go thru the roof).
The correction for dis-ease is an adjustment.
The correction for disease is adoption of habits which do not include negative stressors.
Disease is the normal and appropriate response of innate intelligence to the habitual inappropriate choices of educated intelligence.
The “disconnect” between ii and ei began somewhere around 7,500 to 10,000 years ago with what the anthropologists call the Neolithic revolution, and what the biblical scholars call the “fall from grace”. These are actually in my opinion the same event – both of which chronicle radical changes in human behavior that have spawned today’s epidemic of chronic diseases.( I’m currently writing a book on this)
It is true WHAT Eric is pointing out to ALL of us: That speculations, diagnosis and advices are NOT a part of chiropractic. I reviewed the 33 principles and it is not contained in any of them. It is for this reason that the NTOSChiropractor is one WHO chooses to practice the objective of chiropractic which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –
– In other words, NTOSChiropractors address the CAUSE of DIS-
EASE which is the SUBLUXATION. PERIOD! –
– A subluxation is an EXTERNAL invasive FORCE overcoming an INTERNAL resistive FORCE of the LIVING body. By LACVS, the NTOSC is one ,WHO, chooses to participate in the INCREASING of the INTERNAL resistive FORCE of the LIVING body by LACVS and as such, the NTOSC is NOT dealing with EXTERNAL invasive FORCES (the picking up of banana peels, advising which food to eat, which supplements to take, which exercise to do, which church to go to, which specialists to go to, etc…). That is the JOB of other professions, not the chiropractic profession. –
– That is the WHY of WHAT chiropractic IS and is NOT, of WHAT it DOES and does NOT and HOW it does WHAT it does! –
– EVERYONE on this blog is FREE to choose WHO they choose to BE in relationship to chiropractic! 😉
Okay Dr. Strauss. I see your point.
If that is the case, what would be more appropriate to write for the public instead of what I suggested?
We do Claude,
However being the tenacious PITA that I am:
1. It seems you find the VS to be quite a threat (I do not disagree)
2. I wonder if Joe will address the question/logic that I posed to him above?
(PS I’m not always right. Once I thought I was wrong…and I wasn’t : )
Steve,
Your quoting BJ (vol.#24, Fight to Climb) at the request of Eric, makes me wonder if Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, and his team ever spent much of their precious time arguing about Graham Alexander Bell’s views regarding phones. I wonder if they put him on a pedestal, worshipped at his grave and made him AUTHORITY over phone communications for the evolutionary process of the i-phone. Don’t you wonder also?
…. perhaps it was Steve Jobs and his team WHO chose to apply the principles that have been discovered by Bell. In doing so, they have honored Alexander Bell by participating in the transformation of the world and of life itself through HIS discovery of the principles of voice-communication over long distance. 😉
Ok Claude I get it , Sorry for wasting everyone’s time.
Hey Steve,
No waste of time at all (don’t back down from Claude so easily!)
Seeking the truth and sharpening your convictions is never a waste of time. Preaching to the choir can be (which I guess is what Sir Claudius likes best).
While your BJ quote if full of useful insight on DD’s beliefs, it does not address my request which was for evidence of a fundamental philosophical difference in defining UI between DD and BJ. The quote you post does not even mention UI ,and is really about how DD felt about religion.
I think part of our communication break-down here Steve may be in your apprehension of the difference between theism and religion, which is important. Both DD and BJ believed in a Supreme Being responsible for the universe. They both were comfortable calling this Supreme Being UI and they were both comfortable with equating UI with God for those who wished to do so. There is not one stitch of religion in any of this by the way – simply the identification of a Creator who from the spiritual realm holds matter in existence (theism). I believe that DD and BJ were uniform in a fundamental philosophical sense with regard to UI – unless you can show otherwise.
So again – when you discuss “intelligence” from the traditional chiropractic perspective – you are really taking the activity of the “Creator” (regardless of who you with to fashion Him).
Perhaps this little snippet from RWS will help:
“All matter is blessed with the caretaking of the Supreme Intelligence, and if this ceases for one moment, matter would cease to exist. We do not know, of course, but it seems reasonable to believe, that the
Creator’s solicitude did not end when things were created; that
Universal Intelligence is continuously unfolding thoughts of which
everything in the universe gets its share—that amount intended for
it, no more, no less.”
Hey Eric,
Claude is correct we stray too far from the thread. It is obvious that you and I are in different places, and Joe possibly another. It is also obvious that every time we come back to this same point of contention we monopolize the conversation, off thread. I thank you for the mental jousting but feel like we are sidetracking Joe’s effort to educate and share OSC. I am grateful however for the commonality we do share, this is a wonderful profession.
Steve,
Re-read the title of this thread and –
Keep your education program simple. The ONLY important point that needs to be made in teaching PMs is that as long as they are LIVING, it is they, WHO, will have to choose to live with subluxations or without subluxations. –
– It is you, WHO, chooses to practice the objective of chiropractic which is to LACVS for a full expression the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –
– It me, WHO, chooses to invite you and everyone else reading this blog, , to be a NTOSChiropractor, WHO, will choose to tell the “story” to as many people as you can, in as many ways as you can, as often as you can, over and over and over and over and over again —
– Educate the public the way of, WHO, you choose to BE in relation to WHAT a subluxation is. Then, simply LACVS. PERIOD! –
– Then, you will educate WHAT you practice and practice WHAT educate! –
– Then, we will, all of us, EXPERIENCE our belonging to the great chain of humanity, in our very specific, unique, separate and distinct way. –
– YOU might even experience peace, and joy, and you might even experience a full gratitude welling, from above-down-inside-out, for the profound privilege of participating in the transformation of the lives of others, your very own life, and the transformation of LIFE itself! –
– I know , YOU know, that I do!!! 😉
The objective of chiropractic is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! 🙂
Eric,
Re-read my post over and over again please. I am LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the LIVING body which is the objective of chiropractic. I did NOT post for “a full expression of life”. –
– I also said that I was PARTICIPATING in the increase of the INTERNAL resistive FORCE of the LIVING body by LACVS. PERIOD! – We both know that it is the innate intelligence of the body that is adjusting. –
– WHAT is the definition of a subluxation? A vertebral subluxation is a vertebra that has lost its juxtaposition with the vertebra above, the one below or both, to an extent less than a luxation, occluding an opening, putting pressure upon a nerve and interfering with the FLOW of mental impulse (which is an innate FORCE) between brain cell and tissue cell and vice-versa. –
– LACVS is correcting the INTERFERENCE with the FLOW of innate FORCES which are INTERNAL and controlling the INTERNAL resistive FORCES of the LIVING body.. –
– It is sound and REASONABLE TO DEDUCE that the NTOSChiropractor participateS in the increase of INTERNAL resistive FORCE of the LIVING body WHEN that LIVING body is subluxation-free due to the LACVS by the NTOSChiropractor or by the TSC. It is just that the NTOSChiropractor is one, WHO, chooses to address ONLY the CAUSE of DIS-EASE. PERIOD!
– Eric, this is not speculation… It is called deductive reasoning based of 33 principles of chiropractic and I know that YOU know that. You’ve been with chiropractic for a long time. Let me ask you a question: –
– What I mentioned above is so elementary that I am surprise YOU even took the time to post this comment and asked me to differentiate for YOU speculation and deductive reasoning. WHAT is your purpose in visiting this blog? Is it to learn about elementary stuff like this? 😉
We, ALL us, must get our “WHO” right, before we figure out “WHAT” to say and “WHAT” to do in a philosophically sound way. It is so important that you choose WHO to BE….. BEFORE….. you SAY and DO. Then, it is you, WHO will create a thorough educational program for the public and it is you, WHO will knows WHAT to SAY and WHAT to DO. –
It happens in that order: –
– “We NEVER KNOW HOW far reaching something we may THINK, SAY or DO today will affect the lives of millions tomorrow” .
BJ
It happens in that order: THINKER-THOUGHT-THING. –
– We ALL have homework. –
– OBSERVE! OBSERVE! OBSERVE! OBSERVE! OBSERVE!
Dr. Lessard,
Could you elaborate on the “Observe” x5 part?
How, why or what to observe?
Please explain. Thanks.
Don,
OBSERVE what is going on INSIDE you and OUTSIDE you. You will be AMAZED at your discovery. 😉
Thanks.