To truly understand the Safety Pin Cycle and every other cycle for that matter, we need to understand the chiropractic philosophical construct called the ” innate brain.” We must first understand that “there is no transmission of mental impulses from innate intelligence to innate brain” (Stephenson p.13). We seem to confuse the location of the innate brain as being in the cranial vault despite the assertion by Stephenson “that is a vital spot and cannot be dis-eased and when it is damaged, death ensues” and that its “existence is actual but its location is theoretical.” If it is theoretical we can speculate as to its location but we can definitely say that it is not receiving a mental impulse because none is needed. “There is no necessity, innate(sic) being right here “(p.13). Either the brain cell of the Safety Pin Cycle (B.C. of Fig. 1, P.9) is not the innate brain or the afferent transmission is not a mental impulse. Enough was known about the anatomy and physiology of the brain and nerve system by 1927 that if its location was in the skull and/or spinal cord I believe Stephenson would have so stated. Despite the “theoretical” statement we invariably think of the location of the brain as in the cranium. However, much of the brain can be injured, diseased or even destroyed without causing death. In fact, we now know that much of the brain tissue is not in the skull but rather in the spinal cord and the heart. If the innate brain’s location is theoretical, then we can theorize any place for its exact location. Neither BJ nor Stephenson ever say emphatically that the innate brain is in the cranial vault but they never say it is not, leaving it open to conjecture. I think they definitely leave us with the impression that it is in the skull. Its existence is actual which means that there is a place where the innate intelligence of the body assembles innate forces (by adapting universal forces). There is an issue that needs to be thought through with regard to the innate brain. At the risk of raising the ire of the last few BJ adherents, I’m not sure there even is an innate brain, that is, the possibility it is more hypothetical than theoretical. B.J. developedthe idea of the innate brain because he maintained that the innate intelligence of the body was located in the brain and it needed a place where the mental impulse could originate in order to be sent to the brain cell for steps 2 thru 7 of the Normal Complete Cycle. Wow, this is really confusing! Every time you try to figure out or explain B.J.’s model you open up a new can of worms. The afferent impulse coming from the tissue cell is actually coming from the innate brain, otherwise it would not be a mental impulse. Perhaps that is why D.D. called it a “vibration.” No wonder B.J.’s “disciples” are still around. It’s easier to hold to philosophical tenets because “B.J. said so” than to try to figure out the logic to some of these ideas.
Intellectual Adaptation
Intellectual adaptation is entirely a metaphysical activity of the innate intelligence of the body in the innate brain, wherever it is and if it exists, to meet the physical needs of the body. It is the “planning” of the innate intelligence of the body to bring about adaptation. It is always perfect but its result may be less than perfect because of limitations of matter. In other words, the innate intelligence always knows what to do to adapt. It just may not be able to do it because the matter it has to work with is limited. While the Palmer philosophy never comes right out and says that the innate brain is in the skull, we are surely lead to believe that it is. So what did Stephenson, as B.J.’s scribe, mean by the statement “its location is theoretical but it’s existence is actual?” I’m not sure we can know but I would like to suggest a theory based upon the idea that the innate intelligence is located everywhere in the body and the innate brain is wherever the innate intelligence is assembling universal forces for use in the body and universal forces are everywhere. We will be using a number of analogies in this post because when you do not have concrete principles you must use analogies. Universal forces, like radio waves, are everywhere. The innate brain is like my portable radio. It can pick up those waves and transform them into a usable form (an innate force) in order to carry out my wishes, to listen to the ballgame.
Now let’s switch to another analogy. I am travelling from Philadelphia to Los Angeles by way of Chicago. In this analogy the innate brain is in Philly where the trip originates. The intelligence planning the trip is in Philadelphia (me in the analogy) which right away breaks down because many of you are convinced that I and the word intelligence do not belong in the same sentence! But bear with me. By virtue of being innate intelligence (again analogy), I know exactly where I want to go and how to get there. I know the times, dates, airline, gates, seat numbers, everything necessary to get to LA. That is intellectual adaptation. It occurs in Philly even before I walk into the airport terminal, before any action occurs. It is a perfect plan. Without any interference it goes perfectly, that’s adaptation, the physical personification of the plan. Now here comes the difficult part. My itinerary is always perfect but the actual trip may have some “subluxations” that prevent perfect adaptation. (In August going to Davenport to speak, I never got out of the Philly airport). My itinerary is all metaphysical, it is in my head. Everything AFTER that is the Safety Pin Cycle and it is all physical, except for the itinerary. The plan to get to L.A. is still in my head. The first leg of the trip is from Philly to Chicago, the windy city, and represents the physical brain, the gray matter in the skull and spinal cord. It is the afferent side of the Safety Pin Cycle. Why go to the physical brain cell (B.C.)? Why not go directly to the tissue cell (T.C.). For some reason I have to layover and make a connection in Chicago. It’s more efficient/cost effective for the airlines. (I’m sure there are other reasons. I’m just not smart enough to figure them out.) From Chicago, the mental impulse (my itinerary/plan) that is carried within the airplane (the physical nerve impulse) travels along the efferent pathway (my flight plan) to L.A., my destination (the T.C.) where the itinerary becomes a physical reality (adaptation).
This is only a theory. I am sure it needs tweaking. That’s why I’m presenting it to you people that read these posts before I submit it to the National Academy of Philosophy and Science to receive their prestigious award (and million dollar prize) for breakthroughs in chiropractic philosophy.
Joe: This is why our vitalistic philosophy is so encompassing and many do not get it, or want to denigrate it to a totally mechanistic model. To quote from a great old movie ‘ it’s Alive”!
Richie, the profession may be struggling but as you say the philosophy is “Alive”‘…and I might add…”and well” 🙂
Joseph,
You, being innate intelligence (lol), can continually adapt universal forces since wherever innate intelligence is, there is innate brain (if it exist). –
– Last August you never left Philly due to inclement weather. This is turning to a classic example of external invasive force (inclement weather) overcoming internal resistive force (aircraft) causing a subluxation (flow interference) and aborting the flight. You, being innate intelligence (lol) were limited by the limitation of matter of the aircraft. –
– If you would have been in the aircraft used by NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration) to study hurricanes the external invasive force (inclement weather) would have met an internal resistive force (NOAA aircraft) sufficient for preventing the subluxation (flow interference) and your flight would have been successful. –
– Then, your audience at Davenport would have been graced by your presence and would have been enlightened from your breakthroughs in chiropractic philosophy. 😉
Hey Joe,
Wouldn’t Philly be the brain ? Where MI / innate thought (itinerary) is attached to a nerve impulse(computer generated ticket), this would take place in Philly as an idea becomes concrete. If so, barring an Atlas/Axis subluxation stranding you in Philly (as you have experienced in the past), the flight to Chicago would be the first leg of the efferent side of the cycle. This would leave Chicago to be the most likely place for a spinal subluxation. (I know, I have been to O’Hare airport in Chicago) Missing a connection can ruin the whole trip (your purpose).
L.A. is where the action is (TC), you give your talk and receive a standing ovation.
Your direct flight back to Philly (assuming your standby ticket gets you bumped up to first class) is the afferent side of the cycle wherein you convey the response to your excellent presentation to your wife who is awaiting your arrival.
Now, if you researched the flight on your laptop (intellectual adaptation) then the laptop becomes Innate Brain and Philly terminal becomes physical brain. I say this because your laptop research and home printed itinerary are just an abstract idea until you add force with your physical presence at the Philly ticket counter.
P.S. If you like this, I’ll accept 1% for my contribution.
Steve, you wrote “Wouldn’t Philly be the brain?” Do you mean the innate brain or the gray matter in the skull?
Hey Joe,
Did you not read all the way through or was the last paragraph unclear? “Now, if you researched the flight on your laptop (intellectual adaptation) then the laptop becomes Innate Brain and Philly terminal becomes physical brain. I say this because your laptop research and home printed itinerary are just an abstract idea until you add force with your physical presence at the Philly ticket counter.”
Philly would be the gray matter where metaphysical ideas (expected itinerary) are attached to concrete 4 dimensional reality (force of actual progress).
Steve, if the innate brain exists, although we do not know where, the the mental impulse must travel over a medium to reach the physical brain where coordinated physical activity takes place. That is the afferent pathway. It is the result of intellectual adaptation, not the location of it. IA has occurred at the ticket counter in Philly when ALL the information has been assessed(seat assignment, gate#s, etc) and Philly to Chicago is the afferent pathway. Chicago in this example, is the hub/physical brain where adaptation physically begins and the efferent pathway is the leg to LA. This would explain your question of long ago:) about the reflex mechanism. A universay force, patellar hammer creates a universal force which the ii in the ib in or near the knee, determines that muscles, ligaments and whatever must contrsct. This “decision” is sent to the brain some where in the cord via the afferent pathway. From there the efferent pathway carries the message to the necessary structures to bring about adaptation, the needed response.
Hey Joe,
Are you saying Philly is the IBC? What about the planing and deciding, all done before you get to Philly? According to your example, the cycle (trip) then starts at the periphery (Philly), afferent to PBC (Chicago), efferent to TC (LA)? Then what would you call the trip from LA back to Philly? (simple safety-pin cycle = BC>efferent>TC>afferent>BC)
In the reflex explanation you state the intellectual adaptation occurs at or near the point of universal force impact. This would negate the need for a nerve system all together. I thought II. coordinated all activity through the physical brain. Again you are inferring not only that MI is created in the periphery but also the MI can travel “up” the system (afferently).
With all due respect I think the Laptop is II. where IA (decision) takes place and an MI (itinerary) is created. Philly is the physical brain where the ticket is printed (force of cash is connected to MI/itinerary). Actual movement from Philly to LA is an (efferent direction) being the physical manifestation of the IF (itinerary and cash). LA is the TC (MI is expressed in reality of presentation). Audience response would be a universal force (standing ovation which you interpret as success) forming an impression that you carry(afferently) back to Philly , your starting point. Is the cycle complete? No. First you must return home and enter this response into your laptop. Which causes another IA and you decide to take your presentation to the KRJ Philosophy Forum in SC, therefore developing another MI (itinerary).
By the way I type slowly so these two post have taken me most of the day, thank you for a well spent day off Joe!
P.S. Contemplation and creation of my response is IA made physical only by pressing the send button…..HAHAHA
Steve,
You just proved that force and energy are different. Joseph generated the force by moving his body to the Philly ticket counter. In order for Joseph to move his body to the Philly ticket counter, he needs to apply force to his matter (pri.15) and yet he cannot apply force unless he has the energy stored in his matter to apply that force. 😉
THANX Claude,
It was not my intent, in fact, I think you proved it using my example.
Ok Joe,
Let’s get serious. I loved playing with the travel analogy but this is the nitty-gritty. I think we should keep the term innate brain within our lexicon but as a concept not an entity. BJ personified Innate, in that light all “thinking or deciding” would have to be done in a “brain”. It is always difficult to explain new thoughts, as we are always confined by the ubiquitous terms and meanings we already understand. It seems you have interchanged the terms brain and gray matter in your opening, and we know there is more to the brain than just the gray matter. I bring this up because of something BJ wrote that has always stuck with me. BJ said the gray matter was the innate matter and the white matter was the educated matter. This may or may not relate to the theoretical location of Innate Brain. This was early in the books but I never saw where the concept was recanted , or expanded upon.
I have not read all the Green Books but I don’t recall ever reading that MI traversed the afferent side. My understanding was MI was ADIO, only. Do any of the complete cycles diagrams or explanations denote an ascending MI? In fact according to one chiropractic historian, the afferent pathway was also theoretical at that time. Unknown by anatomist but assumed by observation. You may recall at one time BJ denied subluxations occurred within the afferent flow because II. would then lack comprehension of the matter. Due to innate’s perfection, this would be philosophically in-congruent.
You and Claude are the only people I have ever heard suggest that gray matter exists outside the spine. Is this nerve plexus (plexi?) or are you suggesting there is gray matter somewhere other than the nerve system? Is this anatomical or theoretical?
Also, you mention Innate “planning”. If innate is responsible for intellectual adaptation and creating mental impulses by assembling universal forces, it would seem this is done on an as needed basis. Created for immediate use, if you will. BJ’s distinction of “demand and supply” as opposed to the common reversed usage (supply and demand) leads me to think II. does not plan as much as react. Does gravity “plan” to pull you off the roof before you climb the ladder? Is II “planning” to repair the fist your banging on the desk right now as you read this post? “Planning” may be a hold over of personification.
I am not a BJ devotee. He was not a saint, but he did lay down an exceptional framework for our profession. I think we would be irresponsible if we neglected to re-examine, re-evaluate and possibly evolve the philosophy, just as we continue to do with science and technique. To that end I think this blog is a great service to the profession, where else can the philosophy be debated?
I second Steve’s questions on “afferent path of MI” and also those of the issue of grey matter outside of the cranial vault or spinal cord.
Looking forward to the responses!
Don, what is your understanding of afferent pathway? What is it for, what is carried along its pathway? You seem to indicate a mental impulse which must be created by ii . Remember, some do not even think there is such a thing as the afferent pathway.
Dr. Strauss,
I think the afferent pathway is the pathway of the afferent mental current (Impressions) that suffer no interference with transmission (Stephenson Art. 225)
The General Sense information (tissue cell’s normal needs e.g. thirst, hunger etc) are received by ii through the afferent path.
The problem I am having is understanding if these needs are being transmitted back to the brain to be met and where that is. With the innate brains location being theoretical although it is actual where are these afferent mental current (impressions) sent? How do they travel (nerve? or other?)?
Steve, you always, perhaps somertimes unknowingly, drag us back to basics and I appreciate that. So what did BJ mean by the IB? A concept or an entity? Does its location have to be where there is brain tissue, and any particular color? Or is its location theoretical, wherever ii is investing uf with new character, “creating” if. I think part of our problem is that we are “mixing” (whew what an admission) Palmerian philosophy with a new chiropractic model and the two don’t fit any more than does medicine and chiropractic, no matter how some try to. Here is the problem in my opinion: Palmer, to my knowledge, always maintained that the ii of the body was located in the brain. I think most people in chiropractic no longer accept that view. Do you? If you do and that is fine, many BJ devotees do. They are nice guys (but I would not let my daughter marry one). However, if we choose to accept the “ii in the brain position”, I’m not sure we can have a meaningful discussion, but I will still like you (you are already married aren’t you?).The more I study this philosophy, the more I come to realize that it is like a chain and when you break one link (like ii is in the brain), it changes everything. I think for some in our profession, that necessitates too great a stretch and they accuse me of iconoclastic arrogance. I assure you that is not the case. I’m not trying to tear BJ down off any pedestal that he has been placed upon and not for the purpose of crawling up there myself as some have also suggested. I just want to make sure that every link of this philosophy is as strong as it can be. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to ramble on with my thoughts. Since we are talking about a cycle, we can probably start anywhere. But that makes it difficult because in any deductive discussion we must start at the place where our reasoning diverges and reconcile that. I think Claude has the right idea when he asks those annoying but basic and important questions like “do you accept the law of gravity?” So, bear with me if I start to sound like Claude, oui? but we need to get back to basics, so…..is ii located/confined to the brain and if not, do you think that will affect traditional Pamerian chiropractic philosophy and hence our discussion?
Hey Joe,
Sorry Joe, don’t mean to be a drag but if you, I, or we are going to change your, my, or our core understanding of this philosophy it needs to be logical and progressive.
I never met BJ, only met you once, but I have read most all of both BJ’s and your books. I look at it like this, II. is metaphysical, therefore IB. is metaphysical. By definition metaphysical is not bound by xyz axis or time. Which is not to say they do not exist. Since we have de-personified II. I tend to think of II. as more of a process than an entity. That said I would say II. uses the physical brain to adapt forces and coordinate tissue, just as II. uses or formed the heart to promote circulation. Since we have Cellular, Tissue, Organ, Body and now Species Intelligence, it would be difficult if not impossible to define II./IB. by location.
I do think that there is a start point for cycles if for no other reason than clarity and consistency. They should always start with creation as this is the most significant of all the (necessary) steps.
As for Palmerian philosophy, you shot the hell out of that when it was de-personified, but that’s ok. Now we have Chiropractic Philosophy. Personally I think it is cleaner and more workable.
As far as your daughter, I was made a widower 2 years ago, do you have any pictures of her? 😉