A Re-examination of the Normal Complete Cycle

Cycles are an important part of our chiropractic philosophy. They combine the material and immaterial aspects of chiropractic and without its immaterial component chiropractic is merely physical medicine.¹ Historically they go back to the very early days of our profession and to the earliest development of our chiropractic philosophy. Their first appearance as a philosophical construct appears in the Green Book, Volume V, entitled “The Philosophy of Chiropractic.” This text was first published in 1909. B.J. begins with a discussion of “power” on page 19, and then goes into discussion of electricity which leads into the subject of cycles, a subject that occupies a good portion of the remainder of the book.

This paper is a reexamination of the cycle known as the Normal Complete Cycle (NCC). Like much of our philosophy the NCC was accepted as dogma with little or no challenge. It is still being taught today as part of our philosophy with little concern for its inaccuracy.² Strangely, this occurs despite the fact that the foundation of the NCC, at least the afferent part of it, is based upon an assumption that the profession as a whole (at least the philosophically inclined part of the profession) does not accept. To understand the error of B.J.’s presentation of this philosophical construct, it is important to understand Palmer’s perception of concepts like universal and innate intelligence His explanation of the NCC is entirely consistent with his understanding of these concepts. I would suggest that the error lies in the Developer’s deductions being based on a faulty understanding of the metaphysical foundations of chiropractic. From his earliest writings B.J. equated universal intelligence with God and innate intelligence as a reflection or part of God synonymous, with the human soul.³ He based his thinking partially on the Judeo-Christian concept of God. I say partially because that concept is founded upon an imminent and transcendent Being.⁴ God is a personal Being yet His essence transcends a finite description. B.J. perceived universal intelligence as transcendent, a force, or power that did not have the ability to act in a personal manner. In B.J.’s paradigm universal intelligence could not show favoritism to a race of people (the Jews) nor become a Person (Jesus). Universal Intelligence could not alter its forces at will and create miracles like parting the Red Sea or changing water into wine. Clearly, to B.J. universal intelligence or God was a force. Although at times, when it suited him, particularly if he was speaking to mid-western Bible-Belters, he would describe universal intelligence/God in ways that would make a gospel preacher envious.

With regard to innate intelligence, B.J. took a different tact. As impersonal as universal intelligence (God) was, innate intelligence was just that personal. He equated the innate intelligence of the body with the human soul and it became the real essence of the person. Chiropractic philosophy sees the innate intelligence as a part of but apart from universal intelligence.⁵ Judeo-Christian theology sees the soul as a creation of God, not a part of God and the soul merely reflects some of His characteristics.⁶ It most assuredly does not see the creation as being part of the Creator. That thinking is reflected in the doctrine of pantheism, which is more closely identified with Palmer’s chiropractic philosophy than is Judeo-Christian theology. This has created a problem with those chiropractors (and even lay people to some extent) who would like to reconcile their chiropractic philosophy with their Christian beliefs. B.J.’s perception that innate intelligence is not only localized but personal relates to the second problem in his deductive reasoning. This is a perfect example of how an incorrect premise can lead to incorrect deductions and faulty conclusions and in this case, creating a faulty model in the NCC. B.J.’s deductions are sound but they are based upon a premise that is not correct. If, as the developer assumes, the innate intelligence of the body is a personal being/entity, then it must have a location. B.J. makes that location the innate brain. The reasoning of Palmer is sound but the premise faulty in another way. B.J. equated the innate intelligence with the soul and many theologians locate the soul in the brain.⁷ So there is a basis for B.J.’s position if the soul and innate intelligence are synonymous, but they are not. Here is where the confusion concerning the NCC occurs. If the innate intelligence is located in the brain then, it is not “aware” of what is happening in the periphery of the body and must be made aware, hence, the need for an afferent aspect of the NCC in order to make the innate intelligence in the brain aware of what is happening in the periphery.

The key to the problem in the afferent side is in Step 3, what Palmer calls Vibration. In an essay by John H. Craven, D.C., PhC entitled “Vibration” in the Philosophy of Chiropractic, the author notes that every cell has a certain vibration because “there is motion in every particle of matter.”⁸ Craven says that the vibrations of a tissue cell are carried over the afferent neural pathway to the innate brain, interpreted by the innate intelligence located there, and the needs of the cell are met by the innate intelligence, by virtue of messages transmitted over the efferent pathway. Unfortunately, Craven never tells us where these vibrations come from, their source. He leaves us with the impression that they are inherent in the matter which would be a very mechanistic model and seems to be in contradiction to the vitalistic paradigm of chiropractic. So we must conclude that the vibrations are either force created by intelligence or are the product of the forces of intelligence expressed through the matter. If these vibrations are a product of intelligence it has to be universal intelligence because in the Palmer/Craven model innate intelligence is not aware of the character or nature of their vibrations until five steps later (Reception-Step 8).⁹

Since the forces of universal intelligence have no solicitude, that is they act the same on all matter (Principle No. 11)¹⁰ we must conclude that the vibration is the action of the matter’s molecules as they respond to the universal forces which are constant and consistent. For the vibration to be different, it must be the result of continuous changes in the quality and the quantity of the matter. Craven uses the instruments of an orchestra to explain his idea and it works well. Changes in the matter of a flute, for example, caused by the stops being opened or closed (the configuration of the matter) will change the tone (vibration). Larger flutes (changes in the quantity of the matter) will also affect the sound. (The amount of “force,” air blown into the instrument, will also affect the “vibration” but since the forces of universal intelligence do not vary this is not helpful in the analogy.)

In summary, here is what Palmer’s model is saying. The forces of universal intelligence are constant but the matter changes in a cell as its needs change. If oxygen is needed or water or other nutrients are needed, the cell’s matter changes, creating a different vibration. The vibration being the result of constant force acting on variable matter. That vibration is picked up by the afferent nerve pathway transmitted to the innate brain where the innate intelligence of the body interprets those variations in vibrations as a specific need within the cell. It responds to that need through messages carried over the efferent pathway. It is interesting that B.J. accepts the idea of innate-to-innate communication, what some would call mental telepathy, but not a communication from periphery to brain. In other words, innate intelligence can communicate through miles of open space between two people but cannot know what is going on in a part of the body a few feet from the brain without the use of an afferent pathway.

If I have presented his model correctly, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed which create problems. First, the vibratory activity is strictly a mechanistic activity. If the vibrations are the action of universal forces acting on the matter, then the cell is not alive, at least its afferent activity is not an aspect of life. His position, then must be that there is life in the cell but the vibration is universal in nature, a confusing and contradictory idea. The cell is alive by virtue of receiving efferent mental impulse from the brain but it is also receiving universal forces which become vibrations. Consequently, there is an action of the matter due to efferent forces (which we call the signs of life) and an action due to vibrations of the matter as explained above and, of course, the motion of the atoms. All these different motions are possible but it seems unnecessary as will be discussed. The cell is alive according to the Palmer philosophy by virtue of innate forces traveling over the efferent pathway. So while the innate intelligence is keeping the cell alive, it is not aware of the needs of the cell until the vibrations reach it in the brain. If a cell has thousands of different needs or combinations of needs then there would have to be thousands of different vibrations occurring in the cell, each one indicative of a specific need, each one carrying a specific “message” to the innate intelligence in the brain. While that is not beyond the realm of possibility it is very difficult to imagine. This is a very mechanistic model and not really in line with the model that modern-day chiropractic embraces. We could explain this mechanistic concept as a result of the early development of our philosophy (1909 for this text). However in later texts, after further thought and development, Stephenson’s Textbook (1927) still holds to the same model.¹¹ It appears that B.J. does not see any more life in a human cell than he does in an electrical appliance. In his viewpoint the two could be seen as perfectly analogous. The appliance is only made “alive” by the electricity supplied to it and the cell is only alive by the innate forces from the brain. It has no innate or inherent intelligence of its own. In Palmer’s model a cell in a medium or a heart being transported for a transplant is not alive.