In discussing the value of leg checks, Reggie used to tell audiences that in checking my spine, I once asked him if I had a short leg. His response he said was “Joe, they’re both short.” First the incident never happened. I would never have asked that question. Second, it was humor directed at a vertically challenged person. I never minded because it was funny and in a sense, true (I obviously am vertically challenged) and most important, it helped him get his point across.
Ok- Maybe its to early in the morning for me, but what exactly is the point he is making about leg checks??
It was humor but the point he was trying to make was that there are so many variable/effects of a vs, that we cannot make that judgment. If a vs causes the legs to be uneven what does two subluxations do? He implied that it cause the legs to be even. I don’t know enough about leg checks to answer that. If you do jump right in… welcome to the blog!
Hi- thanks for answering- I know this is a late response: I’m actually still in school, getting ready to graduate in a few months. The technique I use, uses leg checks- I know the neurology of what I’ve been taught , so I feel that leg checks are a way of checking the function of neurological input- Clay Thompson’s research on leg checks seems to be a good indicator of the presence of a vs. But ultimately, yes, there are other variables/effects, so how can we know for sure? I just feel that they give a good starting point to check for dysfunction, and to see if you’ve affected the dysfunction in a positive manner.
Anthony r,
First let me wish you well as you get ready to graduate. I hope you will stay here on the blog and continue to learn and contribute. As for the leg check issue: I think that is part of technique, the art of chiropractic. Like any other art it is an individual thing. I liken it to the art of hitting a baseball. You have to answer for yourself. First, is it philosophically sound. Is its objective to determine (or in the case of adjusting technique) to correct a VS. That was the purpose of J. Clay’s analysis. (I had the honor and pleasure of meeting/hearing him on a few occasions. What a great and brilliant man!
Second, does it appear to fulfill its objective? For Clay it did. Third, am I comfortable with it. Only you can answer that.
Stan Musial was one of the great hitters of my time and of all-time. His hitting style was unique. But no one would question his success or whether it met its objective. Like every other kid my age, I tried to copy it, thinking that immediately my batting average would increase. It did not and I was not comfortable with it. It was likely my lack of natural ability. I began to develop my own hitting style which kept being modified by my slipping and checking and taking the instruction of others for the next 60+ years. I was still modifying my style when I played my last game in the summer of 2012 at age 67. I was never totally satisfied, always wanting to improve, but others thought I had achieved a good level of success (so much so that they allowed me to continually play on the team, although now that I think about it, in that league if you were breathing you were allowed to play). Whatever technique you use Anthony, be consistent, confident and comfortable with it. Stay in touch.
Good Morning,
I’m basically using this Post as a means to discuss something brief concerning Reggie, as I know Joe, Claude, and others, new him, his ideas, the man, his Chiropractic.
I’ve been listening to his Philosophy tapes. First, it’s amazing how he speaks so effortlessly, always tying one thought to the next, interspersed with one of his Jokes, which incidentally I appreciate more now, then at another time. Matter a fact, Now that I have more knowledge, I appreciate this extraordinary mans grasp, and way of speaking or making a point. He obviously Knows, but I wonder sometimes, or I must assume that he’s trying to get a point across to an audience, so he has to change his analogies, or let’s say depth of Philosophical talk (explanation).
I was or am a bit taken back at his electricity reference to Force, and how, from what I know, WRONG he is about that aspect of the Triune.
Yes I know it’s an old tape and perhaps he’s rethought it, as we all have. But everything was going along just wonderfully and then, “Innate Force” as generated from the Brain as electricity, or scientists now think it’s static electricity converted to whatever.”
I mean, I even mentions earlier on about cell intelligence, tissue intelligence, organ intelligence, etc. which is a more advanced, current, thought. I’d assume if he was talking to his Collegues, like some of you, on this blog, he might discuss Chiropractic Philosophy in greater depth, and not simplify to a point of being from what I can see, WRONG (in my humble opinion).
Anyway, I guess my question is, why would he jump off his careful philosophical explanation of P33s, from intro, to induction, to deduction, and then BOOM – at a most difficult explanation, a major pivotal point, defining point of VITALISM, Innate Force, So mechanisticly – Blow it! He being so articulate, and so communicative I’d think would have been more let’s say accurate, in his explanation of Innate Forces.
Annnnhhhh I know, I’m being overly critical, or overly something.
But in the end, If I owned Chiropractic the way he so effortlessly could speak it, so methodically. That’s a talent. A needed talent, to be able to discuss and challenge the World to Think
David, it’s been a long time since I listened to those tapes so I don’t remember the context of the statement you are quoting. It may be that Reggie was simply using electricity as an analogy. We do know that electricity acts as a universal force (principles nine through 12). Remember that the innate force has a physical component to it in addition to the metaphysical component, the coded message. The physical component is measurable (EKG, EMG). The metaphysical component is not measurable except as an indication that the innate intelligence the body is present- life. Previously on this blog, if you recall, we have described the force that is a result of vertebral subluxation being changed into a universal force which may be the “electricity” that he was talking about. Science talks, very briefly, about trophic impulses that may be the electrical/ physical component that keeps the cell alive but not in active organization. Remember the rabbit experiment? So the decoded message, a previously innate force now acting as a universal force being physically manifested as electricity (described as a trophic impulse) which by virtue of the innate intelligence of the cell (cellular intelligence) is adapted thus keeping the cell alive but functioning in a cell-fish manner (Claude’s term). Does that help?
Reggie definitively is calling innate force as produced thru or from a trophic impulse.
You or OSC makes a distinction. Yes.
It’s interesting finding mechanistic explanations that work for me at least. And deductive vitalistic explanations and merging truths, inductive and deductive into one understanding.
Those tapes were done in 1987. A few times I heard Reggie mention the need to update those tapes. Sadly he never got the chance to do it. Thankfully we have Joe and Claude who HAVE refined and brought the philosophy further along.
Thankfully Tom. Do you think that Reggie because he was so skilled, thinking on his feet, and that he geared much of his getting some Chiropractic point across to the lay public, was aware of his I consistencies, or was he unaware?
I personally struggle with a clear distinction between the body, the intelligent machine and the body, the recipient of a vitalistic beginning, a vitalistic running of. Certainly mechanistic explanations of chiropractic, even though logical, don’t help me in the long run to maintain an ADIO viewpoint.
My viewpoint blows with the wind. Less, I must say, but still.
I know I know. Welcome to the club, now get off the fence, decide on WHO you are and what you think and tell the story again.
Thoughts?
David, I don’t think any of us are truly aware of our inconsistencies. Someone who is truly aware is a hypocrite (which comes from the ancient Greek word hupokritos, an actor in a Greek play who wore a mask so the audience in the nickel seats could see whether he was depicting a happy or sad idea. They are still the symbol of drama.) The chiropractic objective, the 33 principles, and the philosophy serve as a mirror for us to know whether we are wearing a mask or not.Reggie may have had inconsistencies in his life, as we all do, but there was never a hint of it in his chiropractic presentation.
Tom, Claude and I have the advantage of sitting on Reggie’s shoulders who had the advantage of sitting on BJ’s giving him and us a farther vision. It’s especially advantageous when you are “vertically challenged”.
Joe,
Within the OSC subluxation model, where you use Morce Code as an example of intelligent metaphysical communication, the immaterial mental impulse. These messages, this innate force, if you will, do they reach ALL the cells of the organ, that the nerve, TOUCHES AT A POINT(S)? Meaning, Reg talking about the body, being electrically conductive. He spoke of electricity touching an organ and dispersing thru it, from cell to cell to cell, kind of.
But this is a theory yes, and he does suggest that. And as inductive fact, nerve transmission while we relate to as like wire, really isn’t. It’s electroCHEMICAL passage of ions. I forget the term. Yes it’s ion passage, and that is electrical, but of course synapses are chemical transmitters.
My point is, Reg explains the connection of the Brain to the tissue cell in electrical terms, and if we were dealing with Electricity, directly, that might be true. From what I’ve read, there is quite a lot of insulation surrounding cells, cell walls, etc. GET TO YOUR POINT DAVE.
OK
This dispersal of mental impulses to All Cells, acting like electricity?
Does this hold up in OSC? Does this hold up with our Morce Code model? Does this hold up with how mental impulses reach ALL tissue cells?
Am I making to much of a big deal with this induction/deduction?
I’m i thinking to mechanistically AGAIN
David,the mental impulse always reaches the cell if there is no subluxation. It may be directly or indirectly (other tissues or media, the nerve system being the most direct/efficient in vertebrates.). Using the Morse code analogy, the operator receives the message directly, he might write it down, walk across the street and deliver it to the sheriff. The sheriff has received the message indirectly by another medium which may not be as efficient. The Morse code operator may get run over by the stagecoach before he reaches the Sheriff’s office.. I think that in 2015 the computer creates a more accurate analogy than does electricity or even Morse code. You being this blogs resident computer guru should be able to develop this analogy far better than BJ, Reggie, (because they are both gone) or I (because my 11-year-old grandson knows more about computers than I do).
Joe,
I swear, you took me on a little ole time out west very short story. I think the stage coach running over the operator. JOSEPH! You’re hilarious and quite good (effective). So when the operator is lying dead on the ground, a wind comes along and blows that message right into the hands of Mrs McMurphy. Oh Sheriff, Oh Sheriff I have something for you.
********
That was either a well timed adjustment or innate forces (IRFs) being there at the right time. 🙂
No I get your analogy.
In effect what you (We) are saying IS that the message gets their, by deduction (if it didn’t, the logic of the philosophy would imply that LIFE could not exist, innate matter separated from intelligence)
That’s ADIO. Philosophy 1st, induction and empiricism 2nd.
Tell me if I’m getting it?
Again, we use induction to further support our MP and it’s syllogisms (deducted principles). Sometimes the anatomy or the physiology, the usage of facts and empirical information (chemistry, physics, the sense of seeing (versus deductive reasoning), DOESNT QUITE SUPPORT OUR DEDUCTIONS WITH THE INDUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE TODAY. It might never, or be a very long time, innate and universal intelligence being of an immaterial, metaphysical nature. Am I understand a bit more? ADIO. Ya gotta put the A before the O :)?
As far as computers, or switchboards, it all gets so mechanical, and the point IS philosophically is that information is both the media (ink, beeps, etc) and the message (metaphysical).
I have to think about this computer analogy. It seems good from a distance, but as anything else the closer you get, the more distinctions and inaccuracies perhaps come to light. I can see it though.
I think that ANALOG operations are more in sync with the operations of living things, but then again, gates, and molecular switches and sensors?? It’s a mix of vibration and sampling, analog and digital. Anyway I’m off topic now.
I personally like the spirit of the ole times. It’s richer. Earthier.
Comments Sir Joseph?
Well having listened to more of Reggie’s talk (tape), even though the rabbit electrical experiment struck me as silly, it’s interesting how opinions (mine), judgements (mine), can interrupt listening, and waiting for a perhaps fuller understanding. Yes, I see Reg was using electricity as a reference to nerve force, and I had problems with that, but containing to listen, he actually presents a viable solution to what I’ve been puzzled with (denervation, transplants having no nerve supply).
The body, being conductive, transmits innate forces from nerves thru the tissues! Tissues don’t need a nerve supply (not optimum) to receive mental impulses! The cells are basically all conductive. WELL DUHHHHHH! And this talk is an explanation to the lay, not necessarily about P21 or P23!
Funny how things strike one when one has some of the story or more of the story or the complete story.
I’ll continue to listen. Maybe I need Reggie’s 33Ps 101 to get His deductions. Or maybe the Dr Joe Strauss 33Ps lectures would be in order.
Ok. I’ll shut up!