Absolutes are the foundation of any moral code or philosophy- Ravi Zacharias.
Chiropractic is built upon absolutes. We call them the 33 principles. They include innate and universal intelligence. The idea that vertebral subluxation always causes the body to work at less than 100% is also an absolute.
Joe, what about principle # 31? Subluxations – Interference with transmission in the body is always directly or indirectly due to subluxations in the spinal column.
Is this saying the only interference to transmission in the body is due to vertebral subluxation?
Seems like a huge leap from the first 27 principles – a series of principles governing the way in which life works to vertebral subluxation being the only interference.
You recently asked why hasn’t our philosophy (ADIO) has not made a deeper impact on the culture. Maybe this is why? Addressing the chiropractic objective is the only thing chiropractic deals with, but applying ADIO to only the spine and nerves may be why it is where is is?
ADIO is a worldview but principle # 31 limits it to how that applies to the spine and nerve system. It also doesn’t seem like an absolute? (to link this back to the question) Unless we’re going to say the only interference is due to directly or indirectly to VS.
Hey Jamie,
If you say …interference with transmission (of innate forces) in the body…….does it make more sense.
Hey Jamie,
Do you consider ADIO a part of Chiropractic or visa-verse? Or do you think of them as the same?
I consider chiropractic an extension of the ADIO worldview – applied to the spine, nerve system and transmission of forces.
Hey Jamie,
Well put. I think of ADIO as a world view, chiropractic as a life view within the ADIO framework. (JOMO, I can’t find any good descriptions except in Joe’s E book where he calls ADIO a world/life view). Speaking of popularity, do you know of any other place ADIO is discussed outside of chiropractic? Was ADIO originally a Palmer concept?
Your primary question still haunts me. Reading and re-reading the 33, I have to assume the intent was “chiropractically” as we know decapitation also interferes with the transmission of innate forces. What I find more puzzling is the inference to “indirectly”, how does that work?
I too am curious to see Joe’s or Claude’s response.
“The idea that subluxation always causes the body to work at less than 100% is also an absolute.” –
– WHO chooses to have a problem with that?
I can’t imagine anyone having an issue with subluxation always causing the body to work at less than 100%. I agree fully. But what about “Interference with transmission in the body is always directly or indirectly due to subluxations in the spinal column.” Is it really always caused by subluxation? That seems like a pretty big leap when we could stick to what we know – as in your statement.
My original thot or question was “Are the 33 principles really all absolutes?” or just some of them?
Jamie,
It is you WHO chose to BE a chiropractor. There are consequences to that choice of yours. One of them is to BE willing to accept the challenge of the 33 principles as being absolutes in the context of chiropractic philosophy and practice. WHEN we speak about chiropractic principles, it is extremely important that we CREATE an appropriate context for our audience. Principle 31 is an absolute WHEN we deal with chiropractic. –
– Principle 30 states that DIS-EASE is caused by interference with the transmission of innate forces. For innate forces to move from one point to another there has to be matter that will transmit them. In the concrete human being, the interference must take place within the matter responsible for transmission-
– Transmission is the conduction of mental impulses through the nerve yysystem. The mental impulse is not energy at all. It is a message. A message is not material, an energy, or something physical. A message is mental. –
– Principle 31 states that “interference, in the body, is always directly or indirectly due to subluxations in the spinal column. –
– When a person goes about her day, bending, twisting, walking, sitting, working, etc., it is easy to see that her vertebrae are constantly moving in relation to one another. This will cause the spine to be sometimes out of alignment and the innate intelligence of the body will reposition the vertebra in its proper juxtaposition right away using the actual muscles holding those vertebra in place. Most of these are not subluxations. If it is a subluxation, you, as a chiropractor, can LACVS. –
– A subluxation is the result of unbalanced forces in the body. An external invasive force overcoming the internal resistance of the body. This is due to the limitations of matter (pri.24). External invasive forces are universal forces… forces not adapted by the innate intelligence of the body. They force their way into the body and have effects in the cells of the body. The internal resistance of the body is comprised of universal forces adapted by innate intelligence for use in the body (pri.23). –
– When a subluxation happens, it is due to the reaction from the internal resistance of the body which is unbalanced through the limitations of matter (pr.24). –
– A dislocation or fracture or decapitation (I love that one Steve), may or may not impinge nerves and interfere with transmission. These are trauma and are NOT in the realm of chiropractic, professionally or legally. –
– Therefore, within the realm of chiropractic, all of the 33 principles are absolute! It is like the “absolute” of the cow of India that is revered as sacred. You will die if you harm that cow. In the USA, however, that same cow is use as hamburger. How about driving on the right side in Europe. It is an absolute and you will be fined if you drive on the left side. In North America it is on the right side that the absolute is manifested. So it is from moral codes to moral codes and philosophies to philosophies. –
– The quote from Ravi Zacharias is accurate. –
– Can you give me one good reason to use any of the 33 principles OUTSIDE the realm of chiropractic?
Correction: How about driving on the LEFT side in Europe. It is an absolute and you will be fine if you drive on the RIGHT side in Europe.
In North America it is on the RIGHT side that the absolute is manifested.
I know many chiropractors that seem to have a problem with that Dr. Lessard. The argument that they seems to use is “it” is not evidenced-based.
There are different variations of what “it” can be..subluxation..the adjustment by the body correcting subluxation..or even the chiropractors role in the correction of vs. It all depends on the person. Regardless of their definition of “it”, the commonality is that the word evidence-based is used. Any thoughts?
Don,
I know you like examples. –
– If you were inside a building without windows and I say to you it is raining outside and you reply to me:
“it” is not evident to me, so prove it to me. –
– I say: Alright. Open the door and see for yourself. –
– You reply: ‘it” is not evident to me, so prove it to me an other way. –
– Then I say: Open the door and put your hand outside and feel the rain on you hand. –
– You reply: “it’ is not evident to me, so prove it to me an other way. –
– Don, we do not think ourselves into a NEW way of practicing, we practice ourselves into a NEW way of thinking. –
– No one ever got drunk on the word wine… you’ve got to drink it! 😉
Yes! Examples. Thanks Dr. Lessard. I think the reason I love them so much is because it makes the the abstract more concrete for me. There is something in my background knowledge that I can “hook” the new knowledge into.
This is one of the reasons I enjoy reading and listening to Reggie Gold. He has a way of doing this that many others do not.
I only wish more of them because not all people have the same experiences. Thanks again.
It absolute not by definition absolute? How can something be absolute and it’s opposite also be absolute? Is gravity not absolute no matter what you believe? To say that we must accept the 33 principles because I choose to become a chiropractor is dogmatic. We can’t conform the principles to fit our needs. Yes or no – interference in the body is always due to sublxuations? The answer is no. Not yes, when we confine it to “chiropractic”.
I agree with just about everything you said claude, but we must continue to clarify our principles, not ignore a glaring contradiction such as the example above. Or am I missing something?
Jamie,
The quote that Joseph presented is: –
– “Absolutes are the foundation of any moral codes or philosophies”. –
– I happen to agree with that. Absolutes are the foundation of chiropractic philosophy…. –
– While principle #31 appears dogmatic, nevertheless, this where our deduction takes us. I see no reason why we need to back off in the event there is another cause. When the other cause is found then we can rethink our position and see where our reasoning is faulty. I thank you, Jamie, for challenging me to evaluate our position. It stands strong as it is. We have been soft pedaling, back pedaling, apologizing, and ignoring this principle for many years. The fact is that we deduce, and there is no indication to the contrary, that INTERFERENCE WITH TRANSMISSION WITHIN THE BODY IS ALWAYS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DUE TO SUBLUXATION IN THE SPINAL COLUMN. –
– It clarifies our principles. Interference with transmission in the body is always directly or indirectly due to subluxations in the spinal column. Yes! Within chiropractic philosophy! –
– Can you give me one good reason to any of the 33 principles OUTSIDE the realm of chiropractic philosophy?
Hey Claude,
How would you explain “indirectly” ( Interference with transmission in the body is always directly or “indirectly” due to subluxations in the spinal column)? Would that be something like carpal tunnel, primary subluxation in lower cervical spine and secondary (subluxation) in wrist?
I am not sure what Jamie is looking for but I have found extremities that need adjusting occasionally when the spine did not.
Could you or Joe or Tom clarify INDIRECTLY?
Steve,
Before I clarify indirectly, please help me understand you. Did you really find a vertebra in the wrist of some of your practice members that was subluxated? If so, WHAT listing did you come up with? WHAT line of drive did you have? Did you contact the spinous, lamina, transverse? 😉
Hey Claude,
I kinda sorta figured you might respond in that way. Note the ( ) hesitation in using the term subluxation for a wrist bone, however that is what I was taught. DD said 95% of subluxations found in spine, 5% in other joints. BJ said only true subluxations found at upper cervical. Extremities instructor said “any bone out of place irritating a nerve = subluxation”. OSC approach -LACVS ( V for vertebral ) spine only, I get it. Thank you for reminding me.
So please explain “indirectly”, directly. 😉
Steve,
I gotta say.. I saw that one coming too. 🙂
But like you I an eager to hear Dr. Lessard’s and Dr. Strauss’s input on this matter. Thanks for asking.
Can transmission be compromised by the integrity of the nerve itself? What if someone was fat deficient? Wouldn’t the nerve be lessened in quality of structure as it was missing a vital raw ingredient and wouldn’t that lead to interference to the MI?
Jamie,
Yes it would. And it does not matter one bit to a chiropractor if someone is fat deficient. It is outside the realm of chiropractic. –
– Also, this is a very good example to clarify INDIRECTLY. If someone is fat deficient due to the inability of the small intestine to absorb fat efficiently which is caused by VS, the VS INDIRECTLY caused the fat deficiency in that person. –
– If it is due to a lack of fat within the food intake, WHY would a person NOT take fat in their food? Is this faulty reasoning on their part? If so, faulty reasoning could come from an imbalance of body chemistry due to VS which would then be INDIRECTLY causing the person to be fat deficient. –
– Supposed at birth the atlas of the infant is subluxated and at 10 years of age, a tumor has grown on the latissimus dorsi muscle causing an impingement on the L1 nerve root which interferes with the transmission of MI, this also, would be caused by VS of C1 INDIRECTLY. –
– I hope this clarifies principles 31 within chiropractic philosophy.
To anyone
I am new to the blog.
CAN someone tells me what MI stand for ?
Thank
Yves,
MI stands for mental impulse.
Yves,
D’ou viens-tu?
Dr Lessard
Je suis de Gatineau , Qc
Yves Lanthier
Dr. Lessard,
Interference of the transmission of innate forces within the body is always directly or indirectly sue to subluxation in the spinal column.
How do we know that the VS caused the fat deficiency?
How do we know that faulty reasoning comes from an imbalance of body chemistry?
How do we know that the tumor caused and L1 impingement?
NTOSC as I understand it should not relate to chiropractic to to disease relief, cure or prevention. How can we make this argument?
Sorry to be a nit picker..:)
Don,
The question was about clarifying INDIRECTLY. Those were examples. We do NOT know and that is the point I was making. All of it is about SEEING that principle #31 is an absolute within the context of chiropractic philosophy not outside of it. Jamie, mentioned the law of gravity as being an absolute. Gravity is an absolute ONLY in the context of planet earth even though birds “break” that law all the time they fly. The shuttle landed on the moon and the late Neil Armstrong was subjected to the law of gravity in the context of the moon. The original quote of Ravi Zacharias still stands. “Absolutes are the foundation of any moral code or philosophy “. The 33 principles are absolutes within the context of chiropractic and are the foundation of it philosophy. –
– You are correct, NTOSC would ONLY relate chiropractic to LACVS. Period. 😉
Hey Claude,
Thank you for the explanation of indirect causes. As Don said it gets tricky when we use disease to explain anything chiropractic. Disease is however, a statement on the condition of matter which is 1/3 of the triune.
Again for clarification, birds do not “break” the law do they? I thought we had agreed they modify the law of gravity with the law of aerodynamics and the addition of energy. After all they do not float away and would fall like a stone if they stopped beating their wings.
The same could be said for II. could it not? II does not “break” universal law, it merely modifies those laws as long as there is sufficient energy. (stop feeding the body and innate cannot remain)
Yes Steve, of course, the birds do not “break” the law they adapt the law of gravity to their flying through the law of aerodynamic. In the same way, II does not “break” universal laws, it adapts universal laws. 😉
I thought so…Thanks!
Welcome to the blog Yves! 😉