There are a number of terms used to describe the contrasts between these two world and life viewpoints. Some are more appropriate than others under different circumstances. “Above-down, inside-out” versus “outside-in, below-up” are the most common terms used in describing aspects of the health field in general and chiropractic in particular. Tradition says it was coined by B.J. Palmer and many people see it as synonomous with the Palmer philosophy of chiropractic. While it is true that it reflects both the anatomical and physiological understanding of chiropractic, that the life-giving mental impulses flow from the brain down over the spinal cord, from the central nerve system to the periphery, it has an even greater meaning, one that I believe captures the essence of the acronym. The “above” connotes something or Someone greater than or above us in wisdom and power. We do not know how to run the human body and even if we did we would not have the ability to do it. Those with an outside-in philosophy believe that they already have or will one day have both the knowlege and the ability to create life or make all decisions concerning life. That is the essence of the contrasts in these two world and life viewpoints.
While chiropractic does not enter into the field of religion and faith and as a result does not ascribe a personality or Person to this “above” concept, theology has no such reservations. So in theology we often encounter the terms divine viewpoint and human viewpoint. While these descriptive terms are the same as above-down and outside-in they are usually confined to things theological and rarely enter into health, chiropractic or human relationships.
There are, of course, other terms that are synonomous with ADIO and there are many schools of thought that fit into the ADIO or outside in viewpoint. An “internalist” approach or “externalist” approach are two terms that I have used occasionally to describe these different world and life viewpoints and using terms synonomous with ADIO and outside-in is not nearly as important as understanding what they are and how they relate to the human experience.
Hey Joe,
We ascribe ADIO to innate intelligence’s pathway through the body, is that (brain/above) the beginning? Or does ADIO start with UI, if so how does ADIO apply there? How would you describe the ADIO pathway, beginning at UI?
Steve, I guess it depends upon whether we are explaining ADIO from a strictly material perspective (brain-spinal cord-spinal nerves) or from a philosophical perspective. BJ combined the two beginning with ui and going to TC. Actually, I think that has confused our understanding of the NCC (normal complete cycle).
I wonder if BJ combined the two to support HIO. Let me ask all of you:
Does the interference with the transmission of innate forces(MI) happens only on the efferent side, only on the afferent side or both?
Hey Joe,
I remember as a kid hearing ADADIO but I think it was a religious connotation, describing from god down to man then above down inside out through the body.
Hey Claude,
I believe BJ said efferent only because he thought innate needed the sensory system to inform itself of the situation. He never discussed to my knowledge cellular intelligence or gray matter outside the spinal cord.
Steve,
I know what BJ said. WHAT do YOU say?
Hey Claude,
Here is what’s rattling around in my head. Innate Intelligence needs no feedback. II. runs the body according to the plan regardless of the situation. If II. is allowed to act without interference we get the best function from the available matter. We cannot improve upon or have influence over II’s. ability except to interfere, mainly with subluxation. We can also reduce or eliminate the expression of II. with physical destruction of the matter. Amputation, burnings, nutrient deprivation, suffocation and subluxation for example do not affect II. only that material in which it is expressed.
To sum up, ADIO is mono-directional therefore interference can only be found within that direction. Logically then efferent only is my deduction. I eagerly await your response. >:)
Very interesting Dr. Strauss. I always thought that vs interfered with both efferent and afferent paths of MI. I would love to see the end result of the thought on thread.
Hey Don,
In the second half of the normal complete cycle, BJ starts with coordination, then vibration, then impression. As I understand it, it is this impression that travels up the afferent pathway, not a mental impulse. The impression is realized in the mental realm and interpreted as sensation. Sensation forms ideation at which point innate intelligence makes an intellectual adaptation. Only Claude in a previous thread has given any indication that this may be considered MI because of a possibility of gray matter existing outside the spine. He sited a reference, but I could not track it down. Maybe if we ask him nicely he will repeat this reference for further study and consideration. As of now I am still waiting to see how he answers his own question. (see below) WHO knows, he or Joe may blow the lid off this whole conundrum with one simple statement, they have done it before.
Thanks Steve! I stand corrected. You are right the Impression via the afferent pathway is not a mental impulse. Looking forward to Dr. Lessard’s explanation.
TC ???
Yves,
Last I heard, TC = Tissue Cell… unless Dr. Strauss gave it a different meaning. He is very creative you know. 😉
Steve,
There is an innate awareness for every innate need! Keep that rattling going in your head. It’s doing something and moving you where you are going. 😉
Hey Claude,
Which principle mentions awareness? Does that awareness extend to UI as well? Are we sure this “awareness” is not a hold over from the personification of II.? I am trying to work this out. If there is no interference, innate organizes matter, to produce coordination, of all tissue, for the greater good. What does innate need to be aware of? What does innate need, but force to convey it and matter to demonstrate and support it?
Steve,
Innate intelligence is the principle of life (pri.20). The chiropractic meaning of life is “the expression of this intelligence through matter” (pri.2). The signs of life (assimilation, excretion, adaptability, growth and reproduction) are evidence of the intelligence of life (pri.18) and a living thing is organic matter (pr.19). –
– Without the presence of innate intelligence living matter would become universal matter. Therefore living matter has needs in order to remain living (pri.18) and since the mission of innate intelligence is to MAINTAIN the material of the body of a “living thing” in active organization by adapting universal forces (pri.23), we can reasonably deduce that built into the principle of innate intelligence is: perfect supply (pri.33) of the needs of the living matter PRESENT by innate intelligence (pri.22 and 27). –
– Steve, I do understand where you are coming from with regard to the term awareness and personification of innate intelligence. As universal intelligence cannot be less than 100% in order for it to maintain matter in existence then it logically follows that innate intelligence must also be 100%. May be that’s it… Perhaps I should have said: –
– THERE IS 100% OF INNATE INTELLIGENCE ALWAYS AVAILABLE FOR ALL THE NEEDS OF THE MATTER OF THE LIVING BODY. –
– WHAT is that rattling in your brain doing now? 😉
AH SO Sensei,
If innate has no needs other than a vehicle, would you please be so kind as to answer the question originally offered by yourself…..(Does the interference with the transmission of innate forces(MI) happen only on the efferent side, only on the afferent side or both?)
I believe it to be Both……..
Steve,
WHAT is the function of matter?
Hey Claude,
P.#13, The function of matter is to express force. Since historically we assume II. invests itself at birth, I might also assume matter is a “vehicle” for II. Without matter we would not have any thing to express innate forces or anywhere for II. to reside.
Are you stalling Claude? I have never known you to be anything but straight forward. Or is this a Socratic question and I just missed the connection? 🙂 Afferent, Efferent, or both, your opinion sir?
Steve,
Read principle 28,29 and 31 along with article 31on p.4 of RWS and tell me WHAT you see there. You might be surprised! 😉
Steve,
Apply those principles along with principle #24 and WHAT do you come up with?
Hey Claude,
I am not surprised, remember I cut my Chiroteeth on BJ philosophy. My questions pertain to the OSC interpretation.
I see in article #31 that every tissue in the body communicates with the BRAIN, therefore II is aware. Now we have concluded II no longer resides only within the brain but Article #33 says the brain is II’s, place of control. Are they/you saying II. makes decisions? Or is intellectual adaptation a process of the brain, which is powered by II.? Did II. organize the brain in such a fashion as to make it capable of deciding what’s best or does II make those choices?
Steve,
The brain is matter and you said previously that the function of matter is to express force. Therefore can you deduce that it is NOT the function of matter to “choose”?
Hey Claude,
Things have more than one function, metaphysical and physical, no? The function of the heart is to express force and pump blood. The function of the brain is to express innate force and coordinate systems, organs, tissue(matter)?
Somehow we have to decide is innate intelligence the intellect (giant)or the observable intelligence being displayed (law). OSC has de-personified II. and can’t have it both ways.
II. is a portion of UI. and we have described UI as a metaphysical concept therefore II. must be a metaphysical concept as well. If II., like UI. is an accumulation of laws then there is no decision process, for the law stands, ready to work, without fail or ambiguity. Gravity does not decide to hold you down or not, it just does, it’s the law. II. does not “decide” whether or not to mend a broken bone, it just does (within LOM). If II. is always perfect and 100% why would it need feedback. Does UI need feedback?
Maybe the efferent and afferent cycles are only for the brain’s awareness(article 31) and innate organizes the brain/nerve system to do it’s job.
I repeat, I have lost my giant, signed the pygmy
Steve,
Where did I say that ii is “choosing” anything? –
– Of course, ii which is the law of life does NOT choose anything. It is the law of life!!! II is always 100% (pri.22) and is always normal (pri.27) and always maintains the material of a “living thing” in active organization (pri.21) and is always constructive as regard to structural matter (pri.26) and will do so without breaking a universal law (pri.24). –
– And further more, II is about ALL living things including the amoeba cell, and plants and seeds and worms etc… –
– Philosophically, matter has ONLY one function: To express force (pri.13). –
– May I suggest that Chiropractic philosophy is NOT chiropractic in an of itself. It explains the WHY. Chiropractic is also science and art. Science and art have much to say about the manifestation of matter dealing with the concrete human being and not the abstract concept of philosophy. –
– So with regard to chiropractic, there are 3 aspects that need to be dealt with at all times. Perhaps that is where the confusion takes place. To deal with philosophy, science and art at the same time in a logical and reasonable manner. –
The NTOSC accepts the MP as an a priori assumption based of objective observation (non-judgmental) and using inductive reasoning. From the MP, the NTOSC reasons its deduced 32 principles and logically concurs with their conclusions. Further more, the NTOSC has identified the objective of chiropractic as: the LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD. –
– The PERIOD indicates the willingness of passing from the philosophical concept of innate intelligence to the concrete nature of the human being and trusting the outcome from an ADIO view point that the conclusion will see itself through with or without our philosophical interpretation of it. VS interferes directly or indirectly with the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body (pri.31). This is the ULTIMATE reason WHY the NTOSC is one WHO chooses to practice the objective of chiropractic. –
– Once again, “I repeat” : the NTOSC 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!
– I have a further comment to make and this is an example to help you grasp WHAT I am saying here: –
– When you drive your car from your office to your home, do you enter your home with your car? NO, you don’t enter your home with your car. You GET OUT of your car and you walk in on your own. Your car did its job very well… it got you to your destination. WHEN you are where YOU choose to be, you LET GO of your method of getting there (car). The NTOSC uses chiropractic philosophy and the concept of innate intelligence to explain why SHE chooses to practice the objective of chiropractic. The philosophy and the concept did their job very well… it got the NTOSC to her destination. WHEN she is where SHE chooses to be as an NTOSC, then she lets go of her method of getting there (concept) and LACVS. Doing so, she concretely address principle 31 and restore principle 32 by fulfilling principle 33.
– Someone said once: “It is as simple as that! 😉 –
– Perhaps it’s time for the pygmy to grow up and GET OUT of his giant concept to deal with the concrete human being that he is. The concept did its job very well… it got the pygmy to its destination. WHEN the pigmy is where HE chooses to be, it’s time for him to LET GO of his method of getting there (concept) and move into the concrete human being that he is.
By the way EVERY TIME I used the word “SHE” or “she”, it pertains to the NTOSC and NOT to ii. If you wish, you can substitute the word “HE” or “he” whenever I used the word “SHE” or “she”. Just wanna make sure there’s NO confusion here. LOL 😉
Thanks Dr. Lessard. I thought you were referring to ii when you wrote she.
I have reread the example above and I may need some clarification or another example. Is this example meant to imply that the NTOSC LACVS and the result of that LACVS which is the human experience is not their objective nor their concern?
Don,
NTOSC are COMPLETELY satisfied with LACVS. PERIOD! –
– If you are on the shore of the St-Lawrence River, and you step into it a few feet. Then you step out of it. Can you step into that same river twice? –
I think I see your point. If before reading this thread my thinking was oibu and after reading it I started to think a little more ADIO then I have changed and am not the same person. However, what if I did not change my thinking at all, began closed minded and was still closed minded and choose to not change my thinking at all? Am I not the same person still?
Dr. Lessard,
I always find chinese proverbs challenging to understand. I know the answer is no. The river is always moving and always changing so it is never the same for you to step into but I can’t see the connection ot NTOSC and LACVS with it. Maybe a bit of assistance is in order?
Don,
Are YOU, as you read this post, the same person YOU were when you posted your request for assistance? –
– Hint: ADIO 😉
Oops, sorry posted this in the wrong spot…I’ll try that again…
I think I see your point. If before reading this thread my thinking was oibu and after reading it I started to think a little more ADIO then I have changed and am not the same person. However, what if I did not change my thinking at all, began closed minded and was still closed minded and choose to not change my thinking at all? Am I not the same person still?
Don,
No. You are not the same person either way. WHAT you believe do not change the fact that YOU are a localized transformation of intelligence, force and matter WHO is constantly and ever in dynamic exchange with the rest of the Universe, which it turns out, is also a field of intelligence, force and matter. I will give you one more example: The physical body that you used to sit at your computer and typed your last blog, is not the same one you are reading my response with right now. –
– If we could do some very interesting radioactive isotopes studies like they do at John Hopkins’ University and look at a lot of the physiological phenomena that are going on in your body, like breathing, we would notice some very astonishing things. With each breath you inhale, you take in 10 to the power 22 physical atoms in your body. That’s an astronomical number of atoms that ultimately end up as your heart cells, kidney cells, lung cells, skin cells, brain cells and so on… With each breath you breathe out, you get rid of 10 to the power 22 physical atoms as well and these atoms are coming from just about every little bit of your body, breathing out LITERALLY, a piece of your heart, kidneys, lung, skin, brain and so on… That’s WHAT principle 21 means by MAINTAINING the material of a “living thing” in active organization. Innate intelligence is totally revealed through the intrinsic life evidence of harmonious cell interaction within the human body (pri.32) as we objectively observe the function of assimilation, excretion adaptability, growth and reproduction (pri.18). –
– I think it was 30 years ago that Cornell University mentioned that 98% of all the atoms that make up our bodies are replaced once per year. This means, the law of life (innate intelligence) LITERALLY turns over 500,000,000,000 cells in one day. That’s HOW principles 20, 21, 22 and 23 work in the LIVING human body.
– The NTOSC 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!
– Now, think ADIO. 😉
I think I just achieve a whole new level of respect for the organization of the living body. Very humbling. Thanks Dr. Lessard.
You are welcome.
Joe, Claude, Steve, All,
Correct me and/or guide me if I’m wrong or misguided.
ADIO is based on 33 principles, perhaps 2 laws (organization, life), a triune, all of which is based on the truth that logic bears.
OIBU is based on one principle, p24, LOM, in many ways emotions, and a non entity qualifying educated intelligence as the controller, the doer, the healer.
Here’s the the thing. Faced with the emotional trauma(s) that LOMs and circumstancesncan bear, can distort this universal truth(s).
LOM is a reality, but educated intelligence does not enable active organization.
I have personal difficulty weighing or placing ADIO vs OIBU on the yardstick of life.
Logic tells me one thing, experience tells me a paradox of conflicting view points.
Yet there can only be one truth. Where do I place my understanding and the Period in my expectations.
It would appear that life and truth is ADIO which encompasses both the immaterial and the material.
Will, suffering, control, LOM, bears only mechanism and the material, a half truth, which in essense, cannot be a truth in part.
Teach me. Guide me further. It means a lot to me. And to the PMs that await my, our message, whatever that clearly is?