Recently there has been some lengthy discussion on the blog about God and universal intelligence, whether they are the same or different. Whenever discussions about chiropractic, theology and/or medicine are brought up, there seem to be different positions taken. With regard to religion and the therapies, we can, and probably should say, it’s not a chiropractic discussion. God is a theological term and universal intelligence is a chiropractic term – case closed.
Personally, I would be very happy if chiropractic discussion took that avenue. Unfortunately we do not seem to be able to go that route and if there is blame to be had, the fault would lie primarily with the Palmers. D.D. and B.J. both brought God, spirit and religion into chiropractic vocabulary very early in the history of the profession. Rather than continue to endeavor to clarify the separation between chiropractic and religion, D.D. and, more so, B.J., because the elder Palmer died in 1913, continued to stoke the fires with the use of theological terms and religious concepts, probably culminating with his 1949 text, The Bigness of the Fellow Within. When discussing chiropractic philosophy, I believe we must all make a concerted effort to avoid terms that traditionally belong to other fields whether it be those of medicine or religion and confine our terminology to our chiropractic lexicon.
I agree!
So this debate has gone from ui cannot be God, to it “should not” be God. Is that it now? God is theology and ui chiropractic–case closed? Really?
Though eccentric and at times arcane in their language, the Palmer’s have all the rights to the way the terms they coined are defined–whether we like it or not! Again with all due respect…you have no right to close this case. For the love of God, we would not even be practicing this profession were it not for these two characters…and yet somehow you wish to fault them with the very concept that truly individuates us?
The Palmer’s believed inanimate matter as well as living matter are actively organized by God and gave the concept of God in mundane matter the name ui, and God in life ii. They understood that apart from this supernatural connection, all matter would cease to be organized. There may be some inconsistencies in the way this is doled-out in the 33 principles, but this is ultimately what the intent was by virtue of the plane language of the men who coined the expressions. Don’t like that? Tough. We’re they wrong? That depends on YOUR religion. If your religion is one in which you can’t fit God and science on the same plate…that’s a personal bias…but it has little to do in the long run with the absolute reality of the matter.
Minus their supernatural connotations ui and ii become absolutely meaningless, hollow expressions. If you want to separate the theological origins of chiropractic from its philosophy, go ahead. But you have no defensible platform to do so other than your personal comfort level.
By the way…there is a thing called Deism – a brand of religion that accepts the notion of God, but sees no reason to believe that God has any connection or influence over how things operate in the universe. Is this your religion?
Eric, you write: “The Palmer’s believed inanimate matter as well as living matter are actively organized by God and gave the concept of God in mundane matter the name ui, and God in life ii.” Whose God are you/they talking about? I think we need to know that. Is it the God of the Jew, the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, pantheist or are you/they redefining God. If they make up the terms ui and ii, they have the right to define them as they want. They do not have that luxury with the term God. He has aleady been defined, albeit differently, by the others (sometimes even without gender or different genders). Further, most of the religions I mentioned would not consider their God one of only mundane matters. If they did there would be no need for prayer. You don’t pray to God to continue the law of gravity. There is an aspect of God that does relate to mundane matters (relating to the world). Some describe that aspect as scientific or universal or divine laws. Some of us describe that law as the law of organization and call it universal intelligence and in living matter, the law of life and call it innate intelligence. It does not have solicitude. In other words, God put things into motion and left them to run (wound up the clock and set it on the shelf). I think if you will explore it more deeply, you will find that is called deism. However, there is another aspect to God what theology calls “transcendence”. The deist does not accept the transcendent aspect of God, that God has the perfect right to function outside the laws of the universe because He did not create them for Himself but for His creatures. When we see manifestations of that function, we call it a miracle and say that it is a supernatural event. Perhaps, that is why BJ defined chiropractic as “The philosophy science and art of things natural …because he did not see chiropractic as addressing the supernatural or transcendent aspect of God, only the “mundane”.
Eric, you write “So this debate has gone from ui cannot be God, to it “should not” be God. Is that it now? God is theology and ui chiropractic–case closed? Really?” Actually Eric, the debate has always been ui should not be God! While the Palmers had the right to define ui and ii, they did not have the right to define God any more than they had the right to define chiropractic as the practice of medicine. Fortunately they didn’t or we would be having an altogether different discussion. You can define God any way you want, and do so because that is your theological belief or because DD and BJ said so. But they also said chiropractic is understood by principles and deductive reasoning. They never said it involved a belief system. (faith/religion) Defining chiropractic by your religion, whatever that might be is your perogative, defining it because BJ and DD said what it is, also your perogative but you, BJ and DD must meet the rules of the game and those rules for chiropractic are deductive reasoning. BJ gave us those rules (in the form of principles) and because he occasionally broke them by using “eccentric and at times arcane…language” does not make it okay, unless chiropractic is not a philosophy but the religion of the Palmers, in which case it is anything they say it is, even if it does not meet the requirements of reason. Perhaps you want to go there with chiropractic. I don’t nor do most chiropractors, if for no other reason than for the sake of the profession.
Joe,
While it is apparently of great importance to you, I fail to see the need for distilling what DD and BJ meant by God beyond the quality of “Creator”. This is largely where they left it, and one could hardly call this defining God in their own way, or taking any liberties with concept of God. It is this creative attribute of God (the Bible’s major premise) that is deductively co-opted into the major premise of chiropractic. Again, this is neither redefining God nor limiting God…only identifying the quality of God that gives rise to matter.
God as Creator is certainly an association that the major monotheistic religions share. The only step beyond this that is important to our discussion is whether or not the ongoing manifestation of matter requires the ongoing attention of God. I think it is clear that DD and BJ believed that it does. I believe it is also clear in the Judeo-Christian Bible that God is characterized as both the Creator and the ongoing organizer of energy into matter. In this sense, ui and ii are quite congruent with primary qualities of God that are embraced across the board in monotheistic religions. And this is where the discussion of God’s qualities begins and ends as it relates to chiropractic philosophy. It need go no further into the realm of religion, and I don’t see where BJ made any attempts to cause it to. In fact, BJ while obviously a believer in God, was cautious about organized religions.
DD and BJ did not create their own gods called ui and ii. They simply tried to open minds to how matter and life require a continuous connection to their source. In the many decades that have passed since the death of DD and BJ, advances in the investigation of matter fail to pinpoint what organizes it at the subatomic level. The mechanics that govern the way energy is manifested into matter defy observation and at best exist only as sketchy probabilities in the minds of the reductionists who desperately seek the a “god particle” somewhere in the physical realm. They won’t find one if in fact it is the spiritual realm’s penetration into matter through a “supernatural” process that gives form to the universe. This is what DD and BJ appeared to have in mind when bringing God into the Major Premise.
It is obvious that the qualities of the Judeo-Christian God are not handled perfectly in all of the 33 principles; however the most important one – the Major Premise is sound in this respect. I believe that were we differ here is in how you seek to resolve those matters of incongruity. You elect to keep the 33 intact and jettison God. I contend that based on what I have just written, the opposite is more logical. God must remain attached to the concepts of ui and ii, and the language of the 33 must be corrected were necessary to support this. This is what BJ did repeatedly in narrative form in “The Bigness”. “All ui is ii”, “ii is God in man” etc.
Your conjecture that DD and BJ have somehow muddied chiropractic principles by creating an ambiguous religion around them is a condition that I believe only exists in your mind. Having chiropractic philosophy anchored by the identification that all manifestations of the universe begin with God and are maintained by God is the only intellectually honest way a man who believes in God can approach any subject related to the natural world.
Eric,
B. J. said that “conflicts clarify.” I hope that this discussion is clarifying chiropractic philosophical concepts for all of us. It is clarifying them in my mind, not changing them, but making them clearer. That said, here is my comment for today. I will address your comments of yesterday directly, in another reply. Today is a 12- hour day for me in the office with no breaks.
Here goes: To say that universal intelligence is God is like regarding veracity or immutability, two of at least seven attributes of God, as God Himself. Omnipresence is another attribute of God. Omnipresence means God is everywhere…within and outside of matter. When omnipresence exists within matter, it is called “universal intelligence” by chiropractors because it demonstrates certain characteristics important to chiropractic, like organization. A rock demonstrates organization even down to the atomic level. A rock does not demonstrate love, a fourth attribute of God. Universal intelligence is not God but rather the manifestation of one attribute of God in all matter.
Joe,
Thank you for being flexible. However while you say you are not changing your mind, your most recent post here contains a quantum shift in perspective compared to the position you take in what you posted at the top and in all of your other posts.
In your opening statement here you say: “God is a theological term and universal intelligence is a chiropractic term – case closed.”
But you then state “Universal intelligence is not God but rather the manifestation of one attribute of God in all matter.”
Whether ui be God or one of God’s attributes, here you admit that you cannot fully extract God from chiropractic’s major premise. And therefore there are elements of theology in the major premise whether we like it or not. Case closed? Not yet.
Again you state “Universal intelligence is not God but rather the manifestation of one attribute of God in all matter.”
Consider the following:
God is the only entity that maintains matter in existence.
Universal Intelligence is said to maintain matter in existence.
Therefore ui can only be God.
Now you can certainly say that it is a “quality” of God that organizes matter. But does that mean God is no longer doing it? “Ahhh…that’s not God…its one His qualities?!!?” Really?
The quality of maintaining matter in existence does not function apart from God. And again, only God has this quality.
Therefore again, ui must be God.
The right thing to do here is go and fix the language of principle 12 to make it congruent with the theological axiom present in the major premise. The wrong thing to do would be to try and bend the language to divorce God from chiropractic principles because of principle 12…or any other reason.
Eric, it seems we have a major miscommunication here. First, that you have described me as “flexible”:). Perhaps if you read my writings, both chiropractic and non-chiropractic, especially The Nature of Man, a Biblical Perspective on the Body, Soul, and Spirit, this confusion would be cleared up. By the way, I will offer it again to you and anyone else reading this blog. Just e-mail me with an address where it is to be sent. It is not available on my chiropractic website. I will pick up the postage. If anyone would care to make a donation for the book, send it directly to the Christian Chiropractors Association, 2550 Stover B-102, Ft. Collins, CO 80525-4642. The donation and its amount is entirely up to you and is of no concern to me.
Eric, I am not trying to take God out of the Major Premise. I am trying to insure that the chiropractic philosophy does not place limitations on God and thus create confusion in the minds of people as to who God is and what the philosophy and practice of chiropractic is. That would be unfair to my faith and to my profession, both of which, along with my family, are the dearest things on earth to me.
God’s attributes do not describe God unless taken in totality. You cannot say God is Love and ignore that He is also Just. Universal intelligence, as described in the Major Premise (and all of chiropractic philosophy), does not consider God’s Justice, God’s Love, God’s Grace, God’s Will, God’s Word, God’s Plan, God’s Eternality, God’s Righteousness, God’s Veracity and many other theological concepts NOR SHOULD IT.
To say that God is synonymous with universal intelligence is like saying chiropractic is good for people with back problems. While the statement may be true, it is incomplete (chiropractic is good for all subluxated people) and in the end the statement is misleading, confuses people and I’m sure you as well as anyone knows what a problem that has created for our profession.
Joe,
I’m sorry that we have to keep disagreeing here as I’m sure we have more in common in our approach to our profession and our spirituality than we have at odds. But this is a critical matter, and so I will not give over on it without good reason.
If ui were in fact a synonym for God then we should be able to replace it with the word God in the Major Premise without changing its meaning:
“God is in all Matter And Continually Gives To It All Its Properties And Actions, Thus Maintaining It In Existence.” Works fine, right?
And just how does this expression limit God? Clearly it does not! It is simply an identification of what most monotheistic religions identify as one of, if not THE PRIMARY attribute of God. The important thing is that the entity (God) and the attribute of the entity (giving form to) are identified in the statement. The essence here is God (an entity) is “giving form” (the attribute of the entity) to matter. Replacing God with ui in the statement, the dynamic remains the same. Ui (an entity synonymous with God) is “giving from ” (the attribute of the entity) to matter.
Do you see then that calling ui an “attribute of God” is like saying God is an attribute of God! Doesn’t work..does it?
Again looking at the major premise with God substituted for ui:
“God is in all Matter And Continually Gives To It All Its Properties And Actions, Thus Maintaining It In Existence.”
Let’s call this statement A.
Now consider these statements:
God is love.
God is omnipresent.
How does statement A limit or invalidate these statements?
It doesn’t
Viewing ui as a synonym for God in no way limits any of the other qualities of God.
And so I again assert that their are no semantic, logical, philosophical, historical or theological arguments that support your original statement that “Ui CANNOT be God.” Nor or are there any to support your revised position that ui “should not be God”.
The fact that the gent who coined the phrase meant ui was God is fact. And it is quite clear that the quailies attributed to ui by DD and BJ are congruent with, and non-limiting to God.
Ui is God.
Case closed?
Eric, we can stop disagreeing on this issue because discussion is now over. As I carefully read your above reply, your basic argument is finally clear to me and I am embarassed that it took me so long to see it. It is so very simple:ui is God because God is ui. For most debates that kind of circular reasoning is not acceptable but, hey, it works for you and you reinforce it by the fact that BJ said so. If you had shown me anywhere in chiropractic philosophical literature, how even one of the nine attributes of God I mentioned this morning is demonstrated by ui, we might have proceeded. But you did not and in your mind it is not necessary because they are attributes of God and BJ says, and you believe, God is ui. So yes, Case closed.
Joe,
This is pretty disappointing. You obviously did not read carefully what I wrote at all! The qualities of God identified in the major premise are not described or worded in a way that limits any other qualities that any other religion or individual may way wish to ascribe to God, and I challenge you here and now to demonstrate otherwise.
For you to suggest that one cannot identify and illustrate one of God’s attributes in a statement about God without identifying them all is simply another arbitrary attempt by you to stack this deck in your favor.
If I or anyone stated “God holds all matter in existence”…who in their right mind would suggest that the subject of that statement cannot be God because it does not list all of God’s other attributes!
And while it is entirely immaterial to he point I make here, you can in fact actually find at least TWO of the MAJOR attributes of God described in the major premise.
1. Omnipresence ( in all matter)
2. Creator (maintaining matter in existence)
Also important is that these attributes are assigned to an entity (ui) by virtue of the wording of the statement. Ui is not an identified as an attribute in the statement, but rather as an entity.
Your efforts here to put God in one box and chiropractic philosophy in another may be well intended, but if we are to be true to the “bulk” of the philosophy, you can’t make this work. What you really end up doing is brushing God under the rug.
If you care not to respond any further, that is fine with me. I do wish you the best.
Alright Eric, we will continue, not that it will benefit you but per chance someone else is still reading this thread and that it might help them in their understanding of chiropractic and second, because I challenged you to pick one of nine attributes of God in order for us to proceed. You chose omnipresence which, while not one of the nine I chose, is an attribute of God. Here is your argument as I understand it: The Major Premise only addresses ui in matter, not non-matter, not in the vast non-matter regions of this universe and beyond. I always understood that was because ui was a principle that addressed the Law of Organization in matter and chiropractic was not a theological concept so it was only necessary to start with a major premise involving the character of matter and deduce from there. But now, thanks to you, I find that ui also exists outside of matter because God is omnipresent (outside of matter also) and ui is God. So your circular argument once again works, but in the process, we have made inadequate and incomplete, the Major Premise of chiropractic because the Major Premise no longer deals with a principle of organization in matter but God.
Since you got to choose this attribute (omnipresence), I get to choose the next one. I choose Love. Show me in the “bulk” of our chiropractic philosophy how ui demonstrates love. Ah, but God is love and ui is God. I think that will probably be your argument, so I guess there is really no need to go on, which is really a good thing. The way we are going you have already impugned the “languaging” of 2 principles (#1 and #11). Before we are done you may contradict the other 31 and in the process change chiropractic from a profession to a religion! I think the pragmatic question we must ask ourselves is “does your approach benefit chiropractic and does it benefit anyone’s religion”? I have been wrestling with that question since 1969 when a well-known chiropractic speaker, (still drawing crowds today), said that the chiropractic adjustment brought man back into right relationship with God. I believe that approach to chiropractic is both detrimental to the chiropractic profession and to my, and almost everyone else’s faith/religion. On the other hand, my philosophy (and the idea that ui is not God), while in conflict with some of BJ’s philosophy meets the objective of it and is not in conflict with anyone’s personal belief system. Actually, to continue this thread, I would like to hear from others experience, whichever side they are on, as to how this issue has impacted their life, their chiropractic practice and their ability to relate chiropractic to the public and to their practice members.
Joe,
I’ll take a crack at your request here, though as I stated previously, this line of reasoning that you are pursuing is really not pertinent.
Ok – God is love.
In the major premise it says ui organizes matter and holds it in existence. Therefore the physical manifestation we call Joe Strauss would never have existed, nor would he exist today were it not for ui. Furthermore the ground on which Joe stands and the earth he calls home would not exist either. All of the material things Joe needs beyond the fabric of his own matter are also provided by ui. One way of defining love is “an act of compassion towards another”. What greater act of compassion toward another can you think of than the one associated with giving you life and holding your life in existence from one moment to the next?
Truthfully, whether you find the above satisfactory or not, it is again QUITE IMMATERIAL as to whether or not “ui is God” based on the language of the major premise. The purpose of the major premise is NOT to fully define God, but rather illustrate how God interacts with matter. There is absolutely no reason why a statement about God that does not include all of God’s qualities cannot in fact, be about God.
So now I will ask you to comment on the following:
Substituting the subject of the major premise (ui) with the word God, and assuming just for the sake of the argument that ui = God:
“God is in all Matter and Continually Gives To It All Its Properties And Actions, Thus Maintaining It In Existence.”
How does the above statement limit God? How does not listing all of God’s other qualities in this statement make this statement invalid?
Earth to Joe? Awaiting reply.
.
Eric, I assume you are referring to a reply to the following which you wrote:
So now I will ask you to comment on the following:
Substituting the subject of the major premise (ui) with the word God, and assuming just for the sake of the argument that ui = God:
“God is in all Matter and Continually Gives To It All Its Properties And Actions, Thus Maintaining It In Existence.”
How does the above statement limit God? It does not How does not listing all of God’s other qualities in this statement make this statement invalid? It does not. Is that the response you were looking for? I just do not choose to make that assumption. Nor do I choose to make universalintelligence Buddha, Mother Nature, Allah, Jesus or anything else. I choose to make ui, ui. If you are happy making that assumption, and apparently you are, go right ahead. Just don’t get upset when people call you a cultist and reject chiropractic because it conflicts with their belief system.
Okay Joe,
So now that you have fully recanted your original posting “ui cannot be God”, we are left with you saying that you choose not to “assume” that ui is God, and that naturally is your right. But by virtue of the wording of the major premise, I believe any sentient member of one of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions (over 50% of the world and 70% of Americans) would have to arrive at the conclusion that the subject of this statement must be God, as it is a common tenet of these religions that only God gives form to matter and holds it in existence.
So by you choosing to assume that ui is not God, you take a position that is contrary to the belief of the “average” person to whom you may have the privilege of explaining chiropractic philosophy. How can that possibly be in the best interest of our profession and patients? How can this be in the best interest of your own belief system if you claim to be a member of one of these religions?
If you are unwilling to identify ui with God, then are you not assigning God-like qualities to something other than God? Does this not in fact do the very thing you seek to prevent—turning chiropractic into a cult—one which assigns qualities typically reserved for God to some mysterious force called ui?
The founder of our profession appears to have given great thought to this matter nearly 100 years ago. He spoke of “ethical religion” meaning those elements of spirituality that we all share in common that work toward the good of mankind, regardless of the brand of theology we individually chose to atone to. He had no interest in assigning any religious beliefs about God to chiropractic that went beyond what he saw as being common to all religions—the concept of a Creator.
Quoting DD—“A person may be a conscientious devotee of any theological creed, and yet be a strict, upright, exalted principled practitioner of chiropractic.”
Eric,
This is the end of our conversation. My reasons are:
1. You asked me to make an assumption from unreality, a legitimate debater’s technique, which I did and then you reply that that was an admission that I have recanted my original position.
2. You have obviously not read what I have written for the past 40+ years and refuse to accept my free offer of my book The Nature of Man which addresses many of these issues.
3. Universal intelligence cannot be synonymous with God, at least not my God. My God is not limited to only one of His attributes (the Law of Organization) and cannot be adequately explained in light of that one attribute.
4. Universal intelligence is identified with my God, just as love is, but to describe Him as one attribute (the Law of Organization) and purposely dismiss/ignore all the others would be blasphemous. The Major Premise does what it is intended to do and only what it is intended to do, address the only attribute of God germane to the practice of chiropractic.
5. I find the statements that you have made in this last comment philosophically dishonest, personally offensive and insulting.
I will not be responding to anything more that you put on this thread.
Bye-bye then Joe. This was fun, and thank you for sticking this out as long as you did. Sorry about your soft chin though! I could easily say similar things about your approach (especially the the number of times you contradict yourself) to what I have written, but I will not. If any impartial observer went back through and read this whole thread…I believe it demonstrates that I have maintained the logical high-ground throughout.
Best wishes,
Eric
“How does the above statement limit God? How does not listing all of God’s other qualities in this statement make this statement invalid?”
How? Because part of the truth is not the truth. If I define chiropractic as a science and art, does that not limit chiropractic? Part of the truth is not the truth. The problem we have in defining God is that God CANNOT be defined. The very act of defining God limits Him, but we can get an excellent working knowledge of God by considering the many different aspects of His nature, as Joe has pointed out. Ui, on the other hand, is clearly definable and has been clearly defined. Palmers definition of ui is where ui begins and ends. Part of the truth is not the truth. If anyone (including Palmer and yourself) wants to make ui THEIR God, go for it. But it is they that look at God as JUST intelligence (hence the name ui) that are limiting God. Part of the truth is not THE Truth.
Tom,
I personally thank YOU! This is a great insight! –
– As I said previously, the truth cannot be put into words and no one can define it. It can only be sighted as a result of an openness to SEE something NEW! And then, we can only be “seized” by it and we would even not know it anyway. We would be speechless, wordless and VERY “awed”…
BJ defined chiropractic as: “A philosophy, science and art of things natural; a system of adjusting the segments of the spinal column by hand only, for the correction of the cause of dis-ease.”
In 1973, WHEN Sherman College opened its doors, Reggie was our philosophy teacher and he defined chiropractic this way (I still have my original notes from philosophy 801): —– “Chiropractic is the philosophy, the art and science of properly locating, analyzing and correcting vertebral subluxations in accordance with that philosophy.”
Chiropractic is a deductive science. The deduction are based upon a major premise that life is intelligent. Deductive reasoning is exactly suited to Chiropractic. —
– By ASSUMING and ACCEPTING a major premise, that there is a universal intelligence which maintains matter in active organization, every inference drawn from that major premise and subjected to specific scrutiny, stands the test. To prove the whole by specific examination of its part is being exact. This exactness is suitable for Chiropractic which is not in a fog of generalities but is specific, separate and distinct from EVERYTHING! –
– Deductive reasoning can be faulty if the propositions or premises are made unwisely. The examination of the details will quickly expose it. However, unlike induction, it is NOT necessary to see all the parts to be accurate, for the major premise is ABSOLUTE. It is the START POINT of Chiropractic! –
– Notice, that the major premise and its 32 deducted principles show the meta-physical, the physical and the link between them. These terms apply to intelligence, matter and FORCE. Notice also, that all three of these facts are taken into consideration. –
– Now, while all three factors are investigated, Chiropractic as a science and art is based upon the link between intelligence and matter which is FORCE, that which makes Chiropractic, specific, separate and distinct from EVERYTHING! —
It is a link that eluded everyone. It is indeed… “A missing link”. –
Do you see WHY it is a missing link? Up to 1895, FORCE was unrecognized, as the bond between the meta-physical and the physical until it was discovered by CHIROPRACTIC. And this discovery (it was ALWAYS present) is in no way found in psychology, religion, the occult, classic philosophy of Socrates, Heraclitus or Plato.
And guess WHAT? It is NOT found in theology either. I will state it again: –
– CHIROPRACTIC IS SPECIFIC, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM EVERYTHING!!!! –
– It is as you said, just a “part of the truth and not THE Truth”. And it is not necessary to have FAITH in Chiropractic to fully express the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. All we need is BEING FREE of subluxations! And regardless of beliefs systems!
Chiropractic extends its care to animals and all vertebrata! My cats Tucker and Jasmine do appreciate their regular spinal check-ups! 🙂
– The difference between a chiropractor WHO chooses ONLY to practice the OBJECTIVE of Chiropractic and a chiropractor WHO chooses NOT to practice the OBJECTIVE of chiropractic is that: –
– The chiropractor WHO chooses to BE an OSC, has 33 principles as a Global Positioning System as guidance to fall back on and the chiropractor WHO chooses NOT to BE an OSC has only few principles…. only part of the truth of Chiropractic.-
– Perhaps, those WHO chooses to “mix” are apt to substitute their “add-ons” for the truth of WHAT is Chiropractic.
– It’s NEVER about WHAT! –
– It’s ALWAYS about WHO!
Tim,
I don’t know if you are coming in late on this debate, but if as you say “Palmers definition of ui is where ui begins and ends” then you just shot yourself “point blank” in the foot!
Before you cause yourself any more self-inflicted wounds, I would suggest you go back and read the entire thread which spans several of Joe’s posts.
For sake of those like you who may be latecomers in this debate, I will provide yet another quote from DD himself (page 6 of the Moral and Religiosity Duty of the Chiropractor,1914) – “Religiously, they [chiropractors] are required to render spiritual service toward God, the Universal Intelligence.” Here we see again how DD defined ui, which again is supported heavily in the further writings of BJ. According to the Palmers, ui is not a “law” or a “principle” but God Himself – like it or not!
So now Tim – do you still believe the definition of ui begins and ends with the Palmers? I would hope so.
Oh…sorry. I meant Tom : )