Sometimes, those of us in chiropractic have a tendency to get stuck in the ideas and the philosophy of our forefathers and it hinders the growth and development of our philosophy. It also presents a basis for the criticism that we have developed into some sort of cult/religion. What profession is still using a 1927 textbook as its primary text? Imagine if B.J. had stopped developing the philosophy that he received from his father. Or worse, never developed it any further. Chiropractic would not be in existence today. What if he stopped writing Green Books in 1909 or 1927, or 1961? Oh, that’s right…he did stop writing them in 1961! I wonder why. Don’t get me wrong; there is a good deal of great writing in those Green Books. But I don’t believe B.J. meant for them to be the canon of our profession. It pains me when someone publishes something that challenges our established philosophy and it is rejected out of hand. I am not saying it should not be scrutinized, it most definitely should. I only wish B.J. was challenged by his contemporaries in an academic manner, instead of them leaving the school and starting another school (most of which ended up as mixing schools). There were some who differed with B.J., like the Logans, but usually it was over technique, not philosophy. About the only philosophical difference that caused a split was with Joy Loban over x-ray. I’m not even sure that was really philosophical. My concern is that we are stifling discourse, interaction and, as a result, growth in the profession.
B.J. was a genius. There will probably never be anyone who will come close to him in developing the chiropractic philosophy. But we must also realize that genius has its shortcomings. A contemporary of B.J., Thomas Edison, was a good example. He “almost” discovered radio waves long before Marconi but he thought that no one would want to listen to music that they had no control over. Later in life, he stubbornly held to direct current (DC) electricity when those around him were urging to convert to the more efficient, powerful and less expensive alternating current (AC). For all his genius it was as if he could not visualize the efficacy of AC. It was a blind spot that cost him millions of dollars. Genius has its strengths; boldness and innovation, to name two, but its greatest weakness is often blindness.
I believe B.J.’s blind spot was the idea that innate intelligence was located in the brain and that until a vibration reached the brain the innate intelligence of the body could not respond, thus innate intelligence was unaware of what was happening in the organism. The impact of that has affected such important philosophical concepts as the Normal Complete Cycle and our understanding of the mental impulse. In the next few months, I will be explorling some of my ideas relative to these concepts. I expect some major flak. I can handle it as long as it’s directed at the validity of the concepts rather than trying to defend B.J.’s position simply because he is B.J. We need dialogue in philosophy circles but not ad hominem attacks. I don’t believe anyone is attempting to belittle B.J. or the contribution he has made to our philosophy but we need to move on and in that we will honor him and what he has left us in the way we understand this great philosophy.
ATTA BOY JOE Philosophy is dead Long live Philosophy
BJ said sensory nerves could not be interfered with because then I.I. would not be able to comprehend the body. Is this still a view held today?
Steve, sorry I missed your question 7 weeks ago (spending too much time on facebook!) Actually, I try to allow others to respond first and I guess I forgot! As you know, my thoughts are either ignored or ridiculed, so I do not know what view is accepted today. I tend to think no one discusses such topics because Palmer philosophy leaves some questions unanswered and if BJ didn’t answer it we were not meant to know (sarcasm). My answer would be that while ii “comprehends” (I like that word, did you think of that or is it BJ/Stphenson?) what is going on, it cannot bring about a response without an AFF cycle. That is the difference between intellectual adaptation and adaptation. Ii always comprehends (IA) but without the ability to put garbage in (due to nerve interference) it will get nothing out. .
Then you are suggesting another form of communication over and above or beyond the nerve system as we know it today?
I never implied that, I don’t think. Ii needs no communication system to comprehend what is going on in the body (because it is everwhere). It does need a material pathway to carry out its “desires”. Whether there is another material pathway beside the NS, I don’t know.
I support you Dr. Strauss…I too believe that ii is in all organic tissues…the cells each have their own ii and the ii of the organism knows instantenously what the ogransim needs. Being located only in the brain seems illogical on many levels.
good topic for discussion Joe. thanks.
way i see it all living things have to have that innate intelligence simply to stay alive.
when innate is no longer expressing itself in an organism the organism is no longer alive (showing the signs of life)
if you remove a part of a body (even a single skin cell) and place it in a favorable environment (ie. petri dish with nutrients) they will remain alive… thus they do have their own innate intelligence.
the brain is there to coordinate all the body parts so all these billions of individual lives can cooperate with each other to create a symbiotic relationship to form a greater good (the human being which is each of us.)
the brain and nerve system are essential for maintaining and controlling such a complex system of various living parts, and without it the being (and thus the billions of uncoordinated cells) could not exist for very long.
so although essential, i cannot accept that innate is ‘stored’ in the brain. innate is everywhere there is LIFE>
my 2¢ anyways…
I think some of the “campers” are stuck in 1961 and chances are excellent they weren’t even born yet. I recently ran into someone who thought along the same lines. I asked him if he thought BJ was a genius or just some fanatic. A GENIUS he said as he almost threw holy water on me for being sacraligious. I asked him what he thought of BJs line of thinking, if he stayed with the same thought or was constantly slipping and checking his thinking. Again he agreed how BJ would take a thought, run with it and if he liked the direction it went he continued. If not he backed up and started again. I asked him where he thought BJs thinking would be today in 2011 if he was still alive? He looked at me like I had two heads. Would he have stayed at his 1961 thinking or would he have evolved? Again the deer in the headlights, two headed look. I said just think about it, if he was always evolving in his thinking, why in the world do you even for a NY minute think he would have stayed where he was in 1961? Honest to goodness Joe, some of these BJ followers haven’t entertained a new thought since Attilla the Hun (to borrow another phrase/thought from Reggie.
Some don’t think for themselves the just parrot. They walk in dead mens shoes (to borrow a phrase from the old master himself).
Enjoying the discussion greatly! One Q came to mind as I perused it – where then, would (vertebral?) Subluxation take place then (structurally)? Would it perhaps occur – as postulated by Charrette (and presumably other DCs) not only in the spine, but in other articulations as well (ie, extremities)? And if so, could not then, Adjusting said extremities free the corrective effect of ii into motion?
Looking forward to more! ADIO!
Palmer, DD, said the “majority” of subluxations are found in the spine. In 1910 he discusses adjustments of the feet. If the skeletal system is indeed a tension frame for the nerves it would seem any displacement would be tone altering.
The equivalent weight of a dime on the back of your hand is tone altering. But can the ii of the body adapt perfectly to that? We know that the same pressure on the cord/spinal nerves reduces the ability of the ii of the body to adapt. I guess the bottom line is falling back on our objective, correcting VS to enable the ii of the body to be expressed more fully. I’m glad we didn’t camp at the adjusting feet gravesite. If BJ had camped there would some of our number be advocating that today because “we don’t own chiropractic””
Thank you for your reply, Dr Strauss (and the ensuing discussion that continued forthwith – although I am not sure I understood all of it…!) 🙂
There are probably many things that will improve innate function. We confine our efforts to correcting vertebral subluxations. That leaves other procedures to be investigated, developed and practiced by other individuals. Correcting VS and teaching people the importance of that service keeps me busy enough.