A cause is sufficient if it is all that is necessary for that effect to occur.
6 thoughts on “Cause and Effect”
Is the adaptation of universal force by innate intelligence P23, a cause or an effect, both or neither?
Or does that determination depend on what relationships are being compared? (Eg. Ui as the the cause of ii (part of-part from) which is one of the effects (laws-forces), that deduces from the causing MP.
P1 causing P26?
If the 32Ps essentiall deduce from the MP, P1, why maintain the format of principles over say the development of a narrative. All the principles and the exploration of, the delving into, essentially derive from the words and meanings of P1.
Why not write the story as observed, as logically explained that flows and explains ALL that The MP means.
Perhaps the presentation of. Phosophy is harder to grasp then then a fully written explanation of what MP means?
Or maybe it’s not only what you say or point to, but what you don’t point to. The spaces left open to understand. There needs to be room for expansion, for drilling down into further depths, providing a personal, P27, complete understanding.
Thru Principle deducing, a provision to the most succinct way of expanding on an a priori, that being the MP is enabled.
A narrative would work, and I guess that essentially RWS or Joes Blue Books provide discussion into the topics that come out of the MP and forethought.
Yet it does seem that the MP exposes intelligence, universality, action, time, cause and effect, matter, triune, life, harmony, coordination, limitation, perfection, and maybe the principles the levels of exploring from general to more and more specific, in question, in observation, in application.
I’m not sure what I’m really looking for here. Maybe just an expanded narrative that I personally haven’t digested yet in the implications that Chiropractic Philosophy points to. I read and study and ultimately I will write my own narrative. The narrative is the story that lives inside, that can be told, but the words of the philosophy don’t change, perhaps just clarified.
– The start point of chiropractic is the major premise. –
– The end point of chiropractic is its objective. –
– In other words, the start point of chiropractic is intelligence CAUSING its information to EFFECT motion of e/matter (the major premise). The end point of chiropractic is intelligence CAUSING its information to EFFECT motion of the e/matter of the body without VS (the chiropractic objective).
– Obviously Joseph’s opening statement is correct: “A cause is sufficient if it is all that is necessary for that effect to occur.”
Claude,
I like it. It speaks simple, yet complete. It is something to think about, like ‘Innate awareness of every innate need’
With regards to Joe’s statement:
“A cause is sufficient if it is all that is necessary for that effect to occur.”
If a cause was not sufficient, wouldn’t it still be sufficient enough for a different (another) effect to occur?
Joe is presenting a cause, that implicates its effect, in purpose.
That would be cause by intelligence?
But then again what cause would not implicate its effect, even if that cause was not sufficient? Another effect would occur, and that effect would be in proportion, in relation to its cause.
Therefore wouldn’t the statement:
‘A cause is all that is necessary for an effect to occur.’ Still mean the same thing, perhaps with a little less of that ‘Extra Something’
Is the adaptation of universal force by innate intelligence P23, a cause or an effect, both or neither?
Or does that determination depend on what relationships are being compared? (Eg. Ui as the the cause of ii (part of-part from) which is one of the effects (laws-forces), that deduces from the causing MP.
P1 causing P26?
David,
Q-1 Yes
Q-2 yes IT DOES
q-3 all deduce from P1 (indirectly or directly)
If the 32Ps essentiall deduce from the MP, P1, why maintain the format of principles over say the development of a narrative. All the principles and the exploration of, the delving into, essentially derive from the words and meanings of P1.
Why not write the story as observed, as logically explained that flows and explains ALL that The MP means.
Perhaps the presentation of. Phosophy is harder to grasp then then a fully written explanation of what MP means?
Or maybe it’s not only what you say or point to, but what you don’t point to. The spaces left open to understand. There needs to be room for expansion, for drilling down into further depths, providing a personal, P27, complete understanding.
Thru Principle deducing, a provision to the most succinct way of expanding on an a priori, that being the MP is enabled.
A narrative would work, and I guess that essentially RWS or Joes Blue Books provide discussion into the topics that come out of the MP and forethought.
Yet it does seem that the MP exposes intelligence, universality, action, time, cause and effect, matter, triune, life, harmony, coordination, limitation, perfection, and maybe the principles the levels of exploring from general to more and more specific, in question, in observation, in application.
I’m not sure what I’m really looking for here. Maybe just an expanded narrative that I personally haven’t digested yet in the implications that Chiropractic Philosophy points to. I read and study and ultimately I will write my own narrative. The narrative is the story that lives inside, that can be told, but the words of the philosophy don’t change, perhaps just clarified.
David,
– The start point of chiropractic is the major premise. –
– The end point of chiropractic is its objective. –
– In other words, the start point of chiropractic is intelligence CAUSING its information to EFFECT motion of e/matter (the major premise). The end point of chiropractic is intelligence CAUSING its information to EFFECT motion of the e/matter of the body without VS (the chiropractic objective).
– Obviously Joseph’s opening statement is correct: “A cause is sufficient if it is all that is necessary for that effect to occur.”
Claude,
I like it. It speaks simple, yet complete. It is something to think about, like ‘Innate awareness of every innate need’
With regards to Joe’s statement:
“A cause is sufficient if it is all that is necessary for that effect to occur.”
If a cause was not sufficient, wouldn’t it still be sufficient enough for a different (another) effect to occur?
Joe is presenting a cause, that implicates its effect, in purpose.
That would be cause by intelligence?
But then again what cause would not implicate its effect, even if that cause was not sufficient? Another effect would occur, and that effect would be in proportion, in relation to its cause.
Therefore wouldn’t the statement:
‘A cause is all that is necessary for an effect to occur.’ Still mean the same thing, perhaps with a little less of that ‘Extra Something’