This is a subject BJ never addressed if he felt it existed at all and a number of chiropractors have criticised my presentation of it and the ramifications on the mental impulse, safety pin cycle and normal complete cycle as well as a few other chiropractic philosophical issues like whether there is one or two innate intelligences in the mother and fetus. If there is a cellular intelligence (ii of the cell) and I lean in that direction, it is perfect by its definition just as the ii of the body is perfect in all its qualities and artributes. Therefore, for all practical purposes, they are the same. Both have the same mission, to maintain the matter of the body in active organization. Two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Ii is omnipresent in every cell of the body. Those who say there is no cellular i are correct in the sense that because they are looking at the manifestation of it in the matter its manifestation is exactly like that of the ii of the body. In a perfectly fuctioning body it, (ci) is not being expressed. The only time it becomes an issue is when the ii of the body is no longer being expressed in the cell. That can only occure in three situations:
1. When the cell is removed from the body and kept alive. It is no longer expressnig the ii of the body but it is still expressing (cellular) intelligence.
2. When there is an interference to the expression of the ii of the body due to v.s. (Dis-EASE but the cell does not die), the cellular intelligence is all that is being expressed and it is just functioning for itself (the individual cell). We might call that a cancer cell. If the interference is removed it is once again expressing only the ii of the body.
3. When the organism is no longer alive but some cells are still living. An apple may be dead, rotting on the ground but the cells of the seed are still alive.
Conclusion: it’s probably more correct to say that a cell expresses intelligence rather than it expresses cellular intelligence until and unless one of the three above states occur. Then we can say that the cell expresses cellular intelligence. This may be more acceptable to those who do not accept the concept of intelligence in every cell and not just located in the brain being expressed through the nerve system to a cell that without it would have no life. A cell without the ii of the body would still have intelligence being expressed through its matter but it would be cellular intelligence through the matter of the cell.
When the cell is separated from ii, it continues to survive, but does it know it’s function/purpose? Does it know how much, when, or when not to function? Kind of like when a heart is removed, it can still beat but does it know when to beat faster, slower, etc?
If a cell does in fact know how to do the above, then my guess is it’s probably cellular intelligence. If not, then it’s probably just intelligence that still relies on ii for it’s orders.
Just a thought.
That’s the whole issue Rick. When not under control of the ii of the body the cell is functioning for itself (ci) and it cares nothing about what is good for the entire body. It takes the ii of the body to coordinate the actions of all cells for the benefit of the whole. Good observation.
Hey Joe,
I believe you are right, the cell does express “cellular intelligence” but I would question the equality in every way issue. We were taught (#22) There is 100% of innate intelligence in every living thing, the requisite amount, proportional to its organization. The cell is a living thing but not as complex or “organized” as the body. So could we say that ci and ii are a similar concept but with differing levels of involvement? (It is so hard to quantify the intangibles.) Innate should not have to tell a heart cell how to BE a heart cell, just how to coordinate with the rest of the body. So I would think ci is being expressed as well as ii in a normal complete cycle, just at different levels of organization or involvement.
A living thing expresses the intelligence of life. We call it innate intelligence. Whether it is the innate intelligence of the body, the innate intelligence of the systems of the body, the innate intelligence of the organs of the body or the innate intelligence of the cells of the body, it is the same innate intelligence or the intelligence of life whose function is to adapt universal forces within the localized matter in which it works.
A living cell has golgi bodies, mitochondria, protoplasm, nucleus and many more components each of which must be under the direction of its innate intelligence for it to remain organized and alive. Therefore, it seem reasonable to call it for what it is: The innate intelligence of the cell. Innate is the proper adjective signifying the inborn intelligence of the cell.
Calling it cellular intelligence is to remove the innate component which gives the cell it own life which has the properties of at least adaptability and perhaps excretion and assimilation of oxygen and hydrogen.
We may do some deductive reasoning by asserting that the innate intelligence of the cell is the same innate intelligence of the body localized in a DIFFERENT portion of matter thereby adapting universal forces for the benefit of the cell. The cell does not need to be under the direction of the innate intelligence of the body in order tto be alive. It may be a part of dis-ease within the body. Once again, it is the matter that is different. Innate intelligence is always 100% whether in a cell, an organ, a system or a body.
There is only universal intelligence and innate intelligence with regard to creating forces. If it is universal, it is unadapted forces. If it is innate, it is adapted forces.
It is ALWAYS innate intelligence when there is life!
Atta Boy Claude, cellular intelligence is not right or wrong, but incomplete. Its the inborn (innate) or lack thereof, that qualifies the intelligence. Innate = constructive survival value, anything less becomes universal intelligence or non-csv
Steve, how much more “incomplete” is the ii of a paramecium than that of an elephant. Which is more complete, the law of gravity on the moon or on the earth? They are bothe the same, both 100%. The only difference is the expression of the law (9.8 m/sec2 vs. something less) and that is a product of the matter, not the law. The only difference between a single cell and the entire body is the amount and configuration of the matter. The i of both is the same 100%, the requiset amount.
Sorry Joe, I meant the term “cellular intelligence” is incomplete. Without the word innate or universal to denote the type of intelligence, as Claude said the proper adjective, it would be improper English. But while I have your ear, let me get this straight. Without subluxation the cell is expressing innate intelligence at multiple levels, the innate of the body and the innate of the cell. But when subluxated, the cell can only express it’s own innate intelligence at the cellular level because it is expressing universal intelligence within the body.
Now let’s get back to the equality issue. Does the human not require more innate intelligence than the plant? “The amount of intelligence…proportional to its organization”. AS G. Orwell wrote ” all animals are equal but some are more equal than others, are all innate intelligenges equal but some are more ___________ than others???
Steve, thanks for the clarification. Innate intelligence is the same wherever it is, always 100%. Its expression differs depending on the matter. So there are not multiple levels of ii, only multiple levels of its expression. I always try to think of ii and ui as laws (the law of life and the law of organization ) and liken them to universal laws in general and the law of gravity in particular (since we are most familiar with it). The law (attraction of masses) is the same standing at the top of the basement steps, falling down those steps, or standing on the moon. The difference is the matter. All living organisms are equal in one way-innate intelligence is 100%. The matter, animal, plant, human being is different. Some have an ed. i., some have a soul but all have an ii that is 100%, no levels. To answer your question: all innate intelligenges (sic, sorry that’s the old teacher in me) (are)equal but some are more fully expressed than others.
Joseph, when you wrote …. “but some are more fully expressed” , you mean that the expression of innate intelligence is dependent on the matter within which it works. A plant expresses 100% of its innate intelligence as long as there is no interference within its matter. A dog expresses 100% of its innate intelligence if its not subluxated. If the dog is subluxated its innate intelligence is 100% and the expression of its innate intelligence due to the limitation of the dog’s matter (being subluxated in this instance) is NOT fully expressed. A woman without vertebral subluxations will express fully the innate intelligence of her body. It’s the same for ALL matter… no matter what! Even an amoeba cell without interference within its matter will fully express the innate intelligence of that cell.
The ONLY time a full expression of innate intelligence in ANY matter occurs, is when all the universal forces within that matter are transformed into innate forces by the innate intelligence of that matter. Then, innate intelligence adapts the matter for use in the body so that all parts of the body will have coordinated action for mutual benefit (pri. 23).
And that’s the ONLY time innate intelligence is fully expressed.
Claude, I’m with you “100%” 🙂 on the first paragraph. The second paragraph, I have some problem with….A fall down a flight of steps creates univeral force(s). 1. Sometimes those forces may be adapted and transformed into innate forces and even used by the ii of the body to correct a vs. 2. Sometimes those forces may not be be adapted by the ii of the body and will cause injury/damage. 3. Sometimes those forces may be adapted to and cause nothing (no harm, no foul-as the hockey announcer would say). Is not that third category an example of perfect expression by the ii of the body as well/ much as category #1!
Yes of course Joseph! And it is because the internal resistive force of the individual is NOT overcome by the external invasive force due to the innate intelligence of the body adapting the external invasive force and changing its character into an innate force in example #3. In example #2 it proves that the innate intelligence of the body will USE any universal force for the correction of vertebral subluxations so it can change the character of that force to an innate force in order to adapt the matter for use in the body so that all parts will have coordinated actions for mutual benefit (prin.23). Then, you are correct, it does allow for a full expression of the innate intelligence of the body. Thank you for going deeper!! 🙂
THANX FELLAS The higher the organization the fuller the expression. Not more ii just more demonstration or evidence of existence.
Let us go a little deeper.
A polar bear is in the middle of the arctic pole at -60F and enjoys life.
A man 10 miles away from the bear dies of cold exposure.
Which one has the “higher organization of matter”?
A man is on the beach at +100F and enjoys life.
A polar 10 miles away from the man dies of heat exposure.
Which one has the “higher organization of matter”?
It’s the SAME matter in the bear in both examples is it not?
It’s the same matter in the man in both examples is it not?
Through deductive reasoning we see that the statement “the higher the organization the fuller the expression” is incorrect.
A polar bear with a vertebral subluxation is in the middle of the arctic pole at -60F and enjoys life.
A man without a vertebral subluxation 10 miles away from the bear dies of cold exposure.
Which one has a full expression of the innate intelligence of the body?
A man with a vertebral subluxation is on the beach at +100F and enjoys life.
A polar bear without a vertebral subluxation 10 miles away from the man dies of heat exposure.
Which one has a full expression of the innate intelligence of the body?
It’s the same matter in the bear in both examples is it not?
It”s the same matter in the man in both examples is it not?
Through deductive reasoning we confirm that 100% function needs 100% force and 100% matter to maintain the integrity of the triune of life (pri.5). Innate intelligence is limited by limitation of matter and universal law (pri.24). Since matter has limitations, interference with the transmission of innate forces (pri.29) will further limit the innate intelligence of the body. This situation is referred as dis-ease (pri.30).
When as a chiropractor we LACVS it enables a full expression of the innate intelligence of the body.
A word of caution: Please, do not attempt to LACVS of a polar bear. You may find out that your matter is VERY limited regardless of the expression of its innate intelligence! 🙂
You wrote:
A polar bear with a vertebral subluxation is in the middle of the arctic pole at -60F and enjoys life.A man without a vertebral subluxation 10 miles away from the bear dies of cold exposure.
Which one has a full expression of the innate intelligence of the body?
I’m too smart for your trick questions Claude Lessard!…. Neither has full expression. The Polar bear has less than 100% because he is subluxated. The man has 0% because he is dead! 🙂
I gave it my best shot! 🙂
You guys slay me.
So how would you describe the difference between the ii of a plant and the ii of a person?
I would say there is no difference. The law of gravity (universal principle of attraction of masses) is the same on the moon and earth. The expression of that law differs, 9.8m/sec2 on earth and less on the moon. The plants and animal have the same principle (ii). The matter is different so the expression is different. Here’s a thought: every living organism is different in its matter (even identical twins) but every living organism has the same intelligence.
Pursuant to the law of gravity, whether it’s a plant, an insect, an animal, a clam, a baby, all are subjected to the same law of gravity. It’s the same with law of life that we call innate innate intelligence… whether it’s a plant, an insect, an animal, a clam or a baby, all a subjected to the same law of life that we call innate intelligence.
Another term used to describe innate intelligence is the principle of organization in LIVING things (pri.20). The principle of cause and effect, whether it’s a plant, an insect, an animal, a clam or a baby, all are subjected to the principle of cause and effect (pri.17). It’s the same with the principle of organization of LIVING things that we call innate intelligence…. whether it’s a plant, an insect, an animal, a clam or a baby, all are subjected to the principle of organization of LIVING things that we call innate intelligence.
Good show gentlepeople! I think we can just default to Principle One and be done with it.
It is much easier to accept the Major Premise than work through deductive reasoning to logically formulate 32 minor principles which will give rise to information necessary to guide one’s labor of love from an ADIO viewpoint.
And what would Strauss do with his mind otherwise? 🙂
Well, I’d say you’re keeping his tools well sharpened!