We need to define medicine before we can begin to define chiropractic. BJ defined “sick” as a person who had DIS-EASE. He said that meant they were subluxated. Yet we realize that society generally accepts that “sick” means they have a medical condition, not a chiropractic one (VS). We are not likely to change that thinking in the near future. Further, we realize that people can have a medical condition and not be subluxated. So how do you define “sick” or should it not even be in our chiropractic lexicon?
joe, in the past few months i’ve been shying away from the work “health” too. i’ve been using the word “life” much more, just because it means health and so much more. health is a limiting term, so is sick. even tho they slip and my old blogs used to address them much more, i’ve been making a deliberate attempt to avoid both. i do however mention them in my orientation, but i breeze thru it and get back to life. i’d rather use the term “less life” than sick and get that out of chiropractic, personally.
– The objective of chiropractic is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. Period. –
– Does it mention sick, health, unfoldment of the species, evolutionary approach to life and health, performance, potential, well being, prevention, pain, diseases, dis-ease, conditions, in-coordination, malaise, illnesses, feeling good, feeling bad. The answer is obvious is it not? Have you ever asked yourself the question: “What’s the opposite of sick” anyway? [I bet Berkowitz will answer that question! I learned the answer from him… 😉 ] –
– It makes sense that the LIVING human body is better off without vertebral subluxations. –
– It’s as simple as that! –
– Amazing isn’t it? 🙂
Good! Now since we’re at it, I’ve been thinking about this lately, instead of our objective being “locate and adjust vertebral subluxation so the innate intelligence of the body can express itself more fully.” How is this: “Locate and adjust vertebral subluxation so the innate intelligence of the body can express itself without interference.” ?
Many things can cause a reduction of the expression innate intelligence of the body, like missing a limb, or a vertebral subluxation. But only ONE thing will cause INTERFERENCE: vertebral subluxation. (31)
Paulo,
Great thinking! However,
– The expression of Innate Intelligence cannot be interfered with. It is 100% all the time (pri. 7). We cannot interfere with intelligence that is perfect.
– THERE CAN BE INTERFERENCE with the TRANSMISSION of innate FORCES (pri.29). And interference with TRANSMISSION in the body is always directly or indirectly due to subluxations in the spinal column (pri.31). –
– Vertebral subluxations by definition will interfere with the FLOW of mental impulse (if). This situation further increase the limitation of the transmitting matter of the body and limits the adaptation of the LIVING human body since innate intelligence is limited by the limitations of matter (pri.24).
We rationalize in truth from deductive reasoning that the objective of chiropractic is: To LACVS for a full expression of the INNATE FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. Period.
The interference, we must be remember is between matter and matter. Between brain cell and tissue cell. 😉
I get what you mean, but the question then is: does that concept not depend on the point of view? If we look at the body (instead of cellular, tissue, organ, system level) would the mental impulse not be a CREATION instead of an EXPRESSION on the innate intelligence of the body?
I say this because basing it on the normal complete cycle, step #4, 5, 6 are: creation, brain cell, transformation. Expression itself is only down the line at the tissue cell at step 14.
That’s why the interference is with the TRANSMISSION of innate forces. It’s the TRANSMITTING matter that is further limited, NEVER the intelligence. Even if you have lost both arms in an accident, the innate intelligence will be 100% and working through the limitation of your body without arms. Same thing if you have only one kidney or no tonsils. It’s the body that is further limited and therefore the innate intelligence of the body will adapt forces and matter for the body as long as it can do so without breaking a universal law (pri. 24).
I’m not even questioning that, what I am questioning is the idea that the mental impulse is an EXPRESSION of the innate intelligence of the body vs. a CREATION of the innate intelligence of the body, which will be EXPRESSED in the tissue cell wherever it’s meant to go. Again, from the body level/normal complete cycle perspective, which is what we deal with in chiropractic.
Paulo, do you think that’s redundant? Doesn’t VS include interference (with the transmission of MI between brain cell and tissue cell)?
I mean, the point is valid and true (about interference with transmission, etc) but the thing I’m trying to touch is the idea that in the normal complete cycle the mental impulse is FORCE and it is expressed in the TISSUE CELL. The mental impulse is not an expression of intelligence but a creation of it. Intelligence creates force, force unites intelligence and matter, matter expresses force. At least that’s how I see it in this present time.
I was right with you up to “matter expresses force”. I think matter expresses intelligence by means of force. Principle #2 But I am on your side with the discussion with Claude. The “dots and dashes” are not the expression of the telegrapher in Morse Code. They are the force. The thought behind the words, by means of the dots and dashes, are the expression of the telegrapher (the intelligence).
Thanks for your input Joe! Interestingly enough while I do agree with you that matter expresses intelligence (principle 2) how do you explain: “Principle 13 The Function Of Matter – The Function Of Matter Is To Express Force.” ?
I’ll take a swing at this (look out!).
Disease (without the hyphen) is the NORMAL response to abnormal context. It is the appropriate compromise solution as the body seeks to adapt to a contextual stress that is foreign to the way we express our human genome. The solution to disease is not to treat the body, but rather to remove the abnormal context ( this is usually some combination of lifestyle-related chemical, physical or emotional stressors). This is why drugs don’t “cure” disease. Diseases are actually intelligent adaptions – necessary replies to chronic abnormal behaviors. What we call “health” is the automatic way we express our genes when we expose them to a “normal” context. Dean Black, PhD is the champion of this thinking and every chiropractor should read his book – “Fine Tuning – the Promise of Contextual Healing”.
When DD and BJ talk about subluxation being the cause of all dis(hyphen)ease, they are brilliantly correct. Dis-ease is a situation in which the body is NOT perceiving its context accurately and therefore not adapting as it should.
Disease is normal intelligent adaptation that can only be reversed by changing behaviors to ones which better resonate with our “Paleolithic” genomes.
Dis-ease is an adaptation-comprised state which can only be solved through LCVS.
Eric,
Before I address your post, did you mean your last sentence as it is written? “Dis-ease is an adaptation-comprised state”?
Stated another way if needed:
Dis-ease is a state of being in which the body is not adapting appropriately.
Eric,
Thank you for re-stating your comment about dis-ease. –
– Principle #30 states that interference with the transmission of innate FORCES causes dis-ease. –
– Principle #21 states that the mission of innate intelligence is to maintain the material of the body of a “living”thing” in active organization. –
– We can deduce from the above two principles that in the absence of interference innate intelligence can fulfill its mission found in principle #21 within the limitations of matter and the limitations of time. –
– Our deduction gives rise to principle #32 which states that coordination is the principle of harmonious action of all the parts of an organism in fulfilling their offices and purposes. We can conclude that this lack of harmonious action is the consequence of dis-ease which is a further limitation of the TRANSMITTING matter of the LIVING human body caused by the vertebral subluxation which interferes with the FLOW of mental impulse (if) between brain cell and tissue cell.
– This in turn will create a situation where all the parts of the LIVING human body will be further limited in their matter and this will decrease their matter’s ability to adapt appropriately since innate intelligence is limited by the limitations of matter (pri.24). –
– I am satisfied to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. –
– In my understanding of chiropractic philosophy, it’s authority resides in its objective deduced from its major premise and its 32 subsequent principles. If chiropractic philosophy would be compared to a beautiful wooden forest, the 33 principles would be the CENTER of the forest from which we can reason the objective of chiropractic and practice that objective. We can walk in the forest toward its center, however, we can also leave the forest if we keep walking pass its center. –
– WHO chooses to stop at its center is an OSC! 😉
Claude,
I believe we are on the same page here.
Hey Eric,
At first I thought , a swing and a miss. However upon rereading the question it seems you have very succinctly defined medicine. Everything you have said is OIBU.
[ “Disease (without the hyphen) is the NORMAL response to abnormal context” ]. “Context” being the environment, our perception of, or interface with, the OUTSIDE. The normal response to any perception would be adaptation (within the limits of matter). Isn’t that why we have an innate intelligence?
[ “The solution to disease is not to treat the body, but rather to remove the abnormal context ( this is usually some combination of lifestyle-related chemical, physical or emotional stressors).” ] So are you saying only people with no stress can be healthy?
[ “Diseases are actually intelligent adaptions-necessary replies to chronic abnormal behaviors. ” ]. Wait a minute, how can an INTELLIGENT adaption be anti-survival? One might also consider “chronic abnormal behavior” to be an effect. Can two effects such as disease and abnormal behavior be occurring at the same time? Could disease cause abnormal behavior?
[ “What we call “health” is the automatic way we express our genes when we expose them to a “normal” context.” ] Who could argue with this, have a perfect life and you get perfect health?
[ “When DD and BJ talk about subluxation being the cause of all dis(hyphen)ease, they are brilliantly correct. Dis-ease is a situation in which the body is NOT perceiving its context accurately and therefore not adapting as it should.” ] Again with the outside in below upward. Philosophically we work on the outflow,not the input side of the equation. Dis-ease is a nerve impulse devoid of the mental impulse created by Innate, a loss of force, a loss of regulation. There is no mental impulse on the receiving side of the cycle. When Innate intelligence can not permeate the body, the body suffers, not the other way around.
Just between us, I think you spend more time writing on this blog than you do reading it.
Steve “just between us” maybe I hit the ball “over your head”.
The end tissue phenomena that medicine labels as disease is a purposeful compromise solution the body produces in response to context or behavior that does not resonate with our default genetic expressions. Think of this illustration:
Lance Armstrong and a sedentary 3 pack a day chain-smoker are each put on a bike and forced to ride non-stop up the side of a mountain. An hour later Armstrong is at the top, hardly winded. The smoker is dead in the middle of road half way back to the starting point.
Lance Armstrong and another 3 pack a day sedentary chain-smoker are each forced to sit down and smoke three packs of cigarettes, one cigarette after the next. Several hours later the smoker is done with the 3 packs and is ready for a beer and another cigarette. Armstrong died of anaphylactic shock a few hours earlier.
The smoker in the second scenario, if examined “medically” would likely manifest any number of the histological and physiological changes labeled as chronic disease. But it is in fact these very physiological changes that make it possible for the smoker to survive within the abnormal context of inhaling cigarette smoke. It is the absence of these adaptive changes that allowed Armstrong to die. The smokers physical capacity for exertion may be limited (like his dead smoking buddy in the middle of the mountain road ) and while these changes may indeed take his life prematurely some time in the future, they are none-the-less appropriate for him to survive “in the moment” as he smokes. His innate intelligence over time refashioned his physiology to allow survival within the noxious context of chain smoking. The observable manifestations of this adaptation are what the medics label as chronic disease. What they really represent is the necessary trade-off to allow for survival “in the moment” – which is what innate intelligence is all about. And so now perhaps you can see how there is in fact survival value in chronic disease. As your head honcho here has written, innate intelligence is “selfish” and only interested in your immediate survival. And so if you chose not to separate yourself from an abnormal context/behavior, your innate intelligence will fashion you the appropriate chronic disease response .
If you can get your head around this, I will continue with addressing your comments. If not…then there is not much point in continuing.
So Eric, let me get this right, you are saying that chronic disease is a positive survival value or is it a moderately negative survival value which in the face of more serious negative survival values like fatal ones acts as positive survival value. But then that means that so-called chronice disese is not harmful because the ii of the body is creating the chronic disease and we know it will not harm the tissues in which it resides. Is so-called chronic disease always an adaptation? Is this found in BJ’s writings or must we add Black and Brown to the “Big Three”?
Joe,
Black is good. Not sure who Brown is. Not sure why what I have written requires sarcastic remarks either.
Survival value is always positive. ii does not look at the adaptation medics call disease as harming the tissue. ii directs these changes as appropriate tissue expressions to allow survival in the presence of abnormal context. You have yourself just said that a person can have a “medical condition” (disease) and be subluxation free. This is the primary reason why!
Tell me Eric, and this is not meant to be sarcastic, but what is the difference between a medical doctor who will diagnose physical changes as being pathological and a chiropractor who will diagnose those same changes as being adaptative. Are not both practicing medicine and how does the chiropractor make the determination as to which is adaptation and which is a failure to adapt? Apparently, you think that relating to (medical) diseases should be part of a chiropractic discussion and that you as a chiropractor are qualified to offer expertise in that discussion. No sarcasm, just an observation. Dr. Black as well as Dr. Brown both make the determinations as to what is normal with regard to traditional medical phenomena. That is not the practice of non-therapeutic chiropractic. Once, you step ouside the area of the VS as to what is normal and what is not (unsubluxated-normal), (subluxated-not), you are outside the practice of non-therapeutic, objective chiropractic and into the practice of medicine. It may be interesting theory and discussion for a “chiropractic gets sick people well” chiropractor but hardly appropriate discussion for non-therapeutic chiropractic. We NTOSCors do not make judgements as to what is normal, either in context or response. I might add it is also a dangerous way to practice. Try telling a mother and the courts that the brain damage caused by a prolonged high fever was a survival “in the moment” response and perfectly normal.
Tell me Joe…and this is not meant to be antagonistic – why do you repeatedly pose “tough” questions about things like theology and medicine? Are you merely looking for answers that support your beliefs? Fishing for affirmations? Or are you truly interested in a forum of ideas?
Funny – you are the one who said “we need to define medicine” – and so because I offer an explanation of disease and the medical mindset that seems foreign to you, you get all judgement on me for doing so! Wow.
For your edification, I do not treat or diagnose what medicine labels as chronic disease…for the very reason that I explained earlier… which you apparently have not yet grasped. I provide chiropractic care, and if the patient is interested, I offer suggestions about what may constitute better lifestyle choices/behaviors if the ones they have are causing a compromised life experience as they slowly murder themselves with medication. None of this is practicing medicine. It is in fact the opposite. And while an OSC may have no opinion, or opts to withhold their opinion as to whether or not something like smoking, or high carbohydrate food consumption, or sedentary behavior creates an abnormal context, another chiropractor who does have an opinion and offers it is not necessarily practicing medicine. And in the process of offering such an opinion, such a chiropractor is no less able to also provide the “objective of chiropractic” as you would define it.
And as far as you comment about the fever – that appears to be a “crisis” condition you offer in you attempted admonishment, not a chronic disease. Crisis conditions are un-adapted, and need to be viewed from a different perspective – one which I would be happy to elaborate on – but again, only if you can get your head around the rather simple, elegant and very chiropractic way of looking at what chronic disease actually represents without freaking out and accusing me of practicing medicine!!!
Eric, I would really like to start over with a clean slate, so let me first apologize for any comments that I have made on this blog that you have found to be offensive. The purpose of this blog is to discuss chiropractic in general and non-therpeutic objective chiropractic (NTOC) in particular. There are a number of subtle differences between NTOC and what I perceive you practice, what we, sometimes, not so kindly, refer to as traditional straight chiropractic (TSC). Let me say, you are one of the most zealous and articulate spokespersons for TSC, that I have met. I practiced TSC for many years, so I know its tenets. But I became convinced that it was not in my best interest nor in the best interest of the future of chiropractic and also presented some areas of what I considered to be contradiction. As a result, I became a NTOC. I began to write books from that position and began this blog. People with a NTOC vision of chiropractic and those wanting to learn that viewpoint have gravitated to this blog. Unfortunately, some of us who have made the transition, are like the reformed rake and the reformed alcoholic, vociferous against our former “lifestyle” and seem to be judgemental, especially of those who still hold tenaciously to a vision that we have abandoned. Following that analogy, the reformed alcoholic should not castigate those who believe that they can take a social drink occasionally. Because many can. In his defense, he has seen from personal experience what an occasional drink can lead to and so comes across as judgemental. I have seen what TSC can lead to in chiropractic and hence my fervor for NTOC and my seeming antagonism toward TSC. If every traditional straight chiropractor would stay in the model that BJ gave us and you advocate, this profession probably would be fine. But I am sure you can see that the tendency in chiropractic has been to drift further and further into the practice of medicine or something else, often without even realizing it. I hope the areas that have been discussed as a result of your input have been helpful to those searching for the best expression of their chiropractic experience and their life. Perhaps we can one day, sit down and as a profession and objectively discuss the differences between NTOC and TSC without the rancor. Meanwhile, I will continue to present my view and hopefully avoid being offensive to those like you who hold to a different view.
Joe,
I very much appreciate your apology, however there is none required here because I am not at all offended by anything you have posted. I also very much appreciate your compliments, which do mean a lot to me given your stature in our profession. I have been an admirer of your good work for many years. While you do not offend me, I have however often been frustrated by you. Let me explain why: A conservative radio talk show host who I enjoy often says that his goal is not to achieve agreement, but rather, clarity. He says it is important that his point of view is fully understood, and he respects his “opponent’s” right and need to be fully understood as well. Once this is accomplished then the merits of individual arguments can be fully and openly explored and their validity or lack there-in will become self-evident . I have found at multiple times in the process of doing this kind of drill with you that you have pigeon-holed me, made “straw-man” assumptions about what I believe, or have been outright dismissive at critical points in our debates. This does not lead to clarity, and it thwarts the likelihood of fully testing the voracity of what you and I believe.
Case-in-point – your last post. Presumably you see a difference between what you and I do in practice because you are a “non-therapeutic” chiropractor. What is it that I have revealed to you in my thinking that leads you to believe I use or espouse the use of therapy (by any definition) in chiropractic practice?
You write, “Case-in-point – your last post. Presumably you see a difference between what you and I do in practice because you are a “non-therapeutic” chiropractor. What is it that I have revealed to you in my thinking that leads you to believe I use or espouse the use of therapy (by any definition) in chiropractic practice?”
I never suggested that you use therapy Eric, I do not know how you practice. Reggie has said that more mixing is done by hand only than with every modality put together. My friends often refer to TSC as “conservative mixing” Actually, I assume you practice TSC which is as I said a subtle but significant difference from NTOC. 1)TSC adjusts VS to get sick people well, 2)to remove the cause of disease, 3)adheres to the traditional theological foundations of the Palmer’s, 4)addresses making suggestions about lifestyle changes, 5)considers the writings of BJ and DD infallable, 6)is concerned about the context (environment) and 7)relates in one way or another to disease and,8) has philosophical differences with NTOC. All of the above I have gathered from your comments. I’m not judging you in these areas, just saying I perceive, we are different. NTOC does not involve itself in the above issues and while we undoubtedly agree or more than we disagree, the above issues are significant.
Joe,
Thanks for the summary, which for the most part seems like a reasonable “profiling”. After spending some time here with “youz guys” I think I may have also developed a reasonable comparative profile myself. See if you would agree:
1) A TSC can choose to identify the theological root of the Major Premise in chiropractic. A NTOC must not.
2) A TSC can choose to identify a wide range of functional disorders that can occur secondary to VS. A NTOC must not.
3) A TSC can choose to prognostic as to what functional disorders may change as a result of the correction of VS. A NTOC must not.
4) A TSC can choose to educate his/her patients about behaviors that may increase their likelihood of developing VS. A NTOC must not.
5) A TSC can choose to educate his/her patients about behaviors that may increase the likelihood of developing chronic disease states and medical/pharmacological dependency. A NTOC must not.
Is this on the mark?
I do have a couple questions about these “subtle but significant ” differences as you call them. None of what I have described above for either camp has anything to do with therapy. So why do you in the effort to differentiate yourselves use the expression “non-therapeutic?”. It would seem the expression “objective” would rule out the idea that you are using therapy. So what is the need for “non-therapeutic” especially in a discussion where you are looking to differential yourselves from “TSC”?
You say that the differences between TSC and NTOC are subtle but significant. I fully agree Joe! But I fail to see how these subtle differences in TSC are “bad for the profession”. You did touch upon how these differences may be bad for some chiropractors in the sense that they may lead to “harder stuff”. But if the TSC truly is a TSC, then I personally cannot see how. So if a TSC is practicing as I describe above – how is that bad for the profession? I don’t see NTOC as being bad for the profession. What I do see as being bad is the any amount of divided effort and subsequent lost energy on the conservative side of the chiropractic.
Good summary of TSC Eric. To respond to your questions: therapy and therapeutic have more to do with your intention than what modality you use. Correcting VS to relieve pain, treat conditions is therapeutic, even osteopathic manipulations probably correct a few subluxations occasionally. As far as the name goes OSC came from my bookRefined by Fire. A number of chiropractors did not like that because the felt every chiropractor has an objective, even if it is to treat a condition or make money. They liked non-therapeutic chiropractic, so I combine the two. Interesting, some of them do not like TSC, they think that TSCors are not straight and would refer to your description of TSC as”conservative mixing”. I don’t use that phrase because I hate to offend people 🙂 and because I practiced that way for the first 8 years in practice and considered myself straight. So let me very briefly address your points as you presented them:
1. Medicine addresse the matter, religion addresses the intelligence, chiropractic addresses the force.
2. Identifying a “wide range of functional disorders” is called diagnosis. That was the major issue that began the NTOC movement.
3. Prognosis is a medical/therapeutic activity. In addition there are philosphical questions as to whether we can even do it
4. Educating about behaviors is addressing the matter, that’s a medical procedure. We adddress the force not the matter or its environment.
5. Same as above.
Chiropractic is seperate and distince. There are other professions that deal with the intelligence and the matter, none address the force. History has shown that those who do 4&5 usually end up treating people with those conditions. Telling someone to take xyz supplement because its good for you may be TSC but it invariably leads to telling them to take it for their ABC condition, which is the practice of therapeutics.
Joe,
You have packed enough into this reply to keep us arguing all the way up to 12/21/12 when the world comes to an end and mercifully snuffs out our discussion.
For now I would like to skip straight to item 4 in which you essentially state that educating about behaviors is not chiropractic, or at least not NTOC.
We both agree that VS exists and I believe we both appreciate the law of cause and effect. I think we would then both agree that VS has causes. We may both have some ideas about what these causes might be. And I would think that if we are moral men, and truly believe that VS is as bad for humanity as we say it is, shouldn’t we be heavily invested in studying and understanding what these causes are? And as we develop our understanding of these causes, would it not then be the moral thing to share this information with our patients and our communities? Yet you suggest that this is not our responsibly…but rather the responsibility of medicine? Is this really what you believe? In the opening of your last post you emphasize the importance of intent. What is the intent of NTOC in this dynamic?
This is good Eric. What are the “causes of vertebral subluxation” as you understand the philosophy? Having taught philosophy at ADIO/Penn Straight for 15 years, keep in mind that I am not adverse to asking trick questions:)
Hey Eric….don’t “cheat” and look over Claude’s shoulder for your answer. I did not see his post before I replied to you 🙂
Joe,
I love trick questions!
Perhaps this is a trick question because you might suggest that “”philosophically” subluxation does not have “causes”, but rather, one “cause”.
Was that the trick?
I can go with you on this.
The “cause” of subluxation is “a concussion of forces” in which the external force is greater than the force of internal resistance.
However this dynamic is not limited to the odd swift kick in the rump and the subsequent non-juxtaposed vertebrae. You may want to place some “thot” into the idea that external force and internal resistance are opposite ends of a continuum, and are never really apart from each other while we live. Living things are continually replying with internal resistance to external forces…not just the “concussion of forces” when you slip on Claude’s banana peel. When principle 11 talks about the nature of universal forces, part of what is identified here is very similar to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – one which states that energy in closed systems will naturally dissipate and erode the organization of matter en route to establishing energetic equilibrium. Living things are not at the mercy this law due to what we call ii, and the superseding laws of life . ii maintains living things “far from equilibrium” and must continuously exert “internal resistance” to keep the 2nd law of thermodynamics at bay. The body’s ongoing ability to accomplish this efficiently and effectively in space and time (which is another way of defining what health is) is PRIMARILY DEPENDENT on bringing, “from the outside in”, food, air and water. (we’ll get back to concussion of forces in subluxation shortly).
The nature of this food, air and water will in many ways determine the quality of internal resistance, given that ii can only fashion tissue and guide function with what it is given to work with. This in my opinion is a true and proper example of the limitations of matter. This very fact about food is illustrated by Stephenson in his Sophomore text (did you teach this part?).
There is an entire section in Stephenson’s devoted to food and how to look at it from a chiropractic prescriptive. And naturally, he is critical of “diets”…just as am I. If you look again at my post on the comparison of TSC with NTOC in item 4, I discuss “behaviors” that increase the likelihood of subluxation, Eating is a behavior, and an eating behavior that does not provide ii with the proper palate to select from will cause the building of tissue that is less resistant than ii would prefer.
When mankind lived in nature as a part of nature, he could only make the right choices when prompted to “obey
Innate’s desires and restraints. A century ago when Stephenson wrote that quote into his text, man’s ability to instinctual feed himself correctly was not as good as when we lived in nature, but it was orders of magnitude better than it is today. Our modern food supply is radically different than the one originally fashioned by ui/God (sorry). “Educated” has altered the matter that ii is often forced to process into our tissues. And so there is an epidemic of compromised tissue. And compromised tissue is less resistant. And so if a man whose tissues and physiological processes are compromised and built of matter from food ii could not derive what it needed from, when he slips on Claude’s banana peel, his internal resistance is less than what ii would have intended…and so he subluxates.
If a TSC tells this man to eat in a way that allows ii the opportunity to select matter that allows the building of optimal tissues and physiology, this is not dietary recommendations, nor is it “therapy”. There is not one rat’s knacker of outside-in therapy going on here at all. It is fully philosophically valid. This is directing the patient toward a new behavior that will allow ii a better shot at building a more adaptive organism. Knowing how to make such recommendations requires study and understanding, not of vitamins and calorie counts, but of the nature of how we came to be human (more on this at another time if you like). And while this does not have to be the job of the chiropractor, it is certainly not the job of medicine, nor the realm of medicine.
Similar to eating behaviors, exercise can also factor into the continuum of external force vs internal resistance for obvious reasons. Again quoting Stephenson in his Sophomore text: “Exercise is the natural and normal amount of movement of
the body and its parts to obtain the normal amount of adaptation that is due to every part of it. Natural demand in order to obtain the normal supply, of adaptation. (Prin. 33) If exercise conforms to the above definition, Chiropractic is “strong for it.”
And so if a sedentary underdeveloped man slips on Claude’s banana peel…well you get the idea.
Giving behavioral advice to patients like selecting foods that provide ii what it wants, or building adequate muscle mass and tone are philosophically, “chiropractically” correct ways of reducing the likelihood of subluxation. If NTOC-tors have no interested in these subjects, so be it. But there is no philosophical chiropractic reason why you should not, and a TSC is philosophically correct in choosing to do so.
I look forward to your reply…and incidentally, if and when we move on to items 2 and 3 of my comparison list (which you erroneously label as diagnosis and medical behavior), I will show you how Stephenson’s Sophomore text is pregnant with evidence to the contrary.
PS.
Just saw your last quote. I don’t need to cheat Joe. I’ve been a student of this stuff myself for 25 years. And I’m willing to take the Pespi challenge with any of you NTOC cats over chiropractic philosophy any day of week
(as I have obviously already demonstrated!).
Hey Eric, the ball may have gone over my head but it also went foul.
The end tissue admittedly is in the medical realm. As I said you answered the medical side of the question very well. My question however is this,when you say the body adapts[“a purposeful compromise solution the body produces”], where do you think the ability to adapt comes from? Is that genetic as well? Or is it Innate’s job to adapt the tissue to all abnormal as well as normal stimuli / context? What in your opinion would be the result of a loss of innate control? Where does your line fall between adaptive disease and limits of matter? DD said the difference between sickness and being well was in the individual not the environment. Yes context is important, but not the determining factor.
OK your turn at bat.
By the way Joe is not the coach but he is a seasoned player that I can learn from.
Steve, Thanks for the compliment…I think. Most “seasoned players” belong on the bench….or in a spot playing capacity. Overall, your comment is right on the money. If I might add something, you write “Yes context is important, but not the determining factor.” The environment/context is the medical area of expertise. I sometimes think traditional chiropractic’s hatred for medicine has convinced many that anything medicine (outside-in) is bad and they want to assume chiropractic control over the good outside- in procedures, like the environment and lifestyle choices and make them chiropractic. Perhaps chiropractors can do a better job than the medics in many of these areas but it is still mixing chiropractic with outside-in and dilutes what we do.
Steve,
Of course I agree that the ability to adapt comes from ii. I also believe that chronic disease is an adaptation that ii creates “intentionally”…and I believe that I state this openly in my post (read again?) . A loss of innate control, as I also stated is, what dis-ease is and where LCVS comes in. Where genes come into the matter is a rather long dissertation, and I would love to do it when appropriate.
Limitations of matter become an issue in what are called “crisis conditions” – something I may have a chance to elaborate on later. I do have a rather serious problem with the way “limitations of matter” is often applied in this arena, and this is something that may also become a topic of highly spirited debate down the line. Meanwhile I await a reply from your fearless leader.
Paulo,
Let’s see if I understand what you are saying. –
– The innate intelligence of the body adapts universal forces into innate forces. In doing so, it CREATES a mental impulse (if) and is transmitted from the brain cell via the spinal cord exiting at the specific vertebral level on its way to the tissue cell. –
– The function of matter is to EXPRESS force (pri.13). Therefore, the interference with the FLOW of mental impulse with intelligent direction between brain cell and tissue cell is caused by the vertebral subluxation (pri.31). This interference is WITHIN force, the second component of the triune. This means, that the function of FORCE which is to unite intelligence and matter within the triune is compromised. Within the living human body this translates into a furthering of limitations of the TRANSMITTING matter of the body causing the FLOW of mental impulse to be interfered with between brain cell and tissue cell and vice versa. Since innate intelligence is limited by limitations of matter and universal law (pri.24), the mental impulse with intelligent direction (if) is now a nerve impulse without intelligent direction (uf) which will alter the EXPRESSION of force within the tissue cell. –
– The full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body is now less due to the further limitations of the transmitting matter of the living body CAUSED by the vertebral subluxation. –
Does that make sense to you Paulo?
All that makes perfect sense to me except the part where “This interference is WITHIN force”…. There is an interference with the transmission on the innate force (mental impulse) indeed, causing an altered expression of the innate intelligence of the body indeed, but the break in the triune is WITHIN matter (hard bone on soft nerve).
great discussion!
I tend to agree with you Paulo. The interference is WITHforce but withinthe matter.
The interference is WITH force WITHIN the matter. You are both correct.
🙂
Paulo,
As you stated principle #13: The function of matter is to express FORCE.
Therefore, the objective of chiropractic is to: –
LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. Period. –
It is the innate FORCES that are expressed in LIVING MATTER!
In other words, as principle 13 states, we can logically deduce that the LIVING matter of the LIVING body expresses INNATE FORCES which is the mental impulse with intelligent direction (appropriate message in right quantity and right quality at the proper time). All the while, we understand that the function of matter of the LIVING body is to express INNATE FORCES without breaking a universal law (pri.24).
I hope this clarifies further the objective of chiropractic which is:
THE LOCATION, ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION OF THE INNATE FORCES OF THE INNATE INTELLIGENCE OF THE BODY. PERIOD.
Force moves or carries the Mental Impulse, the terms are not interchangeable. I made this mistake as well. Mental impulse is the expression of innate intelligence ( therefore always perfect), force propels or transmits MI over the nerve system. Nerves are matter(subject to LOM) whose efficiency is reduced by subluxation. If the force is altered by subluxation MI no longer arrives at exactly the right time, in correct quantity or quality. Dis-ease is within the matter of the nerve, eventually manifested in the body as loss of guidance, what BJ used to call tissue insanity.
I hope this helps.
Steve,
When innate intelligence adapts universal forces WHAT happens within the living body? How is it translated in living human matter within the innate brain? What is an innate force which is always normal (pri.27) within the living human body which can be interfered with (pri.29)?
You might find your answer surprising!!!! 😉
Hey Claude,
I must admit, you got me there. How does innate brain translate to living tissue.
Let’s see if I have this right?
Innate brain creates mental impulse. Mental impulse converts UF to IF, IF carries MI into the body. Under the guidance of mental impulse, IF coordinates all activity for positive survival value? But where and how does this UF / IF conversion take place???? Where / how does metaphysical become physical????
again… is the mental impulse (innate force) an expression of intelligence or a creation of intelligence… believe me, that makes a HUGE difference.
Paulo, can it be both in a sense? A work of art is an expression of the artist and also his creation. But is seems to me that the “intention” of the ii of the body is to express life, active organization, in the matter and the mental impulse is the means by which that is done. With the piece or art, the expression may be important to the artist but the creation is important to the observer. I frankly don’t care if the artist has expressed himself well, I only care whether he has created something good or bad. But maybe that’s why I am not an art critic.
Well… if we are to accept that the mental impulse is indeed an expression of the innate intelligence of the body (versus a creation, as stated in the normal complete cycle) then we have to accept that saying “chiropractic allows the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed” is wrong. Which I disagree.
on that same note, wouldn’t it be even more correct saying that the objective of chiropractic is “to adjust vertebral subluxation so the innate intelligence of the body can express itself without interference” ?
Paulo,
I feel your struggle and I disagree with your disagreement. Earlier in the thread I mentioned WHY. I will clarify further.
– The mental impulse is intent of the innate intelligence of the body (read innate thought-message) and is CREATED by innate intelligence as well as being EXPRESSED by matter. That’s WHY principle #13 exist. –
– If we continue to use the example of an artist, –
Michelangelo CREATED the THOUGHT of “Michelangelo’s David” and expressed his THOUGHT in CREATING through a medium made of pure italian marble of a very rare consistency and quality. Michelangelo sculpted “The David” since the function of intelligence is to create FORCE (intent, thought) (pri.8) and the function of FORCE is to unite intelligence and matter (pri.10) and also since matter has no motion (form of a thought) without the application of FORCE by intelligence (pri.15). We conclude that “Michelangelo’s David is the expression of the CREATED THOUGHT (force) of Michelangelo since the function of matter (of the marble) is to express FORCE (thought of Michelangelo) (pri.13). –
In this example, intelligence created force which united intelligence and matter, giving matter to express force which in turn in gave rise to motion in matter, “The David”.
I agree with principle #13 and I see no flaw in my reasoning WHEN it is I, WHO, chooses to state that the objective of chiropractic is to: LACVS for a full EXPRESSION of the innate FORCES (thoughts) of the innate intelligence of the body. NOT a full expression of the innate intelligence of the body, a full expression its FORCES (pri.13). It’s the FORCES that are interfered with (pri.12 and pri.29). –
– There is no principle stating that there can be interference with innate intelligence. It is an impossibility. Principle #7 states that: The amount of intelligence for ANY given amount of matter is 100%, and is ALWAYS PROPORTIONAL to its REQUIREMENTS. This means that innate intelligence is ALWAYS PRESENT 100% and will work within the limitations of matter and time without breaking a universal law (pri.24). Also, principle #27 states: Innate intelligence is ALWAYS normal and its function is ALWAYS normal. –
– WHAT is the function of innate intelligence? It is to adapt universal forces and matter for use in the body, so that all parts of the body will have co-ordinated action for mutual benefit. –
– AND FURTHER MORE, –
– It’s principle #12 that states: There can be interference with transmission of universal FORCES. It’s principle #29 that states: There can be interference with the transmission of innate FORCES. –
– Do you, Paulo, “see” principle #13 in action within the objective of chiropractic? If YOU do, –
– From the above mentioned deductive reasoning, it is you Paulo, WHO has the freedom to choose to conclude in truth that the OBJECTIVE of chiropractic is to: LACVS for a full EXPRESSION of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body.
This is a very good discussion Paulo and clarifies a whole lot. I hope it helps you. We need young “thinkers” like yourself to lead tomorrow.
🙂
Steve,
Read my last post to Paulo 4/25/12 12:45 pm. It may clarify further WHAT you are grappling with regarding principles #8, #9, #10, #11, #12 and #13. 😉
Hey Claude,
I have a grasp on 8 thru 13, I guess my question is Principle 23. HOW does Innate Intelligence “adapt” universal forces? A nerve impulse is a UF until it …contains(?) a mental Impulse….is governed by (?) a mental impulse…is converted(?) to an innate force by the mental impulse???
The conversation is great, but it seems that you are running in circles.
Expression of II cannot be two different things. Or it is the creation of MI or it is the result in mater. Am I wrong?
Rafael,
Thank you for joining us. –
– The ONLY principle addressing the EXPRESSION of intelligence is principle #2 : “The expression of this intelligence through matter is the chiropractic meaning of life.”
– Intelligence CREATES force (pri.8). –
– Force CREATED by intelligence unites intelligence and matter (pri.10). –
– Matter EXPRESS force CREATED by intelligence (pri.13). –
– Since there can be interference with the transmission of forces, we can logically and reasonably deduce that the objective of chiropractic is to : LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. Period. –
– 1- Intelligence CREATES force. –
– 2- Matter EXPRESSES force created by intelligence. –
– 3- The EXPRESSION intelligence THROUGH matter is the chiropractic meaning of life (universal life and innate life). –
– Where is the circle? 😉
The NTOSC understands that there is ONLY one CAUSE of vertebral subluxation: –
THE CAUSE OF VERTEBRAL SUBLUXATION IS AN EXTERNAL INVASIVE FORCE OVERCOMING AN INTERNAL RESISTIVE FORCE.
– Chiropractic is the only “system and method” dealing with the second component of the triune, namely: FORCE. –
– Should chiropractors decrease external invasive forces or increase internal resistive forces? The answer is obvious is it not? –
– The NTOSC is a chiropractor WHO chooses to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. Period. –
– The NTOSC understands that ONLY the innate intelligence of the body is aware of its innate needs not educated intelligence. –
– LACVS is the solution to restore EASE to the FLOW of mental impulse (if) between brain cell and tissue cell and vice versa. –
– LACVS increases the internal resistive FORCE of the body which in turn decreases the further limitation of the TRANSMITTING matter of the body caused by the vertebral subluxation. –
– Dis-ease is eliminated and ease is restored which increase the limits of adaptation of matter of the LIVING body. (pri.24). –
– The NTOSC is not concerned with picking up banana peels so people don’t slip and fall, telling people not to smoke, wear lose underwear as opposed to tight ones, what to eat, what not to eat, how to make love, how to sleep, which pillow to have, have lumbar
supports for their car seats, which supplements to take, what they should do for a living, which exercise is best for them or which jail to go to have MAXIMUM SECURITY or do nothing for the rest of their lives. That’s the job of ALL the other professions of the world. –
– Chiropractic is separate and distinct as it addresses FORCE. –
– Vertebral subluxation has ONLY ONE CAUSE –
– Vertebral subluxation is the ONE CAUSE of THE ONLY ONE DIS-EASE. –
– There is ONLY ONE SOLUTION to DIS-EASE and it is to LACVS to restore the FLOW of mental impulse between brain cell and tissue cell –
– ONE CAUSE — ONE DIS-EASE — ONE SOLUTION —
– AMAZING ISN’T IT? 😉
“It is as simple as that!”. BJ
“let us carry on the work! ADIO” Reggie
Steve,
I did NOT forget you. I understand your struggle. –
– The innate brain is a non-localized part of the human brain and is matter. Matter expresses force and does not create it. It is used by the innate intelligence of the body as an organ in which to assemble mental impulses. –
– So, here we go: –
– The function of intelligence is to create force (pri.8). Universal intelligence CREATES universal forces that travels in the universe as they radiate faster than the speed of light and are everywhere and nowhere at the same time. This is REALLY fast. –
– Universal forces penetrate the LIVING body. Simultaneously (that’s REALLY fast) these universal forces are converted into nerve impulses without direction in the human brain and are adapted by the innate intelligence of the body into innate forces SIMULTANEOUSLY (that’s REALLY fast) which are now mental impulses with intelligent direction (pri.23). –
– The mental impulse (if) is then propelled through and over the nervous system in animal bodies (efferent nerves) and transmitted to the tissue cell. (pri.28). –
– Innate intelligence being always normal and having a function that is always normal (pri.27), adapts universal forces (pri.23) and invest the nerve impulse (uf) with intelligent direction TRANSFORMING it into a mental impulse that has intelligent direction. The mental impulse (if) reaches the tissue cell with EASE which is normal in quantity and in quality of information at the right time. –
– Tissue cell expresses the innate forces normally and harmonious action of all the parts of the organism is coordinated and fulfills its office and purpose functioning in a coordinated manner. (pri.32). –
– The cycle reverts itself back in a similar way on the afferent side making up 31 steps all together (16 in the efferent half and 15 in the afferent half). –
– The mission of innate intelligence is fulfilled as it maintains the material of the body of a “living thing” in active organization (pri.21). –
– There can be interference with TRANSMISSION of universal forces (pri.12) and with the TRANSMISSION of innate forces (pri.29). –
– The interference with TRANSMISSION with innate forces causes DIS-EASE. –
– DIS-EASE is an interference with the FLOW of mental impulse (if) with intelligent direction reverting back to a nerve impulse (uf) without intelligent direction which is destructive toward structural matter (pri.26). –
– Interference with TRANSMISSION in the (living) body is always directly or indirectly due subluxation in the spinal column (pri.31). –
– The CAUSE of DIS-EASE is the vertebral subluxation which is an interference with the TRAMISSION of innate forces (pri.30). –
– The consequence of DIS-EASE is a lack of harmonious action of all the parts of an organism, in fulfulling their offices and purpose and is called in-coordination of the LIVING human body (pri.32). –
– To LACVS which is the CAUSE of DIS-EASE is to correct the interference with innate forces which decrease the further limitation of the transmitting matter (nerve), thereby restoring the FLOW of mental impulse. –
– The restoration of the FLOW of mental impulse is the reverting back of the nerve impulse without intelligent direction into a mental impulse with intelligent direction, thereby increasing the adaptation of the matter of the body so it can adapt as it should (pri.24) as the matter of the body EXPRESSES fully, without interference, the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body.-
– This is another way to explain the objective of chiropractic!
– That’s WHO we choose to BE as an OSC. –
– Aren’t you glad YOU choose to BE an OSC Steve? –
– I AM !!! :)d
–
Eric,
Thank you again for posting on this blog. –
– Thank you also for pointing out that “while this does not have to be the job of the chiropractor, it is certainly not the job of medicine, nor the realm of medicine”. –
– We’re on the same page with that statement of yours. –
– It is I WHO choose to abide by your statement and it is I WHO choose to ONLY: LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body…. regardless of WHAT “the job of medicine and its realm is or is not. There are ONLY 60,000 chiropractors in the whole world. That leaves a little less that 7,000,000,000 people in the world WHO can choose as a job “to make recommendations and to study and understand the nature of how we came to be human”. I do not worry about it a bit. I have more important work to do than that. I AM A CHIROPRACTOR!!!!
– It is I WHO choose to SERVE humanity from ABOVE-DOWN-INSIDE-OUT with 33 sound principles to TEACH people so they can make ELEGANT choices for themselves without subluxations. That’s a tough job and its filled with many road blocks from the BELOW-UP-OUSIDE-IN majority. Yet, humanity is suffering from serious DIS-EASE. Interference with the FLOW of mental impulses is the CAUSE of DIS-EASE (pri.30). It can only be restored to EASE by LACVS (pri.31). –
– To prevent subluxations of the future, we must correct the subluxations of the present RIGHT NOW! This will increase the internal resistive force of the body to further increase the ADAPTATION of the matter of the body so it can ADAPT as it should (pri.24) and increase the body’s resistance to the external invasive forces. –
– There’s a whole lot of subluxations to correct out there. ONLY chiropractors can do that JOB. We, all together, are not very many chiropractors within this profession of ours to SERVE this big world. CHIROPRACTIC is a noble and needed profession and we have a BIG job to do. For the sake of humanity there is no time to waste on “giving behavioral advice to patients”. If all 60,000 chiropractors were to check people’s spine at the rate of 2000 people/week , every week, for the rest of their life, because people are better off without subluxations, that would amount to ONLY 120 million people under care. That’s less than half of the popu;ation of the United States. What about the world? We need over 3,000,000 TODAY chiropractors to serve the world TOMORROW! –
– In my humble opinion, THERE IS JUST NO TIME TO WASTE ! –
– “If you’re not out to change the world, everything else is just Mickey Mouse”. –
– I AM CARRYING ON THE WORK! ADIO.
Claude,
Do you realize that the clay ii fashions into human bodies today is distinctly different clay than our founders worked with at the time our ADIO philosophy first was created?
At the time of chiropractic’s discovery chronic disease was rare in the American population. Cancer and heat disease caused about 11% of premature deaths and diabetes was barely on anyone’s radar. Today cancer and heart disease cause 60% of premature deaths and type 2 diabetes is so common it is now even seen in children. According to the CDC 50% of adults in the U.S. have AT LEAST one chronic disease. And these numbers are on the rise and expected to continue as such.
As Joe said, these chronic diseases can occur independent of subluxation…and this is in fact true. ii manufactures these diseases intentionally as a response to the radical and ever widening gap between how we behave and how we were meant by ui/God to behave. The old idea that a subluxation free man will make the right choices in behavior made a degree of good sense a century ago. That’s not the case today. Not even close. Look at all the alleged straight chiros/NTOC chiros who don’t even make good health choices themselves – who are overweight, out of shape and are likely harboring chronic disease themselves.
The practice members you see today have distinctly different tissue and subsequently lower internal resistance than the ones DD and BJ saw. They are more prone to subluxation and less likely to “hold” an adjustment. Increased incidence of subluxation due to a weakened population is a real concern. One that will not go away by burying your head in the sand a repeating NTOC mantras. Giving useful, non-therapeutic lifestyle suggestions to your practice members (and doing the same yourself to act as an example) takes negligible time in comparison with the time you will spend with them as lifetime patients. And I believe it is our moral obligation to learn how to give it to them. Their medical doctors don’t and won’t and don’t know how to and could care less anyway Whether your patients follow though or not with such advice is not up to you. But at least, as my pastor says… you will have their blood on your shoulders.
Sorry Claude…the last line should read…you will NOT have their blood on your shoulders. : )
Eric,
Thank you. It is I WHO choose to “carry on the work! ADIO.
Claude
Hey Eric,
Let me ask you about “the clay”. Is this the old soil depletion story that sold elixirs in the past and vitamins now? Or are you saying the earth has evolved into a less hospitable host? Could it be the modern refinement our food supply goes through? Have you ever considered it may possibly be genetic entropy (you should like that one)?
One thing that has not changed however, is the mission of chiropractic. It is still our job to locate and correct subluxations, no matter where, why, when or how often we find them. Our principles have not changed. The more we focus on the outside, the less we pay attention to the inside. A slave cannot serve two masters comes to mind.