Chiropractic philosophy is based upon the deduction that the body is perfectly designed and there is a perfect principle, the law of life, that runs it. Evolution is based upon the idea that nothing is perfect therefore everything is continually evolving, becoming better and better. If that is true, how can we conclude that a subluxation is bad?
Qualifying that a subluxation is bad is subjective, isn’t it? Some say that a subluxation is the result the bodies adaptation or lack there of. So subluxation, if it is a result of adaptation to the environment is “good”. Or is that “bad”? The debate could rage on!
If we cant agree, objectively , that a subluxation is detrimental then we really lose our basis to practice, don’t we?
Yes, I agree. We need to remove subluxation which causes a lack of coordination to the nervous system. I agree with Steve as well. Honestly, I was stirring the pot to get things going on Dr. Strauss’ interesting comment/ question!
Bob, that sure seems logical to me….apparently some in our profession forget that our profession is based upon logic. Of all the people who have proposed this idea, and there are many, I have yet to hear one present an example or even a theory as to how or why it could happen.
Hey Scott,
You must have a different definition of subluxation than I have.
Princ.#31. Interference with transmission in the body is always directly or indirectly due to subluxations of the spinal column.
Princ. # 30. Interference with the transmission of innate forces causes incoordination or dis-ease.
Princ.#32. Coordination is the principle of harmonious action of all parts of an organism, in fulfilling their offices and purposes.
I too have heard that subluxations are an adaptive mechanism, but the more I read and study the more I disagree. Subluxations are always caused by a LACK of adaption. Either exceeding the limits of matter or being unable to respond (equally) to incoming forces creates subluxations. How can that ever be good?
Scott, if a vs interferes with the ii of the body’s ability to adapt why would it create a vs to “adapt(ion) to the environment”. That doesn’t seem intelligent to even me and I am not as smart as the ii of the body.
Logic is right! We need to see that vs is interference to ii and come to the conclusion that it is not good, and therefore needs to be removed for the body to express it’s ii more clearly. Let’s help people live to their God-given potential. I didn’t want to misspeak on my first post but just state that I have heard it said both ways in discussions, but without logical backing, like you stated!
Thanks Scott, and don’t worry about misspeaking…we all do it…and there will be plenty of people on here to correct you:)
Hey Scott,
It’s ok man, stirring the pot brings the good stuff to the top. I too like to poke the bear, occasionally. No matter what people say about him, Joe is a good fella and understands this process. In fact I think he participates in a similar activity once and a while.
Hey Joe,
It seems you are comparing apples and bowling balls, nonphysical and physical, as if they are mutually exclusive. By all appearances it seems the human body is both adapting and evolving. Adapting second by second and evolving generation by generation. I am not the same man I was in my 20’s, nor am I a Neanderthal. Bruce Lipton’s work on environment and genetics describes a constant change in our structure in response to a constantly changing situation (or our interpretation thereof).
As for the subluxation, well I have heard it described as a popped circuit breaker to protect the system but that would go against Princ.# 25. It seems the subluxation is merely the result of going beyond the design. In that subluxations decrease efficiency, one might suggest they affect both adaptability and evolution.
Steve, you are not even the same man you were 5 minutes ago. That demonstrates adaptation. Adaptation and evolution are mutually exclusive. One necessitates intelligence, the other rejects intelligence. Could you tell me how you are different from every or even any Neanderthal that you have met and how that demonstrates evolution. By the way how many Neanderthals do you (personally) know?
I am not too familiar with Lipton’s work. I have been on the same program with him a few times and find his material to be very interesting…but he could use a course in Chiropractic Philososphy 101. I have found that our profession tends to embrace the ideas of anyone who rejects the medical/mechanistic philosophy. The “enemy” of my “enemy” is not necessarily my friend. WWII proved that.
Much of the information of the new science is information that describes, how AMAZING, is the innate intelligence of the body. The new science has NO way to integrate it’s information to benefit the public in a concrete way. If chiropractic philosophy 101 would be mastered by the new scientists, they would all become NTOSChiropractors! 😉
Claude 11/20/2012, 5:55 pm: If chiropractic philosophy 101 would be mastered by the new scientists, they would all become NTOSChiropractors!
How about if chiropractic philosophy 101 would be mastered by the CHIROPRACTORS, they would all become NTOSChiropractors! 🙂
HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO EVERYONE!
It a privilege for me WHO chooses to appreciate ALL of you on this blog (known and unknown). It is, after all, you WHO choose to love chiropractic philosophy, science and art and for that I am grateful. The torch is burning with an inextinguishable fire and being passed along to future generations. Stay tuned, the best is yet to come. Claude. 😉
Hey Joe,
You’re right, besides my brother in law, I have not met many Neanderthals. This in fact illustrates my point, they were then, we are now. Where do you draw the line between adaptation and evolution. Only living things evolve, right? Isn’t one just small scale and the other large scale adaptation? I would think it takes intelligence to evolve, though possibly not the innate intelligence of the body. Maybe this is Species Innate Intelligence. making a species adaptation?
In chiropractic we consider two forms of intelligence, universal and innate, that does not mean there are not others perhaps outside our field.
Steve, you missed my point. No one has proved that we are an evolution of Neanderthals, yet we assume they were not as smart as we are…what arrogance! In fact no one has ever demonstrated an improvement of any species that could be evolutionary. The line “you draw between adaptation and evolution” is simple, adaptation we see every day, evolution no one has ever seen. The whole basis of evolution is that there is no intelligence involved, that it is all chance plus time…that’s science?
Hey Joe,
You may be right but that same “science” says there is no such thing as innate intelligence, so what do they know? Man has only occupied this planet for a short while and obviously has a limited understanding of eons past. All that is known is not true and all that is true is not yet known.