While it is not always easy to identify an ADIO viewpoint and to differentiate it from an outside-in one, there are certain characteristics of that viewpoint and character qualities of its adherants that can be identified with world views. When someone is described by certain terms, it gives us a good indication as to what world and life viewpoint that person embraces. Those people who have an ADIO world and life viewpoint are more often described as having character, ethics, virtue, principles, values, standards, morality, merit and worth. The emphasis is upon something greater than themselves. On the other hand, a person who embraces an outside-in viewpoint is more often described as charismatic, personable, charming, appealing, fascinating, glamourous, magnetic, and attractive. That is not to suggest that people with charisma or charm are never above-down thinkers or that outside-in thinkers have no standards or morality. But there is a difference. Ronald Reagan was an above-down thinker but he also had charisma and a great personality. They were not, however, his identifying traits; not what we would associate with President Reagan. We associated him with high standards and principles. We are able to know which way a society is headed when we observe which people are admired and have reached positions of respect and stature. For the past 50 years we have placed many people with outside-in qualities in positions of authority. We admire entertainers and athletes because of skill and talent, not necessarily because of their exemplary character qualities. Again, there are exceptions to the rule. This situation does not bode well for a society. We have addressed this issue before. Those who adhere to an ADIO viewpoint think and act based upon standards that are above them; ones that transcend their own personal ideas and whims. These standards promote humility. The ADIO health care provider recognizes a principle, the Law of Life, the innate intelligence of the body which is rightfully the authority of the body. The outside-in thinker makes his own educated brain the authority. That which should be a tool or servant becomes the master, relegating the role of the innate intelligence to a subservient role. The ADIO viewpoint promotes objectivity; the outside-in viewpoint promotes subjectivity. We must be careful to distinguish between the arrogance of an outside-in viewpoint and the self confidence of an ADIO viewpoint. Clint Eastwood’s character in Magnum Force put it clearly, “A man’s gotta know his limitations.” The chiropractor who knows his limitations, who knows he is not doing the healing and in truth, not even making the adjustment, but rather introducing a trust and allowing the innate intelligence of the body to make the adjustment, may seem arrogant but it is confidence… confidence in something greater than himself.
Hey Joe, it’s as Claude says, “it the who you choose to be”. That said I wonder sometimes if the person picks the philosophy or the philosophy makes the person. We all went to school with people that just did not get the big idea, when others in the same room picked it up quite easily. It seems the default W/L view is OIBU, and ADIO must be learned. I guess the question becomes can a philosophy be innately imbedded or is it purely a learned behavior?
Great question Steve! I have some thoughts and an opinion but I would like to hear other views first….anybody?
Quick draw’s holding back!
OK Joe, nobody seems to be weighing in, lets hear it
BOTH
OK said the thread to the needle, how sew?
First, thank you for taking a shot at it. If you don’t mind, I am going to go slow, one step at a time as if I am stumbling around in the dark (which we probably are). Let’s start with the cellular intelligence point. As I understand cellular intelligence (and since BJ never addresses it that’s all we have), it only is being expressed when the cell is outside the body or the ii of the body is not in control, eg. vertebral subluxation. So, this being a normal state and the fact that other cells are involved in a coordinated manner, the reflex function, we must conclude that this is an innate intelligence of the body activity. Any uf that is converted to an if at the cellular level would only be used by the cell for its own purpose, not for coordinated activity. That would necessitate more that the level of cellular intelligence. Let’s stop there to make sure we are all on the same page (“all” may be just you and I Steve), so feel free to comment and then we can continue.
Hey Joe, Two things you said stuck me. First that cellular intelligence would not go beyond the cell. Second, if it was a coordinated activity ii must be involved. Both seem perfectly logical given my understanding. Thank you for the correction. I was trying to work in Claude’s statement concerning afferent mental impulse. (Still processing that one) However telling us what it is not is not the same as telling us what it is. Please go on.
stRuck me
Joseph,
I agree with cellular intelligence being ONLY for the cell’s function and its own purpose…. unless there is grey matter within that cell, which would be the innate brain and coordination could occur within the LIVING human body.
Claude,
Why does the innate brain onlly have to be located in the gray matter? Doesn’t a tree have an innate brain and no gray matter?
Hey Joe,
Looks like we crossed threads. Still curious about philosophy being learned or imbedded?
Joseph,
We are talking about brain matter in human beings not vegetable life. It seems that’s HOW the hierarchy has evolved from lower (grain, seed) manifestations of life to higher (humans). Innate intelligence uses the innate brain to assemble mental impulses. Is there a brain in a blade of grass? Or is the word brain means something else? Are there mental impulses in a blade of grass? Or are innate forces something else in a blade of grass? I’m open to suggestions from anyone. 😉
Good discussion Claude. IMO, there is no difference between animal and vegetable from a chiropractic philosophical standpoint. Both have intelligence, force and matter. The intelligence for all living organisms is exactly the same. The force is exactly the same (metaphysical). The only thing different is the matter, which is different for every organism. “Animal” and “vegetable” are manmade, arbitrary designations apart from our philosophy. The transmitting matter of the mental impulse/innate force then is different. I’m comfortable with saying all living organisms have the same Law of Life, innate intelligence. All have the same innate forces/mental impulse (a uf invested with new character) and are carried over whatever medium (different type of matter), the C/creator(Whoever or whatever you choose to use as a creator) knew was most efficient. These innate forces are created in the innate brain wherever it is in each living organism and travel over that organism’s specialized matter for the purpose of transmitting innate forces. In human beings that matter seems to be primarily gray matter and nerve tissue, but it may also be other forms of tissue. Have no idea what it is in plants and since I do not adjust them, I don’t need to know.:) To answer your question, I believe there is an innate brain in a blade of grass, as well as an innate brain in a single cell…but that’s a discussion for another time. I have to get back to checking spines (of the people in the waiting room, not the plants)
Hey Claude, you said anyone
Principle #7 states…………always proportional to it’s needs. If cellular level innate intelligence is qualified to run the cell and the cell only, and organ level innate intelligence can organize the cells within the organ to work as a unit, but can only control the organ, and it takes body level innate intelligence to coordinate all activity of the cells and organs, why can’t a plant be run by organ level innate intelligence? If that’s all it needs. No gray matter required.
Sorry this does not address the mental impulse aspect, or does it?(no GM = no MI)