Dieting is an outside-in approach. Body building is an outside-in approach. Outside-in approaches are never meant to be health measures. That is why, at best, they only treat symptoms and are usually temporary. If an approach is not something that you do for life, then it is a quick fix. It is therapeutic – a treatment. Health measures are lifetime endeavors.
everything you ingest is either food or poison. if your body has to expel it, then it’s poison (even if it is vitamin A or something). diet doesn’t prevent subluxation tho by eating food with less chemicals it taxes the nervous system less. then again, if your body has a high tolerance and is functioning properly, that may not matter. tho it’s good to be sensible in diet, but it’s definitely not chiropractic. that really is just a comment not based on joe’s thot but just based on me seeing the word diet!
It has been said that we don’t eat innately any more. What about PICA? If a pregnant woman wants to eat dirt or chalk only during her pregnancy, would that be considered an innate desire?
My educated is NOT qualified to answer that question and I’m fine with that. How about you Steve?
Hey Claude, I guess you’re right ol’ boy. Traditional philosophy would have indicated yes it was, but the OSC interpretation is probably the most correct and honest. We just don’t know.
Nothing like a little slipping and checking to start off the week with.
Steve,
Can you please define what you mean by “interpretation” (particularly in this context)? I understand it to mean an impression one might derive when the stated language or meaning in a concept is obscure or ill-defined. Yet what I have found more often than not, is that you OSC cats do not always interpret traditional chiropractic philosophy…but rather re-write bits of it that are, in fact, quite clear and not in need of interpretation at all!
Hey Eric,
Growing up I was exposed to BJ ‘s philosophy, which portrayed Innate as the great caretaker of the body as well as the guide to life. “Thot flashes” could tell you what decisions to make about which car to buy, what to eat, where to practice, ect. As I understand it now, innate is only concerned with body survival and adaptation The more refined understanding helps to clarify Innate’s job, and mine.
Hey, BJ interpreted the philosophy his way. I now have a choice, to follow blindly and continue to use chiropractic therapeutically or to question the philosophy and refine “my interpretation”. I choose to help move the profession forward as I think DD and BJ would have done. OSC makes more sense to me. Remember “conflicts clarify”, and time refines, unless WE refuse to move.
Steve,
You are certainly entitled to your own spin here, but I still think you use the word “interpret” incorrectly. Chiropractic philosophy was not something DD and BJ were given to interpret. They don’t have “interpretations” of chiropractic philosophy because they are the drafters of it. If someone is the author of an idea, you don”t ask him what his interpretation of his idea is. It is the idea itself. And when you have a difference of opinion with the original chiropractic philosophy, you are not re-interpreting it. You are changing it. The change you seek may be better or worse than the original idea. But either way it is not interpretive.
Hey Eric, I have no problems with the 33 principles as they contain some of the best logic I have ever been exposed to. I do however have a problem with narrowmindedness.
Please explain your version of how DD and BJ were “given” the philosophy. It is my understanding BJ (and his contemporaries) developed his father’s ideas into a philosophy. “Interpreting”, if you will, the major premise and filling in the details.
If you want to argue semantics, which is what people do when they can’t refute a logical statement, I’m not interested? If your goal is to belittle me because you think I’m some authority on OSC, you’re misguided? I am just a neophyte. You probably have not noticed but I ask more questions than give answers. If you seek to denigrate or “disprove” OSC, then you’re wasting your time and mine?If you would like to discuss the growth/maturity of chiropractic and it’s present time developers, or one man’s humble opinion, I’ll be here?
One more question Eric, does Innate speak to you?
Steve,
No desire to belittle here…only to test the voracity of ideas and statements. It would appear that this is the purpose of this blog. I’m happy to have my ideas and beliefs tested. Are you?
Semitics are very important. It is only though our words that we are understood, and so we must have a common understanding of the meaning of words we use.
I stand behind my prior statements about the use of the word “interpretation” when it comes to TSC and OSC. Perhaps you might read both posts again.
As far as Innate speaking to me…well – if i could only be so lucky!!! Though you may still be unwilling to confront this, innate meant “God in man” to our founders. If you have a look at page 10 of Stephenson’s, you will see a diagram that shows how innate intelligence (God in Man) is confluent with both innate brain and educated brain. “Thot flashes”, as BJ may have referred to this phenomenon, were based on this mechanism. In Judeo-Christian doctrine this might be called “receiving a word from God”. In psychology in may be relegated to “intuition”.
You may want to read a book called “Blink”. This book looks at this phenomenon from the perspective of western science and the conclusions are quite stunning. There is a source of information apart from the “educated process” that we can tap. This is what I believe BJ was on about, and another reason why I still find him far ahead of his time – and why anyone who suggests that they have “interpreted” better meaning into traditional chiropractic thinking must prove to me exactly why.
Eric, in your first two paragraphs you prove the importance of words. You wrote “voracity” but I think you meant veracity…two very different words. (But I do believe you have a voracious appetite for truth 🙂 )In the second you wrote “Semitics are important”. I am confused. Were you referring to the descendants of Noah’s son Shem or to “the meaning of language”. Hermaneutics is the study of intrepretation and it is important, especially to chiropractic. The meaning of words change and we in chiropractic must be willing to change in order to make our message clear, not confusing. We get this idea from the Palmers who were willing to continually use new terminology to refine their philosophy. I’ve seen the word “treatment” in some of DD’s old ads. They coined the word “straight” as a descriptive of their approach to chiropractic. Over the last 115 years the english language has changed considerably and we must be willing to change our terminology to keep our philosophy clear. Hence the addition by some of the term “objective straight” to clarify the difference between what traditional chiropractors are doing (most of which would be abhorrent to BJ) and what we are doing. I believe we really should get rid of the term DIS-EASE (too confusing!) If ii meant “God in man” in mid-west America in1895 as you seem to suggest, it means something far different today. To the Hindu and the New Ager it means evolving into a state of being God, the former by reincarnation, the latter by development of the educated brain. I find neither of these in the writings of BJ. In fact I believe he rejected both of hese ideas. To most Christians, no one has received “a word from God” since 96 AD. I may be wrong and if I am, I’m sure you can prove it to me by the Green Books but even BJ did not consider “thot flashes” to be God speaking to, or thru him. The wit and humor of BJ tells me he was a very “gay fellow”. which would have meant something far different in the gay 1890’s than it does today. The meaning of words change.
Joe,
I believe “Hermaneutics” is the study of Herman Munster. I believe you meant “hermeneutics”. See how quickly one can get even playing this kind of “tongue in cheek” game? Usually when I see a writer make a spelling error or cause themselves a self-inflicted spell-check wound (as you often do as well) I grant grace. But now…watch out!!! : )
I have no problem with interpretive effort when applied to things that lend themselves to such. What I do have a problem with is changing the meaning of something that is clearly stated in its original form and calling it interpretation. I think I have made myself quite clear in how OSC does this, especially in regard to the Major Premise.
What “God in man” may mean today or what it may mean in other cultures is immaterial, and has always been immaterial to my point. What is important is what it meant to the ones who created to the terminology and original philosophy. Whether you or anyone else agrees or disagrees with what they believed is completely irrelevant to what THEY meant. If you don’t agree with what they meant that’s fine. How to deal with that is another matter, which I believe I have a more appropriate solution to than changing the definition of their terms – if you would care to hear it.
Interesting – what you have to say about “getting a word from God”. I assume based on what you write here that you ascribe to the hermeneutic doctrine that the spiritual gifts passed away after the completion of the gospels. This is certainly a popular belief, but to suggest that most all Christians believe this is entirely false. The majority of Christians in America are Evangelical, and believe (as is very well supported by Scripture) that the spiritual gifts – like prophesy (getting a word from God) are very much alive today.
I am pretty sure that BJ felt thot flashes came from God. Deductively, if he believed ii was God in man, one only need look at the diagram
on page 10 of Stephenson’s to understand the philosophical basis for his.
Dis-ease is not confusing if you would consider curbing your dogma long enough to give careful consideration to Dean Black’s definition of disease. Doing so is yet another illustration of how contemporary thought can be supportive of TSC (and even OSC!).
In closing this post I want to thank you Joe once again for hosting this blog and for all of your brilliant work. Though at times this may get a bit adversarial, it is a great honor to be provided the opportunity to sharpen my whit here, and I would hope you might feel the same way. I hold you all in very high regard.
Thank you Eric. It will be a relief to know that you will be checking my spelling. I have two editors who check most of my writings but they decline reading anything written to or from you. You bring up some very good points which time does not allow me to address at the moment. But allow me to get to the crux of our disagreement. You write: “What ‘God in man’ may mean today or what it may mean in other cultures is immaterial, and has always been immaterial to my point. What is important is what it meant to the ones who created to the terminology and original philosophy. Whether you or anyone else agrees or disagrees with what they believed is completely irrelevant to what THEY meant” Eric, that is the entire issue right there. I want to see the Big Idea of BJ Palmer perpetuated and the benefits of it enjoyed by everyone possible. In doing that we can give him the greatest honor. I believe just the opposite of your statement above is true. The terminology that was used by BJ, Craven,DD, or Stephenson or anyone else circa 1900 is immaterial. What people consider that terminology to mean in 2012 is the only thing that is important and relevant. Fortuantely, most of what BJ wrote and said is perfectly relevant and material. Some of it is not. If that means rejecting, clarifying, changing, updating what they said without changing the brilliant objective that they gave us, correcting VS to allow for greater ii expression, I have no qualms or reservations about doing that. If that offends some people including you, well, I would question which is more important, perpetuating certain terms a man used or his Big Idea. I believe that perpetuating certain terminology that they used has and continues to harm his Idea and if he were alive today, he would be the first to repudiate/clarify his meaning. I think it can be shown historically that any position on words and their meanings other than those of non-therapeutic objective straight chiropractic has led to the extremes in chiropractic of makng it into religious thought (eg. Bill Bahan/Ontology) or a reaction to those terms (Howard/National College). I’m surer this will not be the last word on this topic but I would ask you to tell me why and how what this blog perpetuates harms the Big Idea of the Palmers. Then I will tell you why what you are perpetuating does.
Joe,
Sorry I’ve incensed your editorial staff. Please give them my apologies. Given that they are at liberty to pick and chose their work, would I be incorrect in assuming they are family members?
I find elements of your reply agreeable, disagreeable and some elements perhaps contradictory! First I agree that there is nothing about your blog or OSC that is damaging to the “Big Idea” and I don’t recall ever suggesting that your movement was. I might qualify that with the general observation that anything which divides a profession can ultimately conquer it – but our profession is already so fractured along severe lines of disagreement that a little squabbling between straights is likely to result in little added harm.
I do however disagree that any of us have the right to intentionally change the meaning of specific key expressions that were created by our founders – for any reason. If the original philosophy is deemed by you to be in any way problematic, then the proper thing to do is rewrite your own version using your own lexicon. The wrong thing to do is continue to utilize the original framework and expressions with altered meanings. That is disrespectful to our founding fathers, and disrespectful to your fellow straight chiropractors who do have an affinity for traditional chiropractic and understand fully well the expressions as they were originally intended. If you find the meaning behind traditional chiropractic terminology outmoded, invalid or problematic, the right thing to do would be not to use the original expressions at all, and create novel ones that speak as you see fit. Then your alleged improvements on traditional chiropractic can be openly judged by their own merit.
Of course the flash point for all of this was your bold decree that “Universal Intelligence Cannot Be God” and your rather zealous campaign to turn the major premise into illogical double talk by giving ui a meaning it does not represent. Maybe it would be better, as you say, for OSC chiros to drop the major premise altogether, if not all 33 principles if you do not care for their theological overtones. You within OSC could very well have a set of principles of your own that begin well downstream of the point where DD and BJ elected to anchor our philosophy. For example, your OSC mantra could be:
“Location and correction of vertebral subluxation to allow full neurological auto-regulation of the body only” l
That statement is fully free of any bio-theological innuendos. Obviously you would have to stop using ii because of its deduced connection to the Creator of the Universe.
You could have a set of your own principles to take public that are limited to the neuro-physiological aspect of chiropractic, and therein completely bypass any pesky speculations about the origin of life, etc (I’ll bet Steve would go for this). And of course you could continue to leave out any kind of lifestyle related stuff, though perhaps in another post we could debate how these things can be discussed in a straight chiropractic manner, and how in fact these are things a principled chiropractor can and should address. This goes to my suggestion that some of what you state is contradictory, given your suggestion that we need to relevant to what the public understands in 2012.
So how about starting fresh and writing your own playbook then? I think you would do a great job and contribute positively to chiropractic and the Big Idea. I just would prefer not to wear your brand. I find TSC to work just fine with the Big Idea was well – if not better. You however see it as damaging, and so once you have addressed my comments here, you can show me how.
Eric, you write “If the original philosophy is deemed by you to be in any way problematic, then the proper thing to do is rewrite your own version using your own lexicon.” Eric, if we cannot alter, refine or rewrite what the Palmers’ wrote we do not have a philosophy. We have a dogma which some appear to have made into a religious cult. The Palmers called it a philosophy, not a religion. I believe that they gave us the right to make changes, thereby evolve the philosophy, by taking the initiative themselves of doing just that. The two of them made more changes in 66 years than the rest of us put together could possibly make in two lifetimes! I recently wrote a post about our dogma and our philosophy which sums up my thinking. I believe OSC has the right, the duty, the obligation and their blessing to make changes in that philosophy as long as it does not change their objective. The changes they made only reinforced the validity and the greatness of their objective and I believe the “changes” we are making continue to do that also. They are only minor changes, getting rid of the rough edges so to speak (like not calling ui God-okay, I couldn’t resist that one!) Remember, it was the Palmers who first called it SC, we just added the O.
PS you have not “incensed” my editorial staff. Actually in the past they have found the two of us very entertaining and very similar…which scares the heck out of me:) I just hope the rest of this blog’s readers have not wearied of our dialogue as they have.
Joe,
Again, if you read what I wrote (even what your excerpted!) I’m not against rewriting and refining. That is in fact what I suggested you do! I’m against you creating and/or perpetuating a “false premise” regarding what the original major premise meant to those who created it. Again, for you to say ui “cannot” be God is wrong on every level! First – that is what the man who coined the expression meant it to be. Second – as the “subject” of the major premise, it is the “giver” of the law described therein, and therefore there is no logical or theological reason why ui cannot be God based on the language used. Honesty, every argument you have provided about why ui “cannot” be God has not held up to examination. Ui as described in the major premise is not a law – but rather, the law giver. That is how the expression is constructed.
Now if you find it bad for our profession that there is a theological overtone in the major premise – then abandon it! Write another one with your own terms and meanings and present it as an alternative!
I don’t think that DD, BJ and RWS would condone you changing the meaning of ui any more than you would condone me changing the meaning of OSC. It’s just plane wrong to do such a thing.
Eric,
– Regardless of nationality, race, color, religion, language, … 2×2=4 not sometimes but always. It is an absolute and constant, fixed, eternal and permanent. Mathematics is stable stability… whether it’s yesterday, today or tomorrow, 2X2=4, not sometimes, ALL the time. –
– Can you imagine what chaos would exist IF every person were to make their own rules of mathematics? WHAT kind of a world would this be? –
– Regardless of nationality, race, color, religion, language… the internal law at work has been, is and will continue to be the absolute, unalterable factor of every LIVING being, not sometimes… but ALWAYS, following its rules from ADIO. You cannot change that law and it is called the innate intelligence of the LIVING body in human beings. –
– This internal law works with the precision of mathematics in both male and female to produce the exact amount of genetic materials, where and how to fertilize the egg and conceive a NEW life for the continuation of the species. –
– This internal law at work has ALWAYS been within LIVING matter, IS now and WILL continue to BE the internal CAUSE of EASE within LIVING matter. The internal law is 100% perfect and there can be interference with the TRANSMISSION of its intent (pri.29) accidentally in each individual by vertebral subluxation (pri.31) in LIVING human beings and is the CAUSE DIS-EASE (pri.30). –
– YOU, as a chiropractor, intentionally, with your understanding and education, analyzes the VS, select the specific technique of YOUR choice to introduce a specific force into the subluxated vertebra with the intent and the hope that the innate intelligence of the body will adapt your introduced specific force and will perform the SPECIFIC adjustment with the precision of mathematics. This correction permits that INTERNAL innate law to FLOW with EASE, in everybody alike. –
– Don’t you think, Eric, it is that constancy, fixed, stable, for ever and always, in other words, the permanency of that internal law which makes the chiropractic PRINCIPLE of a knowledge of ABOVE-DOWN-INSIDE-OUT, consistent with the founders’ philosophy? –
– WHAT a blessing TO KNOW that we as chiropractors HAVE a fixed law as our beacon/GPS we can rely upon, that works in spite of us, rather than because of us. How humbling! WHAT an absolute confidence we DO place in the reliability of this innate intelligence of the body from ABOVE-DOWN-INSIDE-OUT for a full expression of its innate forces! –
– Don’t you see, Eric, that the chiropractic principles do not modify or amend any religious faith, or belief?
Claude,
I love you man….but I seriously doubt you actually read what I write! ; )
Eric, we all love you too…but we seriously doubt whether you actually read what you write!!!!!!!!:)
We can do nothing about people WHO cannot understand, no matter WHAT. We MAY BE able to do something about those WHO have capacity to understand, but do not. It seems that just as there is an endless diversity of malformations of the human body, there is an endless diversity of malformations of the human mind (meaning the activity of the educated brain, understanding that the educated brain’s capability is educated intelligence). –
– The educated brain is a tangible portion of the human brain. The educated intelligence is its capability to function and is a product of matter, perception and information. (0% at birth anD will increase within the limits of the matter and the amount of information with which it is supplied). –
– Through trial and error, and experience, the 33 principles of chiropractic have stood the tests of time (so far) and give evidence to universal life and innate life, and establish the authority of the major premise, its start point . –
– Too many people have dormant educated capacities, have capacities to understand and do NOT know it, have capacities to understand and DENY them, have capacities to understand and do NOT use them. –
– We can do nothing with people WHO cannot understand, no matter WHAT, and this blog MAY BE able to do something for those WHO have capacity for understanding, and do NOT. 🙂
Hey Eric, sorry dude, I don’t love you. I do however respect your right to participate and disagree. Just stay on post man, stop rehashing the same old argument. Obviously you have your mind made up, no amount of logic will dissuade you, so lets move on. Try responding to the post of the day. After rereading this post from top to bottom (as you so frequently request) I can find not one specific reference YOU made to Diet and Exercise, which is the topic of this post. As eloquent and verbose as you are I assume there is more than one subject upon which we can relate.
Actually Steve, I did leave quite a bit about diet and exercise in one of the earlier posts…which may have something to do with why this one showed up in the first place! Interesting…nobody had much of anything to say about why I felt that it was the moral obligation of the chiropractor to address things like this ( in a chiropractic way).
Meanwhile, try a little unconditional love bro. Playing the “angry white man” is bad for your health. And as I suggested to you before, if you find me objectionable, just skip my posts altogether and simply read the ones that affirm your way of thinking.
Eric, part of our problem with your comments is that you tend to put any comment on any particular post on what ever thread you want. It really adds to the confusion. If you could keep your comments to the thread, it would help. I do remember you talking about the “moral obligation of the chiropractor” but it was not under the “dieting and body building thread” and I cannot find it either. As I recall, you merely quoted/paraphrased Stephenson and really did not tell us what that moral obligation is. Could you “intrepret” Stephenson for us? Does the “moral obligation include:
1. Telling people what foods to eat/not eat?
2. Making specific prescriptions about quantity, quality, MDRs, etc.
3. The OSC position is (as I intrepret Stephenson) basically”eat good food, don’t eat bad food”. What else does the “moral obligation” include?
4. You briefly mentioned the quality of the ‘soil’ although as I said I cannot find the exact comment. Could you explain how that inpacts upon your chiropractic objective and what you tell people and prescribe for them?
5. What training/education have you had to qualify you to do that, was it part of your chiropractic training and how do you get that from Stephenson’s short paragraph/article on diet/nutritional hygeine on page ? (sorry left my copies at the office).
6. Where in BJ’s writings are you basing this moral obligation upon and what else does it include.
Thank you.
Joe,
Never said anything about soil ( that may have been my best pal Steve). I can certainly address your questions but before doing so perhaps we can clear up some of the discussion on altering our philosophy. Would you not care to comment on the last post I made higher up in this thread as part of our unfinished discussion regarding altering meanings of traditional chiropractic expressions?
Eric,
I really do not think that I “alter traditional chiropractic meanings”. BJ/ Stephenson used terms like Law of Life to describe ii, even referred to ii as “her”, definitely not acceptable from a theological standpoint. He never referred to ui in the masculine gender, which is appropriate for deity. I guess we could count up all the times BJ/DD/RW used terms that would lead one to believe they saw ui as a deity or on the other hand as a principle or law. Since they never used theological terms in the principles, I have concluded that they never intended to make the MP a religious construct but allow people to draw their conclusions as to what ui was. If that is disrespectful to the Founders, so be it. I happen to think they would be satisfied with my treatment of the philosophy. It makes the philosophy acceptable to everyone regardless of their religious persuasion, even if they have none. I respect your right and your decision to take chiropractic further back and make it a religion. I do not think that was what the Founders had in mind. I sure wish some of the TSC thinkers in the profession would weigh in on this subject and lend their views. Do you know why they don’t? Perhaps they have some new insights and we can stop going round and round on this issue.
Joe, you say:
” I have concluded that they never intended to make the MP a religious construct but allow people to draw their conclusions as to what ui was.”
Joe, I fully agree. Though DD identified ui with God (irrefutably), I believe he used the expression ui instead of God to allow folks the opportunity to fill in the blank as they wished with whatever they believed the organizer of the universe was.
You Joe, on the other hand, apparently do not wish to grant the same grace! Why? Because you have emphatically stated that “ui CANNOT be God.”
And so in your effort to make chiropractic philosophy “acceptable to everyone” you boldly excommunicate the personal beliefs of those who created our philosophy to begin with! This is unacceptable… and entirely unnecessary. There is a much better (and more intellectually honest) way to handle the theological overtones in our original philosophy than this.
…and what is that Eric?
Thanks Joe! Thought you’d never ask!!!
Ui can be equated to God in the MP without making it a religious statement, and without making chiropractic into a religion, which I certainly am not trying to do (and I wish you would stop suggesting that I am!).
To understand my approach here, we should clear up some language. I would prefer to make appropriate use of terms like theism/theology and religion, which do not mean the same thing. Theism relates to a belief in the existence of a God or gods and their causal relationship to the universe. A religion is a distinct set or system of individuating beliefs and human behaviors related to such a God or gods. The MP, because of how it is written, has a theistic or theological inference – not a religious one. Even if ui is replaced with the word Creator or God in the MP, it is still does not become a religious statement.
If were to say “I believe in a Creator who organizes and maintains all matter is existence” – what religion am I? The answer is – who knows? Such a statement could be made by any member of any western monotheistic religion, Abrahamic religion, or any unspecified belief system which involves a Creator. This is because it is a theistic statement, and not one tied to any specific religion. Even polytheistic believers can find something to resonate with here, provided they can get their heads around the fact that ui is not plural, but there again, it could be argued from a polytheistic perspective that the “intelligence” results from a group effort!
Interestingly, and part in parcel with the genius of the way the major premise is constructed, by using the expression ui instead of God or Creator, the MP need not have a theistic overtone if that is the personal bias of the observer. The belief that there is some kind of “intelligence” universally applied “in matter” that organizes it and holds it in existence would work just fine for the deist, pantheist, pagan, and even the atheists/reductionists as they chase after their elusive “god particles”. There is also plenty here for the agnostics to equivocate over. Everybody is happy.
Depending on the observer, ui can certainly be God, or Allah or Elohim or Buda or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Great Electron, without making chiropractic a religion. What ui cannot be is a law of organization. The MP is the law of organization. Ui is the “giver” of the law.
The language the MP is clear enough about what ui is – “that entity which organizes matter and holds it in existence.” If someone asked me to elaborate on that, I would simply say that for me ui is God. For you or someone else, it may have another name and I would respect that.
Simple.
Logical.
Congruent with the language.
True to the philosophy.
Respectful of the beliefs of our founders.
Non-exclusionary.
Don’t forget to tip your waitresses.
Have a pleasant evening.
Eric, thank you for that succinct explanation of your non-religion. I think we all finally have enough information at this point to decide for ourselves whether we want to apply/practice/follow your theistic philosophy or whether we think you have reduced a beautiful idea to a level of silliness in an attempt to justify anachronistic language and misplaced loyalty.
Thank YOU Joe! You have been more than gracious here, especially in light of the fact that it is “your” brainchild I’ve been hammering on! It is never easy having your beliefs examined, especially when you claim a degree of authorship in them – so I respect and sympathize with your position in this.
I’ll leave you with a little quote I normally reserve for the more conflicted in our profession, however in this case I think it is reasonable to suggest that even those of us who claim to be “principled” can use an occasional moment self-examination:
“A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation — or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown.”
– Ayn Rand
Hey Eric, indeed you are here, there, everywhere. Had you noticed how many hits and comments this blog gets you may not have presumed that your remarks days, weeks or months ago had anything to do with this post (D&E). This topic has come up before as far back as The Pivot Review. Hopefully it will come up again in the future to remind us how easy it is to slip into that outside-in mode of practice.
That nobody questioned your stand on moral obligation to advise in ADL does not surprise me, most of us came from TSC and have seen the shortcomings of that approach.
Now I don’t remember DD saying we have a moral obligation to run peoples lives. He did say he felt a moral obligation to adjust every subluxation he could find. Hmmmm, kinda sounds like OSC to me, find em and adjust em, done.
As far as unconditional love, sorry dude that only exists in the land of “life is fair”. Joe must play nice with you because it is his blog and he is the host. I am not. I’m not angry, just tired of being distracted from the purpose of this blog. So from now on I will try to keep my comments on track with the post of the day, maybe you will have the courtesy to do the same. And what makes you think I am a white guy?
…you appear to have no “soul”.