Life should be like a candle…burn brightly until the end, flicker once or twice and go out.-Reggie Gold
Candles come in different sizes and shapes and burn for different periods of time. If our “candle” goes out before it has reached its full potential (whatever that may be), it’s not the “desire” of the innate intelligence of the body. It means that there is another intelligence that is responsible. It is not universal intelligence because universal intelligence is not solicitous (Principle No. 11). Something overcomes the innate intelligence of the body. Yet we know that the innate intelligence is all-powerful as regards the matter and only limitations of the matter can quench the expression of the wisdom of the body.
And so, the age-old argument of whether the innate intelligence chooses for one to die is answered. Death occurs because the innate intelligence of the body cannot adapt the matter to the forces of universal intelligence which tend to be destructive toward all structural matter. It is not the desire of the innate intelligence to “give up the ghost.” It fights for every breath until the matter that it uses in maintaining life, the expression of that intelligence through the matter, has passed its limitation.
Some time back a writer in a chiropractic college publication, writing about the subject of death and and vitalism, said that vitalism maintains that “death is not a process to be feared and prevented at all costs.” I am not an authority on vitalism so I cannot comment on vitalism’s position. In fact, that may be a religious position but the above statement is not correct from a chiropractic philosophical viewpoint. Actually, the desire of the innate intelligence is to keep the body adapting until the material can no longer do it. We do not design automobiles or washing machines to “die.” They do so because vital parts break down. The innate intelligence of the body is smarter than auto or appliance manufacturers.
The writer goes on to say ” …once the body has decided that the end of life is at hand”… The body does not decide that the end of life is at hand. The educated brain may decide, some people might give up living and precipitate their own death (by neglect or suicide). Actually the body does not make a decision about the death of an individual. The body is only matter. What the writer is inferring is that the innate intelligence of the body makes the decision. That is philosophically incongruent. The innate intelligence will never do anything to harm the tissues in which it resides. Death is harmful to the tissues (at least it was the last time I checked). The educated intelligence may decide to end life or God may decide to end a person’s life. In fact, in some beliefs it is only God who makes that decision. But the innate intelligence only “wills” to keep the tissues adapting until those tissues reach their physical limit.
Many people write as thou innate is an entity of thought and decision making. Your thoughts are well taken and I know you pondered them before posting. This a sticky subject for some and I agree 100%.
Joe,
Questions like these become easier to answer if the original intent in the terminology is left intact and the spiritual side of the equation is not divorced from the philosophy. DD believed (as is a central theme in western monotheism) that we are spiritual in essence – inhabiting a physical body for a period of time limited “by design”. Our individual spirits however are no more involved in organizing the matter of our bodies than they are in organizing any other part of the universe. Our bodies, while we remain “connected” to them are under the active maintenance of our Creator. Innate intelligence is that effort by our Creator to organize the inanimate into life. The degree to which matter may be quickened into living flesh is by the “intent” of our Creator, limited. It has nothing to do with matter – which is a constant in the equation of life from conception to death. The limiting factor in lifespan, resistance to external forces and regenerative capacities is innate intelligence itself. This is not to say that our Creator is limited but rather our Creator does not have physical immortality in mind for us and so by His will, He sets limits in that which organizes matter into life.
While what I suggest here is perfectly congruent with traditional chiropractic philosophy as it is written into the major premise and the first few principles, it does cut against what principle 24 has to say. I wonder if this is Stephenson’s contradiction, or whether it was one he received and passed on from DD. I don’t know the answer to this, but I will endeavor to find out.
Joe – in your own writing above I think we can see how this contradiction can become evident. You say – “The body does not decide that the end of life is at hand.” Damn straight Joe. Our Creator sets those limits “by design” at the organizing end, not in the matter.
Okay Eric, I know I am going to regret this but here goes: What exactly are our “individual spirits”? When you write, “Our individual spirits however are no more involved in organizing the matter of our bodies than they are in organizing any other part of the universe”, you are saying spirit is not innate intelligence. What is it according to ‘original intent?”
Joe
We know that DD was Spiritualist, and from what I have read I think it may be fair to assume he was of the “Christian Spiritualist” variety – given his willingness to quote scripture and refer to God openly and repeatedly. We know that belief in a Creator is a core value in Spiritualism. We know that Spiritualism looks at man as a duality of spirit and matter. We also know from DDs writings that when he speaks of Innate Intelligence he is describing that “indwelling segment” of Universal Intelligence in the matter of the living being for the purpose of organizing such matter into a living vessel – in which the individual spirit of man may reside. This is perhaps why, for example, BJ later said things like “all ii is ui” and “ii is God in man”. Clearly then, it would appear that the spirit of man is not ii, but rather ii is that direct effort from our Creator which animates the living body for use by the spirit of man while he “lives”.
What this boils down to is panentheism (not pantheism) – the idea that all matter in the universe (living and non-living) is held in existence by the direct effort/intent of its Creator/God. This of course is not an odd doctrine as such a belief is common in many of the permutations of western monotheism (including ours Joe).
DD felt it was important to bring the elements of his spiritual beliefs into chiropractic. From what I have gathered, he believed that life and the universe were the result of a direct ongoing connection to our Creator from the spiritual realm (again not an odd doctrine). It is this belief that prompted him to use the expression Universal Intelligence. If there is one thing that you may regret to find out here (if you were not already aware) is that DD actually brought this term for Creator/God into chiropractic FROM Spiritualism. It is apparently not DDs personal expression, but rather the term used by Spiritualists as their equivalent term for the Creator of the Universe and the One who holds it in existence (hence the descriptive language used by Stephenson in the MP). I have seen a Spiritualist position statement published in 1893 that uses the term Universal Intelligence in this fashion. It’s use as a Spiritualist expression for Creator/God may date back as far as the 1840s.
Common elements theism are folded all through our traditional philosophy. Changing the definition of terms to hide this does not work because the expressions, languaging in historical context point straight back to the theistic root. This is why, while I do not disagree that chiropractic can be taught and promoted based on its objective alone, it can’t be done using all of the traditional expressions and phrasings. You end up saying one thing that in reality, truthfully means another.
Hey Joe, what happened? Why are we back in church again? You were doing great until the last paragraph. Or so I thought . Your statement “innate intelligence is [ all-powerful ] as regards the matter ” seems philosophically in-congruent. Principle 24 states UI is superior to II, yet you as well as our philosophy, say UI is not solicitous so it cares not whether we live or die. Preceding that you suggest a third intelligence is to blame, could you elaborate further upon this ? Was this a subliminal intro for the god factor? I’m not sure why you keep ringing Eric’s bell. Is this a philosophy forum or church?
What limitations does ii have Steve? In the triune, the matter is what is limited. Ii is perfect, never makes a mistake, knows how to handle every circumstance, knows how to meet every physical need. So maybe “all-powerful” is a poor choice of terms. Perhaps, “as regards the matter in which it resides” would have be clearer. If not give me something better.
How do you read the superiority of ui in Prin. #24? It seems to me we are talking apples and oranges when we compare ui and ii.
Ui is not solicitous, it has no concern whether we live or die. Ii always tries to keep us alive. Ei can go either way…work to keep us alive or choose to die. In the “3rd intelligence statement”, I was leaving open religious thought like predestination to avoid theological arguments but you have just invited Eric to “elaborate further on this”. What I said was no different than our chiropractic philosophy leaving open the possibility of miracles. We do not embrace theology but we do not reject it either…it’s just that it is not chiropractic.
You know Steve, when we discuss chiropractic philosoophy we must realize that we are sitting right between medicine and theology. Drawing the fine lines is not easy and sometimes we do not make those lines clear causing some to go over the line in one or the other direction. All we can do is keep trying.
Hey Joe,
I think ii is limited by time and all the other universal laws. This is why I put ui superior to ii. You say apples and oranges, I say apple tree and apple. The apple being the specialised portion. The apple is always subject to the limits of the tree. Matter is limiting because it is subject to universal law. Such is time.
As for the third intelligence, indeed you put the door there, I just painted it red. “I was leaving open religious thought” was your invitation to broaden the discussion.
Personally i do not feel we have anything to do with medicine or religion. We do not work into either field and nothing they do is chiropractic. We are singular and unique. Our philosophy was exquisitely and meticulously penned to describe a specific view of the world around us and our place in it.
As for Eric, don’t tell him but I have grown to respect him. Not for his religious diatribes but for his devotion and tenacity. If Eric has found a way to integrate all the parts of his life, more power to him.
I just don’t see the need for the blending of concepts on this blog. Lets talk CHIROPRACTIC, OSC CHIROPRACTIC.
Steve,
Here is a little philosophy you may enjoy:
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers
(Jastrow got his PhD in theoretical physics from Columbia University and was a leading NASA scientist.)
Joseph, Steve and Eric,
Put yourself in the shoes of a student-beginner (DC or otherwise), WHO is desirous to make a choice regarding the direction she wishes to pursue in her career. Now, re-read this thread. Can YOU tell me, WHO, an empirically scientifically educated student of today, will choose to BE?
Claude,
What if you were to ask the same question of Dr. Jastrow (mentioned above), or Raymond Damadian, MD (inventor of MRI and a card carrying creationist), or Gerald Schroeder ( MIT physicist and former member of the US Atomic Energy Commission who authored Genesis and the Big Bang – a work that unifies the Biblical story of creation with modern cosmology) or Robert Gills, MD – pioneer of cataract surgery who operates the worlds largest facility for such work (has a Christian Bookstore “inside” the facility) and has authored works on how the eye is proof of “design” not evolution, or Einstein who said we need more religion in our science and more science in our religion, or the kid who got chocolate on the other kid’s peanut butter and created something yummy for the whole world to enjoy?
Eric,
Thank you for validating my post. 😉
Claude,
I’m not sure I understand your request from the three of us. Are you questioning whether “an empirically, scientifically educated” prospective student who by reading this thread would want to follow the philosophy of NTOSC as explained by Steve and I or the TSC philosophy of Eric based on the teachings of a spiritualist/spiritist Founder, who distorted orthodox christianity, constantly quoted the Bible out of context, who by all accounts was an “eccentric” and claimed he got his chiropractic philosophy from a ghost named named Jim Atkinson?
Or do you just want us to stick to chiropractic, if so I’m wich ya.
I would like to stick to chiropractic….so quit encouraging Eric:)…..As if he needed encouragement!
Joseph,
According to the thread, before my question (to you, Steve and Eric), if you were in the SHOES of the beginners’ minds, WHO would YOU choose to BE as a chiropractor?
Joe,
You have a strange disgust for the man who made it possible for you to practice the art you love. Minus that man, for all his faults (name a mortal without any) you and I might be selling shoes right now (I’d sell more shoes than you). How many men with great flaws did God use to do His work in the Bible?
You begin to remind me of the character Salieiri played by F. Murray Abraham in Amadeus.
Thank God for the eccentric and the brave. Thank God for the trail-blazers!
Eric,
You have a strange cult-like worship for a mere “mortal”. Minus a lot of people, I might be selling shoes also. By the way, I have two photographs of DD in my office. How many do you have? Less than two and your argument that I hate the man carries no weight. More than two and you give credibility to my cult-like worship argument. The reason we know of the flaws of bibical characters is that those flaws were revealed to us in the Bible and that was because God did not want us to idolize them so that we would give credit to the only One deserving it. You seem to have missed that lesson. As I remember the movie, Salieiri’s character was jealous of Mozart. I could never be jealous of DD. I’ve already practiced “the art (I) love” twice as long as him. I have had the joy of standing on the shoulders of great chiropractors (including D.D.) and by doing that to have a greater vision than the cure for deafness or cure for any disease. My personal life is much more rewarding than his was. As for bravery, I think it exists in many forms and there is no doubt that D.D. demonstrated it but so did many others. I think it takes courage on my part to deal with someone like you but it is also true that bravery can often be mistaken for stupidity.
Joe,
Alas…I only have one picture of DD hanging in the office.
So perhaps I am not a cultist and you are not jealous.
I do have a DD bust, DD sweatshirt, DD tee shirt, DD wallet, DD matching socks and underwear, DD stuffed toy, DD area rug, DD window decal, DD playing cards, DD dishware, DD dashboard bobble-head, DD cereal bowl caddy, DD/BJ salt and pepper shaker, DD jack knife, DD automotive seat cover, DD salad dressing, and a DD Franklin Mint 20 karat gold-painted real simulated commemorative coin collection.
Hey Eric
I do not doubt the existence or relevance of theology. I just don’t see the place for it in chiropractic. As I interpret our major premise, it’s about the recognition of order. We attribute the organisation of this order to intelligence. We do not however specify the who, why, when or how. None of those important questions are discussed for a reason. Those “bigger” questions are left up to the individual. That is the ideological beauty, anybody and everybody can enjoy the fruits of our philosophy. As you have stated repeatedly our founders had beliefs and opinions. There must have been reasons they chose to section off or contain chiropractic to the point of recognition. Like your preference for the word created, not the word chosen by the writers of the MP. We confine ourselves to the design, the designer being beyond the realm of our profession.The books mention many times we are not a religion or involved in medicine. We are unique to any other system. Our lexicons and principles were crafted to explain an observation of the rules governing everything, and our place rightly within those rules. Chiropractic is magnificently complete. It needs nothing added, for that would make it something different. It needs nothing removed or it would no longer be correct. Art, Science And Philosophy, not faith, not treatment.
Steve,
I respect your beliefs and your desire to see chiropractic become free of theism – and there is absolutely no reason why it cannot – provided you stop using expressions, terminology, and a deductive system ( the 33) that are derived from a theistic starting point – one meticulously designed to illustrate the connection between the spiritual realm(intelligence) and matter. This is not my opinion, or my wish. It is simply the truth.
Hey Eric,
Luckily you don’t own the truth. Chiropractic philosophy is non-theistic, thanks to the foresight of our founders. Obviously they preferred to keep their beliefs separate, which is why I believe our principles are so precisely written. However language being what it is, there will always be room for interpretation. Jesus, it is said, spoke in parables so that all could understand his message at their own level. If some chose to read and share the 33 principles as written and others wish to extrapolate to the bigger picture, so be it. Since your opinion and mine differ, lets agree to disagree and stop taking up Space on Joe’s blog.
Steve,
Stick to chiropractic! –
– It’s the road less traveled! –
– Chiropractic is SPECIFIC or it is NOTHING! –
– In other words, chiropractic is SEPARATE and DISTINCT from EVERYTHING else or it is SOMETHING else than WHAT it is!
I agree 100%, thank you Claude
Hey Joe, I hate to be a nag but we’re still waiting for the explanation of the reflex arc, philosophically.