The innate intelligence of the body is selfish. It only cares for and does what is best for the survival of the organism in which it resides. So why would my innate intelligence even care anything about someone else’s innate intelligence, or their body for that matter, enough to want to have innate to innate communication, unless that communication benefits me?
respectfully disagree here joe. each cell has an individual innate. a bacteria has an innate. the half cell from mom and dad also has an innate. each cell’s innate communicates with other cell’s innates to give up their own life for the life of the organism. anything with life has innate. a white blood cell will give up it’s life for the good of the other cells in the body. innate can communicate on a cellular level. if this cellular communication is possible, why isn’t innate to innate communication on a larger scale, possible?
That’s a good point Joey. However, all the cells you mentioned (except the bacteria cell) are part of the same organism, under the control of the ii of the body. I was speaking of two separate organisms. There is no communication between the ii of the bacterial cell and the ii of the body. They each have their own separate ii which is only expressing the mission that is uniquely its own. Now, if you and I were to be joined at the hip (I know you’re saying “now there’s a horrible thought”), you might argue for communication between our two ii’s. I would argue that the cojoining would then create one ii out of two, which is exactly what happens in the union of the sperm and egg. I think there is a post somewhere explaing that titled “one innate or two” or something like that. I think that’s the article in which I discuss the grafting of a pink an white dogwood into a new tree. Tom can probably find that post in the Pivot archives.
That’s a little scary Joe! I pulled that very article up earlier today to re- read it! While I wouldn’t call that an innate to innate contact between you and I, we must have espn, or something like that! 😉
INNATE OR INNATES
Midway through my first quarter philosophy class I posed the question to students: “Is there one innate intelligence or two in the development of a fetus?” That is, does the fetus have its own individual innate intelligence or does it “share” the mother’s? After a day of discussion the class was divided. The purpose of the question and subsequent discussion was to give the students a better understanding of what exactly the innate intelligence of the body is. The student at this point usually understood the innate intelligence within the frame of reference of his or her pre-chiropractic education in philosophy, science, religion, or the humanities. The discussion served the very valuable purpose of correcting their perspective.
It is an accepted or an a priori fact that there is innate intelligence within the fetus. The developing fetus is perhaps the greatest demonstration of the principle of life that is the basis for the practice of chiropractic. Is the innate intelligence of the fetus the same expression of life that is within the mother or is there a principle of life within the fetus expressing itself independent of the innate intelligence of the mother? If there are two separate expressions of innate intelligence, (ii) then we must conclude that they are in “communication” because the functions of the fetus and the mother are so closely interrelated. Yet we know that there is no such thing as communication between innate intelligence. Contrary to the belief of those who practice a certain technique, communication is not possible. “Innate Intelligence is limited by limitations of matter.” -Stephenson. There can be no communication between two separate ii. We are left then with two possibilities: 1. There is one overriding principle _ that is, innate intelligence expressing itself through a unique unit of matter, namely a “mother-fetus”. 2. There are two principles of life being expressed through two different units of matter. The latter position offers some real difficulties. First, if there are two separate ii we would have a constant battle between the mother and the fetus for supremacy. We know the innate intelligence of the body will never do anything to harm the tissues in which it resides, therefore, the innate intelligence of the mother would not stand for the baby’s innate intelligence robbing it of vital nutrition e.g., calcium from the bones and teeth. The development of a fetus into a healthy newborn is a tremendous strain on the well being of the mother. Her innate intelligence would not tolerate it unless that developing fetus were a part of her, expressing the same innate intelligence. As part of her body, at least for a period of nine months, her innate intelligence will make sacrifices elsewhere (teeth and bones) to preserve the development. At the moment the umbilical cord is cut that new little baby begins to express its own innate intelligence because the matter of the baby and the matter of the mother are separate. Here is the key. To understand the ii, we have to look at the matter. That is always the key. Inasmuch as we only understand ii by perceiving the matter through which it expresses we must consider the matter in this case. Where does the fetus end and the mother begin? Is the umbilical cord and placenta part of the mother or part of the fetus? They are all parts of the whole. Two examples may help to clarify our understanding. In Siamese twins are there two ii’s or one? Obviously, to be consistent we would have to say that there is one innate intelligence expressing itself through a unique organism. That organism may have two nervous systems, two brains, four kidneys, and two hearts. The amount and the arrangement of the matter does not affect the ii. The ii of a one celled amoebae is the same as the ii of a human being. The ii of the human being just has more matter and has it arranged differently. If those twins are successfully separated then we have innate intelligence expressing itself through two separate organisms. One last example which is the exact situation of the developing fetus. Years ago the minister of our local church grafted a pink dogwood and a white dogwood together. He really enjoyed seeing the expression on peoples’ faces in the spring when they saw a half-pink and half-white dogwood tree growing in his front yard. He had taken two trees, (each with its own ii), grafted them together, and created a new organism with ii. This ii expressed itself through the entire tree, part of which bore pink flowers, part of which bore white. This example brings up a final point regarding the innate intelligence of the “mother-fetus.” At the moment of conception, when the ovum and the sperm unite, there is a new organism, separate and distinct from the mother (although within her body) with its own individual ii which is technically called “cellular intelligence.” If and when that fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall, it no longer expresses a separate ii. It is once again part of the mother and the ii of the mother’s body is expressing itself through that unique bit of matter and will continue to do so for the next nine months. The innate intelligence of the body is a principle, a law which expresses itself through living matter. It is important that we understand what it is and understand what it is not in order to be the most effective chiropractors we can be.
V1n4
Tom, you wrote “That’s a little scary Joe! I pulled that very article up earlier today to re- read it! While I wouldn’t call that an innate to innate contact between you and I, we must have espn, or something like that! ”
Do you think that if we can combine our espns, innate will tell us who is going to win the next Flyers-Islanders hockey game? (That’s a joke for those of you unfamiliar with this blog. OK… it’s also a little sarcasm directed toward those who think innate tells them stuff!). Thanks for finding the article Tom. See you tonite! Be careful driving in, some freaky weather out there.
Chiro encinitas, please define innate intelligence, what is its role. Thanks.
So if I am thinking about what I’m going to eat for dinner while I am giving an adjustment, that has nothing to do with”chiropractically” giving the adjustment? Is visualizing and good intent totally an outside in phenomenon? In SUBLUXATION SPECIFIC, BJ spent a lot of time & effort emphasizing the importance of seeing the adjustment first and doing it in the “air” before adjusting the patient.
So you are saying this entire process of the doctor introducing a force in a person’s spine is the Educated Intelligence????
I don’t know whether “visualizing and good intent” is outside-in or not but it most definitely is educated. If it provides an external iinvasive force that the pm’s ii can use to correct a vs, then it is a good eif regardless of what you are thinking. I tend to opine that visualizing is probably a better educated function than thinking about dinner but whatever works for you!
I’d say a little more: Innate doesn’t even “communicate” with the matter in which it works, it’s but a name given to a principle of constant adaptation that we see in “living things”.
Excellent observation Paulo, although I would say “a name given to a constant striving for adaptation.” But perhaps I’m splittin hairs. Thanks for the input.
ahhh yes, even better! Thanks again!
Agree with everything you’ve said Joseph (S), but that is not to say that there may not be some form of unspoken communication between beings.
My wife tells me that my body language often speaks louder than my words! Is that what you’re referring to Joe? But even at that, it is still an educated communication. I suspect that is what you are talking about beause our educated intelligence is responsible for interacting with our environment, more so than our ii.
joe s, i think part of the confusion is bj’s portrayal of innate. he talks of being in innate to innate contact with some guy in the circus while he was in iowa and says “i picked up your innate message” and he drove from iowa to chicago to adjust him and his crew. bj called it innate. obviously like joe d said there definitely some unseen communication, bj just chooses to call them messages from innate. he uses that word pretty liberally. once again a confusion of terms. depends on how you define innate. osc innate different from bj’s innate.
Good observations Joey. As I read BJ, I find that he was on a lifelong quest, probably as a result of his early exposure to chiropractic, to underestand the material and immaterial part of man and how they are related. While he (and we) recognize that the material has many parts (organs, tissues, and cells), he seemed to believe that there was only one part to the non-material or the metaphysical aspect of man. He attempted to ascribe every non-physical function to the metaphysical (innate intelligence or universal intelligence). He spent the better part of his life studying the immaterial part (as best that one can), travelling all parts of the world, studying cultures and religions. During his quest for the answer he wrote books, The Bigness of the Fellow Within was just such a book written at a point in his life, thirteen years before his quest ended. We really cannot fault him for his simplistic view of the non-material. How many clergy come into our offices and while recognizing a transcendent God, think that the body can only be addressed in a material way by medicine, treating physical disorders. They never give thought to the idea that there is a non-physical part of the human organism that runs and can heal the body.
I rermember years ago someone asked Reggie about this very issue and he made a very profound observation. He said that there are many things in this world that cannot be explained from a natural aspect. That does not mean that they can be understood by or ascribed to certain aspects of our chiropractic philosophy. I think we err if we try to bring them into chiropractic or chiropractic into them. Chiropractic philosophy does not have the answer to life after death, eternity, heaven, hell, angels, ESP, supernatural forces, mental telepathy, mind reading, certain mental and emotional problems and other metaphysical phenomena. We cannot explain the multitude of phenomena associate with educated intelligence. On the other end of the spectrum when it comes to the physical, chiropractic does not have the answer for limitations of matter. That is not our area of expertise. When we associate chiropractic with religious experience or practices, I believe we do just as much a disservice to chiropractic as when we mix it with the therapeutic model of disese care. For that reason, I believe we need to constantly clarify our philosophy and objective so that chiropractic does not get pulled in one direction or the other. These type of discussions are important and valuable.
On page 257 of Stephenson’s we read: “Let us, in this step of our study, look upon Innate Intelligence less romantically and more scientifically. Not as a little god coldly aloft somewhere in our bodies; whom we personify with a capitalized name and whom the more conceited of us think we must chastise occasionally; but as a mathematical LAW of nature.”
My question to everyone is:
WHY DID BARTLETT JOSHUA PALMER PERSONIFY INNATE INTELLIGENCE MOST OF HIS LIFE, if it is a “mathematical LAW of nature”?
This question intrigues me.
Someone said we don’t see the world as it is, we see it as we are. It seems that since the days of the cavemen there has been personification of things unknown, such as the thunder gods. There is a theory called ( I believe) phantom entity. If you are alone in the woods and a stick snaps, it is pro-survival to assume it was snapped by a person or beast, rather than the wind. The Bible says we can never know God yet people attribute all sorts of human characteristics to him. “Him” itself is a supposition or personification. I think BJ put UI in terms he and we could understand. As opposed to my friend Dr Senzon who maintains BJ got religious later in life, I think BJ was trying to relate UI in terms people would grasp. The only thing even remotely comparable would be God. Then would that make innate, Jesus, the physical embodiment ?
DD spoke of the soul connecting the spirit and body, the spirit being of the all wise and a metamere of the Universal(God). If he had not personified these entities would he have used the word intelligence?
This is in response to Claude’s question about personification but may apply as well to the God/ui post
Steve–Just out of curiosity…where does it say in the Bible we can never know God?
Steve,
Thank you for your response to my question.
I do appreciate the “phantom entity” theory and that you think “BJ was trying to relate universal intelligence in terms people would grasp”. ——
Okay, this was done with the knowledge that existed in BJ’s time at the turn of the 20th century and the fact that chiropractic was under a lot of “legal” pressures as Eric mentioned from practicing medicine without a license and that was BJ’s approach. Eric’s observation that DD’s approach was to make chiropractic into a religion to protect chiropractic is also logical giving what we know.
The REAL question is:
– Is chiropractic moving toward religious model or the medical model
– OR
– Is chiropractic separate and distinct BEING its own model?
AS we deal with the QUESTION, the pigmy may discover WHO the giant REALLY is!
There may well be evidence of “innate to innate” communication… and a type of “ii to ii” which satisfies Dr. Strauss’s suggestion that innate is “selfish”.
There has has been at least one study ( I will look up the reference if needed) published which demonstrates how a person experiencing a distressing event can “remotely” evoke fight of flight-like brain physiology in another person not experiencing the same phenomenon. A study was performed with test subjects inside a room which was essentially a “black box” — none of the commonly known information transmitting portions of the electromagnetic spectrum could penetrate or be emitted from room. The test subjects were all hooked up to brain motors (EEGs) and were asked to watch a video screen which randomly showed pleasant and very unpleasant subject matter. Their brain waves were charted in real time as they watched, and demonstrated the kind of changes one would expect when the unpleasant images we shown.
At the same time, outside the room in another part of the building, another group of individuals were hooked up to the same kind of brain monitors, but just sat there and watched nothing. At the end of the experiment, the brain wave charts of the group inside the room were compared to the group outside the room, and amazingly, the group outside the room had similar changes in brain waves as the group inside the room at the same time they saw the unpleasant images.
Simply stated, somehow as the people in the room watched unpleasant images , people outside the room had concurrent changes in there EEG patterns…even though no know emission from the brains of the group inside the room could have penetrated and somehow alerted the group on the outside. I know there have been other reports on this phenomenon, and I have experienced this myself during one Dr. Ed Blumenthal’s alert-response training seminars years ago.
Innate intelligence is all about survival, and for many of God’s creations, survival can be a group effort. What is a threat to you may also be a threat to me, and if there was a way to alert my physiology of such a threat in advance of the threat manifesting before me, then this has survival value. This seems a good example of how ii is in fact “God in man”. Not merely a reflex drive stimulus response mechanism, but a spirit driven phenomenon which has the capacity to connect with other innate intelligence using a medium of transmission which is again, outside the limits of scientific investigation, and perhaps fully within the spiritual realm.
Eric,
Did YOU read my post regarding my question about WHY BJ chose to personify the innate intelligence of the body? If, according to Stephenson’s, it is a mathematical LAW of nature? And if YOU did, would you please answer it if YOU can?
In one of my other posts I alluded to the idea that Stephenson may have been in favor of “sanitizing” the language surrounding ii and ui… perhaps to give his textbook broader “academic appeal”. His book was published at a time when BJ was very sensitive to protecting chiropractic from legal actions aimed at its extinction, and much effort was put into working to “legitimize” his school’s educational process while preserving what made chiropractic different from medicine (not the least of which for the sake of the legal defense of not practicing medicine without as licence!). Interestingly, this was a very different strategy than the one DD had at the time, which was to protect chiropractic from legal pressure by making it into a religion. Given what we know about DD, I believe he would have characterized ui nad ii much the same as BJ did…as synonymous or analogous to God,
While BJ did endorse Stephenson’s text, this dd not seem to alter his perspective on the the nature of of ui and ii. It may well be that Stephenson had differing views to BJ in this matter (Go figure! Chiropractors disagreeing!!!). But agree with BJ, not simply because he is an icon and because we would not even be having this discussion were it not for him, but because his view of the nature of reality in this matter makes better sense.
As I also stated…I am not a blind defender of the 33 principles, as I have an issue with the way limitations of matter are handled. But for the most part…I find the deductive chain very solid PROVIDED it begins in the spiritual realm… and this is where both DD and BJ believed it did. I have also written in my prior post why I think viewing ui and ii in this manner serves the integrity of the 33 principles better than relegating these concepts to the mundane. As of yet, no one has commented on this.
In 1958, three years before his death, BJ wrote Green Book #XXVI “PALMER’S LAW OF LIFE”. On page 134 BJ wrote:
“PALMER’S LAW OF LIFE is SIMPLE in concept, SIMPLE to understand by those who use straight-line-thinking. It has INTERNAL rules and regulations, HOW it works, WHY it does WHAT it does AS it does it. HOW TO ADJUST INTERFERENCES TO POWER LINES is equally specific. Man can NOW KNOW WHEN, WHERE AND HOW to restore A RETURN NORMAL FLOW of energy to all human motor units. The normal schematic purpose of the over-all INTERNAL healthy flow to all units is the GREAT PURPOSE of its existence.
What NEWTON’S LAW OF GRAVITATION is to physics; what EINSTEIN’S LAW OF RELATIVITY is to mathematics; what Ohm’s law is to electricity; what Edison’s use of Ohm’s law is to modern service; what DARWIN’S LAW OF SPECIES AND FAMILIES is to living assortments; what WRIGHT BROTHERS LAW OF AERODYNAMICS is to flying; so is this single and simple statement the essence of PALMER’S LAW OF LIFE.”
On page 144, BJ wrote:
“PALMER’S LAW OF LIFE is NOW established. It has been proven practical and workable in millions of sick people since 1895, where IT, when accurately, efficiently and competently applied, has accomplished it s objective getting sick people well.”
Seems clear, concise and precise to me.
Green Book # XXXVI. 🙂
This is all good stuff…but really has nothing to do with the difference of perspective we have been discussing, which is entirely related to Dr. Strauss’s supposition that UI cannot be God.
Hey Eric, Try; Job 36:26, 1 Corr. 1:21, Ecc 11:5 & 3:11
These are good samples, but some need to taken in context. However, for the most part, the weight of the Old and New Testaments are entirely about knowing God, though perhaps, if not definitely, not all of His ways. In Eden Adam had a rather intimate association with God, as did Moses and other major prophets, and in the New Testament, if we are to assume that Jesus was God incarnated in human form, to say no one cannot “know” Him is from a Biblical perspective…rather difficult to support. I think your statement may be valid relative to the “mysteries” of God and creation…but all of Christianity is about a personal relationship with God through Jesus, as outlined in the scripture.
HELP, I have lost my Giant.
Signed, The Pygmy
Eric,
I think you might be confusing posts. This thread is about innate to innate communication. 🙂
Once again for everyone:
-Should chiropractic move toward the religious model or the therapeutic model
– OR
-Should chiropractic BE its own model and maintain itself SEPARATE and DISTINCT from EVERYTHING?
CHIROPRACTIC IS ALL THREE, Claude. Today some preach GCP (God,chiro.,patient) and people benefit. We also have quasi-med- chiros. healing by their touch. Then finally we have ChiropracTORS who LACVS. Where are we going, who knows?
Steve,
How can chiropractic be all three?
If someone takes a bucket and flips it over to use it as a step stool, does that make the bucket a step stool? WHAT a bucket is by definition is WHAT it is: A container to carry something. WHO uses the bucket as a step stool does NOT change WHAT the bucket is! Does it?
If someone uses chiropractic as a religion or as a therapy, does that make chiropractic a religion or a therapy? WHAT chiropractic is by definition is WHAT it is: A philosophy, science and art of locating, analyzing and correcting vertebral subluxations in accordance with its philosophy. WHO uses chiropractic as a religion or a therapy does NOT change WHAT chiropractic is! Does it?
-It is NEVER about the WHAT! —-
-It is ALWAYS about the WHO! —-
-And HOW and WHY the WHO use the WHAT!
– WHAT direction would chiropractors on this blog wish chiropractic to go?
– Religious?
– Therapeutic?
– Separate and distinct?
I agree with you Claude, Chiropractic is what it is and it aint what it aint. However, the bucket becomes the stool when I turn it over. You see, it is no longer a bucket when upside down for it no longer holds water. DD said Chiro was to reunite spirit and flesh, religion. BJ said Chiro was for healing to sick and lame, therapy. OSC says Chiro is exclusively about LACVS. No wait, DD said restore tone for normal functionating, BJ said restore mental impulse to resume ease, OSC says restore ease to enhance innate expression. I think ultimately we all want the same thing. To function as we were designed is the goal of all although we often take different paths.
Steve,
The bucket is WHAT it is a bucket! It’s you WHO chooses to use it as a step stool. WHY would YOU choose to turn the bucket over and use it as a step stool WHEN YOU could use a step stool as a step stool?
-WHY would a CHIROPRACTOR chooses to use chiropractic as religion or a therapy WHEN the CHIROPRACTOR could use a religion as a religion and a therapy as a therapy?
-Could ONE uses a therapy to LACVS?
-Could ONE uses a religion to LACVS?
No Claude a step stool does not make a good bucket. All I’m saying is Chiro. is a lot of things to a lot of people. Personally I prefer OSC philosophy, it’s clean and efficient. It is as far as I can see the bare essence or purest form of what we do, but that is just one mans opinion. I don’t think people “choose” the therapy or religion paradigm, it’s more how Chiro. was given to them. We do however have a chance to educate or expose them to another view, just like we do our patients. The beauty of this blog specifically and the web in general is that exposure. Where would I be without you guys?