A response is the action of the innate intelligence of the body in continuing the adaptive process. Example: A “working muscle” according to Advanced Muscle Palpation is a response as opposed to a spastic muscle which may be a reaction, a response or both (at different times).
A reaction is the result of matter not expressing the innate intelligence of the organism to some degree. In other words matter that is acting as a result of a combination of chemicals. It may appear to be intelligent activity. This is what confuses the scientific naturalist, the materialist. NaOH and NaCl appear to have an intelligent response, creating salt (NaCl) and water (H2O) but it is only intelligent action on an atomic (universal) level. We sometimes mistakenly assume that when matter is no longer expressing the innate intelligence of the body it is dead. There are actually two kinds of “death” with regard to innate matter. First, and most obvious, is matter that is no longer expressing the innate intelligence of the body. It is universal matter, only expressing universal intelligence (existence). A corpse is an example of this type of death. It has all the parts of a living organism including a brain and nerve system. However, there is a second kind of death: a cell, tissue, organ, or part of the body that is no longer functioning as part of the body. We do not call that “dead” but use a particular phrase or term, one which I have never really liked but one which has come to be adopted if not understood by most chiropractors. The term is DIS-EASE. Notice it does not mean sick (in the medical sense) or even that the body is manifesting a symptom. It just means that the body is no longer functioning in a state of EASE. It (a cell, tissue, organ, or system or part is no longer functionally part of the organism. DIS-EASE then is functional death and it will stay functionally dead until and unless life (the expression of intelligence through matter) is restored making it once again functionally alive. When that activity occurs on a cellular level and above, (on a tissue, organ, or system level), it necessitates a greater degree or level of intelligent action. Without any interference that activity is a response. Remember that a response is matter that is acting in an intelligent manner as a result of adaptive demands as opposed to a reaction, i.e., matter that is acting as a result of universal forces.
How Do you tell the difference between a reaction and a response?
You cannot tell the difference. That is why chiropractic does not involve itself in diagnosis. They may both be occurring at the same time. A response is innate intelligence directed, a reaction occurs in the absence of innate intelligence activity. Example : a fever may be a response or a reaction.
This dovetails nicely with the “600 LB Gorilla” in that DIS-EASE is a relationship problem. The Matter downstream of the Sux. is no longer in harmony with the Matter that is expressing II/IF. The Matter downstream can only react, it can not respond to a MI it does not receive.
Joseph,
“A response is the action of the innate intelligence of the body in continuing the adaptive process” FOR COORDINATION OF ACTION of ALL the parts of the living body for MUTUAL BENEFIT. This portion cannot be omitted as it is the function of the innate intelligence of the living body (pri.23). –
– “A reaction is the result of matter not expressing the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the organism. That also cannot be omitted as it has great ramifications. For example: If VS is present, the energy/matter of the receiving tissue CELL in the living body is acting as a result of a combination of chemicals under the direction of the innate intelligence of the CELL for COORDINATION OF ACTION of ALL the parts of the living CELL for MUTUAL BENEFIT of that living CELL ONLY and NOT for the whole of the living body.
if cells of an organ are not receiving a mental impulse, for what ever reason, BUT they receive chemical or hormonal controls (information from outside the cell), that stimulate or inhibit, etc., is that response or reaction?
…cont
with regard to the effects that that are generated from those cells, due to those outside chemical influences
David, perhaps I am not understanding your question. “… chemical or hormonal controls” are not information which is metaphysical. The chemicals or hormones are physical, matter. The information in the form of the mental impulse is to the glands organs or cells that produce the chemicals/hormones to meet the cells physical needs.
Joe,
That’s true, but they do control cell function (eg. Thyroid gland effecting many other organs, tissues, cells), adrenal glands effecting metabolism, or endocrine (corticosteroids, etc.)
If those target organs, the end organ tissue cells, have an absent mental impulse for what ever reason, I’m questioning whether their function as being controlled by the particular chemistry (physical), effecting them, is an innate physical response or a universal physical reaction?
My understanding is that ALL matter of a living body, organs, tissues, cells, chemical reactions, etc. are ultimately the by products of ii and innate forces. Since ii and innate forces are always normal, then responses are the by products of successful universal forces adapted to innate forces and unsuccessful adaptations would be REACTIONS, and LOM.
If I could only talk knee to knee instead of this messaging thru blog. Argh
Anyway. Do you understand?
I’m basically discussing the selfish, celfish differences. If a celfish cell that is responding to a body chemistry is acting as a response or reaction or does it depend?
Understand dear Joseph!
You said the cells physical needs. NO. The bodies physical needs. 😉
Joe,
No Subluxation
(Ii f A-cells) effects (ii f B-cells) effects
(RESPONSE) (ii f C-cells)
Subluxation (I’m suggesting)
(Ii f A-cells) effects (subluxation – ui f B-cells celfish) effects
(REACTION) (ii f C-cells)
Understand?
Comments?
I’m trying so Lather Love Lavishly (JP) 😉
Perhaps Joe, what I’m saying is that a cellfish cell, whether it’s being stimulated to DO something, by an external chemistry, or hormone, etc. or even by a nerve that DOES NOT have a mental impulse (due to subluxation), is a Reaction or a Response?
Which one, and/or your thought.
Hope fully this clarifies. A good night sleep and time HOPEFULLY has done that 😉
David, matter(in the form of chemicals) can affect cells, ie. other matter. Poisons affect the ceils of the body. If those cells are under the control of the ii of the body and so are the glands, organs and cells that create those chemicals, it would be a response. If the cells and/ the cells that create the chemicals are not under the control of the ii of the body, the action would be a reaction.
Forgive my persistence,
So, ANY Mechanistic process that takes place in the body, that still SERVES the body (eg. a body with a pancreas with a subluxation that is affecting its cells, yet the cells STILL produce digestive enzymes which have a positive affect on fats, etc. THIS is still a reaction.
**************************
IF NO INNATE >> Reaction, even if the reaction is somewhat beneficial, or even fulfilling it’s necessity.
**************************
IF INNATE >> Response,
**************************
Um, like a heart transplant, or a kidney transplant (Yes I’m back to that again). These organs, being CONTROLLED and functioning, without a nerve. Their functions? Reactions! yes/no. I would say yes, reactions.
Also, I think, in the case of understanding the function of the nervous system, I confuse Nerve function and nerve physiology rendering so called physiological functions on target cells (via the Autonomic Nervous System) with p28.
The Conductors of Innate Forces – The forces of Innate Intelligence operate through or over the nerve system in animal bodies.
The Autonomic Nervous System as a physiological, mechanistic controlling system IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT the process of function of Innate Intelligence creating a mental impulse from universal forces and maintaining it’s matter coordinated, available for mutual benefit by all parts, and Actively Organized.
Do you follow my confusion, or should I say, Am I alone on this perhaps belabored, but critical area to understand, and GET, KNOW AS TRUTH, which I apparently have difficulty either understanding, or acknowledging as DEDUCTIVE TRUTH.
Thoughts Wise Joseph?
By the way, I’m reading once again HIgher Ground. I don’t know how I would have charted up to this point, these philosophical territories without your books and this blog.
I know, I’m wordy, and redundant and sometimes (many times) confusing, so I appreciate you getting back to me on some of these points. Truly. Not easy to retread a retread. 🙂 Carrying On, as it’s been said 🙂