David Koch,DC in his well written 2008 text Contemporary Chiropractic Philosophy An Introduction gives us some insight into the 33 principles. He divides them into universal principles, 14 in number, biological principles 16 in number and chiropractic principles, three in number. I have some disagreement with his editing and rearranging of the 33 principles,a discussion that can be left for another time but I like the idea of dividing them into universal, biological and chiropractic. I think it’s helpful. What it presents to us is that the first category, universal principles, are applicable to all matter that is in existence. Biological principles can be applied to living matter and the last three principles (chiropractic) are applicable to the practice of chiropractic on vertebrates.
This is a very good insight into the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science.
Claude, Joe,
I would like to hear your logic and opinion with regards to Koch’s revisions of his p31,p32,p33.
I’m referencing his book, chapter 9, p73-76, paperback.
P31 in animal bodies, some of the forces a living thing’s innate intelligence creates operate through or over the nervous system.
P33 in vertebrates, interference with the transmission of nerve forcesin the body is often directly or indirectly due to subluxations in the spinal column.
***********************
I know I have referred to his analysis before but it would seem that while he embraces subluxation, he is apt to render biological force as a physical component and offers confusion at least to me, of physiological physical processes and metaphysical, p23 processes.
There is a good amount of text and if there are any particular comments you would or could make, in support or in opposition to his final distalations.
Yes Claude I remember you mentioning the collapsing of the 33 by reordering it, and perhaps referencing the triune of life as the triune of organization, etc.
What also disturbs me is my referencing his arguments, months ago, by my own observations where biological principles, science, meets philosophical, deductive principles, basically the mental impulse using the nervous system, and that fact being dismissed or at least handled within the context of interpretation of RWSs 33Ps.
Again I would appreciate some commentary. If you’d rather address me specifically by email, etc. that would be fine. But I think this is a justified venue to state
HOW WE DEDUCE IN CONTRAST TO KOCHS TAKE, THAT THE NERVOUS SYSTEM BEARS THE ATTENTION OF THE 33Ps, of Chiropractic, of BJs full attention, of RWSs attention and of your attention Claude and Joe.
Studyingly and Inquisitively,
Dave
What is a nerve force?
Claude,
I have no idea. I assume he is alluding to the mental impulse.
The confusing point is that he does present an articulate concept (identifying The Chiropractic Principles). But then uses it in a context where you could swap any therapeutic or other application, from acupuncture chi to physical therapy physiology, to massage fascial concepts, etc. etc.
AND THEN HE ARTICULATELY, AT LEAST TO MY LIMITED BUT GROWING KNOWLEDGE, PRESENTS THE CHIROPRACTIC CYCLES IN A MOST COMPREHENSIVE, SPECIFIED, INTERESTING WAY.
HE TAKES A VERY CONFLICTING STANCE, TO MY PERHAPS NEED TO HAVE A CONGRUENT PRO CHIROPRACTIC POSITION.
THATS MY OWN INSECURITY.
He’s physiological on one hand and philosophical on the other.
I don’t know personally David Koch. I don’t know his fundamental stance on chiropractic. It would seem that he is basically endorsed by the OSC movement if you will. He speaks intelligently. If conflict clarifies, I guess at some point I’ll entertain that process once again, and again and again.
Sorry for all this verbal diarrhea.