Some have suggested that the” footprint” of the mental impulse can be measured, However they are not measuring the footprint but the shoeprint. They are measuring a partial “physical representation” of the foot. The foot is inside the shoe. It may be helpful in giving us an idea of the length and width of the foot providing the owner of the foot is wearing the correct size shoes and we are measuring the shoeprint correctly. But it also gives us a skewed image of the foot, really only an image of a shoe rather than a foot. It tells us nothing about the number or length of the toes, the shape or the true size of the foot or its true footprint. I have a “true footprint” on my original birth certificate. I have no idea whether my present “true footprint” resembles it. I do know the size is much different. (I had the cutest little feet the day I was born. They’re pretty ugly now from, among other things, hitting foul balls off them and walking into things in the dark.)
What in fact does the shoeprint tell us about the foot? That it has a pattern of grooves and a Nike emblem on the bottom of it? That it wears in a certain manner? Anyone looking at a shoeprint is only looking at a shoeprint. Anyone who thinks they are measuring a mental impulse is only measuring at best, the electro-chemical container (the shoe) of the mental impulse which may give us more non-data than data concerning the mental impulse.
What is preventing this?
a. lack of intelligence (ours)
b. lack of instrumentation
c. inability to quantify/qualify metaphysical properties
d. all the above
Is not this nerve impulse (shoeprint), being directed as an intent of the neurology that directs this impulse. (eg. move arm >> neurology serves to generate a physical stimulus to enact an action in a muscle to produce an event). I understand the distinction between a living tissue (living nerve), and a non-living tissue (non-living nerve), the uni direction of living to non-living. (eg. once it’s “dead”, life cannot be brought back to it). Meaning we theorize a special character to a nerve impulse, which does have it’s own living intent (movement to perform biological and/or physical function), plus this special character that allows it to be constructive (alive), vs deconstructive (destructive) (dead). But that actual relationship between innate intelligence, and the mental impulse and promoting the signs of life seems to be a theoretical discussion versus one based on pure deductive logic.
Yes, we can only observe manifestations of life, not life itself (shoe print vs footprint), but intelligence does seem to fit the physical phenomenon (action in target tissues via directives traveling within nerve impulses), and the actual difference between those intents and the intents of the mental impulse to me, thinking about it, does seem to be vague, unclear.
Yes, the mental impulse as generated by innate intelligence and the forces it creates to adapt universal forces, using the nervous system as one system to promote this mission, this function, I acknowledge, but what plays more into the actual action, to the actual purpose, the directive of a living thing? The physical intelligent interplay of all parts as defined by it’s matter, or the “living” intelligence, the innate intelligence that we only observe because there is this distinction between a “living” thing and a once “living” now dead thing.
The need for mans help, the outside in directive if you will, to promote successful “living” seems to be an almost 50:50, if not more value or necessity in living. OI vs ADIO??? The mental impulse is so theoretical, that it almost constitutes another educated guess to what truly is of value. A therapeutic? or an Adjustment? I get the distinction, I just don’t know if it is relevant, given the Needs of man.
LOM is so ever broad that it would seem to render the concepts of non-theraputics and removal of interference to allow full expression of innate intelligence, Worthless
Limitation of e/matter is increased due to VS. It’s NOT broad at all. It’s extremely specific. That’s why the Chiropractic Objective is so worthwhile and so needed by EVERYONE. It a basic need of humankind.
True, focusing on the spinal column is very specific. The value of dealing with the spinal column’s LOM is dependent on OI, Research, Empiricism AND/OR – the implications per our chiropractic philosophy.
Is the Chiropractic Object worthwhile because of it is specific or because it has impact. Valuable impact into the lives of people.
The impact is determined by
1. observation and acquiring data (empiricism)
2. deduction (the philosophy) and it’s relevance to cause and effect and those implications.
That we have determined that A mental impulse, A living impulse if you will, adapts universal forces, that in the case of living things which are intelligently arranged, and that this mental impulse, as we call it, IS conveyed via the nervous system?, this is that part, that empiricism/deduction conjecture, at least to me, that causes me to vascilate, at least in part.
From what I observe, in my self, if ones Worldview, intrinsically, psychologically, mentally, rudimentarily, is NOT fundamentally observant of God, or a creator, or even a New Age rendition of this, then slipping is part and parcel to not seeing a congruency as applied to owning the concept of Mental Impulse as the WORTHWHILE component of Chiropractic.
Not sure if I am explaining myself that well, clearly, etc. It’s difficult to explain.
I do NOT think I am alone in this OI/ADIO Man/Creator struggle.
Particularly in these “Scientism” ideology times we live in.
Our Modern day worldviews as promulgated in masse.
Thru our educations and upbringings.
Very challenging to be a Questioner and to sense and having experienced as most, Vulnerability. OI deals with this vulnerability.
ADIO does so, thru arduous Cerebral activity or Faith.
This is why SLIPPING is the nemesis of Chiropractic and has been since it’s inception.