to eReaders,
sometimes discussion on the blog gets confusing as we are not always on the same page. Discussion in philosophy can only be valuable if we agree on terms. I have compiled a glossary of terms directly from Chiropractic Textbook by RW Stephenson for use in our discussions. To help those new to the blog or not acquainted with the book or our philosophy please use these definitions and link to this place in posting so everyone can know the context of discussion. As time goes on it may be helpful to add new terms that are uniquely NTOSC or change those that are anachronistic. Please feel free to offer suggestions and we will add them if we feel they are helpful. We are all learning. It wouldn’t hurt for all of us to read the following and refresh our memories. Repitition is a good thing.This list will be updated periodically.
1.) Adaptability (sign of life): The intellectual ability that an organism possesses of responding to all forces which come to it, whether Innate or Universal.
2.) Intellectual Adaptation: The mental process of Innate Intelligence to plan ways and means of using or circumventing universal forces.
3.) Adaptation: The movement of an organism or any of its parts; or the structural change in that organism, to use or to circumvent environment forces. Adaptation is a continuous process—continually varying, it is never constant and unvarying as are other universal laws. Adaptation is a universal principle—the only one of its kind. It is the principle of change, and the changes are always according to law, which is Intellectual Adaptation.
4.) Assimilation (sign of life): The power of assimilation is the ability of an organism to take into its body food materials selectively, and make them a part of itself according to a system or intelligent plan.
5.) Innate Brain: a.)That part of the brain used by the Innate, as an organ, in which to assemble mental impulses. b) That part of the brain used by Innate as an organ, in which to assemble universal forces into foruns.
6.) Educated Brain: That part of the brain used by Innate as an organ for reason, memory, education, and the so-called voluntary functions.
7.) Disease and Dis-ease: Disease is a term used by physicians for sickness. To them it is an entity and is worthy of a name, hence diagnosis. Dis-ease is a Chiropractic term meaning not having ease; or lack of ease. It is lack of entity. It is a condition of matter when it does not have the property of ease. Ease is the entity, and dis-ease the lack of it.
8.) Educated Mind: Educated Mind is the activity of Innate Intelligence in the educated brain as an organ. The product of this activity is educated thoughts; such as, reasoning, will memory, etc. Innate controls the functions of the “voluntary” organs via the educated brain. Educated thoughts are mostly for adaptation to things external to the body.
9.) Mental Forces: A mental force is that something, transmitted by nerves, which unites intelligence with matter. Mental force is called mental impulse because it impels tissue cells to intelligence action.
10.) Universal Forces: Universal Forces are the generalized forces of the Universe, which obey Universal (physical) laws, and are not adapted for constructive purposes.
11.) Invasive Forces: Invasive Forces are Universal Forces which force the effects upon tissue in spite of Innate’s resistance; or in case the resistance is lowered.
12.) Innate Forces: Forces are arranged by Innate for use in the body. They are Universal Forces assembled or adapted for dynamic functional power; to cause tissue cells to function; or to offer resistance to environment.
13.) Resistive Forces: Resistive Forces are Innate Forces called into being to oppose Invasive Forces. They are not called Resistive Forces unless they are of that character.
14.) Growth (sign of life): The power of growth is the ability xpand according to intelligent plan to mature size, and is dependent upon the power of assimilation.
15.) Impressions: The message from the tissue cell to Innate Intelligence concerning its welfare and doings.
16.) Innate Mind: The activity of Innate intelligence in the Innate brain as an organ.
17.) Innate Brain: That part of the brain used by Innate, as an organ, in which to assemble mental impulses.
18.) Internal Forces: Forces made by Innate. They are for use in and for the body. They are universal forces assembled or adapted for use in the body.
19.) Mental Forces: A mental forces is something, transmitted by nerves, which unites intelligence with matter. Mental force is called mental impulse because it impels tissue cells to intelligent action.
20.) Mental Impulses: A unit of mental force for a specific tissue cell, for a specific occasion. A special message to a tissue cell for the present instant.
21.) Penetrative Forces: Penetrative forces are invasive forces; forces external which force their way into the body, and their effects upon tissue, in spite of Innate’s resistance.
22.) Poison: Poison is any substance introduced into or manufactured within the living body which Innate cannot use in metabolism.
23.) Resistive Forces: Resistive Forces are Internal Forces (innate forces) called into being to oppose Penetrative Forces. They may be in many forms; as physical, chemical, or mechanical.
24.) The Chiropractic Definition of Subluxation: A subluxations is the condition of a vertebra that has lost its proper juxtaposition with the one above or the one below, or both; to an extent less that a luxation; which impinges nerves and interferes with the transmission of mental impulses.
25.) Vibration: The motion of a tissue cell in performing its function.
The following are definitions that are not found in Chiropractic Textbook but are thought to be uniquely NTOSC:
– 26.) Objective of chiropractic: The objective of chiropractic is to locate, analyze and correct vertebral subluxations for the full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –
– 27.) Educated universal forces: Educated universal forces are forces used by people for so called voluntary functions with limited intelligent direction. –
– 28.) Chiropractic adjustment: A chiropractic adjustment is a universal force adapted by the innate intelligence of the body for the correction of a vertebral subluxation.
–– 29.) Adjustic thrust: An adjustic thrust is a specific educated universal force introduced into a subluxated vertebra of a living person by a chiropractor with the intent that the innate intelligence of the body of that person will produce a chiropractic adjustment. –
– 30.) Non therapeutic objective straight chiropractor: a chiropractor who chooses to practice only the objective of chiropractic
-31.) forum-a unit of force-the smallest fragment or part of the whole in immaterial consideration.
Very useful and a great refresher for me.
I’ve been wanting to pose this question and this seems an appropriate discussion in which to do it.
When are we going to drop the, seemingly usless and culturally now misleading word “straight” from our terminology? Isn’t Non Therapeutic Objective Chiropractic concise enough?
Am I off on this one?
Bob,
– Thank you for bringing this up into OUR conversation. Let us, TOGETHER WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, inquire into the word “straight”. –
– In the beginning, DD accepted the word “chiropractic” for his discovery and so did BJ. At some point, in the early part of the twentieth century, DD and BJ began to notice that some chiropractors added and incorporated adjunct procedures to the practice of chiropractic. Then, some of those chiropractors began to promote and teach these procedures as part of chiropractic. Remember, that chiropractic was not legislated at the time. Then, both DD and BJ began to use the word “mixers” in order to differentiate the chiropractors WHO chose to used adjunct procedures into their practices and “peddled” these adjunct procedure at seminars. Some of those peddlers, were so successful, that they got some schools, to incorporate these adjunct procedures within their curriculum and taught them as part and parcel of chiropractic. The premise was that, these chiropractors WHO chose to add those procedures, were “mixing” them with chiropractic and were “diluting” the content of what IS chiropractic. DD and BJ must have felt that it was then necessary to make a distinction between what CHIROPRACTIC IS AND WHAT CHIROPRACTIC IS NOT; WHAT CHIROPRACTIC DOES AND WHAT CHIROPRACTIC DOES NOT; HOW AND WHY CHIROPRACTIC DOES WHAT CHIROPRACTIC DOES. Hence the words “mixing” and mixers” were coined in response to that situation. –
– As we, TOGETHER, investigate further, the question is: –
– Since the distinction was already made, (there were chiropractors WHO chose to promote the content of chiropractic as it IS, and there were”mixer” chiropractors, WHO chose to add adjunct procedure to the content of chiropractic, thereby MIXING chiropractic into something that it IS NOT)……… WHY did chiropractors start to use the word “straight” at the first place… the distinction was already made? –
– PLEASE, WE ARE THINKING TOGETHER, WE ARE INQUIRING TOGETHER, WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, into the word “straight”.
… After re-reading my last post, it is me WHO chooses to omit the word “content” and change it with the word “practice”. _
– My NEW post now reads: –
– Thank you for bringing this up into OUR conversation. Let us, TOGETHER WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, inquire into the word “straight”. –
– In the beginning, DD accepted the word “chiropractic” for his discovery and so did BJ. At some point, in the early part of the twentieth century, DD and BJ began to notice that some chiropractors added and incorporated adjunct procedures to the practice of chiropractic. Then, some of those chiropractors began to promote and teach these procedures as part of chiropractic. Remember, that chiropractic was not legislated at the time. Then, both DD and BJ began to use the word “mixers” in order to differentiate the chiropractors WHO chose to used adjunct procedures into their practices and “peddled” these adjunct procedure at seminars. Some of those peddlers, were so successful, that they got some schools, to incorporate these adjunct procedures within their curriculum and taught them as part and parcel of chiropractic. The premise was that, these chiropractors WHO chose to add those procedures, were “mixing” them with chiropractic and were “adding” to the practice of chiropractic. DD and BJ must have felt that it was then necessary to make a distinction between what CHIROPRACTIC IS AND WHAT CHIROPRACTIC IS NOT; WHAT CHIROPRACTIC DOES AND WHAT CHIROPRACTIC DOES NOT; HOW AND WHY CHIROPRACTIC DOES WHAT CHIROPRACTIC DOES. Hence the words “mixing” and mixers” were coined in response to that situation. –
– As we, TOGETHER, investigate further, the question is: –
– Since the distinction was already made, (there were chiropractors WHO chose to practice chiropractic as it IS, and there were ”mixer” chiropractors, WHO chose to add adjunct procedure to the practice of chiropractic, thereby MIXING chiropractic with something that it IS NOT)……… WHY did chiropractors start to use the word “straight” at the first place… the distinction was already made? –
– PLEASE, WE ARE THINKING TOGETHER, WE ARE INQUIRING TOGETHER, WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, into the word “straight”.
Hey Claude’
You asked, “WHY did chiropractors start to use the word “straight” at the first place… the distinction was already made? ” Probably because the “mixers” never bother to distinguish themselves from the herd. Can you imagine an advertisement like, “Bob Smith, Mixed Chiropractor. If you want a little of this and a little of that, come on down to my mixed up office.” You know at one time it was a prestigious thing to identify as a Palmer Graduate, the implication was straight, not so anymore.
Words have meanings, actions have consequences, so active words should have meaningful consequences.
Steve,
Let us, TOGETHER WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, investigate further. If what you say is true, WHY chiropractors WHO chose to morph into “mixers” by adding non chiropractic procedures in their practice did NOT add any word to the word “mixer” to their description, in this case?
WHY, those chiropractors, WHO chose NOT to mix were the one WHO added the word “straight” to distinguished themselves? The distinction had already been made with the coining of the word “mixer”, was it not?
Hey Y’all,
BJ also liked and used the terms regulars and irregulars. Somehow this seems more demeaning, yet accurate. The ability to use the designation of “Straight” came up at a state board meeting once. Funny thing, the non-straights didn’t like the connotation or implication of NOT using straight and what that may imply to the public. “What would that make us” was the sentiment. I laughed my a** off. Motion defeated 5 – 4. I also recall the term medipractor being thrown around years ago. With the chiropractic drug laws (oxymoron) maybe it is time to revisit this moniker as an official legal designation.
Hey Joe,
# 29. above, Would you consider changing “living person” to living being? Some of us apply the adjustic thrust to animals as well as people. I only bring this up because here in South Carolina the Vets. are posturing for full dominion. If we ever have to defend ourselves in a hearing or court of law more sources of confirmation are always helpful.
Thanks Claude. I guess my point is that the word straight is unnecessary and superfluous in describing what we do. It is easier for me to succinctly explain “objective Chiropractic” than “straight” (look how many words it took you). Also as you know there are” straight” chiros who are practice therapeutically with intent of treating problems. By definition “objective ” chiros do not.
How’s NTOC?
Bob,
I understand what you are saying. We will, eventually, get to asking the REAL question. Please, let us continue, TOGETHER WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, our inquiry into the word “straight”. –
– WHY chiropractors WHO chose to morph into “mixers” by adding non chiropractic procedures in their practice did NOT add the word “mixer” to distinguish themselves from the rest of the chiropractors?
WHY chiropractors, WHO chose NOT to mix were the one WHO added the word “straight” to distinguish themselves? The distinction had already been made with the coining of the word “mixer”, was it not? –
– Remember, we are investigating and thinking TOGETHER about the word “straight”.
Question re: 28.) Chiropractic adjustment: A chiropractic adjustment is a universal force adapted by the innate intelligence of the body for the correction of a vertebral subluxation.
This is a great definition however..
Is there a need to distinguish this taking place with the chiropractors refined ed UF versus without?
The reason I ask is because it has been said that the body corrects its subluxations hundreds of times without a chiropractors refined force. If this is true, are these instances where it is accomplished without a chiropractor defined as chiropractic adjustments as well?
Just wondering.
Don,
Yes it is! –
– WHY? –
– It is the innate intelligence of the body that’s performing the adjustment regardless of where the universal force comes from. Whether it is an educated universal force or, a “fall” that can also be a universal force used by the innate intelligence of the body to perform a chiropractic adjustment. –
– WHY call it a chiropractic adjustment? –
– Well, it is chiropractic that defined the adjustment is it not? –
– Also, Don, the BODY does not correct its subluxations hundreds times without a chiropractor educated universal force. It is the INNATE INTELLIGENCE of the body that performs the adjustment. It’s VERY IMPORTANT to clarify this point! –
– The beauty of this, is that chiropractic belongs to ALL of vertebrates regardless of the origin of the universal force. 😉
Thanks for clarifying Dr. Lessard.
I did mean the wisdom of the body when I wrote “the body” corrects hundreds of times a day. I need to be more precise with my language. I am working on that. 🙂
I believe it was Reggie that said the wisdom of the body adjusts the spine hundreds of times and a chiropractors job is to offer forces to keep the spine as flexible and supple as possible. I believe this was in his video “gentle adjusting”.
Some chiropractors choose to disagree with the position that the vs can be corrected without a chiropractor most especially hundreds of times. Have you experienced this line of thinking before? Thoughts?
Don,
WHAT is the rational logic behind “the wisdom of the body corrects its VS hundreds of times of day without a chiropractor’s EUF?
Dr. Lessard,
The wisdom of the body makes the correction regardless of the source of the universal force used by innate intelligence for the correction.
The number of times that this happens without the chiropractors EUF I do not know and cannot provide the rational logic to it.
I just know that the wisdom of the body makes the correction in every instance.
Don,
Good. Now, let us go deeper, together… The innate intelligence of the body turns over 500,000,000,000 (billions) cells every day. WHAT does this mean with regards to VS?
Hey Don,
BJ estimated 80-85% self correction (innate adjustments). Sorry I couldn’t find the direct quote nor do I know how he arrived at that number.
Steve,
According to the glossary above, EVERY adjustment is performed by the innate intelligence of the body. If it is we, WHO choose to be on the same page and have a conversation together, then it is good to help each other to check our slippings. 😉
Thanks Claude ol’ boy. Then shall I say I am thankful for the limits of matter, or I would have nothing to do.
Dr. Lessard,
That the wisdom of the body that is capable of turning over 500 billion cells everyday is capable of correcting the vs hundreds if not thousands of times a day if the universal forces are available. This would be my guess.
Don,
You articulated what it means regarding the wisdom of the body. The question is: WHAT does it means with regards to VS?
Dr. Lessard,
I suppose that would mean the VS is not correctable until a useable universal force is introduced.
Steve,
That 80-85% corrected without the involvement of a chiropractors EUF? That is an interesting figure. Raises many questions for me. Wonder if anyone else has any knowledge of this percentage or has the reference for this. I would like to read it.
Don,
Principle 20,21,22,23 deal with “LIVING” matter. “LIVING” matter is ACTIVE. “LIVING” cells are constantly dying and replaced by NEW ones within the “LIVING” human body. That goes for bones cells, ligament cells, muscle cells, connective tissue cells, tendon cells, in other words, ALL the cells making up the articulations of the vertebra. ALL of is part of cellular replacement at the rate of billions of cells per day. –
– What does this mean with regards to VS?
– WHAT does this mean with regards to VS?
Dr. Lessard,
If I interpreted the question properly, you are asking, what does the cells of the living body that are constantly dying and being replaced by new cells at the rate of 500 billion per day mean with regard to the vs.
I do not know the answer. My guess is that at the rate of 500 billion cells turning over per day, the ii can replace the vertebrae if it needs to. 🙂
Dr. Lessard,
I am still curious. In your opinion, what does it mean with regards to VS?
Don,
You are getting so close? Let us think it over, together without condemnation. The LIVING human body has anywhere between 25-40 quadrillion cells. The innate intelligence of the body turns over about approximately .00002% of the cells of the living body? WHAT does that mean with regards to VS?
Dr. Lessard,
I honestly don’t feel that close to the answer but I will stay the course.
You wrote, “The LIVING human body has anywhere between 25-40 quadrillion cells. The innate intelligence of the body turns over about approximately .00002% of the cells of the living body? WHAT does that mean with regards to VS?”
My trouble is that I do not understand the question WHAT does that mean with regard to the VS?
The VS is a limit of matter. It does not have any intelligence or solicitude for the workings of the body.
The only relation I see is that the VS will interfere with the coordinated activity to enable the wisdom of the body to continue replacing cells at this rate.
Sorry…I may be missing the point.
Don,
Is the WHOLE living body involved in cellular replacement?
Dr. Lessard,
Basing my answer on what you stated approximately .00002% of the 40 quadrillion cells that make up the living body are turned over. So no the WHOLE body is not involved in cellular replacement.
I hope this is correct.
Don,
OK! Let us continue, together without condemnation, our inquiry into what this mean with regard to VS… shall we? 😉 –
– Where do you think this turn over of 500,000,000,000 cells come from as they die and get replaced by the innate intelligence of the body every day?
… in other words, where are these 500,000,000,000 cells located in the living human body as they die and are replaced by new ones? WHICH new cell is being replaced on any given day in the living human body?
Dr. Lessard,
Yes, let us continue.
Where do I think the turn over of 500 billion cells come from as they die and get replaced by ii every day?
I believe they come from the material of the LIVING body. Under the guidance of ii material taken in for assimilation (by educated choice) is broken down and assimilated into new LIVING tissue.
The 500 billion cells that die are located in the body.
The choice of which cell is going to be replaced is something that is under control of ii. I cannot choose using my educated intelligence to replace a liver cell versus a pancreatic cell. Therefore, I reason that the replacement of cells is always under the coordinated control of innate intelligence.
In physiology (not from the chiropractic perspective) I was taught that the dead cells are broken down and “recycled” (for lack of a better term) by phagocytic activity. I can reason that this is not controlled with will, reason or emotion so it must not be educated intelligence. Therefore, this PART of the WHOLE is directed by innate intelligence.
It would seem that the innate forces here are being used for destructive purposes and creates a conflict with Princ 25 however, if I look at the WHOLE and not the PART I can see how it is for coordinated mutual benefit of the entire living body.
Does this make sense?
Claude: just to bring back the thot of the term straight. I believe the term straight was used because over the years the definition of Chiropractic publicly & politically (legislatively) was broad (mixing) but labeled as Chiropractic. Why does my diploma say” Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic”?
Richie,
Interesting question! My diploma says Sherman College of Chiropractic. Today, the institution is called: Sherman College of Chiropractic. –
– Which brings us to the original question that I asked previously: –
– WHY, at the turn of the century, chiropractors WHO chose to morph into “mixers” by adding non chiropractic procedures in their practice did NOT add the word “mixer” to distinguish themselves from the rest of the chiropractors?
WHY chiropractors, WHO chose NOT to mix were the one WHO added the word “straight” to distinguish themselves? The distinction had already been made with the coining of the word “mixer”, was it not? –
– Remember, we are investigating and thinking TOGETHER about the word “straight”.
…. and, as you stated Richie: “over the years the definition of Chiropractic publicly & politically (legislatively) was broad (mixing) but labeled as Chiropractic”. The word “mixing” was already making the distinction between chiropractic and “mixing” chiropractic. WHY, were those WHO chose to remain chiropractors, insist on labeling themselves “straight” and were not satisfied with the already existing label “mixing” for those chiropractors WHO chose to take action toward a different direction?
The label “mixing” which you stated was used by BJ & DD was never used by the mixing rank and file because that was considered a
derogatory label from BJ and was used intra-profession but the average laymen had no idea. Straight was used to clarify non-use of medical therapies & modalities, and I was taught anything other than LACVS……
Richie,
Therefore, since the word mixing was considered derogatory, chiropractors WHO chose to NOT mix, coined the word “straight” for the average laymen. Let us inquire further. Here’s the question: –
– From the experience of the past, WHAT has the label, “straight”, accomplished for the chiropractic profession? In other words, has chiropractic been clarified to the “average laymen” with the label “straight”?
Oh, and by the way my 12/77 diploma is from Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic. That is probably why they tried so hard to keep me outta FL in 2001….LOL!
Claude: For the average lay person it did NOT clarify anything other than I was not a gay Chiropractor…..it may have been understood to some degree by pms when they were educated about the term but even then it was a limited understanding that had only an intra-profession label that was sneered at, by most on both sides of the fence. Plus my label of straight did not jive w/ Joe Blow dc in the next town.
Richie,
As we, WHO chose to investigate the word “straight”, together without condemnation, can we, together, conclude that the word “straight” did NOT clarify anything for the “average laymen” in the past and is NOT clarify anything for the average laymen today?
Claude: Yes we can conclude that, but the term is still being used as in NTOSC above.
Richie,
That’s true. Now that we are “finished” we the word “straight”, let us, together, look at Bob Graham’s post: –
– ” Bob Graham 03/14/2013, 8:02 pm:
Very useful and a great refresher for me.
I’ve been wanting to pose this question and this seems an appropriate discussion in which to do it.
When are we going to drop the, seemingly usless and culturally now misleading word “straight” from our terminology? Isn’t Non Therapeutic Objective Chiropractic concise enough?” –
– This question is for EVERYONE on the blog and I hope many will post their answer. 🙂
Don,
I see where you are coming from, but a couple clarifying questions. #1. Are we in agreement that a universal force is external? #2. Are universal forces converted by ii into an innate force to be used within the body, including correcting a VS?
If yes, then does ii always need an external universal force to be able to convert into an innate force in order to correct a VS? Or can it simply use a force already in the body (ie. intrinsic muscle activity)?
Also, if ii is correcting dozens or hundreds of VS a day, how do we know they are VS? While i agree that thd possibility of becoming subluxated dozens or hundreds of times a day is possible, i also think the ii is responsible for adapting the spinal position and for lack of a better term, making the “correction/adjustments” necessary before they become a VS. And in that regard, ii is functioning perfectly. Just like the body raising and lowering BP. It is only “high” or “low” in the eyes of the human and in need of “correction” if the ii can no longer adequately adapt. Likewise, a VS is a human/chiropractic definition determined by educated ananlsis. And a VS is the lack of adaptation of the ii. They and only then can it now become detectable as such and determined to not have been correctible by the ii of its own accord of via a random universal force applied and adequately converted for ii to make the adjustment.
So, i do think the potential to subluxate frequently on any given day is high, we aren’t concerned with that. As chiropractors, we are only concerned with applying forces to thaf which ii was unable to correcf without an educatedly applied universal force. I am not saying I am correct, but I do hope all that makes sense.
Hey Don and Michael,
I’m a little confused on how a spine might subluxate dozens (or heaven forbid, hundreds) of times a day????? It would seem highly unlikely that anyone would ever be under that much stress and receive that amount of unadaptable force.
BJ said 80-85% of subluxations were self corrected (usually during sleep or in normal movements), the other remaining 15-20% needed the help of the chiropractor because they were there so long or put out so violently that innate could not overcome.
Steve,
According to the glossary above, EVERY adjustment is performed by the innate intelligence of the body. If it is we, WHO choose to be on the same page and have a conversation together, then it is good to help each other to check our slippings. 😉
Hey Claude,
Yes, I also know that subluxations are not “self correcting” but meant Innate Intelligence corrected them without the help of a chiropractor.
Micheal,
You bring up an interesting point about the origin of the UF. I know that UF’s are external to the body and are adapted by ii for constructive purposes in the body. I interpreted this to mean that any universal force used for the correction of a VS by the ii originates OUTSIDE the body.
My only hesitation in following this logic is that recently I have read that there are UF’s at work intrinsic to the body. One instance was the free radicals generated by normal cell metabolism. This makes me re-think my position on your questioning the intrinsic source of UF.
With that said, I would have to say that I see intrinsic muscle activity under the direction of ii and not as an intrinsic UF. The UF’s adapted into IF/MI and provide the intelligent direction to the intrinsic muscle’s to correct the vs.
Do you see this differently?
Can you provide any other examples of intrinsic UF’s that are not constructive but destructive?
Steve,
Joe D. has a great quote from a wise man called Dr. Seus about saying what we mean and meaning what we say. May be Joe D. could post it for ALL of us to read aloud every day. 😉
Steve,
From my perspective, a person has the “potential” to subluxate dozens or hundreds of times a day. If we are working under the premise that a VS is caused by an inability of the ii to adequately adapt to a “stressor”, be it physical, chemical or emotional/psychological. I use this in my orientation as well, but ask folks how often do they have those stresses in their daily life? And I would challenge anyone to find otherwise, but we could spend years creating a list of things, ALL of which would fall into one or more of the 3 categories, either known or unknown. Depending upon the individual and/or the day, the amount of stressors our bodies (ii) have to adapt to can be relatively low or quite high. Not for any of us to guess or try to avoid, not only for ourselves, but as a simple reason NOT to try to “prevent” VS in our members.
Outside that short digression, i don’t think what i said earlier was removed from whaf you said of BJ. While i can’t give percentages, neither could he or anyone else. It is, at least at this point in time, to tell how frequently someone does or does not subluxate. We only “know” IF someone is subluxated, not WHEN. I also think “daily activites” or “rolling over in bed” are universal forces that ii will use. Bit there again, that is an unknown and we are unaware when and how it may occur because we are unable to witness or measure. Much like Joe’s thread on pitfalls of empiricism.
Additionally, this conversation is demonstrable as to exactly WHY people need to be “checked” often and consistenly and adjusted as needed when subluxated. To quote Joe D., “I would rather check someone more frequently and not have to adjust them, than to have them walk around subluxated and not have it be known”. The ONLY way to EVER know is to check. And due to “life” and the potential to subluxate often, then need to be checked often for LIFE!
Don,
Not quite sure i am following your logic with regard to UF being “intrinsic”. Universal forces in my mind, have always been “extrinsic”, this of course being based on my understanding of intrinsic and extrinsic.
Your example of free radicals makes my point. Free radicals are produced as part of normal cellular physiology. That is an ii directed activity and as a result, an innate force that has beneficial need and use within the body, primarily in immune system function, including fighting infection and even cancer. In “balance” and under control, the likelihood of long term exposure/damage is minimized, perhaps even nullified. This would be intrinsic force and constructive. However, as uf’s (fried food, sun rays, xrays, cigarette smoke, etc.) the free radicals are produced possibly as part of normal physiology as a perfect adaptive measure by ii, it is too much “stress” and ii is unable to adequately adapt, causing not only a possible VS, but also an accumulation of free radicals to point that exposure quantity and duration, or both, is destructive to structural matter as uf’s tend to be.. And apparently, it can even cause dna mutation and postulated to cause a whole host of conditions, including cancer.
Its like too much of good thing. I would liken it to eustress and distress.
Michael,
Is it your opinion that free radicals are constructive?
What do you mean by “balance”?
I believe I read the example in Rob Sinnott’s book. I admittedly know nothing about free radicals but assumed they were destructive in every case.
If free radicals produced by normal physiology are constructive then I can see your point. If they are destructive and innate forces are generated to “balance” them, then I do not understand.
Thoughts?
Don,
Let’s try this again. My first response to this didn’t post for some reason. I am not an expert on free radicals either and I too thought they were only destructive as that is how the medical community portrays it. However, after you posed the example, I did some reading and found many articles that indeed discuss not only the formation of free radicals, but also their role. Free radicals are produced during normal cellular physiology and there is “constructive” use by the body, primarily it seems by use in the immune system. They are “destructive” because they destroy cells, but it is for a “constructive” purpose overall. Too much however, and there can result in too much cellular damage, which would not be good.
The term “balance” wasn’t mine, but rather one I took from one of the articles. It made sense to me, so I used it. I took it to mean that as long as there is “right amount” of free radical production, the body’s use and adaptability is fine and unaffected. So, oxidative-stress can be good to a degree and is apparently normal and necessary. Oxidative-OVER-stress is not. As I thought about this awhile, I could start to see many examples of normal physiology of the body in this light. Many ii-driven physiologic functions that happen everyday are “destructive” for a “constructive” purpose. Red blood cells for example, live EXACTLY 120 days unless something interferes with the process. But under the control of the ii, they live, they die and they are “destructed” into parts that can be used again in a “constructive” fashion perfectly. So, innate forces will be either destructive or constructive as necessary, but still always under the control of the innate intelligence. When ii is unable to adequately adapt to a situation or is simply overwhelmed. Too many red blood cells dying too quickly would be a cause for concern. CSF is created and reabsorbed in a “closed-loop” system. As long as that remains in balance, the intra-cranial and intra-thecal pressure are perfect and no one even knows there is fluid there. Stop producing it, producing too much or not being able to reabsorb adequately and the pressure changes, often with disasterous and life-threatening consequences.
In the case of free radicals, under the direction and control of ii, the body not only produces its own during normal metabolism, but it also has to resist the damage they can cause. Having additional free radical production by the ingestion of/exposure to substances that accelerate the free radical process could overwhelm the ii and lead to the damage that we often hear about.
You may remember from biochemistry that the body creates its own cholesterol and therefore really needs none from the outside. However, as humans, we consume “extra” cholesterol through our diet and as a result, some folks may not adapt properly and have cholesterol-related issues. However, if the ii of the body adapts well enough, some folks can ingest significant amounts of cholesterol throughout their life and never have “cholesterol problems”.
To me, it would seem that innate forces can be either destructive or constructive in nature, but are always perfect for the situation as long as ii is in control. When that control is lost, for whatever reasons, then there is trouble.
Universal forces tend to be “destructive” to structural matter, because they are uncontrolled to a large degree. But when control can be achieved (as in the case of the human body and ii), converting that universal force to a now innate force “constructive” value is created.
I hope that this didn’t ramble too much and that I made my thoughts clear. I think my first post was better, but I lost it and couldn’t remember everything I said.
Michael,
You know more about free radicals than you lead on 🙂
You mentioned innate forces being constructive AND destructive. I apologize but I could have too many free radicals in my educated today but I can’t shake the thinking that something is amiss here.
How is your example of IFs being constructive and destructive possible given prin 25 and 26?
Principle 25. The Character of Innate Forces – The forces of Innate Intelligence never injure or destroy the structures in which they work.
Principle 26. Comparison of Universal and Innate Forces – In order to carry on the universal cycle of life, Universal forces are destructive, and Innate forces constructive, as regards structural matter.
Given prin 25 and 26 how can innate forces ever be destructive?
Don,
Maybe I am the one who is confused. I have never had a philosophical discussion regarding these principles all that deeply and just accepted them I guess. So, may be I am outside my “philosophical pay grade” if you will.
However, I understand the principles as written, however, i think it might be more a matter of clarifying terms and definitions rather than being antithetical to the principles themselves.
For example, what do macrophages and neutrophils do? What do enzymes do? What do clast cells do” They break down structural matter, which is necessary for normal function, however by definition that action, carried out by innate forces, is “destructive” in nature. Under normal conditions and the control of the innate intelligence, it is perfectly coordinated, timely and necessary. In this scenario, ii isn’t injuring or destroying the tissues in which it work. Kind of like remodeling your kitchen. You would never just destroy your kitchen or house, but you may have to rip out the floor, cabinets, etc. in order to restore and/or re-create a new, more functional kitchen. But that is all in the name of creation, adapting, organizing, re-organizing and re-creating life.
Unless you are considering these normal physiological processes that are “destructive” in nature as occurring by universal forces, I am having a hard time seeing it another way. Even if the force started out as a universal force and was adapted by the body, it is now, simply by being adapted is changed from a universal force (meaning no longer a universal force) and turned into an innate force, as the innate intelligence is now the director of that force. Other forces intrinsically created by innate intelligence start out as innate forces as they are not in need of adaptation and have never been a universal force.
Maybe I am looking at this too simplistically. if so, please point it out to me. And likewise, i would love to hear others more well-versed in philosophy than I to add their thoughts.
Hey,
Objective and non therapeutic are redundant are they not? Again it seems NTOC is defining us by what we are not. Just as straight implied non-mixer, nothing more. JOMO
Steve,
Do you think that the objective of a profession is acceptable to define that profession?
… in other words, is a profession TRULY defined by its objective?
Steve,
Maybe i am confused. But in order for “objective” and “non-therapeutic” to be redundant, wouldn’t they need to mean the same thing?
Because chiropractic has become virtually what anyone with the most votes wins, then lobbies and legislates it to be, the descriptors have become necessary to set one apart from the other. If the mixers would have started calling themselves something else when they strayed, there would be no need for the terms Reggie and Strauss coined. In essence, we are the entity and them the non-entity. But because they have been successful in creating a profession of non-chiropractic without coinciding language/name change, we are left where we’re at currently. And unfortunately, that is left with using adjectives such as “non-therapeutic” and “objective straight”.
Have you read “Refined by Fire”?
Hey Michael,
Redundant also means, “Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous”. As I understand it, by definition “Objective” means focused on the subluxation for it’s own sake not the outcome. Non-therapuetic describes the same view, does it not? If they are similar one is not needed.
We must either define ourselves by What or Why or How, we do what we do. If chiropractic is about removing subluxations then that is how we should define ourselves(SOC- Subluxation Only Chiropractic). If chiropractic is about Innate then that concept should be in our description( ITEC- InnateTransfer Enhancment Chiropractic). Or perhaps we should brand ourselves as experts in force( FRC- Force Restoration Chiropractic). If we would prefer to continue labeling our profession by what we are not maybe NMC- Non-Medical Chiropractic? No that would again be redundancy. Sad thing is, this designation may be necessary for some of us in the near future.
For me, the name Chiropractic is sufficient because I know what it means. I don’t know what to suggest about the add-ons but NTOSC is quite possibly 4 times repetitive.
Yes I have had the pleasure of all Joe’s books, enjoyed them all and waiting for more. Help me convince him to put them on a CD!
Hi Joe,
I had a question with regard to #27 and #28 above. In light of definition #27 as an “educated universal force”, would it be more accurate to include the entire term “educated universal force” in defining #28; Chiropractic Adjustment? An accidental trip over the curb could result in a universal force being adapted by ii and result in an ” adjustment” or “correction” of a VS, but it wouldn’t be educated, nor could it be considered a “chiropractic” adjustment.
Similar to the way we refer to “chinese food” in America is just called “food” in China. Just a thought.
Michael,
Innate forces are ALWAYS constructive. WHAT is going on in the living human body is ALWAYS under 100% control of the innate intelligence of the body (pri.22 and 23) and it is principle 24 that limits its innate forces, due to the interference with the transmission of these innate forces (pri,29) which is VS (pri.31) and the CAUSE of dis-ease (pri.30). Please note that the innate intelligence of the body will ALWAYS 100% adapt forces and matter for the body AS LONG AS IT CAN DO SO WITHOUT BREAKING A UNIVERSAL LAW. The universal law in this case, is the LIMITS OF ADAPTATION. –
– ALL of this process can ONLY be OBSERVED as a WHOLE, not in parts and ALWAYS within the context of co-ordinated actions which is the FUNCTION of innate intelligence (pri.23). There are NO destructive innate forces (pri.25). What you posted above is from the point of view of a macrophage, an enzyme, a neutrophil, a clast cell, and they do have a purpose in order for the innate intelligence of the body to maintain the material of the LIVING body in active organization (pri.21). –
– As you can see for yourself, the maintaining in ACTIVE ORGANIZATION requires ACTIVITIES that is way beyond the capacity of the educated intelligence to understand. It is best to understand the principles of chiropractic fully, then LACVS and the rest will follow! 😉 –
– You stated that: “I have never had a philosophical discussion regarding these principles all that deeply and just accepted them I guess.” Now, ALL of us, TOGETHER WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, it is we, WHO choose to BE in conversation, TOGETHER, in order to have a deeper understanding of chiropractic philosophy and its principles… TOGETHER. Thank you. –
– This part and parcel of the “content” of “owning the philosophy” . Let us carry on. ADIO.
–
Claude,
Thank you for your input. While I do understand, agree with, and subscribe to and practice by the principles. And while I agree with you on the whole, the picture I was trying to paint for Don was based on purity of definition of “constructive” and “destructive”. Something breaks cells down and it is the innate forces controlled and coordinated by ii. Even though it is for a “constructive” nature. I think my post recognized and illustrated that. He asked how innate forces cpuld be both and I gave examples.
Also, because innate intelligence will never do anything to harm the tissues in which it works, i don’t see free radicals as the “enemy”. They are an “intelligent” by-product of normal, healthy cellularlr metabolism of intelligent design and under the perfect control of ii. If that were not the case, i think the God would have picked another system. .
Michael,
Are we saying, together, that if there is NO interference with the FLOW of mental impulse (with intelligent direction) from brain cells to tissue cells and vice-versa, the by-product of the cells, whether bile, insulin, adrenaline, free radicals or whatever, is a result of innate forces, thereby CONSTRUCTIVE… Then, if there IS interference with the FLOW of mental impulse, that impulse is, now, ONLY, a nerve impulse without intelligent direction, and therefore is a universal force which is DESTRUCTIVE toward structural matter?
Claude,
I think you had my agreement up until you said “…a nerve impulse without intelligent direction, and therefore is a UNIVERSAL FORCE (emphasis mine), which is DESTRUCTIVE toward structural matter?”
I would agree all except that where you wrote is a “universal force”. That is the crux of the issue for me. I don’t see them as universal forces, rather intelligently designed, INNATE forces. They are force generated and adapted by ii as part of the perfect and normal process. I am not saying that universal forces cannot enter the body, remain unadapted by the ii for whatever reason, including by reason of interference from a VS and therefore THOSE forces would most indeed be “destructive”.
Michael,
Look in the archives under CATEGORIES and go to “thinking straight” and you will find many thread addressing this very issue. If I remember correctly, one thread in particular was called “mental impulse” and “nerve impulse”. It’s rather well explained in those threads.
Dr. Lessard,
Prin. 23 ii adapts universal forces and matter for co-ordinated action for mutual benefit.
Princ. 25. states that the forces of Innate Intelligence never injure or destroy the structures in which they work.
Princ. 26 In order to carry on the universal cycle of life, Universal forces are destructive, and Innate forces constructive, as regards structural matter.
Does this mean that if looked at in parts and not as a whole that innate forces CAN injure or destroy the structures in which they work?
What does this mean for Princ. 26? What does this mean for the forces in the Living body?
I thought so long as there are no VS and all penetrative forces are being adapted by ii then any and all forces in the living body are only innate forces. Is this incorrect?
Don,
No, it does not mean that if looked at in parts and not as a whole that innate forces CAN injure or destroy the structures in which they work. It simply means, that the educated intelligence CANNOT comprehend that which is the domain of innate intelligence. That’s one difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. –
– Also, your statement: “I thought so long as there are no VS and all penetrative forces are being adapted by ii then any and all forces in the living body are only innate forces” is philosophically correct. 🙂
Claude: I believe NTO-Chiropractor about covers it, however I really like what Steve brought up; non-medical objective chiropractor. Non-Therapeutic ( is quite a mouthful) & not a familiar term to the average laymen, however Non-Medical is quite understandable and easy to explain : )
Richie,
Let us inquire, TOGETHER WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, into the words “non-therapeutic and non-medical” for distinctions. Can a chiropractor, WHO chooses to LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of body PERIOD, practice therapeutically (pertaining to the treatment of diseases or disorders by remedial agents or methods) or medically (pertaining to the practice of medicine and requiring a medical treatment)? –
– In other words, can a chiropractor WHO chooses to practice the objective of chiropractic, practice the therapeutic or medical objective at the same time?
Richie,
Steve does make a point, however i think using “non-medical”, while perhaps less of a mothful, is not really more descript or specific in terms of understanding. There are many professions that are “non-medical” in nature. In fact, they are often classified and referred to as “alternative”. These same professions, while being “non-medical” are certainly NOT “non-therapeutic” in objective. I guess if a global chamge of definition and objective that EVERYTHING that has as its objective to dx, tx, alleviate, ameliorate, prevent any and all medical conditions and symptoms IS “medical”, then calling us “non-medical” MIGHT work.
Micheal: Reggie & Joe Flesia (and Easy R. now known as Guy) used to teach that anything that dx & tx symptoms or diseases is the practice of medicine whether artificially, naturally, or spiritually….
Claude:NO they can not.
Richie,
Therefore, chiropractors cannot practice the objective of chiropractic and the medical objective simultaneously. Then, we, together without condemnation, conclude that chiropractors either practice one or the other. Right?
Yes Claude: We together w/o condemnation can conclude that chiropractors either choose to practice w/ the VS objective or the medical objective.
Richie,
To be philosophically sound, a chiropractor can practice ONLY the chiropractic objective? Right?
Richie,
While I agree with you in theory, those 3, two of which have since passed and the other no longer adhering to that tenet, unfortunately didn’t define the world in which we live and practice.
i agree that everything with that objective IS the practice of medicine. chiropractic, or at least factions of, have been changed to become the practice of medicine all remaining under the heading of chiropractic. They wouldn’t change their name and clarify their new practice with a new name, so we needed to.
Hey Michael,
It may help to think of II as occasionally deconstructive as opposed to destructive. The inference is that Innate Intelligence assembles and disassembles as needed. The word destructive has a negative/ harmful connotation.
Or, you could look at it this way, II is an organizing/maintaining influence. Without II. things revert back to UI (which is destructive) and decompose. Your example of the red blood cell being deconstructed by II may also be thought of as, the loss of II after 120 days allows the RBC to fall apart.
Steve,
If you want to use the term “deconstructive” instead of “destructive”, that is fine and perhaps better in that it doesn’t have as much negative connotation. However, it doesn’t change the definition of either. And just like the “intent” and purpose of the “destruction” is the clarifier. Whether I “deconstruct” or “destruct” something, it can be done for a truly negative, DESTRUCTIVE purpose or it can be done for positive, beneficial and CONSTRUCTIVE purpose.
With regard to the principles, no doubt that when ii ceases to either exist or maintain control, then use, the “deconstruction” is purpose negative. With regard to the RBC, I am not sure if it is just “allowed to fall apart” because the entire process is intelligently controlled and the RBC broken down in a specific, predictable way each and every time. Opposite that is when a person dies. The ii ceases to exist in that individual and they begin to “fall apart”, however, that physical body isn’t broken down the same way, predictably.
Hey Michael,
It seems we pretty much agree. If we consider II. to be organizational and UI. to be entropic. Then it would make sense that the withdrawl or cessation of II. would ecourage a decrease in functionality and/or structure. Therefore, decompositional predictability would logically be an aspect of UI. Reusing the elementary materials would then once again be an II. property.
I am suprised you don’t think the body breaks down predictably in an organized fashon, admmitedly through a process of dis-organization. Don’t you watchTV.? They can now tell the exact time of death just by calculating body temperature loss, I saw it on CSI.
Steve,
First, I think we agree for the most part. However, I don’t believe that decompositional breakdown after withdrawal/cessation of ii is the same thing as ii actively “deconstructing” (to use your term) tissue in order to recycle the component parts for new construction. That would be like the difference between a contractor tearing down a house and reusing some of it to build a new home as opposed to letting it sit and decay until it is broken down.
What I meant is that WE cannot truly and accurately predict decomposition. UI most certainly could and would know, it it all necessary. Howevrr, no two humans predictably decay at the same rate or same percentage. Too many other universal forces at work to know. Measuring the “rate” that certain types of cell decay in retrospect is not the same as predicting it, even on CSI.
Something else I forgot with regard to entropy. Yes, i agree is entropic.
Are you saying that with regard to tissue breakdown by ii, its “active role” and innate forces are a measure of withdrawal by ii in maintaining that tissue and therefore a body’s propensity toward entropy by universal forces is allowed to take place until enough decay has occurred and satisfied ii’s need and then ii jumps back on the scene and applies innate forces to either resist furthe decay by universal forces or for “construction” of new tissue? That doesn’t make sense to me.
To me, that would be similar to putting stuff in a compost bin and it being allowed to decay until such time as we determine its usefulness to put in the garden to grow new plants.
Hey Y’all,
People Please, I was not trying to add another name to Chiropractic. In fact I was trying to point out the absurdity of all the qualifiers. These names just splinter us as a profession, they are divisive. The damage done to the name of Chiropractic most likely cannot be undone it has in fact always been there. I don’t think the public knows or cares about the different factions, not nearly as much as we do anyway. In the words of Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along.” That said, I do think it is important that we have reference points and definitions. Personally I like OSC philosophy. Chiropractic however, is what it is. We cannot change chiropractic, chiropractic changes us. Chiropractic is founded on tone.
Steve,
– We, TOGETHER WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, did inquire into the word “straight” with MANY posts, and we, together, concluded, that the word “straight” did NOT clarify anything for the “average laymen” in the past and is NOT clarify anything for the average laymen today. –
– Now that we are “finished” with the word “straight”, let us, together, continue to look at Bob Graham’s post of 03/14/2013, 8:02 pm as we are inquiring, TOGETHER WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, into the words “non-therapeutic” and “non-medical”.
– The last question on the thread was: –
– Can a chiropractor, WHO chooses to LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of body PERIOD, practice therapeutically (pertaining to the treatment of diseases or disorders by remedial agents or methods) or medically (pertaining to the practice of medicine and requiring a medical treatment)? –
– In other words, can a chiropractor WHO chooses to practice the objective of chiropractic, practice the therapeutic or medical objective at the same time? –
– Richie posted: “NO they can not “. What is your answer to that last question… EVERYONE?
Hey Claude,
Of coarse they could, that’s what a mixer is. Some even adjust for all the right philosophically sound reasons and then add other stuff. Is there such a thing as a Straight Mixer? OOOH OOOH How about a non-therapeutic mixer, is that even possible.
Steve,
Our glossary above states:
– 26.) Objective of chiropractic: The objective of chiropractic is to locate, analyze and correct vertebral subluxations for the full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –
– WHAT does PERIOD signify?
Steve,
I mean the “period” signifies the end of the reason for LACVS. Nothing more, nothing less and nothing else.
With the above objective, LACVS for the full expression of I.F. of the I.I. of the body is a worthwhile objective because VS, in and of themselves, are detrimental for the expression of life. It is non-duplicative (there’s that darn “non” aspect again). There is no reason to have (or include in the objective) an extension of “reason” (e.g. therapeutic reason) to provide care or base a profession (or in our case a segment of a profession).
Additionally, you can’t practice chiropractic for a NTOSC (or whatever you call it) objective and a “medical/therapeutic” objective at the same time. In the example you list above, there is addition of other professions added to the practice of chiropractic, but either the reason for chiropractic is practiced as philosophically sound or it is not. Adding nutrition doesn’t change the chiropractic objective. Adding massage, acupuncture or colonic irrigation doesn’t change the chiropractic objective. The only problem is that the mixers themselves and the lay public don’t see a distinction.
Michael,
Therefore, chiropractors cannot practice the objective of chiropractic and the medical objective simultaneously. Then, we, together without condemnation, conclude that, to be philosophically sound, chiropractors can only practice the chiropractic objective. Right?
Claude,
Yes and yes. That’s what I said.
Michael and Richie,
Therefore, together without condemnation, we conclude that the words “non-therapeutic” and “non-medical” are not necessary to distinguish a chiropractor WHO chooses to practice the chiropractic objective and a chiropractor WHO chooses NOT to practice the chiropractic objective. Right?
Claude,
It depends on the company. On this thread, yes perhaps. In the real world, not likely. There has been too much time and damage occur to be without them at this point. This question and debate gets brought up frequently, here and elsewhere and I suspect now for decades. I don’t see what the confusion or desire to rid the profession of the terms. Do I wish we had never a need for them? Absolutely! But that is outside of my control and since the damage was created can’t be undone, all we can do is damage control and seek to clarify on objective, cause God knows no one else is.
Michael,
Then, let us inquire further, together without condemnation and go to the end of it. Here’s the question you and everyone else reading this post. Is a profession completely defined by its objective?
Claude,
I think a profession should be defined by its objective. It is what makes that profession unique.
Now, whether those in a given profession adhere to or practice within that objective or describe their profession by that stated objective is another story.
Chiropractic, for the most part, is no longer accurately defined by its objective because tbe objective has changed to become whatever someone wants it to be.
Michael,
I got WHAT you posted. I also welcome and I want to get whatever you have to contribute to this conversation. Let us, together without condemnation, continue our inquiry. –
– The chiropractic objective is accurately defined as stated in #26 above, is it not? It is those WHO choose to promote a DIFFERENT objective, WHO choose to act accordingly, is it not? It’s not about the WHAT, it’s about the WHO! Right? (there are MANY threads about the WHO in the archives).
– In order to define chiropractors WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective for WHO they are instead of WHO they are not, the term OBJECTIVE CHIROPRACTOR satisfies the criteria accurately, does it not? –
– Then, when people ask you: What kind of professional are you or what do you do? You respond: I am an objective chiropractor! If they reply: What’s that? This question becomes your access to their inquiry and you proceed to tell them that you are a chiropractor WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective…. would you like to know what the chiropractic objective is? If they say yes, you take it from there, with your creativity and tell the story over and over and over and over again, in as many creative ways as you can. From the very beginning of the conversation, you invent the possibility to ORIENT them in the direction of WHAT CHIROPRACTIC IS, WHAT CHIROPRACTIC IS NOT; WHAT CHIROPRACTIC DOES, WHAT CHIROPRACTIC DOES NOT; HOW AND WHY CHIROPRACTIC DOES WHAT IT DOES. –
– It is as simple as that! 😉
…. this addresses the CAUSE of the problem, which is “self interest”. It provides a solution… one objective chiropractor at time, explaining the objective of chiropractic… to one person at a time whether individually, to groups, organization, through professional or lay articles, on-line, advertising, marketing, radio/tv/you tube interviews, CDs, DVDs… etc…etc. –
– It all begins with a tiny whisper and gets louder and louder and louder, one person at a time. Just like cellular replacement, 0.00004% (500 billion cells turn around per day over 25-40 quadrillion cells) is enough to provide an earthly continuum of procreative life at all levels in order to MOVE the species It ALL begins with a small step. Our history can attest to that fact. A deaf Black janitor and a magnetic healer. One WHO chose to BE a receiver and one WHO chose to Be a giver. DD had to DROP his “falsehoods” his “old” method of magnetic healing and accept the NEW life giving of chiropractic and MOVE forward from where he was WITHOUT looking back. Also, read HOW the developer narrates his “finding himself” at the tender age of 17. BJ’s story of his chiropractic “re-birth” started in a flash, in an instant. He “DROPPED” his “old” way of thinking and began his difficult and flamboyant journey, picking “old” scraps” scribbled notes of paper (read junk mail) in his father’s waste basket . These scribbles were NEW to BJ’s and chiropractic MOVED forward. Same sort of incredible stories with Reggie, Flesia, Sid, Sigafoose, Strauss, Sherman College, ADIO (for its short life graduated 403 chiropractors), even this two year old “toddler” blog. All of these stories, got us to where we are today. Not to shabby indeed. The remnant is on the MOVE. –
– It is me WHO choose to invite YOU to invent a NEW possibility for yourself and your life. You, NOW… RIGHT NOW… mighty just be “SEIZED” by this invitation and you may IMMEDIATELY DROP your “old” way and pick up this NEW way, joining, TOGETHER WITHOUT CONDEMNATION, in the MARCH of the “tiny whisper” which is on the MOVE writing a NEW chapter in the history of CHIROPRACTIC. –
– We, together without condemnation, are inventing this NEW possibility for ourselves and our lives. Our choice, together without condemnation, has intrinsic within itself the seed of MOVING mountains one person at a time. WHO will you choose to BE? –
– Let us carry on. ADIO.
Don,
With the living human body, cellular replacement occurs ABOVE (intelligence) DOWN (force) INSIDE (matter) OUT (motion). It ALWAYS happens this way. It behooves us to have an ADIO view point does is non?
Don,
With the living human body, cellular replacement occurs ABOVE (intelligence) DOWN (force) INSIDE (matter) OUT (motion). It ALWAYS happens this way. It behooves us to have an ADIO view point does is not? Is the ADIO view point static or in motion within the living human body?
Dr. Lessard,
Yes it is appropriate to have an ADIO viewpoint.
Don,
Let us continue, together without condemnation, our inquiry into cellular replacement. You mentioned that the 500 billion cells come ALL of the parts of the living human body. Is this cellular replacement static or in constant motion?
Dr. Lessard,
I would venture to say in constant motion. It is always organizing and re-organizing.
Don,
Let us go deeper with our inquiry. You posted: “I would venture to say in constant motion. It is always organizing and re-organizing.” –
– What does that mean with regards to VS?
Dr. Lessard,
I may be reaching the point of my depth of philosophical understanding on this one. 🙂
I do not know what that means with regard to the VS.
If we turned it around and said what does the VS mean with respect to the processes of the body such as the of turning over cells. My answer would be the body is always better off without subluxation.
This question was easier. Your question seems to be more difficult to answer and I am not sure why.
Don,
We, together without condemnation, see, that cellular replacement involves the whole body and ” is in constant motion. It is always organizing and re-organizing.” –
– The definition of VS has FOUR components. Are these components part of the ONGOING cellular replacement in the living human body?
…. in other words, are these components replaced at the cellular level on an ONGOING basis?
Here’s a comment from Michael Duncan that was apparently swallowed up by the black hole of cyberspace :”with regard to my original question in reference to #27 and #28 in the glossary. In light of definition #27 as an “educated universal force”, would it be more accurate to include the entire term “educated universal force” in defining #28; Chiropractic Adjustment? An accidental trip over the curb could result in a universal force being adapted by ii and result in an ” adjustment” or “correction” of a VS, but it wouldn’t be educated, nor could it be considered a “chiropractic” adjustment.
Similar to the way we refer to “chinese food” in America is just called “food” in China. Just a thought.” Claude, since you suggested the originla definitions of #27, would you like to respond?
Michael and Joseph,
It should read: VERTEBRAL
– 28.) Vertebral adjustment: A vertebral adjustment is a universal force adapted by the innate intelligence of the body for the correction of a vertebral subluxation.
Dr. Lessard,
If the four components we are referring to are:
1. Loss of juxtaposition of a vertebra with the one above, the one below, or both.
2. Occlusion of an opening.
3. Nerve impingement.
4. Interference with the transmission of mental impulses.
No, the four components of the vs are not replaced at the cellular level on an ongoing basis.
Don,
– Very good! The definition of VS has FOUR components. Which of these components are part of the ONGOING cellular replacement in the living human body?
Dr. Lessard,
The fourth component (interference with the transmission of the mental impulse) would be the most likely of the four components of vs to be related to the ONGOING cellular replacement in the living body.
In other words, the transmission of mental impulse is necessary for the cells to be replaced.
— 29.) Adjustic thrust: An adjustic thrust is a specific educated universal force introduced into a subluxated vertebra of a living person by a chiropractor with the intent that the innate intelligence of the body of that person will produce a vertebral adjustment. –
Claude: We, together without condemnation, can agree on that and this whole thread has been very thot provoking I am still smelling smoke from the wood burning…. ; )
Joseph,
The NEW expanded glossary should now read: –
The following are definitions that are not found in Chiropractic Textbook but are thought to be uniquely NTOSC: –
– 26.) Objective of chiropractic: The objective of chiropractic is to locate, analyze and correct vertebral subluxations for the full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –
– 27.) Educated universal forces: Educated universal forces are forces used by people for so called voluntary functions with limited intelligent direction. –
– 28.) Vertebral adjustment: A vertebral adjustment is a universal force adapted by the innate intelligence of the body for the correction of a vertebral subluxation.
— 29.) Adjustic thrust: An adjustic thrust is a specific educated universal force introduced into a subluxated vertebra of a living person by a chiropractor with the intent that the innate intelligence of the body of that person will produce a vertebral adjustment. –
– 30.) Non therapeutic objective straight chiropractor: a chiropractor who chooses to practice only the objective of chiropractic. –
——————————————————————————————-
– May I also suggest that we, together without condemnation, drop the words “non-therapeutic” and “straight”, since our inquiry into these terms have shown us that they are NOT necessary for the distinction of chiropractors to the public. –
– OBJECTIVE CHIROPRACTOR describes specifically and accurately in a positive way WHO we choose to Be as chiropractors. –
– The Objective Chiropractor is a chiropractor WHO chooses to practice the chiropractic objective as described in #26… nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. PERIOD.
Don,
Let us go deeper then, into our inquiry, together without condemnation, about cellular replacement. We have concluded together that the cells that are replaced on and ongoing basis come from EVERY single parts of the body. This includes the bone cells does it not? Vertebra are bones. Therefore, the cells of the vertebra are replaced on an ongoing basis. Right?
Dr. Lessard,
Yes, cells that are replaced are done so on an ongoing basis.
Yes, this process of replacing cells includes the spinal bones or vertebrae.
Don,
Going deeper and deeper, together without condemnation, as you stated: “Yes, this process of replacing cells includes the spinal bones or vertebrae”, the question is: –
– What does that mean with regards to VS as its bony structure is replaced on an ongoing basis?
Dr. Lessard,
You asked, ” What does that mean with regards to VS as its bony structure is replaced on an ongoing basis?”
Dr. Lessard you are a great mind but I may need some help on this one.
Can I poll the audience or call a friend?? 🙂
Does it mean the vs is never static. Never the same? 🙁 ?
Don,
Yes, you may! 😉 –
– Now that we, together without condemnation, have arrived at this level of inquiry, what do YOU think?
WOW! That is why getting your Spine checked 4 VS on a very regular basis is sooo important.
Dr. Barone,
Could you please explain for me what you meant when you wrote, “WOW! That is why getting your Spine checked 4 VS on a very regular basis is sooo important”
Don,
That’s Richie’s break through!!! His personal ‘AH HA” experience!!! 😉
Dr. Lessard,
That doesn’t seem fair to me. Here I am struggling with this line of reasoning and Richie won’t share his thinking. I guess I am simply too impatient to wait for my own Ah-ha moment 🙂
Okay, at this level of inquiry I would summarize my thinking with respect to the “with regard to VS” questions as follows:
The ii of the body replaces cells of the body at a rate of 500 billion cells per day. This process includes spinal bones or vertebrae.
This process is not static. The organizing and re-organizing of the cells of the living body is in constant motion.
This is where I go out on a limb…
The correction of the vs allows the restoration of flow of mental impulses to the very tissue of the vertebrae.
This allows the coordination of cellular replacement to continue within the limitations of matter.
Just as the vertemere cycle, the presence of vs would impede the coordinated remodeling of the articulations of the involved segments in the vs. This makes for a disastrous situation unless the ii of the body can adapt universal forces sufficient to correct the vs and restore coordinated cellular replacement and control of that vertebra(e).
Don,
“AH-HA” experiences are personal and trigger an awareness that cannot be transmitted from one person to another even if it is shared. Sometimes, one CANNOT explain into words… specially if it is part of ONE’s personal truth. One can only LAUGH: “HA!HA!HA! 😉 –
– I do appreciate your “curious” impatience”. It is a sign of the highest state of mind… the “beginner’s mind” which is the ONLY way to see the NEW. Let me give you an example: It is just like a child WHO sees a bird for the first time. She sees this little fluffy thing with wings and she watches it fly around. She’s mesmerized, she smiles, she laughs, she giggles, she is playful, she’s “in motion” with this thing that flies around. In other words, she’s DYNAMIC. She’s not THINKING about WHAT she OBSERVES, she does NOT judge it, label it, she lets it BE and ENJOYS its BEING as it IS itself. She’s involved in the “on going dynamic FLOW of life, she’s in the “NOW”. Let’s suppose, that someone comes along and says to her: “BIRD”! “BIRD”! The moment she hears and connects in her mind this “thing” that she has observed, for however long, with the word “BIRD”, she will NEVER see that bird again. When she sees it, she will say: “Bird, oh, me KNOW bird, me bored with bird”. She has lost her “beginner’s mind”. She’s NOW “learned” and the PROCESS of labeling and conceptualizing is set in motion regarding birds. Soon someone will come along and label birds for her… according to their species… To “see” that original bird again, she will have to ‘UNLEARN”, she will have to empty the content of her consciousness about this “fluffy flying thing”. –
– Now, we have WORK to do and it is my hope that others will join us, together without condemnation, and go to the end of it and be finished with it. 😉 –
– You stated: “The ii of the body replaces cells of the body at a rate of 500 billion cells per day. This process includes spinal bones or vertebrae.
This process is not static. The organizing and re-organizing of the cells of the living body is in constant motion.” –
– The question is: –
– Is, VS static or dynamic? In other words, is VS in constant motion?
Don: Sorry I did not see ur post until now. My WOW was if the body has a longer time to be free of VS it is functioning a a higher level and therefore the body is changing and adapting at it’s optimal level at that point in time (cell replacements etc. and so on) Checking and adjusting VS on a regular basis would allow that body to adapt and change at optimal levels which would benefit for a lifetime.
And the we really can Not really visualize and know how far reaching this will be for the body. This is way beyond my educated mind…
sorry no the
Dr. Lessard,
You are right. Concept formation is a learned process. There is much more to be gained from the formation of a concept individually versus being “given” the concept.
The replacement of cells is an ongoing process.
The vs is static unless and until the innate forces of the ii of the body adapts forces to correct it.
Is that correct?
Don, ultimately, how you gain the information (IMO)is of little consequence.Wheter you gain it by individual study, someone gives it to you or you learn it by study, ultimately you must accept it by one of the 3 method of perception.(rationalization, empiricism, faith. Are you suggesting that one method is superior?
Dr. Strauss,
All three methods are as “valid” as the others.
What I was suggesting was that in my personal experience, if I struggled to find a solution, I usually remembered the concept much better than being told me the concept.
Tell me, I’ll forget
Show me, I’ll remember
Involve me, I’ll understand.
Dr. Strauss,
I find that the three methods of gaining information are all “valid”. None more superior than another.
What I was suggesting was that in my personal experience, if I struggled to find a solution, I usually understood the concept much better than being told the concept without mucking around with it before discovering it for myself.
Tell me, I’ll forget
Show me, I’ll remember
Involve me, I’ll understand.
~Confucius
Don,
– Together, we have concluded that the replacement of cells is an ongoing basis and it involves all the cells of the living body including the bony structure of the vertebra. We, together without condemnation, conclude that ALL the cells of the LIVING body are NEVER static. –
– As you mentioned previously, the four components of VS are: –
– 1. Loss of juxtaposition of a vertebra with the one above, the one below, or both.
– 2. Occlusion of an opening.
– 3. Nerve impingement.
– 4. Interference with the transmission of mental impulses.
Are these components static or constantly in motion due to ongoing cellular replacement of the bone of the vertebra?
Dr. Lessard,
The questions you are using now (closed type) seem to me to be much easier to answer. I appreciate that.
If I am not mistaken, the components of the vs are constantly in motion due to ongoing cellular replacement of the bone.
Don,
You stated that “The vs is static unless and until the innate forces of the ii of the body adapts forces to correct it.” –
– Then you stated: “If I am not mistaken, the components of the vs are constantly in motion due to ongoing cellular replacement of the bone.” –
– The VS components are constantly in motion and VS is static unless and until the innate forces of the ii of the body adapts forces to correct it. Is there loose consistency between these two statements?
Dr. Lessard,
That is rather confusing to me.
Before I try to clarify, let me ask you, which component or components of the vs would you say is in constant motion due to the ongoing cellular replacement of the bone.
#1 alone
#1 and #2
or all components?
Components of the vs:
1. Loss of juxtaposition of a vertebra with the one above, the one below, or both.
– 2. Occlusion of an opening.
– 3. Nerve impingement.
– 4. Interference with the transmission of mental impulses.
Don,
Let’s us inquire, together, shall we? 😉 –
– The first component involves the bones of the vertebra. Therefore, component one is involved with the ongoing cellular replacement and as a result is in constant motion. Right?
Dr. Lessard,
Yes. Let’s inquire TOGETHER…together without condemnation. 😉
Yes. The loss of juxtaposition of a vertebra is the component of vs involved in ongoing cellular replacement.
Since the cellular replacement is ongoing, this results in constant motion.
Don,
The second component is the occlusion of the inter-vertebral foramina which is comprised and formed by the bones of two vertebra. Therefore, component two is involved in cellular replacement and as a result is in constant motion. Right?
Dr. Lessard,
If the vertebra is involved, I can see how the foramina would be involved yes. So the occlusion of then foramina ( the foramina being made of bone) would also be involved in cellular replacement. As a result, these foramina result in constant motion.
Don,
The third component is the impingement upon the nerve due to the occlusion of the foramina being made out of the bones from the vertebra above and below or both. Therefore, component three is in constant motion as result of the ongoing cellular replacement of the bones of the vertebra. Right?
Dr. Lessard,
Therefore, component three is in constant motion as result of the ongoing cellular replacement of the bones of the vertebra.
Can you explain a little more how as a result of the vertebra and the bone of the foramina being replaced on an ongoing basis this results in constant motion of nerve impingement (component 3)?
Don,
We are inquiring, together without condemnation. Visualize it in your mind and THINK in order to SEE something NEW and describe WHAT it is you see. No condemnation here. Yet , use caution, it is we
WHO choose to go there at our own risks, together with the WHOLE group, WHO chooses to follow and wonder, with us, together without condemnation, WHERE we’re all going to wind up. Carry on. ADIO. 😉
Don,
One more step please. Visualize it in your mind, THINK in order to see something NEW and describe WHAT you see to yourself. Then, DROP your thinking and simply OBSERVE. Then, describe it to ALL of us. 😉
Dr. Lessard,
I will do my very best.
If the foramina is under constant or ongoing cellular replacement and this in turn means constant motion then the that would mean that the third component of the VS is never static.
If it were static then the bone forming the foramina would need to remain unchanged. This is not the case.
Regardless of the rate that bone adjacent the nerve (foramina) is being replaced, it not static. This would mean that the presence or absence or bone encroaching on the environment of the nerve (nerve impingment) is not static.
Therefore, the cells of the bone (not the nerve) are under a process of ongoing replacement or constant motion and the third component of the VS is in constant motion.
How was that Dr. Lessard? 🙂
Don,
YOU are terrific! –
– Let us go to the end of it, shall we? We concluded, together without condemnation, that the first 3 components of VS are in constant motion. WHAT would the effect of this observed phenomena, with regards to interfering with the mental impulse? In other words, would the fourth component be affected by the cellular replacement of the first 3 components on an ongoing basis?
Dr. Lessard,
If the presence or absence of the fourth component is dependent on the first three components then yes the ongoing cellular replacement (components in motion) would affect the fourth component.
If the cellular replacement is ongoing, then the affect on the fourth component would be ongoing as well.
I could be mistaken but it seems we are coming to the finale.
Don,
Early, on this thread, I asked a question that you said you did not understand.
Let us go deeper one more time with our inquiry, together without condemnation. You posted: “that the 500 billion cells come from ALL of the parts of the living human body.” I asked if this cellular replacement static or in constant motion? You answered: “I would venture to say in constant motion. It is always organizing and re-organizing.” –
– Then the question you said you did not understand was:
– What does that mean with regards to VS? –
– Can you NOW “see”, that VS is in CONSTANT MOTION and that it is NOT static?
Dr. Lessard,
Yes. I can follow the logic of this statement now. VS is in constant motion (not static) due to the ongoing cellular replacement evident in the living human body.
Don,
– Do you NOW understand that this is the rational logic behind the innate intelligence of the living body constantly using universal forces to perform vertebral adjustments on an ongoing basis. EVERYTHING is in motion, as long as intelligence creates forces (pri.8) that are expressed by matter (pri.13). The main principles involved in this deductive reasoning are #14: Force is manifested by motion in matter; all matter HAS motion, therefore there is universal existence in all matter… and #21: The mission of innate intelligence is to maintain the material of the body of a “living thing” in ACTIVE organization. –
– Our inquiry, together without condemnation, into the fact of the innate intelligence of the body performing 100% vertebral adjustments on an ongoing basis, is now completed. 🙂
Dr. Lessard,
I do have a new understanding. I can now see that as you stated ALL the cells of the LIVING body are NEVER static and in an ongoing process of cellular replacement.
The four components of the vs are also never static.
Earlier in this thread you posed a question, “WHAT is the rational logic behind “the wisdom of the body corrects its VS hundreds of times of day without a chiropractor’s EUF?”
Does this mean that the replacement of cells can accomplish an adjustment?
Does this completely answer our question from 03/17/2013, 9:30 am:
I am asking specifically about the “hundreds of times A DAY” portion of the question.
Thank you.
Don,
What do YOU think? 😉
Dr. Lessard,
My thoughts now:
Since the components of the vs are affected by the ongoing cellular replacement under the control of the ii of the body, the ii of the body can correct the vs. It can do this by replacing cells of the vertebrae or foramina of the vertebrae through the ongoing process of active organization.
I am having a difficult time understanding how the the replacement of cells can occur often enough or at a rate sufficient to correct vs HUNDREDS of times A DAY. The principle involved here would be Prin. #24 which states that there are limitations of matter. The replacement of bone happens at a particular rate but wouldn’t hundreds of times a day exceed the limit of the remodeling the bone?
Don,
Is it really, ONLY, about bone remodeling by itself? WHY focusing, ONLY, on the cellular replacement of the replacing of the cell of the vertebra and vertebral foramina? Did we not conclude, together without condemnation, during our LONG inquiry, that ALL the parts of the body are involved in the 500 billion cells turn over every day? Does the innate intelligence of the body adapt ONLY universal forces and matter for one part of the living body at a time? What about the constant motion of cellular replacement, of EVERY parts of the living body simultaneously going on? AND, how about adding to the equation, the constant supply of universal forces available to the innate intelligence to the body? What is going on with the innate intelligence of the living body to produce the vertebral adjustment? Otherwise, HOW would the function of innate intelligence (pri.23) fulfill the mission of innate intelligence (pri.21) within the limits of adaptation (pri.24)?
Dr. Lessard,
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that the bone remodelling is the only method by which the innate intelligence of the body brings about the correction of vertebral subluxation. The innate intelligence of the living body maintains living matter in active organization (Prin 21) and adapts universal forces and matter for use in the body (Prin. 23) and does so as long as it can do so without breaking a universal law (Prin 24).
Our inquiry concluded that every part of the living body is in constant motion of cellular replacement. Respectfully, I must conclude imho after reading and re-reading these posts, that the inquiry did not conclude the innate intelligence of the body corrects vs hundreds of times a day…or maybe it did but I may have missed the explanation (I apologize, this is completely possible).
To produce an adjustment, the innate intelligence of the body changes the character of a universal force from potentially destructive to constructive and uses it to correct the subluxation.
From our inquiry we determined that the subluxation is in constant motion and not static due to the ongoing cellular replacement evident in every part of the living body.
With some reading (blue books), I thought that the very fact that we have located a vertebral subluxation is an indication that there are insufficient innate forces generated by the brain to bring about a correction. This is at least in part due to the fact that a subluxation is preventing the innate forces from reaching the muscles to correct it. The subluxation will remain present (static) until such a time that the innate intelligence of the body is able to utilize some force regardless of its origin, adapt it and make the correction if an adjustment is to occur.
So here I am with an understanding that the vs is in motion and is also static unless UF’s are made available. Are these in conflict?
Btw.. did I tell you that I think you have the patience of a saint Dr. Lessard? I, however, may need to take a break after this last explanation from you. Although extremely rewarding, this is really hard work for me!! 🙂
Don,
Conflicts are part of the human mind not reality. We have concluded, together without condemnation, that VS is in constant motion and for that reason is NEVER static. I repeat, EVERYTHING in the physical universe is in CONSTANT motion (pri.15). For example, observe the FLOW of a river. When is it ever completely static? You can NEVER step in the same river twice as it is NEVER the same water flowing. For it to be static, it is NOT flowing any longer and it is NOT a river any more. Yet, the flow of a river is constantly changing moment to moment and never the same for millions of reasons. The human breath is the same way. When is the human breath ever static? A human breath is NEVER duplicated from its first to its last. NEVER. –
– We are dealing with an integrated universe which is a manifestation of intelligence (MP). The human body is part of the universe and is also integrated, expressing the innate forces of innate intelligence. –
– Our part as Objective Chiropractors is less than the 0.00002% of the daily ongoing of cellular replacement… yet, it MOVES completely ALL of the life of this planet in a continuous forward momentum on its AMAZING journey. –
– Carry on the work. ADIO.
Dr. Lessard,
Always enjoy the examples you provide. From one moment to another the body is always changing and never static.
Out inquiry concluded that the vs is not an exception to this.
Thank you for engaging in the conversation that lead to my NEW understanding.