…one national organization wants to define us more broadly: broaden what we do into the practice of medicine. The other national organization wants to define us more narrowly by what we are against,
example, the use of drugs and vaccination. How about defining ourselves by our objective…correcting vertebral subluxation to enable the forces of the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed?
Hey Joe,
The first group,I say let them go. As long as they change their title to Medipractor (MP). The second group is holding fast to tradition, good on them.
Now let’s get more specific. If as you have taught, we do not adjust the vertebra Innate does, then we do not correct subluxations in the spine, Innate Intelligence does. Wouldn’t the proper explanation be, as a profession,”We address vertebral subluxations because they interfere with the forces of Innate Intelligence”?
Steve,
Isn’t that defintion part of the definition of NTOSC? The practice of non-therapeutic, objective straight chiropractic is the detection and facilitation in the correction of vertebral subluxations because they, in and of themselves, are a detriment to the expression of innate intelligence and therefore, life.
This is why we need a name that is based on that objective.
– A few blogs ago we concluded, together without condemnation, that the terms “non-therapeutic” and non-medical” define us by WHAT we choose NOT to BE, and that these terms were NOT needed, in light of the definition of the chiropractic objective. Together, we determined that a chiropractor cannot be therapeutic and/or medical while practicing the chiropractic objective due to the word PERIOD as part of the definition of the chiropractic objective. –
– We also concluded, together without condemnation, that the term “straight” was defining us by WHO we choose NOT to BE, rather than defining us by WHO we choose to BE. For example: It is we WHO choose NOT to BE mixing chiropractic with therapeutic or medical procedures. It is we WHO choose not to BE getting sick people well by using chiropractic care as an alternative to medicine without drugs or surgery in relationship with chiropractic. Therapeutic or medical procedures or getting sick people well, are parts of the medical objective. –
– We also concluded, together without condemnation, that the word “straight” did nothing to help, the public or the US courts, to understand the distinction between factions within the profession over the past 100 years . –
– ALL OF THESE INQUIRIES CAN BE FOUND, AT GREAT LENGHT, ON PREVIOUS BLOGS IN THE ARCHIVES. –
– For these reasons, using rational logic, we concluded, together without condemnation, that an OBJECTIVE CHIROPRACTOR can ONLY practice the chiropractic objective which INCLUDES the PERIOD at the end of its definition. OBJECTIVE CHIROPRACTOR is the term that defines us for WHO we choose to BE in relationship to chiropractic. An OBJECTIVE CHIROPRACTOR is one WHO chooses to practice the chiropractic objective which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the living body. PERIOD! –
– Please allow me to repeat myself: ALL OF THESE INQUIRIES CAN BE FOUND, AT GREAT LENGHT, ON PREVIOUS BLOGS IN THE ARCHIVES. –
– It is me WHO chooses to BE an OC in relationship to chiropractic. This means, that it is me WHO chooses to practice the chiropractic objective which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the living body. PERIOD. –
– Here is the question, for ALL of us: –
– WHO will YOU choose to BE in relationship to the practice of chiropractic?
Hey Michael,
Thank you, LAFCVS would be more precise than LACVS. If we can’t say we “adjust” the spine, we shouldn’t say we “correct” subluxations. Facilitate works nicely.
Hey Claude,
I choose 2 b an OC and LAFCVS
Steve,
Please, could articulate for ALL of us on the blog, your rational logic behind WHO you choose to BE, by accepting OC as a NEW descriptor?
😉 Thank you!
Hey Claude,
Actually I would prefer simply Chiropractor. A Chiropractor’s Raison d’être is to remove interference from the nerve system. IMHO any qualifier dilutes the beauty of the idea that is Chiropractic. I have never introduced/explained myself as anything but a Chiropractor or Dr of Chiropractic. I also never use the terms “subluxation complex” or “vertebral subluxation”, as subluxation covers the concept very well. These add-ons tend too much toward redundancy and obfuscation. The public, I am afraid are clueless and could care less. I guess it only matters which Bible you are reading when you are in a church. So for the sake of clarity on this blog (in this church) I am an OC who chooses to LAFCVS period.
I am surprised you or Joe have nothing to say about LA(F)CVS
Steve,
Let us, with every one else on the blog, together without condemnation, inquire into LACVS vs LAFCVS. –
– As stated in #26 of our glossary, the first step of the chiropractic objective consist in locating the area of a “possible” subluxated vertebra with the most effective method for that particular practice member, as we need to gather ALL the information necessary to formulate an accurate analysis. Right?
Hey Claude,
It is simply a matter of consistency. Most of us were taught,”Chiropractors adjust subluxations”. Yet philosophically we know Innate Intelligence places the bone in the proper position given the limits of time and matter. We merely apply the adjustive thrust or educated universal force. Again, philosophically we know it is not the thrust but the Innate response to the thrust that makes the correction. So to say we (Chiropractors) correct subluxations would seem in-congruent. It would be more precise to state we assist, provoke, inspire, induce, co-engineer, stimulate, help, enable, initiate, or as Michael so eloquently put it we facilitate the correction of subluxations.
Steve,
I understand what you are posting. Let’s find out (inquire), together without condemnation, the nature of LACVS… regardless opinions. Let us go deeper into WHAT we do as OC… shall we? Otherwise, it’s only going to be a matter of what people feel or think (opinions) and since feelings and thoughts change according to circumstances, opinions change as you know. However, WHEN facts are experienced, they remain facts! 😉 –
– As stated in #26 of our glossary, the first step of the chiropractic objective consist in locating the area of a “possible” subluxated vertebra with the most effective method for that particular practice member, as we need to gather ALL the information necessary to formulate an accurate analysis. Right?
Hey Claude,
#26. We locate, we analyse, and weeeee……………subluxations
Steve,
– Now that we, together, have concluded that the first step is to locate the subluxated vertebra. That the second it to analyze the subluxation so we can assign the proper listing… We come to step #3. —
– We understand the FACT that it is innate intelligence that adjust the subluxated vertebra, thereby innate intelligence corrects the subluxation. This is a FACT deduced from principle #20,21,22,23. –
– The question is: WHAT do we call WHAT we do… WHEN innate intelligence does NOT adapt the adjustic thrust we introduce into the subluxated vertebra? We have NOT adjusted anything, have we? We have NOT corrected anything have we? We have NOT facilitated anything either, have we? –
– Again, the question is: WHAT do we call WHAT we do in FACT?
Hey Claude,
This is my question exactly. Without Innate Intelligence in the equation we have done nothing beneficial for the patient. An unadapted educated universal force is just that, an unadapted force. Being a universal force it is destructive. So I ask you, if without an Innate response there is no “correction”, no “adjustment”, what do you call our contribution?
Steve,
Let us go further into it, together without condemnation. After the location of the “possible” subluxated vertebra and the analysis of the subluxation, is it a FACT that, the OC is one WHO chooses to ADDRESS the subluxation, with the technique necessary to introduce the specific adjustic thrust (EUF)?
Hey Claude,
It is not a choice, it is his/her moral obligation.
Steve,
Is it a FACT that, the OC is one WHO is ADDRESSING (giving attention to, dealing with) the subluxation, with the technique necessary to introduce the specific adjustic thrust (EUF)?
Hey Claude,
Yes, I’m with you. We all agree, without condemnation, up to this point. How you word the next fact has me on the edge of my seat.
Steve,
Is there a distinction, within the glossary, between the WHAT of the chiropractic objective #26, the WHO of the Objective Chiropractor #30 and the HOW of the adjustic thrust #29? –
… please, remember that we are inquiring TOGETHER… 😉
Hey Claude,
– 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! –
— 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
26 is the goal of the OC
29 is the method of the OC
30 is the description of the OC
26 suggests that the Chiropractor makes the correction/adjustment
29 explains that Innate Intelligence actually corrects the subluxation or produces the adjustment.
30 makes no reference to the point of contention.
Back to you…
Steve,
Thank you. –
As an example: The medical objective is to cure diseases. It is an OBJECTIVE to attempt to achieve. The MD treats the symptoms, makes a diagnosis and uses a medical procedure to achieve the medical objective. Sometimes he does. Sometimes he does not. –
– The chiropractic objective is to LACVS. It is an objective to attempt to achieve. The chiropractor ADDRESSES the subluxation by performing an adjustic thrust to achieve the chiropractic objective. Sometimes she does. Sometimes she does not. –
– 26 does NOT suggest that the chiropractor make the adjustment. 26 is the CHIROPRACTIC objective and last I checked, innate intelligence is part of CHIROPRACTIC. 😉
– Do you always achieve your objective?
Hey Claude,
No need to get personal here, remember “without condemnation”. JK
So, Chiropractic corrects subluxations, Chiropractors do not, I can live with that.
Steve,
Let us go deeper, together without condemnation, and be finish with our inquiry. –
– FACT of the WHAT: The chiropractic objective (LACVS) –
– FACT Of the WHO: The OC is one WHO chooses to practice ONLY the chiropractic objective –
– FACT of the HOW: The chiropractor WHO is ADDRESSING the subluxation –
– FACT of the WHY: Vertebral subluxation corrected by a vertebral adjustment which is performed by the innate intelligence of the body as a result of adapting a universal force for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD ! –
– Together without condemnation, we have concluded that there are four (4) facts regarding LACVS. WHAT – WHO – HOW – WHY –
– Therefore, once the chiropractor ADDRESSES the subluxation, the rest is up to the innate intelligence of the body.
Hey Claude,
Let’s go deeper still. I can agree with all the above, however. It seems you have left the Chiropractor out of the Chiropractic. The Fact of the Why as you describe it above lacks the Specific Educated Universal Force that would necessarily qualify it as a Chiropractic process. Your description does not include the aspects L or A of LACVS. Would it not be reasonable to assume the Innate Adapted Force that performs the vertebral adjustment is a direct result of the SEUF administered by the Dr. of Chiropractic? As writen above the ambiguous UF could be the result of any random concussion of forces such as a fall or jolt. I understand SEUF may be a new term but I think it fits in your description above and would distinguish what we do from accidental corrections.
(sorry can’t get spell check on this puter, could it be linux, anyone?)
Steve,
You are absolutely right. It should have read: “FACT of the WHY: Vertebral subluxation corrected by a vertebral adjustment which is performed by the innate intelligence of the body as a result of adapting an educated universal force for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD ! –
– I contend that this is a slippery road and that WHY we inquire, TOGETHER without condemnation. Once again Steve, thank you. –
… once again: “FACT of the WHY: Vertebral subluxation corrected by a vertebral adjustment which is performed by the innate intelligence of the body as a result of adapting a SPECIFIC EDUCATED UNIVERSAL FORCE for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –
– This correction comes from Glossary #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. –
Hey Claude,
Hopefully this should finish this thread. Back to the original statement, “How about defining ourselves by our objective…correcting vertebral subluxation to enable the forces of the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed?”
This statement covers our ChiropracTIC definition. How then would we define the individual ChiropracTOR? Perhaps, Chiropractor: One who locates and identifies a Subluxation then analyses the involved segments in order to formulate a Specific Educated Universal force, which when delivered as an Adjustic Thrust is expected to initiate an Intelectualy Adapted Innate Force by Innate Intelligence capable of correcting that Subluxation.
Steve,
Yes! You stated very well WHAT glossary 26 through 30 stipulates. We define ourselves by WHO we choose to BE. WHO we choose to Be is to practice ONLY the chiropractic objective. So, it is we, together, WHO choose to call ourselves: OBJECTIVE CHIROPRACTOR!!! –
– When someone ask you: “What do you do?” You say: ” I am an OBJECTIVE CHIROPRACTOR!”. They will reply: “WHAT is that?”… and this question becomes YOUR opportunity to invent a NEW possibility for yourself and the questioner, then YOU move on to say: “I am a chiropractor WHO chooses to practice ONLY the chiropractic objective, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else! Would you like to know WHAT it is?” If they respond YES, then YOU tell the story over and over and over and over again… in as many ways as YOU creatively can. –
– WHAT fun it is… to BE free from the past!!!-
– Thank you, Steve, for your IMMENSE participation!!! 🙂
– Let us carry on. ADIO.
Hey Claude,
I’m here to learn, so I thank you as well.
Together without condemnation, we have concluded our inquiry into LACVS. I declare this inquiry COMPLETE! 🙂