Principle No. 2 in our chiropractic philosophy says “life is the expression of intelligence through matter”. From that principle we can conclude that death is the separation of the intelligence and the matter. We know that in our present system. Principle No. 2 is referring to universal life or existence, in that sense death (as ceasing to exist) cannot occur. But when it comes to biological life, the expression of intelligence through living matter, Principle No. 20, occurs on two levels or creates two kinds of death, biological death, when the organism is no longer expressing the innate intelligence of the body, what the state calls death. In that situation the innate intelligence goes back to or is expressed as, the intelligence of the universe and the material in time and by the action of universal forces returns to the universal elements, from whence it came, through decomposition or some other means. A carrot may be broken down by catabolism into universal elements and become assimilated by the body. The body may be retuned to the elements of universal matter by burning or as mentioned above by decomposition. So there is a biological death or death of the organism. For that chiropractic is useless as is every other form of care.
There is another aspect or level of death, one that chiropractic is concerned with, what we might call partial death. That is when the innate intelligence of the body ceases to be expressed through part of the body. That occurs when there is an interference to the expression of the innate intelligence to some part of the matter due to vertebral subluxation. That is the sole objective of chiropractic, to remove the interference and once again restore the expression of the intelligence through that matter. As part of the body, the matter is dead. For the purpose of contributing or being a part of the active organization of the body’s matter, it is dead. It is true that the cells, tissues or even the organ may be kept alive as far as the organ or cells are individually concerned but as far as the organism is concerned, it is no longer expressing the innate intelligence of the body. It does the body no good in this state (if or while it is living for itself). So why does the innate intelligence of the body allow it to be kept alive? It is in the expectation that it will have the expression of the innate intelligence of the body restored (i.e. the body will correct the vertebral subluxation, with or without the facilitation of the chiropractor). Similarly medicine keeps an organ (eg. The heart) alive in the hope that the transplant recipient’s innate intelligence can once again adapt it for use in the body (although they give the credit to the surgeon). The objective of the chiropractor is to facilitate the restoration of the expression of the innate intelligence of the body to a cell, tissue, or organ, to address that cause of partial death if and when it is caused by a vertebral subluxation, to restore those partially dead cells to life (the expression of intelligence through matter). That partial death is called DIS-EASE and that restoration emphasizes that it is no small thing we chiropractors do.
“So why does the innate intelligence of the body allow it to be kept alive? It is in the expectation that it will have the expression of the innate intelligence of the body restored (i.e. the body will correct the vertebral subluxation, with or without the facilitation of the chiropractor).”
Are you saying, the “Law of Organization” has expectations, foresees or contemplates the future?
If subluxations demote mental impulses to universal forces, then the innate intelligence is no longer keeping the affected matter organized for the good of the body. Cellular intelligence, as you have explained, will maintain the cell for it’s own (cellfish) purposes but not for the body as a whole, correct?
Steve, first it is not the law of organization (ui) that keeps the cell alive. It is the law of active organization (ii of the cell adapting the former innate force which is now acting as a universal force and is being adapted by the ii of the cell.) The ii of the body chooses not to destroy it. Not because it can see the future but because it cannot see the future. The same reason the ii of the body stores food as fat. The ii does not know where its next meal is coming from. The ii of the body is trying and usually succeeding in correcting the VS and thereby bringing the selfish cell back under control.(It is only when it cannot that an educated uf is needed-the force introduced by the chiropractor.)
Why does the ii of the body keep an e.coli bacteria cell alive or more correctly, allow it to live? Because it is contributing or has the potential to contribute to the well-being of the body. Is the e.coli functioning for the good of the body? No, it’s living for itself, (science even recognizes this phenomena and calls it symbiosis) the same as a cell no longer under the control of the ii of the body but being kept alive by its cellular intelligence. When and if it no longer benefits the body or no longer has the potential to benefit the body, the ii of the body will destroy it or try to destroy it , the same as it does for an e.coli that has left the G.I. tract or a cancer cell.
La petite mort, French for “the little death”
Steve, I’ll leave the reply/explanation of that comment to our resident French expert! I don’t think it relates to vertebral subluxation:).
Sacrebleu
We don’t want to go there! 😉
C,mon Claude. With your vast knowledge and eloquent
loquaciousness, your superior intellectuality and splendid charismatic command of not one but two languages, you don’t want to attempt to relate partial death and the little death. I think it would be an interesting exercise.
No thank you Steve. We REALLY don’t want to go there. 😉
Hi guys,
I’m going to get back on this line of questions.
I know I’ve fatigued you. Please bear with me.
In a post titled Force, Claude, you stated:
“David,
Your problem is a result of your choosing to separate physical interACTION from metaphysical instructive information, be it constructive or deconstructive. ALWAYS remember the major premise: A (metaphysical) universal intelligence is in ALL e/matter…
It is when you choose to look at interACTIONS from a mechanical view point that you get lost and confuse. Think dammit think! ”
I want you to read this article, on Liver transplants, their denervation, and the physiological, yes, Empirical information, findings, results, however limited it might be. (Yes I acknowledge the fact that Empiricism is always limited and not applicable to metaphysical processes
Here is the link:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092544391000013X
Read the whole thing, the depth of intricate interactions, the results, etc.
What’s your take? How does this apply to innate intelligence, to this post Partial Death?
Yes I know I’m harping, maybe a victim of my own educated intelligence, duh!! But where do I place this within an intellectual, understanding of the 33, it’s relevance to reality.
Yes, I know. Logic and deduction bears truth, and we always check an balance our truth with inductive knowledge too, yes?
So give it a whirl. It’s interesting.
David,
You posted: ” But where do I place this within an intellectual, understanding of the 33, it’s relevance to reality”… RIGHT AFTER YOU POSTED THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. –
– Drop it! Get a practice going! Check spines! Tell the story over and over and over and over and over and OVER again until you are so humbled by the AWESOMENESS of the innervation of liver transplants that you fall on you tired knees. Then, get up and tell the story over and over and over and over and over and over again. TMITWDITO!
Claude,
I acknowledge Tough Love for sure.
You stated “AWESOMENESS of the innervation of liver transplants”
Did you mean innovation? Innervation? That’s the thing. There is NO Innervation yet survival maintains? The induction casts doubt on the role of the Nervous System. Perhaps not adaptively, or metaphysically, but partial death wise, it would seem that empiricism shows functional stability, so where does that leave Checks and Balances of the 33?
What is TMITWDITO?
Bear with me 😉
David,
Doubt is very good! Doubt is NEVER a deterrent to the major premise. It is WHAT it is! Choose what is right, not expedient and wash you mind of ALL compromise. Reggie Gold said that! –
– The 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science lead to the chiropractic objective until proven otherwise. If you want to disprove any of the 33, do it and show us their faulty reasoning. Otherwise, get to work and tell the story over and over and over and over and over again until it huts. Remember, The Most Important Thing We Do Is The Orientation! (TMITWDITO) . 😉
Claude, Joe,
May I deduct that based on the 33Ps, in the case of Organ Transplants, even though, the recipients, survive, and even thought the recipient might survive quite well, with physiological functions maintaining homeostasis, that the POSSIBILITY OF PARTIAL DEATH, EXISTS.
In the case of good survival, there is adaptation of Organ to Body. However, from a 33 principle reality, there is in coordination which probably exists, (Who knows, maybe there are metaphysical channels that are still in existence even with de-innervation of an organ (nerve >> chemical (hormonal) distribution to organ, communicating innate forces ??
Being that we see TRUTH IN THE 33Ps, Can I assume that somewhere there MUST be Inductive Error, not a complete picture, empirically, even though one might be VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND CREDENTIALS OF SCIENTISTS AND THEIR INTRICATE UNDERSTANDINGS OF MATTER INTERACTIONS. That I am being swayed by the Arrogance of Science and its usage in todays world? My FAITH is strong in OIBU and weak in ADIO?
Something like that?
You can’t have 2 Truths apposing each other! Deductive truth, if it is TRUTH must be supported by Inductive Truth, The Whole Truth, Not Partial Truth.
*********************************
QUESTION CLAUDE? QUESTION JOE?
AM I THE ONLY ONE, THE ONLY CHIROPRACTOR WHO IS THIS, RESISTANT? THIS DETERMINED TO BE SO DOUBTFUL?
I KNOW I CAN’T BE (cause of mixing, slipping, wanna be MD’s, etc.)
IN YOUR OPINION CLAUDE, JOE, WHY DO I RESIST? WHAT’S THE CAUSE?
CLAUDE?_________________________
JOE?_____________________________:)
David,you wrote”AM I THE ONLY ONE, THE ONLY CHIROPRACTOR WHO IS THIS, RESISTANT? THIS DETERMINED TO BE SO DOUBTFUL? IN YOUR OPINION CLAUDE, JOE, WHY DO I RESIST? WHAT’S THE CAUSE?
CLAUDE?_________________________
JOE?____my response_________________________:)Doubt concerning TRUTH stifles positive action. Doubt concerning error prevents incorrect action. Sometimes we must jump in the water . I have found that good decisions create further options and bad decisions eliminate options. Often we hesitate to exercise an option because we do not have or feel we do not have all the facts. Sometimes we express doubts because we just don’t want to make a decision. Eventually you will run out of objections but by then you may miss some great opportunities and rewards in the process. I think that you have been shown enough truth to come to a decision by now but only you can make that decision to decide. Are you waiting on the Finger of God to write on a stone tablet and tell you what “Thou shalt…. do”? A brave man dies once, a coward dies a thousand times.
David,
It is me WHO choose NOT to do your homework! That you have an OIBU Influence that overcomes your ADIO possibility is clear. Take it from here… 😉
If Reggie would be posting on this blog, he would tell you what he told Dr. Sabatier in 1975 on a radio show.
And what was that Sir?
You posted: … THIS RESISTANT? THIS DETERMINED TO BE SO DOUBTFUL?” This is what Reggie, obviously frustrated, told Sabatier, M.D. on the air: ” You keep asking the same question in different ways and I’ve answers you each time. You’re either deaf, stupid or both.” 🙂
Now I understand the difference between
😉 and 🙂