How is an understanding of universal intelligence of value to our chiropractic philosophy, other than as a mechanism for deduction? In other words, if every individual started off accepting an inborn wisdom of the body, would it be necessary to even have a major premise? Why?
Hey Joe,
BJ said ” …with this chiropractic adjustment I use all the power and energies moving the universe…” That said I think the key point is INNER WISDOM, however the MP helps to define our place in the system as people in general and chiropractors specifically.
The conscious mind needs an anchor. The Major Premise is that anchor, not just for Chiropractors, but for all who desire to keep themselves focused on the underlying reality of the living universe.
Accuracy in Meaning – A question and Observation
The Major Premise reads: A Universal Intelligence is in all matter and continually gives to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence.
As a computer programmer, I am noting that the phrase, ‘gives to it all its properties and actions’ essentially is identical to how computer languages define Objects. Objects have properties (or attributes), actions (or functions or methods). Objects also have events, which are triggers to actions, but we can consider these as actions.
Here’s the thing. Properties and Actions are abstractions that in it of themselves HAVE NO DATA. That’s why we code these abstractions (properties and actions) with something called INITIALIZING. We have to populate our variables, our properties (the attributes), and our actions (methods) with DATA.
THE WAY I READ THIS ‘gives to it all its properties and actions’,
it’s as if UI defines the abstractions of things that exist, but there is no reference to populating these abstractions with values (data)
Now we deduce I’m assuming, that ui CREATES force. force unites intelligence with matter, and matter expresses intelligence. Am I to assume that THE E/MATTER HAS THE DATA, that populates the NULL or 0 value properties and actions of the abstraction that is maintaining matter in existence? Or am I to assume that it is the Force, in uniting, that is Created by UI, that populates the data used for the properties and actions? Or?
Do You See My Issue, or My Observation? (probably a been there done that) BUT
Technically:
If Existence appears in the Major Premise, and it does, then, somewhere it should be implied that the properties and actions are DATA FILLED.
May I, without condemnation suggest, with all those who would like to comment, or dispute my analysis, THAT
one of 2 things
Either THE MAJOR PREMISE SHOULD SAY
A Universal Intelligence is in all matter and continually gives to it all its properties and actions, WHICH HAVE VALUES (whatever??), thus maintaining it in existence.
OR
The implication is that the DATA for these properties and actions (abstractions of the objects of matter), COME FROM THE E/MATTER AND SHOULD IN SOME WAY, AT SOME PRINCIPLE INDICATE THAT.
Remember, an abstraction is a blueprint. When you initialize an abstraction, you populate it with data. Then it becomes what’s called
Instantiated. YOU CREATE THE OBJECT.
I am aware that the Major Premise states,
‘MAINTAINING IT IN EXISTENCE’ and that THAT is not CREATION, so perhaps I AM INCORRECT. Actually, thinking about it, perhaps that is the GENIUS OF THE MAJOR PREMISE.
Thinking that it was written down, some ~100 years ago.
When we observe organization, when we observe the maintaining in existence of matter, we ARE OBSERVING THE abstraction being maintained. Not the Data. We are observing the potential for form, that DOES EXIST and HAS BEEN CREATED, WITH DATA (coming from the matter?? or from wherever??)…
The intelligence maintains the form which IS having been created, in existence, is organized, by virtue of those properties and actions.
AND WITH INNATE INTELLIGENCE, well that’s an adaptation of the right amount and proportion of intelligence per the required level of organization of matter, to maintain ACTIVE ORGANIZATION so that This Matter can Show the Signs of Life and exhibit principle 32.
‘THOTS?’