How do we scientifically prove/demonstrate our philosophical objective, that of enabling the innate intelligence of the body’s forces to be more fully expressed, when we do not use symptoms as a criteria?
How do we scientifically prove/demonstrate our philosophical objective, that of enabling the innate intelligence of the body’s forces to be more fully expressed, when we do not use symptoms as a criteria?
With empirical data that the person is better off without vs.
IMO, change in physiology and symptomatology have the same problem, an inherent need to know the norm.
Logic seems to be sufficient proof for some but not for others. For the others the quest for the data continues.
We don’t. OSC is not based on “feelings” but rather upon understanding of a principle – reduce a negative and the net result is always a positive. 🙂
Why would you wanna go and prove it scientifically, why mess up a good thing? If you were to prove the objective of Chiropractic beyond a shadow of a doubt, EVERYONE would be doing it. Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, would all be checking each other and getting adjusted on a regular basis. Now what kind of world would we have if everyone had a clear nerve system? What are ya tryin’ ta do, ruin a profession?
I can always count on you to post. Thanks for always sharing. Heyyy now, I thought you were taking a break from blogging! 😉
Sorry David you must have me confused with another Steve, it is rare that I miss a day or a chance to join in on the conversation. I check this blog regularly. It keeps me clear, philosophically, like an online educated adjustic thrust. I try to post/add my 2 cents worth, either a rebuttal, a question, a bit of humor or sometimes just a sarcastic poke at the bear. This blog is my first choice for interacting with what I consider the best minds in Chiropractic (myself excluded of course). They always say you should play with people better than yourself to bring up your game and here I do.
Steve,
There are about 70,000 chiropractors in the world (0.00001% of the world’s population). With EVERYONE under chiropractic care, it would require 7,000,000 chiropractors (0.001%), each with 1000 people (0.00000014285%) to check their spines once/week. Do the maths! 😉
Claude, Please reread the post. With a Chiro. in every household or family the numbers diminish exponentially.
Steve,
How many chiros would it take to check the spine of 7,000,000,000 people once/week?
Just one, but he/she is going to be extremely busy, haha. I understand the math Claude, my point was if they all knew the significance of Chiropractic they would all be adjusting each other and not need a professional. Sorry, I took a shot at a little levity, I guess I missed.
If it it too metaphysical to prove the effects of innate expression let alone our ability to remove the interference of its forces, why not prove what happens when there IS a vertebral subluxation? And if we can prove that “it” happens EVERY time the vs is present, simultaneously prove that not every one has “it”, then we can prove our philosophical objective deductively.
David, what would be the “effects” of a lack of innate expression when the most common effect is subclinical?
Joe, you had mention in a previous thread something about a theory that can’t be directly proven to be true can still be shown to be true by prove it can’t be disproven. The chiropractic theory of the mental impulse is that it requires the nerve system to transfer its desired effect to the end tissue and requires a nerve impulse for that transmission to occur. If there was a way to show that a nerve impulse can be mechanically/man-made where the end tissue stimulation does NOT promote healing/new cell production, then there would be something missing. In this case the missing element can be deduced to be the mental impulse (a lack of intelligence). HOW to do it is another issue.
Joe,
Would the post-check for the absence of vs be something measurable?
In other words, wouldn’t the indicator used in the analysis for the presence/absence of vs be of sufficient data for scientific inquiry?
What symptoms appear or disappear incidentally with these findings are what some are trying to correlate or link causally. If developing or discovering this relationship is the ONLY pursuit of scientific inquiry then as I understand the OSC objective, this correlation is a moot point. There is no plausible or predictable way to determine the benefits of vs correction in an individual especially in a case where it is subclinical.
Joe’s question brings a couple more questions to my mind.
1. What IS the need to scientifically prove/demonstrate our philosophical objective, when logic and deductive reason do it quite well already?
2. To WHOM are we trying to prove it to and why? Are we trying to prove it for acceptance? For professional parity? For marketing and new patients?
This question and quest are as old as the profession itself and have beem the basis for all the research since then, both medical and chiropractic alike. It is also why analytical imstrumentation maintains a large place in chiropractic. Primarily straight, subluxation-based chiropractic, but it can be seen throughout the profession as well.
I am a very analytical person and have always loved science. I am not against research, per se. But like Don said, one of biggest problems is establishing the “norm”. Now, since we already know that each person is their OWN normal and their II never read a textbook or the outcome of a controlled clinical trial, nor does it need to, that throws a big wrench into the works. So, the best we can possibly hope for in the “scientific” realm, at least at this time, is a very accurate “average” with a small margin of error.
Is that acceptable enough? I don’t know.
How do we prove our objective now? We prove it through logic and teason and hope it is accepted in that basis. Now, along with that for our practice members, we also make very assured statements regarding the removal of VS and how the II can ONLY be better expressed without iy, regardless of the resulting manifestations. While I agree 100% with that position and put it into practice everyday, it also makes me wonder if it any less acceptable for those that also use instrumentation or.contimue to seek “scientific” measurements in addition to the already established logic?
^^^reason
The innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body are metaphysical and called mental impulses. Since science cannot empirically demonstrate the constant motion of the metaphysical mental impulse, the ONLY way to prove/demonstrate the chiropractic objective is to use rational logic and deductive reasoning. –
– HOW do I do that? –
– I use the rational logic of the 33 principles pointing out to people HOW irrational, that it is they, WHO choose to live their lives separated from their own vitalistic philosophy which (for the majority) is based on their acknowledging the existence of a “force” within themselves, which they cannot see or demonstrate. Then, it is me WHO choose to educe from them that there is a practical way for them to apply their vitalistic philosophy by inventing a new possibility to be present for themselves and their lives that will resonate and inspire them to MOVE toward the chiropractic objective. –
– In other words, it is me WHO choose to tell the story over and over and over and over and over AGAIN, in as many creative ways as practical, inventing new possibilities to be present for themselves and their lives that will touch and inspire them to MOVE from where they are… toward the chiropractic objective.
I agree with much that has been written here even including some my own remarks. Imagine that!
So, establishing normal has it’s difficulties or maybe even impossible.
My next question is for those who use or are familiar with muscle palpation.
With the use of muscle palpation for subluxation detection is it possible that this issue of normal is also at work?
Maybe I have it wrong but a working muscle is an aberrant finding and a non-working muscle is not. Doesn’t taking this position also leave one open to the pitfalls of establishing normal?
Don,
This issue relates to the fact that VS is constantly in motion and so are the muscles of the living body constantly in motion as well. We must remember that our art is meant to introduce the adjustic thrust and that the vertebral adjustment is performed by the innate intelligence of the body. Once I have introduced my educated universal force, it is me WHO chooses to put the PERIOD there. In other words, it is me WHO chooses to STOP there and “get out of the car”…
Dr. Lessard,
Forgive my ignorance. You are correct, the ii of the body performs the adjustment.
When and where to provide the thrust still requires the determination of the working muscle, does it not?
I may be wrongnhere however, I would think that the chiropractors educated universal force introduction must be applied in one area of the spine in spite of another. This required an educated (not an innate) function.
Don,
Of course the adjustic thrust is an educated function being the introduction of an EDUCATED universal force. What is your point?
Dr. Lessard,
Not a point but a question.
If it is an educated function it is is not 100% perfect. In light of the original post and working with the premise that the chiropractor using the finding of a working muscle is an indicator of the intention of ii to correct the vs, would it be possible to study the effect of adjusting thrust on the working muscle for some chiropractic intent?
Although we are working with the premise, woild this be a step in demonstrating the objective?
Don,
Is it not what the AMP post check is all about? Nick Spano has plenty to say about that aspect of the adjustic thrust having effects on the working muscles used by the innate intelligence of the body to correct VS.
Dr. Lessard,
Does Dr. Spano’s work not answer the question in the original post about scientifically demonstrating our philosophical objective?
Don,
If you understand Spano’s work and HOW he articulates it, you will notice that the presence of VS is determined through various working para vertebral muscles. Through rational logic, WHEN the adjustic thrust is introduced and IF the innate intelligence of the body of the practice member adapts the EUF, it follows that a change will take place with the working muscles. At this point, rational logic dictates, that it is me WHO chooses to let go and put the period here… whether OR not there is a perceptible change on my part. After all, my EUF, is just that… an EUF and that’s good enough for me since it me WHO chooses to BE an OC. It is me WHO chooses not to stress over this and I am fine with that. I will see that practice member next week. 😉 –
– We must remember that the effects of the adjustic thrust are part of the ART of chiropractic and as such, they cannot be part of the science of chiropractic. For example: 😉 If you were to demonstrate that the chemical composition of the paint that Vincent Van Gohg used for his artistic creations had chemical effects of the canvas he used… Would that prove anything regarding the aesthetic beauty and timelessness of his works? –
– Yes, chiropractic is ALSO a science that has 33 well established principles. WHEN it is a chiropractor WHO chooses to SERVE those principles, then it is the same chiropractor WHO “demonstrates” through rational logic and deductive reasoning the “proof” of the chiropractic objective. –
– In other words, rational logic and deductive reasoning are acceptable and proven methods to demonstrate the chiropractic objective.
Claude,
Something you mentioned brings a question. The application of a EUF is part of the ART, as stated, but just like the body and everything being connected and interdependent, things may have attributes of ART, SCIENCE or PHILOSOPHY, but there is overlap and interconnectedness, no?
I mean the application of EUF is ART (and obviously some better than others), but the where, how and why BEHIND the EUF are also determined by both SCIENCE and PHILOSOPHY. The “objectivity” of the working muscles is not only SCIENCE, but also derived from PHILOSOPHY.
Thoughts?
Are The findings of AMP/muscle palpation/vertebraille, signs or symptoms or something else?
Joe, I guess before we can discuss this or reach a conclusion on this question, we need to define the terms “sign” and “symptom”.
I was taught that “sign” is an objective indicator that is observable, and perhaps measurable, by someone other than the individualt. In other words, not dependent upon the individual to relay, or even be aware of it.
A “symptom” is a subjective complaint/observation by the individual themself, whether measurable or immeasurable.
Both however, are the result of a “something” (condition, dysfunction, etc.)
With that in mind, the “findings” (which i am assuming mean only working muscles) of AMP, I would think are primarily “signs” of VS. This is because MOST of the time a person is unaware and we can do our objective of LACVS without their input or assistance. But even IF there is a “symptom” in the area of VS, and they have a subjective complaint, is of no consequence. Both they and we could be deaf, blind and mute, and we could still perform our job and reach our objective.
Joseph,
The “something else” is: The findings of AMP are coded instructive information that the muscles express for the purpose of keeping the living body in active organization by in fulfilling the chiropractic objective. –
– As a chiropractor, it is me WHO chooses to learn the code of the working muscles and introduce an adjustic thrust according to my AMP findings. WHEN this is completed, then it is me WHO chooses to move on to the next practice member.
Claude, I am inclined to think that the “coded instructions” of the innate intelligence of the practice member’s body are not known to our finite minds. The physical “working muscles” of AMP are our perception of the physical printout, not the code that allowed that printout to occur. By analogy, my granddaughter writes the codes for this blog. This post/comment which we can all read is merely the printout, the physical personification of that code, not the code (actually the effect of the ROM and PROM chips and my GIGO). I am not so arrogant to think that I can know exactly what the ii of the body is telling the paravertebral muscle fibers as to the who, what, where, and how of firing/contracting to attempt to adjust that subluxated vertebra. I can only read a small part of that message, call it for want of a better term, a “working muscle”, make an educated guess as to what the muscle is trying to do and introduce an EUF that hopefully, the ii of the body can use to correct the VS.
I agree with Dr. Duncan on his definitions of sign and symptom.
I do wonder what an example of “something else” might be that Joe suggested.
Symptom
1a : subjective evidence of disease or physical disturbance; broadly : something that indicates the presence of bodily disorder
b : an evident reaction by a plant to a pathogen
2a : something that indicates the existence of something else
b : a slight indication : trace
Sign
An object, quality, or event whose presence or occurrence indicates the probable presence or occurrence of something else.
Michael and I apparently learned our signs and symptom definitions the same way. . That being the case is a “working ” muscle on a par with an elevated blood pressure?
We have deduced that a working muscle is II’s attempt at correcting a VS, remove interference to the NS and restore ease. The working muscle however, is not a result of dysfunction, but rather adequate function and control. There is only one reason for a working muscle. To establish the position or reposition of a vertebra. And as far as I can tell, that is never the result of abnormal function or pathology.
Blood pressure on the other hand, IS elevated under certain circumstances in a perfectly normal and necessary fashion under the complete control of II, such is as a working muscle. However, BP can also be/is elevated under a wide variety of abnormal circumstances and pathological conditions and we really have no way of knowing which is which. And for that reason, while it is a “sign” in the true definition of the word, the importance or usefulness, especially in OC, is limited and is difficult to put in the same category as a working muscle. An additional thing that comes into play regarding signs and symptoms that has yet to be mentioned is “sensitive” and “specific”.
While much of the “sensitivity” of a working muscle is dependent on the practitioner (and therefore subjective), it is “specific” to VS. BP can/is very sensitive, but lacks much specificity.
Just some thoughts…
These are some great topics and questions that unfortunately get glossed over or missed as many people post their thoughts.
Joe- Is a “working” muscle on par with elevated BP?
Dr. Lessard – Can the WHEN, WHERE and HOW to introduce an EUF be part of the science and only the science of chiropractic techniques?
Michael – regarding signs and symptoms that has yet to be mentioned is “sensitive” and “specific”.
Maybe it would help if we had a common definition of “working” muscle as well as “sign”, “symptom” and “sensitive” and “specific”.
From Dr. Duncan’s post on specificity, I automatically think of the research definition (Sn= true negatives / true negative+false positives)
I will be looking at Dr. Spano’s manual for the definition.
Are there any other sources could look at?
From Dr. Spano’s manual:
“The clinical sign that I am suggesting is paravertebral hypertonicity occurring segmentally in the recumbent spine.”
This was the shortest definition I could find. I recommend reading the manual for a more detail.
Michael,
WHEN, WHERE and HOW to introduce an EUF are part of the art that uses chiropractic techniques. The nature of WHAT is an EUF is part of of the science that uses 33 chiropractic principles. WHY introducing an EUF is part of the philosophy with its chiropractic objective. –
– An OC is a chiropractor WHO chooses to practice the chiropractic objective which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD!
Don,
Thank you for the clarifying symptom and sign. I am also grateful for your question to understand the nature of the “something else”. This blog is about “cracking” the code of instructive information that is part of MOVING toward a deeper understanding of chiropractic philosophy. 🙂
Don,
WHEN, WHERE and HOW are part of the science only in so far as it is the chiropractor WHO chooses to follow the 33 principles and to practice the chiropractic objective.
Dr. Lessard,
Please clarify, does this post imply that the following the 33 and science inclusion are mutually exclusive or both are part of the practice of the chiropractic objective?
In other words, the science of chiropractic has established 33 principles that are the foundation of the nature of chiropractic which WHEN applied by the chiropractor providing instructive information on HOW to practice and WHERE to practice the chiropractic objective.
Didn’t see this post. Guess you answered my question here. 🙂
Your statement “… the [science] of chiropractic has established 33 principles…” took me by surprise. I had previously considered them only philosophically. It seems however Michael is right, there is quite a bit of overlap when it comes to Philosophy, Art and Science. It is said that logic is both an art and a science. The art of arranging words and ideas and the science of validating concepts. Philosophy then is both artistic and scientific. The 33 Principles are the Philosophical explanation for what we do. They are scientifically verified by logic and applied artistically through our techniques.
So I guess the best response from me to Joe’s original question is, the science of logic has already validated our objective.
Joseph,
You stated: “I can only read a small part of that message” and your are absolutely correct. I certainly did not imply to know the full code of the instructive information from the innate intelligence of the practice member’s body to the para vertebral muscles. Yet, it is you WHO choose to learn that small “coded” part. Again, let me make it crystal clear, I’m not saying that we know the whole code, as a matter of fact ALL of WHAT we know from universal and innate intelligence instructive information is included in the 33 principles and that’s good enough for me. It we WHO choose to address the interference to those instructive information by perceiving the working muscles and through our limited educated intelligence introduce our adjustic thrust into the spine of the practice member and that’s it. PERIOD! –
– That is WHY it is called the ART of chiropractic. 😉
Dr. Lessard and Dr. Strauss (and everyone else :),
I can see the importance of placing the PERIOD. 🙂
So, is it possible that the period should be someplace else.
For instance, It is we WHO choose to address the interference to the instructive information coded in the mental impulse by perceiving the segmental working muscles. Through our limited educated intelligence we introduce our refined adjustic thrust determined through our analysis into the spine of the practice member.
WE THEN also choose to post check the working muscle to determine is an adjustment has been made by the body. PERIOD.
My only goal is to delve deeper never to aggravate and as such I always feel questions are essential to learn more. Unfortunately, the quality of some of these question may vary. My apologies.
Doesn’t the post check come before the period in defining OSC/OC??
Does placing the post check before the period change our objective because we are now pursuing a clearing out and repeatedly introduce forces instead of one force and allowing ii to make or not make the adjustment?
Some say it is an art to introduce forces. Others may be determined to make it a science or define it as such. Is that possible for the analysis of the working muscle to be a studies scientifically and still be congruent philosophically with the OSC/OC objective?
Thanks.
Don,
Notice that there is nothing within the 33 principles that is mentioned the ART of chiropractic which is to LACVS. The 33 principles are the rational logic of the science of chiropractic and the foundation and the basis chiropractic philosophy. It is you as a chiropractor WHO will choose to put the PERIOD wherever you choose. LACVS is an ART guided by 33 principles established by the science of chiropractic. Chiropractic philosophy through deductive reasoning points to the WHERE, WHEN, and HOW to LACVS strictly as part of the ART of chiropractic whether it is pre-check, adjustic thrust or post-check. So everyone is free to put the PERIOD where they want according to their understanding of the chiropractic objective. –
– Since VS is in constant motion, we are dealing with FLOW of instructive information and as we address VS, it is me WHO chooses to take my task as a chiropractor seriously all the while not taking my educated intelligence too seriously. As Joseph mentioned above, “I can only read a small part of that message, call it for want of a better term, a “working muscle”, make an educated guess as to what the muscle is trying to do and introduce an EUF that hopefully, the ii of the body can use to correct the VS.” –
– Whether the innate intelligence of the body corrects VS or not, WHO am I to judge that? After all, ART is at best a perception and as far as I am concerned, my interpretation of my artistic chiropractic perception is an educated guess. 😉
Dr. Lessard,
I was of the understanding that we read a small part of the code that enables us to determine the intentions of innate intelligence (sorry if this is not the correct terminology).
Whether the innate intelligence of the body corrects the VS or not, Who am I to judge that?
This opens up many questions about recommending frequency of spinal checks as well as checking if the vs was corrected, no?
Sorry but I never asked, do all OSC/OC’ors not post check after the thrust?
Don,
From my understanding of the chiropractic objective emerging from the 33 principles and rational logic based on 20th and 21st century lifestyles, it is me WHO chooses, with the use of my educated intelligence, to get my spine checked at least once/week. If someone chooses to get checked more or less often, that’s fine to. The choice of frequency of care varies according to the understanding of the chiropractic objective and amount of time and money one wishes to spend on this aspect of living. It is also me WHO chooses to share this instructive information with ALL my PMs.-
– Regarding the post-check to find out if the vs was corrected or not. It is fine to “attempt” to know if the vs has been corrected… as long as you realize that vs is in constant motion and that the EUF of the adjustic thrust is not the only available UF that the innate intelligence of the body can adapt to produce the vertebral adjustment. AMP reveals that the innate intelligence of the body is ALREADY using muscles to correct the vs that is present at the moment of your palpation. Any UF (educated or not) that would present itself to the innate intelligence of the body could be adapted and invested with NEW instructive information in order to produce the vertebral adjustment. –
– Also, time is a factor that needs to be taken into account. It IS possible that the EUF that was introduced into the spine could be combined with another UF a few hours or days following the adjustic thrust and that the innate intelligence of the body could then produce a vertebral adjustment. Again, remember in an earlier thread that it is we, together without condemnation, WHO have concluded that VS is NOT static and is constantly in motion through cellular replacement of 500,000,000,000 cells/day. For example: 😉 Back in 1975 at Sherman, I was an intern in the student clinic, and I was building my practice for my clinical requirements. In those days, we ONLY practiced upper cervical pattern work with the NCGH, using Blair analysis and toggle recoil of C1 or C2 on a SOLID knee chest table. Absolutely NOTHING was EVER done below axis! Dr. Lyle Sherman ALWAYS insisted that if a pattern was established and the PM was in pattern, that I introduce ONLY one adjustic thrust and have the PM rest for 15 minutes after which time I was to do the post-check. As Dr. Sherman was supervising every steps of my PM’s visit that day, when I showed him the result of my post-check and that there was NO change in the pattern, he smiled, and said: “Claude, that’s fine. Schedule her for the next visit and let’s find out WHAT “innate” is going to do with your adjustment in a few days.” Don, sometimes, when the PM came back, she was in still in pattern and needed an adjustic thrust. Sometimes she was “clear” according to pattern work and I sent her home without an adjustic thrust that day, as she was found “clear”. –
– From this learning experience, it is me WHO chooses to let the PM go home, even if I don’t perceive any change in the working muscles after my post check, which through AMP is almost performed instantly. My rule is: WHEN IN DOUBT… DON’T, which really means that the PERIOD is put after the introduction of the adjustic thrust into the spine of the practice member. After the PERIOD, it’s all about my perception and interpretation the working muscles which is, at best, another educated guess. From my understanding of the chiropractic objective, it is me WHO chooses to deduce, reasonably through rational logic, that ONE educated guess (the adjustic thrust) is sufficient and is in the best interest of the practice member.
Great response Claude!
A couple things to remember Don,
1. The subluxation (Sux) has a metaphysical component, that can not be measured, pre- or post- adjustment.
2. Any measurement of matter is just that, a measurement of matter.
3. We have no way to distinguish if alterations of matter are Innate adaptive or pathological Limits of Matter.
4. Our Educated Intelligence is a product of matter.
5. The Educated Universal Force delivered in the Adjustic Thrust is a product of matter.
6. Our scientific spinal analysis is a product of Educated Intelligence, which again is a product of matter.
7. Everything beyond reception of the Mental Impulse by matter is an effect, subject to LOM.
8. The Chiro’s objective is to facilitate the elimination or reduction of interference to the transmission of Innate Forces, by administering an external invasive force over and above the internal resistive forces, in an effort to provide a net force gain that Innate Intelligence can adapt and use to correct the Sux.
The problem is, we are using matter, to move matter, that was observed by matter, to be altered matter, as compared to other matter. So no matter what method we use for analysis, we will be limited by matter, several time over. In essence all we can do is find the best (in our own personal opinion) way to check and introduce a force into the spine as specificly as possible and then observe the changes to what we have checked. Heat readings, muscle testing, leg balance, biotoning, static/motion palpation all have value but none are definitive of a Sux. which includes the metaphysical component of Intelligence.
Steve,
Yes, limitations upon limitations exist. Spinal analysis is a product of educated intelligence.
Steve, you may have hit the nail on the head here!
You stated that no matter what method used we will be limited by matter and that all we can do is find, in our personal opinion, the best way to check and introduce a force and then observe the changes to what we have checked.
I see three scenarios:
1. We place the period after the introduction of the force and do not concern ourselves with what proceeds the thrust. Since this is the case, there is no need for a post check. This would necessitate one and only one thrust and no re-checking the indicator for that thrust.
IMO, this sounds like OSC/OC to me.
2. We place the period after the post check and are concerned with the absence of the working muscle. This could require repeated force introductions at a specific segmental level until the indicator is clear. IMO, this may or may not be OSC/OC.
3. We place the period after what else follows the post check. This is based on observations after the post check. This may or may not include things outside of OSC/OC scope but I am the least sure of this category. IMO this is the furthest from the objective of chiropractic since the goal may be to change what follows the post check.
#1 seems the most trusting of the ii of the body to do what it will but with no check after the thrust how specific can the educated, refined force be?
Isn’t it necessary to check if further forces are required by the ii of the body after the initial thrust?
The post check is only to verify the technique was successful by a change in precheck criteria. Remember it is our assumption that the dysfunctional area of the spine is our best representation of Sux. location. Since the actual interference to IF can not be measured neither can IF restoration. Post checking does not violate OC principles because we are not attempting to predict or base further care on what transpires beyond removal of the Sux. The chiropractic objective is to LA(facilitate)CVS for the full transmission of Innate Force of the Innate Intelligence in the body. PERIOD!
Steve,
I agree that the post check may not violate the OSC/OC principles. Joe stated that we must remember that although not necessarily wrong, we can define chiropractic by other objectives. So, what i am wondering is, how does the post check serve the objective of OSC/OC?
Steve,
I couldn’t have said it better.
“So no matter what method we use for analysis, we will be limited by matter, several time over. In essence all we can do is find the best (in our own personal opinion) way to check and introduce a force into the spine as specificly as possible and then observe the changes to what we have checked. Heat readings, muscle testing, leg balance, biotoning, static/motion palpation all have value but none are definitive of a Sux. which includes the metaphysical component of Intelligence.”
Don, We correct vertebral subluxation to enable the (forces of) innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed
Q. 1 It is possible to put the period anywhere we want. Just remember it changes the meaning and hence the objective. It’s not necessarily wrong to change the meaning or the objective. It’s just not chiropractic or at least not defining chiropractic by that specific objective.
Examples: CBP/traditional chiropractic wants to put the period after subluxation. to straighten the spine, create a mathematical average/get sick people well.
KST wants to drop the word “vertebral”.
This does not make them wrong. They may even be a superior objective than the above. On occasion, the medical objective is a superior choice (treating a [life threatening] disease). I personally CHOOSE to practice OSC (now I’m writing like Claude)
Q 2. AMP/vertebraille/muscle palpation is a technique. We do not define chiropractic by its technique but by its objective. That’s the controversy we ran into in 1976 with Stephenson’s/B.J.’s “by hand only” definition and turned off the traditional chiropractors (TC). Upper cervical technique
Don, my computer was starting to flicker as a result of a t-storm so submitted my reply in case it lost power. It seems to be okay so I’ll finishmy thought…upper cervical technique when used o accomplish the above objective uses a different criteria but it still is OSC. Even those using amp sometimes wait 24 hrs. to do a post check.
Joe, Dr. Lessard and Steve,
Thanks for helping my understanding,
It would seem that one thrust and allowing innate to correct the vs is most in line with OSC/OC.
Admittedly, I never thought about correction taking 24 hours. Correct or not, I always assumed that if the UF was of the requisite quantity, direction and timing that the ii of the body would correct the vs immediately and the indicator would subsequently change.
Needless to say, this made me question at what point does one stop delivering forces if the indicator has not changed…once…twice..?
But as Joe stated these are technique questions and hopefully I can ask them here.
So, I would have to conclude that after reading all these informative posts that it seems the post check is incidental to the delivering of the thrust. The practice of OSC/OC is simply to CHECK THEN deliver the thrust.
With the beginners mind I ask, what would observing or checking again accomplish?
How one determines the frequency of checks was addressed by Dr. Lessards post and would make a great subject for a future post!! 🙂
… in other words, through deductive reasoning of chiropractic philosophy, the 33 principles of the science of chiropractic indicate that innate intelligence is ALWAYS normal and its function is ALWAYS normal and from that it is me WHO chooses to learn the ART of AMP in order to perceive and to practice the chiropractic objective.
Joe,
Sorry, the missing reply buttons on some posts make it difficult to put this in the thread properly.
You wrote,
“I can only read a small part of that message, call it for want of a better term, a “working muscle”, make an educated guess as to what the muscle is trying to do and introduce an EUF that hopefully, the ii of the body can use to correct the VS.”
I understand the logic to ii’s control of the working muscle.
That being said is the educated guess about the what the muscle is trying to do on par with a reactive short leg length interpretation or even elevated blood pressure interpretation?
In other words, aren’t all interpretations using educated intelligence subject to the same drawbacks?
Don,
AMP is a technique that includes the interpretation of working muscles use by the innate intelligence of the body in order to locate, analyze and introduce an adjustic thrust with the hope that the innate intelligence of the body will perform a vertebral adjustment. AMP has its roots from MP which has its roots from vertebraille. All three techniques include pre and post checks. You asked: “what would observing or checking again accomplish?” –
– First of all this is an excellent question! Back in the day when I learned vertebraille from Reggie, it was Miguel Bolufer and myself WHO chose to create a booklet with schematic drawings of the para vertebral muscles involved in the analysis of VS. It was we, WHO chose to call it MUSCLE PALPATION. A few years later, Nicholas Spano took on the task to refine the “raw” materials we has created into ADVANCE MUSCLE PALPATION. In those days, there was only Straight Chiropractic and Traditional Straight Chiropractic that were promoting LACVS. Non Therapeutic Straight Chiropractic was just beginning to emerge and there was a great battle of techniques specifically, upper cervical, full spine, instrumentation and by hands only. –
– The thinking of the day was to “clear” the spine by “correcting” VS and all techniques needed pre and post checks. AMP was no exception. As we move toward a deeper understanding of the chiropractic objective, the 33 principles and the philosophy, we are getting answers to questions like the one you just asked. Let me be one of the first to state that: –
– VS is not static and that VS is constantly in motion through the replacement of 500,000,000,000 cells/day by the innate intelligence of the body . –
– VS interferes with the transmission of the mental impulse which is metaphysical and cannot be measured by physical methods. –
– A chiropractor WHO chooses to LACVS with AMP technique, checks the spine of practice members in order to locate, analyze VS and introduce an adjustic thrust which is an EUF with the hope that the innate intelligence of the body of the practice member will adapt the EUF vesting it with NEW instructive information transforming it into an IF in which the working muscles in turn will be used by the innate intelligence of the body to perform a vertebral adjustment. –
– The adjustic thrust introduced by a chiropractor is an educated function and is limited by the limitations of the matter of educated intelligence and dependent on technical skills. In other words, the adjustic thrust is an educated guess. –
– Therefore, through rational logic and deductive reasoning, it is me WHO choose to conclude that: –
– Once the adjustic thrust is delivered there is NOTHING ELSE to do at that particular visit. PERIOD. Thus, to post check an adjustic thrust is an added educated guess and thereby UNNECESSARY.
Dr. Lessard,
Funny. That is exactly what I thought. Is that why you chose not to educe that from me? 😉
I appreciate your candor and see the rationale of your choices.
I guess after the thrust, no more saying “all clear” huh? 🙂
Guess it will just have to be something else now.
Not to take anything away from Dr. Spano’s work in AMP, which is an tremendous technique but I think it was Reggie that said “I don’t practice A technique. I use MY technique that is suited for my body type and my style.” (Paraphrased)
IMO, there is some truth to that for everyone.
Even those practicing LMP (Lessard muscle palpation) or SMP (Strauss Muscle Palpation) 😉
I know that this is not my blog and do not claim to be an authority in OC, but I have to disagree with the position of post checking being unnecessary. If you have multiple analysis and adjustive techniques, due to the fact that no technique is infallible and no two people are the same, it behooves the Chiro. to post check or post annalise. Follow up procedures will help to determine effectiveness. How else would you know when to change techniques or frequency. In that this is a question of practice style and efficiency it is a personal decision. I like to know what I have contributed has made a difference. What the Innate Intelligence does with the EUF is up to Innate. I understand in some cases the next visit is the post check for the last visit, but personally, it is more gratifying to know the person is different leaving my office than they were when they came in.
If we don’t post check, how do we know we have done what we told the PM we were here for. I guess I am still attached to the outcome, when that outcome is a subluxation free nerve system.
Steve,
Great questions. I’ll let the others I this group answer them.
You stated, “I understand in some cases the next visit is the post check for the last visit..”
You don’t have to answer this but I wonder, why isn’t that is that not the situation in ALL cases with all visits? Simply check and adjust no post check.
I meant…Why isn’t that the situation in ALL cases.
In general I think the post check is more for us as chiro’s to modify our art at our discretion, it doesn’t necessarily affect innate intelligence whether we do a post check or not. I personally feel better knowing that I had a seemingly positive impact on the matter and if it was positive than it is likely that innate intelligence used it in a constructive manner. So again the post check is for us.
The objective is to Locate and Correct. The only way I know I have done my job or achieved my objective is to recheck for Sux. by the same method I found it with. I do not consider symptoms, I do not re-xray or reexamine on every visit, so I reevaluate the presence or absence of the Sux. indicators. Maybe, as Claude would say, this is where I get out of the philosophical car and use science/art.
Steve,
You stated: “I guess I am still attached to the outcome, when that outcome is a subluxation free nerve system.” Don’t you think that to be attached to ANY outcome puts you on the unrelenting slippery slope that you mentioned in a previous thread? 😉
I don’t think so, I was trained to detect and remove subluxations and feel safe post checking. Not to pc would be too open ended for me. How will I know how to improve my skills if I don’t check my work?
Steve, I tend to agree with Claude, most PCing chiropractors tend to end up considering a change in symptoms as their criteria as to whether they have cleared out the PM. How do they get to that point?
They were most likely therapeutic minded or trained. I consider the pc a technique standard not a philosophical challenge.
Now I respect you and Claude immensely but that does not mean we will always agree on everything. So please tell me how you know when your objective has been met? What is your criteria? How would you answer the question you started the thread with?
Steve, I know it’s not appropriate to answer a question with a question but what is/should be my objective and is it different than the chiropractic objective?
Joe,
I found many of my questions were answered with a question.
I thought that was the method to use to educe rather than suplant knowledge.
I think I have explained my point of view fairly well, would like to hear yours. I would never assume to speak for you. I may quote you though, so please be explicit. 😉
I think we must make a distinction between the chiropractic objective and the chiropractor’s objective. The TIC objective is to LACVS to enable the IF of the ii of the body to be more fully expressed. That involves the TOR objective and he ii of the body. The TOR objective is to introduce an EUF that has a minimum of destructive potential, realizing that the ii of the PM’s body is doing 99.9% of the work in achieving the TIC objective. IMO too many chiropractors believe it is the other way around. They believe it is them or their technique that is largely responsible for the success of the TIC objective. If you don’t believe that check out some of the groups on Facebook and remember that the ii of the body was correcting most vs since man first walked the earth, long before 1895.
I tend to believe that the very term “postcheck”, promotes technique arrogance. There is no such thing as a postcheck. There is only a check to see whether the ii of the PM’s body is manifesting sufficient I.F. to correct a vs. That check can be done every 5 minutes, every 5 days, 5 months or any time in between. That largely depends upon, as Claude has so clearly stated, the PM’s desire (i.e., time, finances, lifestyle, and how long they are willing to remain subluxated).
Chiropractic is not about what we have done. It is about what the ii of the body is doing. A postcheck is about what I (or my technique) has accomplished. A “spinal check” is about what the ii of the PM’s body is doing or trying to do. I tend to think that there is a subtle but important difference. There are a number of ways in which a TOR makes the distinction, some involve technique, some involve our understanding of our role and the role of the ii of the body. Some involve our attitude.
Technique, how we partnership with the ii of the PM’s body (it being the senior partner) is a personal and individual thing with each chiropractor and PM and not what this blog is all about. We are about understanding our role and our attitudes. Of course there is an overlapping between roles, attitude and technique and that discussion is important and helpful. I am not downplaying anyone’s comments or input on this discussion. On the contrary, I think it has been good and helpful (at least to me) and I wish more would participate in the discussion. Thank you all for the opportunity to share my thoughts and for you sharing yours. Let’s continue the discussion because as B.J. said Conflicts do Clarify
I think I see your point for the most part, although my pride and their arrogance are not the same. It maybe a “deadly sin”, but I enjoy knowing I have contributed to someone else’s well-being, even if only a percent (or less).
IMHO I tend to think Chiropractic is about what we do. As you said yourself II has been correcting Sux.s as long as vertebrae have existed. That will go on with or with out the profession. In 1895 one man found a way to assist II, I think that is significant. It is the ChiropracTOR that LACVS, not the philosophy. As important as it is for people to understand ChiropracTIC, if they don’t get adjusted what good is it?
The TIC objective is to enable the IF of the ii of the body to be more fully expressed. The TOR objective is to LACVS in order for that to happen, more often than it would by accident.
Joe,
Your insight into the post check and “spinal check” was great. Thanks. I can really see the difference that between the two after your explanation. Sorry you asked for it… I am back for more 😉
You wrote,
“The TOR objective is to introduce an EUF that has a minimum of destructive potential, realizing that the ii of the PM’s body is doing 99.9% of the work in achieving the TIC objective. IMO too many chiropractors believe it is the other way around.If the TIC objective involves the TOR objective and the ii of the body, I can see the difference between a post check and what you call the “spinal check”.”
You also wrote that there is
“no such thing as a postcheck. There is only a check to see whether the ii of the PM’s body is manifesting sufficient I.F. to correct a vs.That check can be done every 5 minutes, every 5 days, 5 months or any time in between. That largely depends upon, as Claude has so clearly stated, the PM’s desire (i.e., time, finances, lifestyle, and how long they are willing to remain subluxated).”
Assuming that one were to use the “spinal check” with one thrust, what information/feedback does one use to refine the skill in delivering the EUF with minimal destructive potential?
Not all forces can be used by ii, so do we attempt to refine our application
or
analyze and apply forces where indicated each and every time with no change to application because our role is so minimal compared to the ii of the bodies role in the adjustment?
The concept of chiropractic is specific or it is nothing is really bothering me. What I mean, is how does a person new to OSC go on to refine the application of EUF if there is no post check feedback?
As always. Thanks for your help.
Don, it’s difficult to explain how to hit a baseball, especially on he internet. The same is true for refining the art form of introducing an EUF. But here goes:
A. Baseball;1. Know where the strike zone parameters are.
2.Develope eye hand coordination.
3. Improve bat speed, strength/power.
4. Think, think, think. (includes know your opponent (have someone steal the catchers signs-only kidding). Know how he will pitch in every situation.
5.Practice, practice, Practice.
B. Introducing EUF:
1. Know your objective , to introduce the most specific EUF.
2. Know your philosophy-the ii of the P.m.’s body is making the adjustment You are educatedly trying to determine what the ii is trying to do, etc., etc.
3. Know your P.M.’s body. (your analysis of the spine).
4. Think, think, think. includes visualizing where the bone is, where the body is trying to move it when the force is introduced.
5. Practice, practice, practice.
In response to “you also wrote…”
6. Recognize you are dealing with a human body that is different than every other human body in the world.
7. Recognize that you are only a human being and always learning. A great hitter makes an out more than 6 out of 10 times. The difference is we have the wonderful ii of the body to make up for our limitations. That does not excuse us from improving B.1. through B.6.
Don,
You asked: “how does a person new to OSC go on to refine the application of EUF if there is no post check feedback?” The application of EUF which is the adjustic thrust is an art. Joe gave a fantastic answer as he compared it with “hitting a baseball”. –
– I do not practice a particular technique. It me WHO chooses to practice the Claude Lessard’s technique that fits Claude Lessard’s body. It is me WHO chooses to adapt the Claude Lessard’s technique according to the location and analysis of the VS of the PM’s body WHO chooses to be on the table, at this specific moment in time. For example 😉 it is me WHO chooses to apply a specific adjustic thrust in the spine of a 5 year old boy and a different specific adjustic thrust in a 35 year old body lifter. –
– CHIROPRACTIC IS SPECIFIC OR IT IS NOTHING is TRUE as it ever was. (By the way, if you were to check the archives of Sherman College, the title of my talk at its second LYC EUM in 1975 was: CHIROPRACTIC IS SPECIFIC OR IT IS NOTHING!) We must differentiate specificity from the point two points of view. From the point of view of the chiropractor, specificity is an EUF that is introduced at the exact location of the VS, with the exact analysis, the accurate line of drive and the right velocity of the adjustic thrust which are ALL educated guesses, in a moment in time, since VS is constantly in motion. From the point of view of the innate intelligence of the body, specificity is ALWAYS normal as per principle #27 of the science of chiropractic..
Yes, this line is intriguing. [There is only a check to see whether the ii of the PM’s body is manifesting sufficient I.F. to correct a vs.]. How does one do this? I may be dense but it seems all our analytic procedures are designed to detect a loss of Innate potential or negative findings. How does one detect a positive, as you say, “manifesting sufficient I.F. to correct a vs”?
Steve, great question. IMHO the muscle palpation of AMP/vertebraille attempts to detect a “positive” what the body is trying to do in spite of/in the presence of vertebral subluxation but cannot do due to the subluxation interfering with the IF to the vertemere (a limitation of matter). Perhaps, Nick, Claude or someone else can explain this better.
Wait a minute Joe, I believe it has been said on this very blog that we never know what is Innate adaptation and what is LOM. This is the reason we do not practice therapeutically. Even in this muscular analysis you are observing supposedly what Innate wants ( as if we could possibly know this) yet is unable to accomplish…a negative.
VOL. 14
Art. 381. SPINAL MUSCLES. (Ref. XV and IX)
Spinal muscles are those attached to or which have to do with
the position of vertebrae, relative to each other; and to keep the
spine erect, giving to it any movement necessary in flexing or
turning.
The muscles are employed constantly, especially when there is
consciousness. The muscles are the means of subluxations
occurring. The response to a concussion is referred to as innate
contraction of forces. If one will try to visualize the task of keeping
twenty-six blocks of bone in a correct, functioning pile, every one
being moved to accommodate the different positions of the body, he
can realize the importance of these muscles.
Abnormal muscles are those which are dis-eased, pathological,
contracted, prolapsed, or depleted.
When dis-eased or pathological, they cannot perform their
functions properly in moving or maintaining the spine in its normal
position. If contracted or prolapsed, they cause rotations and
curvatures. If the spinal muscles, having to do with the subluxated
vertebra, are abnormal, Innate cannot restore the vertebra to its
normal position; and if pathological or depleted, will offer little, if
any, assistance in keeping it in its place until restored transmission
gets them back to normal.
Limitations of matter is NOT negative or positive. It is WHAT it is. Within the universal cycle of existence universal forces are deconstructive and innate force constructive as regard to living matter. This is from the “matter stand point”. From the law of organization, the forces are neither positive nor negative. Just like limitations of matter, it is WHAT it is. –
What AMP can provide, is an analysis of working muscles in a moment in time. Through our educated interpretation of WHAT the muscles are doing, we can “guess” a small part of the intent (instructive information) of the innate intelligence of the PM’s body. This is part of the art of chiropractic, to know HOW to locate VS and determine its proper juxtaposition and appropriate “listing”. Then, it is me WHO chooses HOW to introduce my EUF as specifically as I possibly can within the limitations of my matter and perform the adjustic thrust (which is my educated guess). WHEN my adjustic thrust is completed, it is me WHO chooses to put the PERIOD right there even if I can immediately “feel” some changes within the working muscles or NOT at that time. The next visit is TRULY a spinal check giving me instructive information, in an other moment in time, as HOW to perform the NEW adjustic thrust (which again is my educated guess).
Steve, I don’t believe that is was ever said on this blog that we can NEVER know what is L of M and what is innate adaptation. Ii will never do anything to harm the body (Prin.#25) therefore anything that is harmful is not an ii manifestation. That is why death from a physiological perspective is never an innate adaptation. It is always due to L of M and it is always bad (Claude) The problem lies in determining what is harmful and what is innate adaptation. A fever that causes brain damage is harmful but we do not know what is high enough for any particular person or will go high enough to cause brain damage therefore we do not make the determination whether any sign or symptom is innate adaptation or a L of M. The only exception is the muscle activity of a “working muscle” in VS. The exception is because we cannot know whether it is L of M, innate adaptation a combination of both and the VS is the only condition (not being a medical condition) that we claim to have expertise in analyzing. A bullet wound is harmful (perhaps even fatal) and is due to L of M.
Article 381 (particularly the second and third paragraphs) could use some discussion and R.W. is not available to give us his input. I will have to give it more thought otherwise I run the risk of angering the Palmer acolytes.
Joseph,
A polar bear has a much greater degree of adaptability in the Arctic Pole than a panther due to both their respective limitations of matter. A panther has a much greater degree of adaptability in the Sahara Desert than a polar bear due to both their respective limitations of matter. Which limitation is “bad”. Every species has limitations of matter. ALL matter is limited! Not good, not bad. It is WHAT it is… is it not? WHAT is negative and detrimental to the vertebrate species is the “further” increase in limitation of the transmitting matter due to VS. That will interfere with the life of both the polar bear and the panther and ALL vertebrate species for that “matter”. 😉
Sorry I missed all the fun here Joe!
Your baseball example is good however I think my question may have been poorly worded. So, i will try with your baseball example, with baseball I watch how far the ball goes with each attempt and adjust accordingly (pardon the pun! 🙂 ) Listening to the bat hitting the ball, seeing the ball change it’s previous course of momentum and maybe even watching how far the ball goes could all be interpreted as the feedback of hitting a ball accurately or well. This information is interpreted so that, all things being equal, the accomplishment of the objective of the hitter on his/her next attempt can be as good or better than the last.
Switching to delivering the EUF now, after delivering the thrust, and considering that there is no post check only spinal checks, what is the feedback used to make refine the application of the EUF for the next attempt?
To clarify, using the baseball analogy, not having a post check or a spinal check would be like swinging at the pitch and closing your eyes right after hitting the ball, no? How does one improve their hitting in this situation? What is the “look-for”?
Now, I understand all analogies breakdown at some point and I can see and like where this is going. I want to get to your understanding of this but the logic at this moment in time is difficult for me to grasp.
So, are we making a determination that the activity of the working muscle is a sign of insufficient innate forces in some subtle way?
Don, I’m not sure my baseball analogy was very good. Analogies should be something the reader can relate to. Using a baseball analogy on a hockey player is poor teaching and further confuses rather than clarifies. Similarly, discussing a mechanical act involving physics is different than a vitalistic phenomena involving one educated intelligence (the D.C.) and one innate intelligence (the P.M.). Also, watching a baseball game is a lot different than playing the game (no offense intended, that’s a natural difference between a player and a fan both are looking for slightly different results .) I should probably stick with the adjusting principle rather than the bad analogies but when one is over their head, flopping around flailing your arms still beats drowning.
The “look for” for a good hitter (not a watcher) is, did he do everything he was supposed to do. If so where or how far the ball went is incidental. Sometimes my best hitting went right to a fielder and was caught. My eye-hand coordination was fine, my form was good. I had good contact and I know that under most circumstances that will fall in as a hit 30% of the time another 10% will be errors.
When you have introduced an EUF, the PM is a different person, so you are not really post checking the PM you are checking a different person, depending on the character and the quality of your EUF and what the PM’s body is doing with that force. The human body is a dynamic organism, constantly changing. Claude has been very clearly reminding us of that fact on this and other threads. Remember we are not driving a nail into a board. It is a living changing vitalistic organism that is taking a universal force and changing it into an innate force. I think we often ignore the fact that the adjustment is not just a mechanical act anymore than a kiss is. It’s like the difference between kissing my sister and kissing my wife. (now I’ve changed analogies and probably really confused the discussion) If you were to introduce an EUF to a PM and then check the person in the next room would you consider that “post check” to be of any value? The person in the next room is no longer the original PM. Neither is the person you just introduced a EUF into, the same person.
We seem to ignore Principle No. 6 when it comes to the adjustment and think that if it (the adjustment)did not occur instantaneously, it was not an adjustment. Technique should be about whether the PM’s body is doing something with my EUF. How long should you wait to do a post check or more correctly check the next PM wearing the same clothes and lying on the same table? I think it’s more of “did I do everything I should have?” IOW did I introduce the best EUF I could? Going back to the baseball analogy: did I do everything right in making contact with the ball. If so then whether it fell in for a hit or went over the fence is incidental and to some degree out of my control. It also depends upon 9 other players and what they are doing. Batting average does not tell you everything about the players contribution to the team. It just tells you his batting average. But keep in mind that hitting a baseball is still largely a mechanical thing based upon physics and adjusting a PM is vitalistic phenomena based upon a dozen factors with both the D.C. introducing the EUF and the pm’s ii and matter responding to that force. Too many techniques become merely exercises in physics and do not deal with vitalistic activity. Now I’ve probably confused the issue but hopefully given you and others something more to think about in the area of philosophy of technique (when I’m sure you were looking for answers about the art of technique). I wish some “hitting (adjusting) instructors” would jump in here or maybe we should have some “art of technique” seminars where some knowledgeable people could give some practical help. Nick, Tom, Claude, Glenn and others are you reading this?
Please understand, I am not arguing the validity of muscle analysis per se. However, saying a “working muscle” is the only way to know II’s intent is ludicrous. Any decision we make with our Educated Intelligence, on the efforts of Innate Intelligence, is a guess at best. I find no logical indication that muscle testing is more in tune with II than leg balance, heat patterns, biotoning or motion palpation. All measurements are quality/quantity of matter, none are q/q of Innate Force or Innate Intelligence. I guess since the Art is individualized so must be or perceptions.
Steve, if I had to choose between the matter’s indication of the ii of the PM’s body’s intent/attempt in correcting a VS (muscle palpation) and the matter’s reaction to a VS (pain, another type of symptom, heat changes, a short leg,) I think I would choose the former. The latter are not an indication of the ii of the body’s intent from what I can see. They are an indication of the matter’s reaction to a VS not the ii of the body’s response to a VS. The body does not create pain to correct a VS or generate heat at the vertemere level or create a fixation. Perhaps I am not making the distinction clear or I am missing something or never learned it in the mid 60’s. The difference between a working muscle and a spastic (taut and tender) muscle is the difference between an ii response and the matter’s reaction.
Joe,
I can agree that the adjustment is not just a mechanical act however there is a part of that act that is mechanical and a part that is not.
I tend to believe that not all forces delivered will be used by ii and I want to refine that ability the bet I can.
I could be incorrect but with the reasoning that we currently have, this is not possible because there isn’t any feedback.
As you stated, “did I introduce the best EUF I could?”
That would beg the question, is one EUF delivery comparable to another.
In one way it is being said no, they are not comparable yet in another way this question says they are.
I admit I have been thinking about this for awhile with the lens of OSC/OC on for awhile but haven’t come up with any answers.
This is why I asked you and everyone else on the blog so I can get to the bottom of this.
Thanks!
This NEW understanding of the adjustic thrust introducing an EUF with the hope that the innate intelligence of the PM’s body will adapt it into an innate force and produce a vertebral adjustment gives rise to many valid questions. This situation will challenge our “old” level of thinking and will create conflicts within ourselves at first. It is perfectly normal to break down and even necessary. “There is a “crack” in EVERYTHING and that’s HOW the light gets in”… says the poet. In other words, ONE has to break down in order to break through. It’s one of the five signs of life, namely growth (if you don’t believe me, ask a mother of a 3 month old regarding teething). –
– Now, with the art of chiropractic, it is to our advantage to allow for different point of views and choose to choose one of those point of views. Are you comfortable in interpreting the reaction of matter resulting from VS in order to locate and analyze VS? Are you comfortable in interpreting the response of the innate intelligence of the body due to the innate need to correct VS in order to locate and analyze VS? Or a combination of the two? We must always remember that no matter what we choose, together without condemnation, we concluded that VS is in constant motion at the rate of cellular replacement of 500,000,000,000 cells/day. VS is NEVER static as it would be an impossibility and totally irrational and completely illogical. –
– The real question is: HOW does the innate intelligence of the body MOVE bones? In other words, WHAT system of the body will be used by the innate intelligence of that body to MOVE bones? WHEN it is you WHO choose to answer that question, then it also you WHO will choose to learn, to the best of your educated abilities, a technique that will LACVS. –
– A chiropractor WHO chooses a technique to LACVS and introduce an adjustic thrust, is introducing an EUF which is ALWAYS an educated guess. And guess what? A GUESS IS A GUESS!!! –
– WHO you choose to be in relation of the above is your choice as a chiropractor. Therefore it is you WHO choose WHO you choose to BE and it is me WHO chooses to accept WHO you choose to BE. I wish to thank ALL of you for performing adjustic thrusts according to your analysis. You and ALL of the chiropractors in the world WHO choose to LACVS are beacons of HOPE for the transformation of the world. –
– It’s about the WHO!!!
I guess what I am uncomfortable with is that both ( Are you comfortable in interpreting the reaction of matter resulting from VS in order to locate and analyze VS? Are you comfortable in interpreting the response of the innate intelligence of the body due to the innate need to correct VS in order to locate and analyze VS?) are matter perceiving matter. As discussed previously it is the interpretation you choose that matters. All interpretations concerning a physical manifestation of a metaphysical phenomenon are an educated guess, are they not? Saying that one test of matter outweighs another seems like technique or analytic arrogance.
Quite possibly I do not understand the method clearly. How do you KNOW the tight muscle is II in action and is not the result of a toxic reaction, or of a mental stressor, or holding a compensatory misalignment, or even muscle splinting preventing further misalignment?????
Steve,
HOW did Michelangelo know that “his” David was done? How did Da Vinci know that “his” Mona Lisa was completed? Art is art. It is BJ Palmer WHO chose to answer your question in the hall of Palmer School of Chiropractic back in the 50’s and “pay” YOU forward. BJ was asked: “Dr. Palmer HOW do you know that you know?” After a brief pause, BJ took his stokey out of his lips and with a smirk said: “You’ll know!” This wise answer is NOT “technique or analytic arrogance”… it is the fruit of years of unlearning and learning, deconstructing and constructing, tearing down and building. In other words it called: CONFIDENCE! –
– Steve, your guess is as good as my guess. WHAT is important is that it is you WHO can choose to BE confident in your technique and do your best in delivering your adjustic thrust. That’s ALL that REALLY matters! Then, you can go on and serve the principles of chiropractic by checking your PM’s spines in peace. 😉
Steve, (and anyone else who wants to take this test) do you consider the symptom/sign/”reaction of matter” (let’s take for example a heat reading or you can use a short leg or actually anything you want except a working muscle) an indication of:
a. the response of the ii of the body to a VS.
b. a manifestation of the limitations of the matter because of a VS.
I must warn you ahead of time that this is a trick question. You are also welcome to answer,
c. either of the above
d. all of the above.
e. none of the above.
(I forgot how much fun it was making up philosophy questions, especially trick ones! The second part of the question is to explain your answer. For that you will probably need your blue test booklet [not provided])
If I could add to Steve’s question:
How do you KNOW the tight muscle is II in action and is not the result of a toxic reaction, or of a mental stressor, or holding a compensatory misalignment, or even muscle splinting preventing further misalignment?????
I would extend that by adding, there is also the question of the ability of one to palpate the working muscles. I have heard of some critics that have raised the question of the ability of palpating the intrinsic muscles of the spine to begin with. These same people then opt to interpret some other variable for the presence or absence of vs.
I personally prefer the reasoning behind the working muscle but do wonder about the additional differences from the TOR perspective of using the working muscle sign versus using anything else.
Heck I may even stick my neck out and try Dr. Strauss’ test! 🙂
Don,
Hayden thought that Beethoven had a poor technique as a composer. Yet Beethoven WHO respected HAYDEN very much went on CONFIDENTLY anyway according to “”his” technique. Hayden did remarkably well also. George Bernard Shaw was forever arguing techniques with G.K. Chesterton about ethics, philosophy and spirituality. That’s HOW it goes with ART. It is you WHO can choose a technique that best suits your body and master it in order to be confident in introducing your adjustic thrust. Then, wash your mind of all compromises and all that is expedient,,, then go on serving the chiropractic principles through checking your PMs spines… the rest WILL follow… I GUARANTEE!!! 😉
Q#1 There is a different feel to a spastic /stabilizing /compensatory muscle and a “working” muscle. It also involves different layer groups.
Q#2 No one ever said that hitting a 95mph fastball was easy. But thousands can learn to read braille. Helen Keller was deaf, dumb, and blind but not lazy.(I’m not suggesting that everyone who chooses not to learn muscle palpation is lazy anymore than everyone who chooses not to learn to hit the fastball is.)
Dr. Strauss,
If I had to choose one it would be e).
If I could choose more than one I would choose d) or e) this would be the better response.
This is my explanation. Answers A and B are the same response.
Let us consider the “short Leg.” This is also a trick example, for it is not the short leg that is significant. If proper distribution of Innate Force produces ease then “balance” could be a useful observation of ease, or of Matter demonstrating Intelligence in a unital organism. In that case:
a. “Balanced legs” would not be an response of II to VS. On the contrary, “Balance” would support the conclusion of Ease, or uninterupted transmission of IF.
b. As Don states earlier, b. seems to be a reiteration of a.. However, I would like to address this concept as well. All manifestations demonstrate the LOM as this is the criteria by which they exist. Balance would not be a manifistation matter at all, instead a profound example of Intelligence. Balance would provide conservation of energy which has a positive survival value and could never be harmful to the organisim in which it is occurring. In fact ONLY II could produce balance in a multi-cellular, multi-systemic living manifestation of matter. ( A short leg may possibly be a domonstration of LOM increased due to VS, or it could be an Innate Adaptation. We can never know. )
So Sensei, my answer is e. Leg balance is an indication of niether a. or b.
I hope I have shown my work sufficiently and fully explained my answer. In deed, I was not given a blue test booklet but I do have several (all the) Blue Books as a study guide.
Steve from what I gathered from your comment:
Even legs=no short leg=balance=”proper distribution of innate forces” (PDIF)=ease=no VS? If I understood that correctly can I correctly conclude that:
Uneven legs=a short leg=lack of balance=lack of PDIF=lack of ease=VS
Steve, you raise some good questions which I need to take some extended time to think through. For now let me say this: I have to admit that I was never totally comfortable with my analytical techniques but then I was less comfortable with any other form of analysis. I was also never totally comfortable with the purity of the food I was eating in a restaurant, that’s why I pray before a meal. If I can give one more analogy which is not nearly as esoteric as Claude’s or B.J.’s: I once asked my editor “when are you satisfied with what you have written? ( I go through about 9 drafts on a book and wanted to know whether that was enough.) Her answer ” when you have reached your deadline for publication”. IOW it can always be improved. Are we ever satisfied that we have enough information to introduce an EUF?. Not when we are dealing with a human body that is constantly changing and our limited educated brain. BUT… at a certain point you must introduce a force based upon the information you have and believe that whatever your feeble attempts, no one else in the world is doing more to enable the ii of the body to be more fully expressed in a human being. With regard to our analytical procedure, you have to be comfortable with the idea that for you as limited as your technique might be everything else is so much worse. I use to add instrumentation to my analysis but if and when my NCM reading disagreed with my palpation, I went with my palpation. If it agreed I realized I had wasted my time, and limited the number of people I could see (palpating, doing a leg check, x-raying, instrumentation, etc., etc., etc., is very time consuming and also delayed a person in getting their VS corrected.) If it disagreed, I had to make a choice or do more tests and choose best out of 3,5,7, or just keep analyzing the spine until the PM died on the table of old age or of some medical condition which I was still trying to find the cause of (how come there is no smiley face for a tongue -in-cheek remark?). When you are comfortable with your findings, introduce an EUF and be confident that you have done the best you could and know that no other so-called health care provider could do more for that human being.
Dr. Lessard,
Choose my technique to suit my body and choose my level of confidence in that technique and master it.
Confidence seems to be critical. So, for a novice to improve or progress to mastery does a person work on their confidence?
I have to remember here that the outcome of a piece of art has an outcome that the artist looks for.
What is the outcome the is tangible, visible that is used by the artist to improve? I would say the hues, form, shape, texture, symmetry or balance of the artwork. There are many others.
To say that art improves without any interpretation of the outcome is difficult for me to grasp and I love creating artworks.
So, here is my question again,
What are the outcomes that the OSC/OC using to in their process of refining the art of EUF application?
Don,
One more time and I will say it over and over and over and over and over again. IT’S ABOUT THE WHO YOU CHOOSE TO BE. That’s the outcome! YOU must “empty your tank” every time you deliver an adjustic thrust and then LET IT GO! When your “tank is empty” then YOU know that you have done the best you could ever do at that moment. Do NOT worry about the next time. Your tank will be replenished with more refine “art” as YOU also are in constant motion and not the same chiropractor you were a moment ago. Trust the law of life and you will ALWAYS be refining the art of EUF application at the rate of 500,000,000,000 cells/day.
Dr. Lessard,
If Conflicts Clarify I must be looking for clarity. 🙂
Letting go wouldn’t accomplish that end. unless I am interpreting your use of “empty tank” and “letting go” improperly. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I choose to clarify, without condemnation, the the sign of the working muscle and application of EUF from the perspective of the TOR attempting to refine their art. I choose to do this with anyone who wishes to engage. 😉
The matter of the body being in constant motion. The law of life dictates that the organizing intelligence is in constant control of this process so long as there is no interference. Attempting to refine the process and application of the forces delivered into the body is either improvable or is not given the constant motion within the body.
If it is improvable, then this brings the questions of why and how.
Or should one simply trust that any force delivered with the intention that is proper is the best that one can do and is all that one can do given that the ii of the body is doing 99.9% of the “work”.
This would mean that all forces delivered are equal from the perspective of the TOR and it is the ii of the body that will determine if your force induces a subluxation (hopefully not!!) or enables the body to complete its own adjustment.
Thank you for reading this through to the end! 🙂
Don, what a great post/comment. It shows you are dedicated to improving yourself both philosophically and technically. If I can try to speak for Claude (and he can correct me if I am wrong…as can anyone on this blog). I think his remark of “letting go” related to a single PM and a single event/visit. You have to be satisfied that you did your best or resigned that you did not after the introduction of the EUF and leave it up to the ii of the PM’s body. That doesn’t mean that you do not try to do better or get better every day. A good hitter who strikes out does not go back to the dugout and get angry, sulk, or feel sorry for himself. That does no good. He goes back and thinks, he mentally prepares for his next at-bat. “Letting go”, as Claude used it, I think meant, you don’t sit there and wish for a “do over”, take back that third “swing and miss”. By the same token you don’t take the “that’s the best I can ever do attitude. Or in the case of adjusting “I wish I had used more/less force., “did this” or “did that” Let that “at-bat” with that PM go and think about how you can improve during your next at-bat. (This is easy to say for a guy who did not adjust anybody today and will not adjust anybody tomorrow.) Anytime I have no idea what Claude is saying/writing as in his “empty tank” term, I chalk it up to a French-Canadian idiom. One last thought: If the innate intelligence of the body is doing 99.9% of the work, is it not incumbent upon us to make sure that the measly .1% we are doing is of the best quality?
Don, “choose my level of confidence in that technique and master it.” I don’t think you can “choose” your level of confidence in your technique. I think the greater your mastery of your technique, the greater your confidence. The great hitter Tony Gwynn would go down into the batting cage tunnel after batting practice when the other players were relaxing in the locker room and hit a few hundred balls. Who do you think had greater confidence when he came up to bat in the game?
“When you have introduced an EUF, the PM is a different person, so you are not really post checking the PM you are checking a different person, depending on the character and the quality of your EUF and what the PM’s body is doing with that force. ” (JS 8-21@1:23) That my dear friend is a profound statement and clarifies this whole matter of post-checking. It is even more obvious to me now that as well as there is a Philosophy of Technique, there is also an Art of Philosophy, and this blog, a masters canvas.
That is not what I said. Please read further. Short leg could indicate increased LOM due to Sux, or adaptive mechanism of II. WE CAN NEVER KNOW WHICH. (Much like a tight muscle, we can’t know)
Steve,Perhaps we need to add to our glossary. I think we are talking about two different things. How about a definition of “response” and “reaction”? Before we can begin to determine the difference technically we need to define the difference philosophically.
Not sure how or if “response” and “reaction” involve my last comments but I am willing to leave definitions to you and the other more intelligent people on this blog.
Now there’s a copout. 🙂 Seriously Steve, I tend to think that if we are not going to just go by what B.J. said, then (none of us being as intelligent as him) we should develop some sort of consensus. I think we should all be willing to put something up for discussion and for it to be “peer reviewed” to hopefully further our chiropractic understanding…or we can just accept everything B.J. said and anything he did not cover, conclude it is not worth knowing, as one chiropractor who has never participated (but criticizes this blog on Facebook) seems to want to do.
Really Joe? You slide off into a tangent of semantics and gloss over the reply to your little test, with no comment. Then you call me a copout? The words response or reaction were not part of my post. I did not see the connection.
If you did not like or agree with my perspective, I am ok with that, but please give me the courtesy of telling me whether what I stated was philosophically congruent or not. Grade the test.
Personally, I enjoy standing on BJ’s shoulders even though I need you and Claude, and others to lean on. (You like sports analogies…picture a cheerleaders pyramid, no one gets to the top alone) I am all for peer reviewing new concepts and growing the philosophy, but I am no wordsmith. I usually leave definitions up to Oxford, Webster and Wiki.
Don,
Once your adjustic thrust is delivered, there absolutely nothing else you can do for this PM at this particular moment in time. Don’t second guess yourself… let it go! You, as a NEW chiropractor, will check that PM’s NEW spine at the next visit and deliver a NEW adjustic thrust. You will be NEW again at the following visit and this cycle will go on and on and on and on as long as the PMs choose to come in to get their spines checked by you. This way, you are involved in the universal cycle of life as you EUF provides limited instructive information for the purpose of LACVS. –
– WHAT an AMAZING call YOU have for being a WHO chooses to BE serving the 33 principles of chiropractic. It is me WHO chooses to BE grateful EVERY moment of my life for this gift. It is you WHO can choose to BE grateful as well. 😉
Dr. Lessard,
Each NEW adjustic thrust is an educated universal force.
I have read on this blog that:
“the educated universal force is either good educated, exactly what the ii of the Pms body needs, or bad educated,too much force in which case it is more correctly called a universal force or “adjustic thrust reaction”.”
In your opinion, how do we limit the bad?
Don,
ALWAYS gently apply the adjustic thrust. If you can’t do that, use an activator instrument, that way you will be sure to ELIMINATE the bad. As usual, you must know by now, that it is you WHO will choose HOW to limit the bad. 😉
Don, since your comment was directed to Claude, I’ll let him to directly respond. However I had a comment that I wanted to add to this thread earlier and it may be helpful at this point:
Keep in mind that we are adding an educated universal force (EUF) to the already continually being created innate forces that are attempting but failing (because of L of M) to correct VS. I often used the analogy with PMs of a car stuck in a snow drift and a 95 lb. little old lady coming along and giving it a nudge/ or traction by leaning on it while the engine is already trying to get the car out. I admit that I am the little old lady and the PM’s body is the 350 HP engine. Should the EUF be that of a little old lady or a snowplow getting up to a speed of 50 mph and ramming into the back of the snowbound car? That said, with certain limitations, the body has the ability to adopt or adapt to or reject those UF not needed. I once had an associate (not Claude) who was a great adjustor but a little rough. We called him”Iron Hands”. He was noted for saying, “you’ve got to crack a few eggs to make an omelet!”
One UF is the same as another. It is the educated aspect of the EUF that makes the difference. BJ used to say you could throw your patients down the cellar steps and half of them would get well. IOW half would have their VS corrected. We just try to improve upon that percentage with our EUF, realizing that at a certain point depending upon the amount of force (more or less than needed) we will reach the point of diminishing returns.
Dr. Struass,
For my sake, please, never limit your responses to anything that I have posted. I welcome any and all people to comment. I can’t speak for others though.
I have used the example of a car in “park” and trying to move versus a car with the engine engaged before to paint a picture of manipulation versus adjustment. I have not used the snow plow coming at 50mph and the little old lady. That one will be in the memory bank now. Thanks!
I can certainly see and have been the receiver of an iron hand in my day. There was a technique tutor we had that was a retired police office. He was primarily an activator instructor but, for whatever reason, was teaching adjusting a upper dorsal technique by hand one day. After eagerly volunteering that day, I learned to wait and watch before volunteering again.
I am certainly interested in avoiding subjecting anyone to what I experienced. I would say don’t try to improve but commit to it!
With that in mind, Dr. Strauss, in your opinion, how would someone determine AFTER THE FACT that the force was more or less than needed? IOW no one wants diminishing returns but what are the returns we are speaking of?
Good question Don, diminishing returns are the degree that the PM’s body can use the EUF you have used to correct the VS. In all likelihood every EUF is either too much or too little force (none of us is prefect so our EUF is bound to be less than perfect. In either case the PM’s ii will take that force and correct a VS.
Too little: In the case of too little force, if it is still enough (added to the IF that the ii of the PM’s body is continually producing and that is enough to set the vertebra in motion, it is enough. If it is too little force even with the IF that the ii of the PM’s body is using to set the bone in motion, then it has had diminishing return. The result of 0% return-no VS correction.I tend to think that many subluxations are corrected long after the EUF has been introduced. After all, throughout history, most subluxations are corrected by EIF that the ii of the body has adapted without a chiropractor ever touching the person.
Too much force: EUF tend to be destructive toward structural matter. If the ii of the body has too great an EUF, it will try to adapt the force that is more than the ii needs to correct a VS, At a certain point the body, because of L of M cannot adapt or reject those EUF and injury ranging from traumatized soft tissue to fracture could possibly occur. Those are the degrees of diminishing returns. The creation of IF (apart from the ones created to correct the VS) to adapt an “excess” EUF give us the “bucking” phenomena that B.J. talked about. It is taken from the action of an unbroken horse trying to rid itself of a cowboy on its back, a “bucking bronco”. If the chiropractor is experiencing that phenomena in the PM either he/she is introducing too much EUF or has failed to gain the confidence of the PM because he/she or another chiropractor previously introduced too much EUF. In that case, either back off, find a less forceful technique or alter he technique in some way. Hope these thoughts help.
Dr. Struass,
I think this is turning out to be one of the longer (longest?) threads I have written before. What that is a measure of is…well…conjecture. I can appreciate that. 😉
Please let me restate what you said to see if I have it correct:
#1 TOO GREAT A FORCE
If the EUF is too great a force than needed the ii of the body will use what it needs. The excess force beyond what is needed is adapted by the ii of the body. This situation is physically demonstrated as “bucking”.
Could you explain how ii of the body “rejects” the EUF forces beyond those used by the ii of the body to correct the vs?
#2 TOO LITTLE A FORCE
This one I understand the least. The required EUF is always that in addition to what the ii of the body is attempting to accomplish. My working assumption here is that there is a threshold (fixed or not) that must be reached in order for correction to occur. If that is the case, (just my guess) then to have too little would mean that the forces (cumulative forces IF and EUF) were insufficient and correction could not be made by the ii of the body.
How do we determine if the EUF supplied was enough?
You mentioned “I tend to think that many subluxations are corrected long after the EUF has been introduced.” In your opinion, does this mean that vs’s are a process and all EUF’s add to the correction regardless of how little (sub-threshold) they were and regardless of time for correction to take place?
Thank you for clarifying…I really hope you aren’t regretting it now.. 🙂
Don, #1 The term “rejects” was meant to be an anthropopathism (don’t try looking that one up in a standard dictionary) and was probably a poor choice of terms. What I was trying to get across was that some UF are adapted by the ii of the body and used to correct the VS and some uf are adapted to by the ii of the body and do no/little harm. Bucking is an example of the body adapting to (or trying to adapt to) too great a uf.
#2 I don’t see the correction of a VS as a process but an event, which happens at a specific point in time as a result of uf being adapted over time. Sort of the “straw that broke the camel’s back” in reverse. IMHO high force techniques want to make sure that the time is as short as possible, low force techniques don’t really care how long it takes for the ii to ”gather” enough uf and adapt them for use in the body to correct the VS and would like to err on the side of caution in introducing too few EUF rather than too many. That may be too simplistic and I’m sure both sides have their arguments pro and con.
Joe,
Thanks for teaching me a new word! anthropopathism
#1 Too great a force- EUF’f are used to correct the subluxation. Any additional forces are adapted. None are rejected. The EUF’s beyond those used for the correction of vs are either adapted and cause no harm (this being the most ideal situation I would guess) or cause harm. Bucking is an example of ii either successfully adapting to all excessive forces or only some of them. This would mean that in some cases if bucking did not address all excessive EUF’s, some injury will result. Those you have mentioned were traumatized soft tissue to fracture.
I suppose albeit not the best feedback but THESE observations (bucking, trauma to soft tissue and fractures) would be one form of feedback for refining your technique, no?
#2 I don’t think it was on purpose but I believe you may have missed this question:
How do we determine if the EUF supplied was enough?
I look forward to this answer.
If the correction of vs is not a process then is it an either or event at a specific time when ii gathers all uf’s for the correction of the vs?
Again, in the too few or little forces situation, this begs the question of were there enough forces in number or quality for the ii to make the correction? Does the technique need to be refined to include a different line of drive.
I wouldn’t opt for more forces but one could argue theoretically at some point, that is possible.
Where did you find that definition:)?
To answer your question We use deduction and the experience in the application of the art. Example 1… I have seen a cinemaroentographic x-ray of an upper cervical toggle recoil Atlas adjustment in which the vertebra vibrates for a time before settling into what the adjustor thought was the correct position. While the time was short, it still was not immediate.
Example 2 Low force techniques maintain that the ii of the body is making the adjustment and they are just adding to the forces the ii is already creating.
Example 3 Adjusting instruments such as percussive electric ones portend to have a cumulative effect.
Example 4… Anyone who goes to bed at night subluxated and wakes up in the morning unsubluxated would lead you to conclude that it was not always one EIF through the night that corrected the VS but a combination of cumulative ones.
Example 5. It is my understanding that HIO technique is based upon the premise that correcting Atlas VS will eventually, in time, allow the ii of the body to correct VS below Atlas. Unless the toggle recoil is meant to shake up the whole spine and have every VS or misalignment fall into place, I deduce that other VS are being corrected over time.
Example 6. There have been occasions when I introduced an EUF and the PM was still subluxated but I chose to let him go home and the next day when he returned, he was not subluxated.
Perhaps Claude can give you some more examples or scenarios
Some practitioners will start out introducing a gentle force and if the segment does not move satisfactorily, they will introduce more and more force to get the desired movement. It seems to me that the best approach would be to first make sure your contact point, line of drive, etc. is correct. That’s technically not a postcheck but a recheck:)
principle# 6 should say there is no process/event that does not take time.
Since Conflicts Clarify, I am offering an alternative view to [JoeStrauss 08/29/2013, 3:52 pm].
1. The motion xray was explained to me as an example of the response of II to the EUF submitted by the DC. To point out that the DC does not place a bone in the proper position, only II has that ability. The “short time” was called a response time of the interval between the DC’s hands leaving the contact point and II repositioning the bone. (the post thrust oscillating Atlas a visual example of II accepting and adapting the EUF and using IF to precisely place the vertebrea)
2. The Low Force Techniques as I was taught, are giving II the extra push (EUF) it needs to overcome the hurdle of what it could not accomplish on it’s own.
3. Percussive instruments can exceed response time (LOM) of the tissues they effect. This is not proof that II can accumulate those excesive forces. In deed it demonstrates there are things II can not respond to. Nor does it prove multiple accumulated forces are any more effective at removing Sux. than one EUF adequetly delivered. One might consider that if the machine does exceed LOM it’s benefit is questionable.
4. Unless you are judging by symptoms I don’t know how you could know someone went to bed subluxated and awoke unsubluxated.
5. My understanding was that Upper Cervical Specific Technique professed that there were no Sux. below axis, anything found below was a misalignment. Toggle Recoil of the Atlas or Axis would allow II to correct the Sux. in the Upper Cervicals as well as correct the misalignments below.
6. This statement infers you have rechecked PMs post Adjustic Thrust as you later add,” It seems to me that the best approach would be to first make sure your contact point, line of drive, etc. is correct.”, so it seems a DC can both confirm and refine his/her tech. by followup “rechecking”.
SNSC
Joe,
The definition of Anthropooathism – the ascription of human feelings to something not human. I found it online at merriam webster dictionary and wikiedia since I couldn’t find my actual paper based dictionary. (Yes, I own one. I am that old. LOL).
I understood your examples 1 to 6.
Steve’s alternate view on these examples is interesting.
IMO, The example that would spark the most discussion for me would be example 6. There have been occasions when I introduced an EUF and the PM was still subluxated but I chose to let him go home and the next day when he returned, he was not subluxated.
Sorry, this situation of to little force is difficult to accept without some more searching/questioning.
3 questions
1. How did you determine that he was still subluxated after the force delivery prior to going home?
2. Sorry this is a multiple. Is it possible that a force delivered can be of such suboptimal quality (I don’t want to discuss quantity right now) that delivering the same over and over may never culminate with the other IF’s from the ii of the body to result in the correction from the ii of the body?
Is this avoidable? If so, how do we determine this situation and how do we avoid it?
3. I suppose albeit not the best feedback but THESE observations (bucking, trauma to soft tissue and fractures) would be one form of feedback for refining your technique, no?
Don, you wrote: 3 questions
1. How did you determine that he was still subluxated after the force delivery prior to going home? Answer the same way I determined he was subluxated in the first place
2.. Sorry this is a multiple. Is it possible that a force delivered can be of such suboptimal quality (I don’t want to discuss quantity right now) that delivering the same over and over may never culminate with the other IF’s from the ii of the body to result in the correction from the ii of the body?
Is this avoidable? If so, how do we determine this situation and how do we avoid it?Answer yes, we have to be confident in our technique and believe/strong> that we have done the best we could.
3. I suppose albeit not the best feedback but THESE observations (bucking, trauma to soft tissue and fractures) would be one form of feedback for refining your technique, no?Answer Yes, not the best but we must make sure that , particularly in the case of “bucking” that it is not the PM’s fault. Some people are just so “skittish” that they will buck at a “perfect” EUF. There are ways to get around that. Apparently bucking can be an educated function as well as an innate one. People cannot educatedly think of two things at once so you can often get a person to think of something else (like saying “put your feet together” and the instant they do that, introduce your gentle EUF. If they still do not relax there is always MUA (just kidding).
Dr. Strauss,
Sorry, I didn’t know the blog was down. Thanks for the reply.
What you said you did to the person (question #1) before they went home has clouded my understanding of the difference between a spinal check and post check. A postcheck is about what I (or my technique) has accomplished. A “spinal check” is about what the ii of the PM’s body is doing or trying to do. Could you explain how they are different in this case.
Question #2
In your opinion, is this using faith where there is no sense knowledge of the situation?
In question #1 you said after the force delivery you determined he was subluxated the same was as in the first place. There was not the spinal check and one thrust followed by faith. Or was there..? Please help me understand this.
Question #3
Thanks. No problems with this here. IMO, I think anesthesia is the ultimate in distraction techniques. Just tell them to be careful to not bite their tongue. (said tongue in cheek.) 😉
Don, Answer #1. my analysis was the same the only difference between a spinal check and a post check is the timing of the analysis. You could do a different analytical procedure e.g.. muscle palpation as a spinal check and instrumentation for a post check. But what if they disagree?
Answer #2 I see 3 types of faith:
a. Faith in the absence of evidence-true/pure faith.
b. Faith in spite of the evidence-stupid faith.
c. Faith in the presence of evidence-confident faith. C is in view here. Our philosophy, deductive reasoning and our senses, the application of our art is the evidence. If your analysis does not meet the criteria of reason or make sense to you empirically, then perhaps you may need to rethink that analysis whether it is the spinal check, the “postcheck” or both.
Comment #3 Good point, MUA totally blocks out the educated brain. However chiropractors who believe educated intelligence is always bad may prefer this technique (just kidding again)
Don, it is never bout us. It’s always about what the ii of the body and what it is doing (or trying/failing to do) with the forces of the universe that it is adapting for its own use whether those forces are UF or EUF adapted for innate’s use. In that sense there is no difference.
Q-2. No it is: knowledge of philosophy and knowledge of technique, spinal check , empirical knowledge gained from that check, EUF introduced, spinal re-check , decision made (choices: leave them alone and send home, introduce another EUF, use a different technique, rest and recheck, something else. All are or should be based upon faith in the presence of knowledge gained by deduction from the philosophy and empiricism, what your analysis demonstrated.
Joe,
Answer#1
If they disagree pre and post, I don’t know what is supposed to happen. This is what I am trying to establish. Some say re-introduce a force but not more than __ (your choice of metric) others say leave it alone.
Either way, I’m missing something in the explanation in each case. Please, help me understand this.
Speaking of this instance: “I introduced an EUF and the PM was still subluxated but I chose to let him go home and the next day when he returned, he was not subluxated.”
As I understand it you routinely have someone come in and do a spinal check and introduce the best EUF you could and NOT recheck until some time later when they decide to come back to be re-checked.
Your methods in this instance above were not routine. I am guessing here. Why?
You stated that the analysis above was the same pre and post EUF introduction but before the force it was a spinal check and after is also a spinal check. How does the timing of the analysis differentiate the two? Isn’t the check still about what the ii of the PM’s body is doing or trying to do? Maybe this subtle difference between post check and spinal check is not obvious enough for me yet.
Answer #2
Sorry this is a multiple. Is it possible that a force delivered can be of such suboptimal quality (I don’t want to discuss quantity right now) that delivering the same over and over may never culminate with the other IF’s from the ii of the body to result in the correction from the ii of the body?
Is this avoidable? If so, how do we determine this situation and how do we avoid it?
Answer yes, we have to be confident in our technique and believe/strong> that we have done the best we could.
Comment #2- I am not passing judgement here but vs is corrected When and if it has sufficient forces (the ones created by ii adapting UF and the EUF supplied by the chiropractor) it will create an adjustment. The only reason it cannot is if the forces are not sufficient or they cannot reach the vertemere because of the VS. The bone is constantly moving and the ii of the PM’s body is constantly trying to create sufficient IF to adjust the bone.
If the forces were too little from the EUF, doesn’t that mean they came in subluxated, were supplied an EUF (in this case one that was too little), got off the table subluxated and will remain that way until their next visit. Unless of course, ii adapts a UF that is sufficiently greater than the EUF from the chiropractor before their next meeting with them.
As you can tell, I am really eager to get to the bottom of this too little force situation.
I accepted the too great a force situation easily. This one has me still searching for connections. Thanks for your patience Joe.
Maybe you’d like to block out my educated brain with a MUA or two. Right now. LOL!!
I think we may have reached the point of needing clarification in the OSC Glossary. IMHO if you analyze, adjust and reanalyze by the same method on the same visit that is a post check. If you analyze adjust and do not reanalyze until the next visit that could be post checking or rechecking. If you analyze, adjust, then use a different method of analysis you are rechecking. IOW the same proceedure done before and after is pre/post checking. Given enough time the post check could be considered a recheck (artistic discretion). Subsequent visits or change of analytical method would be a recheck.
Joe,
Please let me know your thoughts on my post dated 09/01/2013, 8:06 pm when you get a chance.
Sorry it was long. I’ll try to be more concise in the future. Thanks.
Reposting some questions (from Don 09/01/2013, 8:06 pm) that may have been lost in the thread. They are still on my mind so I will ask again.
Joe,
Maybe this subtle difference between post check and spinal check is not obvious enough for me yet.
1. How does the timing of the analysis differentiate the re-check, spinal check and post checks?
2. Isn’t the check still about what the ii of the PM’s body is doing or trying to do?
3. If the forces were too little from the EUF, doesn’t that mean they came in subluxated, were supplied an EUF (in this case one that was too little), got off the table subluxated and will remain that way until their next visit?
Don,
Why do you think, too much force could be used by a chiropractor?
Dr. Lessard,
Personally, I have experienced forces applied that exceed my comfort level. Is this the same thing, Dr. Lessard?
Don,
What happened to YOU after these experiences and what happened to those WHO have introduced these adjustic thrust in your spine?
Dr. Lessard,
I avoided volunteering. In other words I didn’t subject myself to it again.
Similarly, I also had someone perform a non-contact technique once where there were no perceptible forces on my part and had the same reaction. To be honest, it was more one of confusion that time.
Don, what happened to those chiropractors immediately after your encounter?
I am not sure what you mean when you ask what happened to them.
I would guess that they chose to either keep doing what they do or changed based on my choice. Changing based on each PM’s adherence doesn’t sound like an ADIO approach though.
Joseph,
I got what you said! To “empty your tank” simply means to perform the adjustic thrust with ALL the accumulation of experience you have up to now as a chiropractic “artist”. That’s HOW artists create. It’s an evolutionary process… I was fortunate enough to have received from your 45 years of experience what I call “the best of you” as a chiropractor the day I last was adjusted by you before you officially retired. 🙂 That last adjustic thrust of yours was the culmination of YOU at your best… whether YOU were conscious of it or not! You are an evolutionary process of chiropractic artistry, philosophy and science. I feel privilege to have had you as my personal chiropractor. –
– To practice consciously out of this awareness is to ALWAYS “empty your tank” and be fully trusting that your tank will be full for the next adjustic thrust. At that level of awareness, pre-check and post-check are the same! You are “proof” of that to me!!! –
– It is me WHO chooses to publicly thank you from the bottom of my heart, Joseph, for WHO you choose to be as a chiropractor!
Thanks Claude
Since you don’t know what happened to them, there was no connection between you and them? Correct?
Dr. Lessard,
If we are limiting connection to delivering forces into my spine, yes.
If we mean I never spoke to them again or maintained a relationship, no. though it did change our communications some.
Don,
Therefore, as we concluded, together without condemnation, on previous threads, that connection involves instructive information that resonates with the person you are with, so that person will be inspired to move from point A to point B, that encounter was void of that? Correct?
Dr. Lessard,
You may need to qualify the term connection in this case for me to answer that. It would be insincere for me to say yes without understanding asking what you mean by that word in this case.
Don,
Connection… the way we used it and came to conclusions on past threads (it might be a good idea to re-read them). Anyway, connection is instructive information that resonates between people and inspires them to move from point A to point B.
Dr. Lessard,
You may not mean it this way but I definitely can see how I was inspired to move from point A to point B. As it would seem, Point A was with them subjecting myself to their technique and point B was away from them and their technique 🙂
The approach of the person with the heavy hands did not resonate with me. It also did not inspire me to return. That I am pretty sure of. 😉
Don,
To PRACTICE the chiropractic objective involves LACVS by introducing an EUF which is limited instructive information in the form on an adjustic thrust in the hope that the innate intelligence of the PM’s body will adapt it into an innate force for generating a vertebral adjustment. What is the the content and purpose of an EUF?
… of course, we are going to inquire, together without condemnation, into the nature of the EUF and go to the bottom of it! 🙂
OK Claude, I’ll bite,
How does an EUF compare with the Mental Impulse. We have discussed earlier that the instructive information is created by Innate Intelligence and carried or transmitted by Innate Force to organize and/or motivate matter, this I understand. How is a Universal Force, educated (adjustic thrust) or ignorant (accidental) providing “information” to the matter of another individual?
Steve,
We, together without condemnation, have determined that FORCE is NOT energy since we have the equation E=MC2. FORCE, any kind of FORCE is therefore instructive information that unites intelligence and matter together (pri.10). To answer your question, you must ask a pre-eminent question: Is educated intelligence a function of physical, metaphysical or both?
After much consideration, IMHO, Educated Intelligence is a function of matter. In BJ’s time, he suggested the EB received information from II and the quality of performance in the Educated Body was determined by the wholeness of the connection between IB and EB ( and LOM). Subluxations would cause a loss of EB function due to loss of Mental Impulses between the two types of brain matter. If we also take into consideration that the EB is “vacant” at birth and everything thereafter is learned then we cannot assume II is put into the EB moreover the II inherent with in the living tissue.
As an aside if we compare EUF and “smacking them with a shovel” or a fall down the stairs then there is a type of energy, kinetic energy that is received by the body during an Adjustic Thrust. Kinetic energy is a Universal Force, what is done with that KE is up to II.
Steve,
You said: “If we also take into consideration that the EB is “vacant” at birth and everything thereafter is learned…” Therefore since the educated intelligence is 0% at birth and will increase with the limits of the matter and the amount of information with which it is supplied, educated intelligence is as product of matter, perception and INFORMATION. Correct?
Yes
Steve,
Since the function of instructive information created by intelligence is to unite intelligence and matter and that educated intelligence is a product of matter, perception and INFORMATION, it logically and rationally follows that educated intelligence has a certain aspect of metaphysical to it. Correct?
Sorry Claude I missed the jump. Force unites Intelligence and Matter with Instructive Information. Matter does not create Intelligence, it expresses it. Can Matter contain Intelligence, I think so. Can Matter create Intelligence, I think not. Can Matter transmit Intelligence to other Matter outside the body, I think not.
Steve,
WHAT is the nature of FORCE since it is NOT energy?matter?
WHAT is the nature of FORCE since it is NOT energy/matter?
Inside the body you could say Force transmits Information so they are one in the same. Outside the body there are many types of force, some intelligent, some ignorant. Would you say the force of gravity is information?
Force is not Intelligence
Steve,
Of course force is NOT intelligence. Intelligence creates force which is NOT energy or matter. What is the nature of force?
Force is an energetic transmitter.
Steve,
No it’s not an energetic transmitter. Let’s go at it another way. What is the nature of the mental impulse which is a force?
NO, the MI is transmitted BY Force, wait……MI is created by accumulated foruns (force units) so the MI is coded by the assembly order of segments of force, therefore MI and force are the same. Would kinetic energy then be considered information transferred from one mass to another that motivates the receiving matter into motion?
Steve,
No. What is the nature of the mental impulse which is a force?
… in other words, mental impulse is NOT intelligence, energy or matter. WHAT is it?
… more explicitly… What is the nature of WHAT is created by intelligence and expressed by energy/matter as motion?
Instructive Information, I get it, but how is that transferred from one person to another? We can not tell another persons II what to do.
Steve,
The same way as it ever was,… is… and ever will be with ALL universal forces whether educated or not!
Out of pure curiosity I would like to ask something. In Joe’s comment to Don (08/26/2013, 11:52 pm) he states, “After all, throughout history, most subluxations are corrected by EIF (UF?) that the ii of the body has adapted without a chiropractor ever touching the person.” Now this is something I grew up hearing, I heard it in school, I have read it in the Green Books, and continue to hear it at seminars….How do we KNOW this? How many times does a body subluxate a day, a month, a year? If someone gets their spine checked, let’s say once per week, how many sux. have they “self-corrected” between visits. BJ said that was the only way people ever got well ( self correction, accidental correction or adjustment). Has this ever been researched, do we have any data, or is this a carry over from DD/BJ days that we all accepted because of the source?
Steve,
You asked: “How do we KNOW this?” The same way that with each breath you inhale, you take in 10 to the power 22 physical atoms that becomes parts of you brain, kidneys, spleen, gallbladder, etc… and that each breath you exhale, you give off 10 to the power 22 physical atoms that was parts of brain, kidneys, spleen, gallbladder, etc. The fact that your body goes through cellular replacement at the rate of 500,000,000,000 cells/day is evidence of VS being in constant motion and therefore being corrected by innate intelligence moment by moment with or without EUF 99.999% of the time. Only a fraction of our mere .001% makes the difference that Ron Pero’s research yielded in the 70s and 80s as having an increase of 400% imuno-capacity for people under regular chiropractic care (2 years of more). Pretty humbling isn’t it?
Sorry Claude that in no way answers or even addresses my question. Do you really think we are surpassing LOM and Innate Resistance multiple times daily, if so why? I’m not talking about cellular replacement, I’m talking about alignment and nerve interference. Your reference to “500,000,000,000 cells/day is evidence of VS being in constant motion” does not refer to movement of the bone or it’s affect on nerves and is misleading. If tissue replacement was all that was necessary for Sux. correction adjustments would be unneeded.
Steve,
Let me state it in another way. –
– There is an unlimited supply of UF created by universal intelligence ready to be adapted by innate intelligence at any given moment. Yet,
due to LOM, 0.001% of VS is left uncorrected and that’s WHERE chiropractic comes into play. To theorize and discuss the WHY it is the way it is, is perhaps interesting cocktail party discussion yet it is way beyond the major premise which is the start point of chiropractic. We have to admit that chiropractic philosophy has its limitations based upon its science with its sound deductive reasoning and 33 principles. Chiropractic is NOT theoretical conjecture which should be confined to empiricism.
One of us is missing the point. Either you are answering my question in your cryptic, Socratic way of educement and I am missing it, or I am not clearly asking what I want to know. I am not questioning the value of Chiropractic or the merits of our philosophy, I am searching for substantiation of an old adage. Let’s go, for example, with your .001%. Where on earth does that number come from. Is it a phrase to keep us humble or is this a realistic value?
The real nagging and perplexing question I have is the concept of “self correcting”. Is SC an idea of the founders( again possibly to keep us humbled) that has perpetuated itself into a standard or is there legitimate evidence that this occurs? As we have discussed there is no reference to “adjustment” in our philosophy, nor is there any hint of “self correcting” in the “33”. Has anyone at any time ever followed a Sux. to see if it would SC without a Chiropractic Adjustment?????
As an exercise in futility, let’s do the math. You say .001% left uncorrected. If I see a patient 3 times this week and find a total of 10 subluxations for the week then your estimate is that patient has experienced 10,000 subluxations in a weeks time????
Steve,
Innate intelligence is the law of active organization and that includes correcting VS as often as needed within the limitation of matter. That ‘s WHERE chiropractic comes in. Numbers don’t matter!!! You are correct in starting your question “out of curiosity”. In other words… WHO knows? 😉
If numbers don’t matter, why use them? If self correction is a myth why discuss it?
Don,
Now that we have determined that EUF are instructive information, can you see that, even though TOITMITWD, connecting with PMs is an ongoing process “until death do us part”?
Claude, I’m not sure that I am ready yet to accept “that EUF are instructive information”. I also have forgotten what TOIMITWD stands for? Please remind me. Thanks
the orientation is the most important thing we do
It was determined by this blog several threads ago with many posts. ALL UF are instructive information giving to matter all of its properties and action uniting intelligence and matter and maintaining it (matter) in existence. That’s the major premise Joseph and I know you accept it! 🙂
Dr. Lessard,
I re-read our thread and remember someone writing:
“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).” 🙂
Please walk Joe and I though how EUF’s are instructive information.
Don and Joseph,
A universal intelligence is in all energy/matter and CONTINUALLY GIVES TO IT ALL ITS PROPERTIES AND ACTIONS thus maintaining it in existence. (pri.1). HOW does universal intelligence CONTINUALLY GIVE ENERGY/MATTER ALL ITS PROPERTIES AND ACTIONS knowing that the function of intelligence is to create force (pri.8), that the function of force is to unite intelligence and energy/matter (PRI.10) and that the function of energy/matter is to express force through its motion?
… deductively, prior to introducing your adjustic thrust, did you use you educated intelligence to determine the location and the analysis of the VS? Did you use you educated intelligence to introduce your adjustic thrust with the proper line of drive? If so, WHAT do you call that? … if not limited instructive information (EUF) that the innate intelligence of the body of the practice member may adapt into an innate force and may generate a vertebral adjustment? Philosophically, ALL forces (educated of not) are instructive information which might be deconstructive and/or constructive depending on the need of the moment (even though it’s way beyond our limited educated mind’s understanding).
… in other words, the resonating with the PMs to inspire them to move from point A to point B goes well beyond the orientation and well into the subsequent visits including our introduction of LIMITED instructive information with our adjustic thrust… as you have so well experienced above. Do you get that?
Steve,
The real issue is: that it is a FACT that the innate intelligence of the body is “constantly” adapting universal forces (educated or not) in order to maintain the material of a “living thing” in active organization and that includes generating vertebral adjustments anytime it is required within the limitations of energy/matter. Another FACT is that it is ONLY the innate intelligence of the body that generates vertebral adjustments. The chiropractor performs an adjustic thrust which is an EUF with limited instructive information in the HOPE that the innate intelligence of the PM might adapt it into an innate force which is instructive information that would generate a vertebral adjustment.
Yes Claude I understand all this except “and that includes generating vertebral adjustments anytime it is required within the limitations of energy/matter”. We understand that VS occurs when the LOM and/or resistance have been exceeded. Therefore a true Sux. has gone beyond the realm or capability of II. If II can only adjust the spine within the LOM (P.24), then it would seem any realignment II can perform on it’s own was not a true Sux.
Steve,
So, if I follow your thought, someone falls and the external invasive force overcomes the internal resistive force of the body and causes a VS. A few weeks later, that same person, falls again and the innate intelligence of that person’s body uses this external invasive universal force and adapts it into an innate force and produces a vertebral adjustment. Are you telling me that it was not a VS at the first place? That innate intelligence did not generate a vertebral adjustment? That VS is ONLY corrected with an adjustic thrust introduced by a chiropractor?
… in other words, Steve, a VS is a VS. There is no such thing as a “true” VS or “false” VS. If the four components are present, then it is VS. If one component is absent it’s not VS. Amazing isn’t it?
Now we’re getting somewhere. No that was not my thought. Your last example was called an accidental correction. Understandable but highly unlikely, and impossible to reproduce on purpose. As in , we don’t throw people down the stairs to see if they get well, even though it has happened before. What I am talking about is self correction, with no outside forces added, purely II. Saying II corrects all but “.001%” implies Innate did it, period. II took something that exceeded LOM and corrected it without exceeding LOM.
Steve,
Since it was a CORRECTION and it is ALWAYS made by innate intelligence, it it NEVER an accidental correction. The force is “uneducated”. Also, it is an impossibility to have innate intelligence WITHOUT outside forces. Gravity is always present and acts as an external force upon the body even when you turn over in your sleep and the innate intelligence of your body may adapt that external universal force to generate a vertebral adjustment. Also the ONLY function of innate intelligence is to adapt universal forces and energy/matter for use in the body so that all parts of the body will have coordinated action for mutual benefit. This means if innate intelligence is present, so are unlimited universal forces to be adapted. –
– What do YOU mean by “self-adjusting”. What is the definition of that “self” you are talking about?
What makes you think II makes spinal adjustments while you sleep? Please don’t say because it happens all the time, that is the point of my inquiry.
Dr. Lessard,
With that then I submit that the use of the term instructive may not be proper since the definition is useful and informative. Sometimes the may adapt the EUF into an innate force which is instructive information to generate a vertebral adjustment (useful) and sometimes it won’t.
Also, if I am following this line of logic correctly between Steve and yourself, the correction would take place regardless of the EUF from the chiropractor given that the vs is in constant motion.
Is there something faulty with MY logic here?
Correction:
With that then I submit that the use of the term instructive may not be proper since the definition is of instructive is “useful and informative.”. Sometimes the ii of the body may adapt the EUF into an innate force which is instructive information to generate a vertebral adjustment (useful) and sometimes it won’t.
Don,
Has it ever happened to you that you give instructive information to your spouse, only to find it ignored for some highly valuable knowledge you did not have at the moment of your transmission? There is good educated and bad educated. Bad limited educated instructive information does happen… that’s WHY it’s called LIMITED. WHEN “bad ” limited educated instructive information is given as an adjustic thrust, harm may be done to the PM or the innate intelligence of the PM’s body may not use it at that moment in time. Not all instructions are useful? Jim Jones instructed his followers to drink arsenic in cool aid a few years back.
Dr. Lessard,
If you ask my wife ALL of my instructive information is BAD limited educated. LOL!
So if the position one were all instructive is good to some degree and it is knowledge of how it is good at the moment of transmission?
Also, Dr. Strauss and you have both eluded to the concept of forces being delivered and not used at the moment in time or gathered (see my post to Dr. Strauss dated 08/28/2013, 2:58 pm) I guess over time. I am still waiting on his reply but do you see forces being “stored” in some way. Or is it either they are used in that moment or they are adapted and not used?
As always, thanks for the help with my questions.
Don, point of clarification: In your 08/28/2013,2:58Pm comment you suggested that I eluded or avoided your question (I actually did not see it tucked in there and will reply to that post in a minute or two. In this post you are suggesting (I think) that I (and Claude)alluded to, or made reference to forces being “stored.” Just want to make sure you know I did not purposely avoid your question and the question is “does the ii of the body ‘store’ forces?”
Joe,
It never crossed my mind that you avoided or eluded a question. I only thought that it was buried and you missed it unintentionally. I assumed this because I miss questions all the time unless they are numbered. 🙂
In your post dated 08/29/2013, 2:17 pm:
You wrote:
In this post you are suggesting (I think) that I (and Claude)alluded to, or made reference to forces being “stored.” Just want to make sure you know I did not purposely avoid your question and the question is “does the ii of the body ‘store’ forces?”
Yes, that is what I am trying to ask.
I understand the innate forces are derived from the adapted EUF from the chiropractor. I also understand IF’s derived from other UF’s such as gravity coming into play.
All these forces coming together at a point in time to cumulatively summate to an internal resistive force to produce a correction of the vs.
This cumulative situation is at a point in time though and what I am asking here is a question of cn forces (let’s say gravitational forces from last week) be stored for use during this weeks appointment with the chiropractor and their EUF delivery. The example may be a poor one but it’s the best I have at the moment to make this clear.
Let me know your thought. Thanks.
Don, I’m not sure I buy the idea UF/EUF can be stored. I think Claude was the one who “alluded” to it and I may have been carried along by his ebullience which I have been doing for 35 years ( and its not necessarily always a bad thing.) However in this case, I am more inclined toward the idea that the vertebrae are constantly moving in and out of what some would call their “ideal” position structurally.. When they move out of their ideal position, at a certain point they cause nerve interference to, among other areas, the vertemere. That creates a VS and the bone stays subluxated until and if an EIF ((EUF or accidental) is of sufficient quality and magnitude to enable the ii of the body to create an IF to cause an adjustment. The chiropractor with AMP/vertebraille/muscle palpation is palpating the attempt by the ii of the body to use whatever forces it can which are limited otherwise it would correct the VS. When and if it has sufficient forces (the ones created by ii adapting UF and the EUF supplied by the chiropractor) it will create an adjustment. The only reason it cannot is if the forces are not sufficient or they cannot reach the vertemere because of the VS. The bone is constantly moving and the ii of the PM’s body is constantly trying to create sufficient IF to adjust the bone.
IOW while the vertebral subluxation is an absolute, either you are subluxated or you are not, the position of the bone changes constantly( in contrast to Claude’s idea that the VS is constantly changing). That’s why CBPers perhaps manipulate some misalignments that are not VS and HIO practitioners are ignoring some misalignments that are really VS. I am not passing judgment on either technique, just sharing my opinion on what they are doing. In fact IMO every technique/chiropractor does that (just moving misalignments or missing VS. )
… and Don, were there EUF designed to introduce adjustic thrust before 1895? HOW were VS corrected then? WHEN the chiropractor introduce an adjustic thrust it provides the innate intelligence of the body with a limited educated universal force with the HOPE that ii will adapt it into an innate force for generating a vertebral adjustment. Let’s not down play chiropractic here. Chiropractic the greatest service to render another human being.
Won’t ever downplay it. Only seeking to improve my understanding of it be deconstructing and constructing my NEW understandings through the process of inquiry and seeing where each line of reasoning leads.
If we both suspend judgment here before answering, and follow this line of reasoning, where would it lead us?
First question raised: Is it possible that the ii of the body may adapt the EUF into an innate force which is instructive information to generate a vertebral adjustment and sometimes it won’t?
Second question: Is the vs in constant motion?
Third: Does the correction can take place regardless of the EUF from the chiropractor because it has been doing it since before 1895?
Don,
First answer: Yes.
Second answer: Yes.
Third answer: May be and may be not. Chiropractic is an idea whose time has come. Up to 1895, external invasive forces were rather “crude” and physical in nature. Now, external invasive forces are complex and multi faceted, That’s WHY chiropractic is so vital to the world today.
Joe, Thanks for your reply to this post and for increasing my vocabulary in the process. Not only did I pick up anthropopathism but now ebullience! 😉
Could you take a look at
Don 08/30/2013, 6:51 am: further up this thread?
There are 3 questions I wouldn’t mind your feedback on that may piece this all together for me. Thanks.
I have replied directly to that post. We were reorganizing the blog and parts of it were down for almost 24 hours. I missed that….sorry
Steve,
Re-read what I stated… I said: MAY adapt that UF into an IF for the purpose of correction of VS… What is the nature of the “self” you are talking about in “self correction”?
The Green Books discuss 3 types of correction, a Chiropractic adjustment, an accidental correction, and a self correction. We have always heard II corrects most Sux. on it’s own (self correction) but those Sux. that have been there a long time or those that were created violently need the assistance of the Chiropractor(Chiro. adjustment). Then there were those Sux. that were corrected durring a fall or unintentional impact (accidental correction). I understand in todays venacular we say II corrects all Sux., what I don’t understand is how II does this without the additional force that is contributed by the DC (EUF) or the accidental impact(UF). I’m not sure I buy into this “stored force” idea and I will explain why.
When we were discussing “congestion above and starvation below” we came to the conclusion that a MI was created and transmitted for a specific purpose at a specific location at a specific time. If transmission of IF was interupted by Sux. the MI/IF was de-converted to a UF and was no longer available to fulfill it’s purpose of coordination. IF (the MI) did not back up into the brain because it no longer existed. How is it that a crude UF can be stored but a refined IF cannot. This dovetails into my original question, how does II correct VS that were created by surpassing II’s ability to organize and resist, without additional UF or EUF?
Sorry guys, I am having a hard time accepting the ideas that people could be Subluxated 10,000 times a week or that an Adjustment given today may correct a Subluxation 2 days from now. Help me out will ya?
SNSC
Steve,
Now that you have defined the “self” in self correction as innate intelligence, let me point out to you that it’s not possible for innate intelligence self correct itself. Innate intelligence is 100% perfect and does not need correction. It’s energy/matter that needs correction and that is done ALWAYS and ONLY by innate intelligence. Self correction does NOT exist.
Claude, I did not say II corrected II, I said the GB say II corrects VS on it’s own, specifically without a DC or “accidental” concussion of forces. Which begs the question, how does II correct a Sux. that by definition limits II expression?
II is always 100% but IF is subjected to the LOM as it is transmitted through matter. II is 100% for the matter in which it resides. Sux. are caused by exceeding the LOM. Logically that would mean Sux. are beyond the ability of II to maintain matter.
Steve,
You stated that: “Logically that would mean Sux. are beyond the ability of II to maintain matter.” … until some universal forces (educated or not) are adapted by II into innate forces providing instructive information to the tissues involved and generate a vertebral adjustment. Correct?
Yes, it seems [philosophically] logical to me. If it takes a force that exceeds a body’s LOM/resistance to create a SUX., then it would take an additional force, beyond what II can produce on it’s own, to correct it. What II can’t resist it can’t correct, it can only adapt or perish. Is a SUX. not actualy an adaptation to a surpassed threshold? DD found the key. Add an [artful] Educated Force to assist II in organizing and recreating harmony. Whether the UF is educated or ignorant, purposeful or accidental it still depends on II to recieve, interpret and adapt that force. Thank goodness our [scienctific] scrutiny confirms EUF is more sucessful than UF alone.
Thanx Claude, you just got me to condense a 4 year course and a lifetime of experience into 1 paragraph. Art, Science and Philosophy all covered with a little history thrown in for good measure.
SNSC
Steve good stuff BUT VS is “not actually an adaptation to a surpassed threshold” unless you are Sue B. It is a failure to adapt which causes partial perish (death). Remember ii of the body adapts in spite of VS… just not as well. If it did not every subluxated person would die on the spot.
Thanx Joe. Who is Sue B? When you say II adapts in spite of VS, do you mean elsewhere in the body? My understanding was that Sux. unadapts the IF, back into UF, which is destructive toward the matter under it’s influence.
Don,
Principle 6 states that there is no process that does not require time. Therefore, is it possible for you to write a post of instructive information and put it on “hold” until such time YOU deem appropriate for posting it? If so, HOW did YOU come up with that possibility? If your educated intelligence, which is a product of energy/matter, perception and information, is limited and can do that, then adapted EUF by innate intelligence which is perfect can be stored up until an appropriate time for generating a vertebral adjustment. Your line of questioning is quite appropriate for this thread,
Claude, if VS are bad, why would the ii of the body ” if capable of correcting a VS, “create” an IF and then not use it to correct the VS? IOW when is it not an ‘appropriate time’ to correct a VS?
Joseph,
Beats me!!! The same way YOU keep instructive information until the time you see fit?
I thought II created MI (adapting UF into IF) at the moment for the moment. I do not recall any stage of the Normal Complete Cycle that involved storage. Please explain why you think EUF or even UF can be warehoused and where in the body that might be done?
Steve,
Not necessarily warehoused, simply adapted and used when NEEDED in time along with other adapted UF…
Dr. Lessard,
I think I can see the connection here but does that mean that a person who is subjected to many EUF’s that were adapted could have more stored up and correct vs’s more easily?
Does that coincide with the frequency of the presence of vs in populations as they age?
I won’t pretend to have the years of experience you or Joe have in making these observations. Maybe you can let me know this first. Do people who have experienced more UF’s correct easier because they are stored?
Don,
A person WHO chooses to BE under regular chiropractic care will most definitely benefit as compared to those without care. That’s what Ron Pero’s research yielded 30 years ago. Also, the word “stored” or “warehoused” does not describe the process as it is. Remember we are dealing with metaphysical concepts and we just don’t understand the WHAT is really going on. That’s WHY we have the science of chiropractic with its 33 principles to fall back on and move forward. Perhaps later on we will understand deeper that today. For now, just to know that innate intelligence is correcting VS by adapting UF and EUF is sufficient for our purpose of practicing the chiropractic objective with confidence.
How did you arrive at that conclusion, Claude?
Steve,
From principles #21, #23, #24 and the fact that VS is NEVER static and ALWAYS in constant motion (pri.15) along with a constant supply of UF for innate intelligence to adapt at any given moment. Vertebral adjustments are generated by innate intelligence adapting UF into IF for the purpose of correcting VS within limitations of matter. The chiropractor introduce an adjustic thrust which is an EUF with limited instructive information with the HOPE that the innate intelligence of the PM’s body will adapt it into an innate force with instructive information in order to generate a vertebral adjustment. Remember that BJ and RWS did not have the information and the understanding we have today regarding the chiropractic objective and VS. It to their credit that we, today, can move deeper into a greater understanding of chiropractic philosophy.
As we move deeper into a greater understanding we must cautiously separate the wheat from the chaff. I think we must be very careful not to perpetuate the additional baggage that has been added onto our philosophy by the personalities that created it. As we de-personify II we shake off some of the anthropomorphic attributes that were subsequently layered on due to the thinking of the times. It also becomes equally important that we do not add unnecessary complexity in our efforts to interpret and disseminate the 33 logical conclusions we already have.
I have read and reread the cited Principles and find nothing about storage of forces or that II can foresee the future. As I stated previously, my understanding was that II acted at the moment and for the moment only.
Steve,
It’s never the future for the metaphysical. In other words, it’s ALWAYS and FOREVER NOW for innate intelligence. It’s really ETERNITY if you will. YOU are correct. There is NO storage and NO warehousing. There is ONLY the vertebral adjustment done by innate intelligence moment by moment to maintain constant active organization within the limits of energy/matter. The ONLY function of innate intelligence is to ADAPT universal forces that are created by universal intelligence in unlimited supply so that all the parts of the body will have coordinated action for mutual benefit. This coordinated action is manifested through SPECIFIC motion in energy/matter. Since energy/matter is in CONSTANT motion, otherwise it could not exist, and since energy/matter is CONSTANT active organization, otherwise it could not be alive, VS is in CONSTANT motion as well and VS is NOT static. –
– From these principles, we can deduce through rational logic that the innate intelligence of the body is CONSTANTLY “meeting” the needs of the moment and that includes generating vertebral adjustment moment by moment within the limitations of energy/matter and limitations of time. That’s WHERE chiropractic comes into action in order to fulfill the chiropractic objective. Chiropractors are in “on the deal”, so to speak, to facilitate the full expression of the instructive information of the law of life. PERIOD. –
– The 33 principles give us EVERYTHING we need to move deeper toward a greater understanding of the chiropractic objective.
… in other words, it’s the physical that requires time and for us, chiropractors, time is “dealing” with the interference with TRANSMISSION of energy/matter due to its limitation. The interference is between brain cell and tissue cell, purely in energy/matter even though it’s the mental impulse that is interfered with and that loses its intelligent direction and becomes a nerve impulse without intelligent direction. LACVS is the physical art of chiropractic and as such, is the facilitation of the chiropractic objective.
We know energy and matter are related but please be careful using the term energy or energy/matter as we know force is not an energy transfer. In your last post you state [time is “dealing” with the interference with TRANSMISSION of energy/matter due to its limitation] this could be confusing for some.
Thank you Steve, I will. 😉
Steve,
It should have read: Time is “dealing” with the interference that is causing the TRANSMITTING matter to further increase LOM. –
– Once again, thank you for pointing this out to me. I truly rely on people of this blog to check my slippings. 😉
Joseph,
Please, re-read my post of 8/30/2013 1:53pm. You are correct. There’s no storage or warehousing of forces. Simply the adapted force of the moment for innate intelligence to generate a vertebral adjustment. And none of us know WHEN this takes places in time… except that the vertebral adjustment does take place in time and chiropractic has the privilege to participate in this awesome process. AMAZING ISN’T IT? 😉
in view of the fact that the authority of the chiropractic objective is derived from the science of chiropractic with its 33 enunciated principles, could we, together without condemnation, inquire deeper into the process of HOW and WHEN vertebral adjustments are generated by the innate intelligence of the body? It could perhaps clarify the questions posited on this post in a way that we could go to the bottom of it and perhaps come to a consensus conclusion? –
– If it is we, together without condemnation, WHO choose to inquire deeper, principle 15 deserves attention as it is the fundamental foundation of our science at the rate of 500,000,000,000 cells/day. Here we touch upon a truth that has deep ramifications. ALL energy/matter is in CONSTANT motion, otherwise energy/matter could not exist. Therefore, WHAT does this truth has to teach us regarding HOW and WHEN innate intelligence generate vertebral adjustments?
No. 15. No Motion without the Effort of Force.
Matter can have no motion without the application of force by intelligence.
No. 24. The Limits of Adaptation.
Innate Intelligence adapts forces and matter for the body as long as it can do so without breaking a universal law, or Innate Intelligence is limited by the limitations of matter.
————–
P.15 describes the inescapable relationship between Intelligence, Force and Matter. IMHO this includes matter at the atomic, molecular, compound, cellular, tissue, organ and organism as well as planetary and universal levels. (what it is) *
P.24 describes the self-limiting interlock of the same relationship. (what it ain’t)
————–
To say all matter is in constant motion and the subluxation is therefore always in motion is a misnomer. It is true that a Sux. is in motion, with everything else on the molecular level, it too is composed of matter. To say the Sux.is in motion due to cellular replacement is also misleading due to the fact that all tissue is replacing, at the same time. Neither atomic vibration nor tissue replacement address the “Sux.” intself, merely the matter of which it is made. BJ said, once a Sux. always a Sux., until a sufficient force can overcome the articular locking that defines it. He also stated the Sux. could be more or less present at different times of day, when minimized nearly unnoticable, when maximized easier to detect. So if you want to say the Sux. is in motion can we assume you mean moveing within the limits of the non-juxtaposed articular restrictions, which is less than the full motion of a nonSux. segment?
If, as Joe says, a Sux. is a failure to adapt (09/01/2013, 4:11 pm), how can we expect II to correct it’s own failure? In 1895 a new principle was discovered, that an additional force (intentional or accidental) could assist II in resolving this failure to adapt.
I look forward to your response.
SNSC
* Personaly, I assume other universes have similar laws but do not know this to be a fact.
I still maintain that if we, together without condemnation, were to inquire deeper into principle 15 and 24, we may find surprising answers to those important questions. 😉
Steve,
Is the law of active organization, which is ALWAYS normal, constantly acting upon energy/matter to keep it living?
No, it is constantly creating/ adapting Force. It’s affect on matter depends upon transmission. (P.12)
Steve,
What you say is true for the law of existence which is universal intelligence. The law of active organization is the law of life. In other words, the law of active organization is innate intelligence.
… Is the law of active organization, which is ALWAYS normal, constantly acting upon energy/matter to keep it living?
same answer as b4
… in other words, the law of existence (organization) is principle 1and 2. The law of life (active organization) is principle 20 and 21.
Steve,
The function of innate intelligence is to adapt forces and energy/matter for use in the body so that all parts of the “living” body will have coordinated action for mutual benefit (pri.23) and the mission of innate intelligence is to maintain the energy/matter of the “living” body in active organization. (pri.21). Deducing from these 2 principles, without the CONSTANT attention of intelligence toward energy/matter through ACTIVE adapting of instructive information, energy/matter would cease to live and would break down to eventually its smallest component, its atoms. –
– The fact that there can be interference with innate forces (pri.29) begs the question, WHAT IS IT THAT FAILS TO ADAPT, or as Joseph said: …”not as well”? Innate intelligence is normal and its function is ALWAYS normal (pri.27). Innate intelligence being 100% perfect cannot fail to adapt. WHAT IS IT THAT FAILS if the interference is between brain cell and tissue cell (energy/matter)? Is it intelligence? Is it force? Is it energy/matter? WHAT?
You Know the answer as well as I. II can not adapt to something that exceeds LOM because it was never designed to. Sux. exceed LOM so it seems II does not correct Sux. on it’s own.
Steve,
Therefore it is energy/matter that fails to adapt. This makes sense, as the interference is between brain cell and tissue cell (energy/matter). The next question is: For a VS to be corrected WHAT is addressed by chiropractors as they introduce an adjustic thrust? In other words, do chiropractors address: 1.- intelligence 2.- force or 3.- energy/matter?
Chiros. address Matter to facilitate the restoration of Force transmission by Intelligence. Since II is limited by LOM then LOM limits are II’s expressional limits, If you exceed LOM, you have exceeded II. Does that not make sense? If it is matter that fails to adapt then Matter has failed to be adapted.
SNSC
Steve,
It sure does make sense. The bottom line with regards to the ART is just that! Vs interferes with the transmitting matter which furthers and increases the limitation of matter of the whole living body.. It is the transmitting matter that fails to adapt caused by VS and INTERFERES with the transmission of innate forces so that all the parts of the body work in a coordinated action for mutual benefit. –
– LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body ONLY “restores the living body to its normal intended limitation of matter” by removing the furthered increased limitation of matter caused by VS. Ultimately, it is principle 24 that dictates the expression of the innate potential of a particular species. VS interferes with the inherent genetic LOM of ALL vertebrates. –
– WHAT chiropractic does is bring LOM within its original boundaries, which is reason enough for its “raison d’etre”!!! HOW chiropractic does it is through its objective. WHY chiropractic does it is for its objective. WHO chooses to do it is an OC. –
– By the way, with all due respect, when you say ” In 1895 a new principle was discovered, that an additional force (intentional or accidental) could assist II in resolving this failure to adapt.” has ONLY been ‘consciously” articulated today. DD, BJ and RWS and many after them missed the mark all together, even though VS is caused by a concussion of forces and that “an additional universal force (educated or not) is required in order that innate intelligence generate a vertebral adjustment to correct VS. –
– Together without condemnation, we can conclude that, the ART of chiropractic is designed to introduce an adjustic thrust which is an EUF with the HOPE that the innate intelligence of the PM’s body will adapt this added EUF into an IF to generate a vertebral adjustment in order to restore the LOM of the living body to its original, intended, genetic LOM. WHEN this IS accomplished… the REST WILL FOLLOW… with or without post checks, regardless of technique… until the next visit, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on, as long as it is the practice member WHO chooses to remain under regular care.
… in other words, it is energy/matter that expresses the instructive information created by intelligence through motion and energy/matter can ONLY do that to its intended natural limits. Innate intelligence will ALWAYS adapt 100% of the available UF. If VS is present, it furthers the limitation of the transmitting matter whereas an additional UF (educated or not) is needed for the innate intelligence of the body to adapt in order to generate a vertebral adjustment. Innate intelligence ALWAYS generates vertebral adjustments as long as it can do so without breaking a universal law, which means, as long as innate intelligence has the UFs necessary to do so… and may I add… with or without post checks.
OK Claude,
First, the post check was never said to be for II’s benefit. I understand that II takes a EUF or UF and does what is is capable of doing whether we PC or recheck or not. The PC is exclusively for the Chiro. to see how he/she can best apply the Art.
Second, my impression is that DD, BJ, RW, Reggie, Strauss, Barge, Maynard, were all about LACVS, only the reasons and methods were different. I think BJ was the first to say Sux. alone was justification for Chiropractic care.
Third, I am not sure we have settled the debate on whether or not II can correct a Sux. on it’s own or does II require additional force (UF/EUF) to adjust a spine.
Steve,
I stated above: “If VS is present, it furthers the limitation of the transmitting matter whereas an ADDITIONAL universal force (educated or not) is needed for the innate intelligence of the body to adapt in order to generate a vertebral adjustment.” This is due to the further increased limitation of the transmitting matter caused by VS. –
– Therefore, together without condemnation, we can conclude that innate intelligence will adapt EFs and energy/matter for use in the living body so that all parts of the body will have coordinated action for mutual benefit within the limitation of matter of that body. If VS is present, VS will cause a further increase of limitation of the transmitting matter which will interfere with the mental impulse and innate intelligence will require an ADDITIONAL force (UF or EUF) in order to generate a vertebral adjustment.
So could we logically and truthfully say Chiropractors adjust the spine, accidents manipulate the spine but it is Innate Intelligence that corrects Subluxations?
Steve, I think we can also say that the ii of the body makes the adjustment, some chiropractors manipulate the spine and any adjustment is an accident!:)
In the last few enteries we have discussed and agreed, I think, that II requires an additional force to correct a subluxation. Based upon this position I don’t think we can say II makes the adjustment any longer. That II corrects the SUX. there is no debate but II can not “adjust” a spine, not the spine in the body in which it resides or any other. II on it’s own can not deliver a force sufficient to unlock a VS. . It is II’s response to the Adjustment( or UF) that innitiates the correction. An Adjustment facilitates the correction, it is a part of the process.
Historically the Chiropractic Adjustment has always been the halmark of the ART of Chiropractic. We have prided ourselves in distinguishing the Adjustment from all other approaches to the spine. What differentiates the Adjustment from a manipulation, intent. The Adjustment is a unique and seperate connection with the patient, much like our Philosophy. The Vertebral Adjustment is what the ChiropracTOR does.
SNSC
Steve,
Historically, innate intelligence was personified (anthropopathism) and it truly confused chiropractors and the public. Historically, the adjustment was attributed the action of the chiropractor (Strauss may teach us a new word for that) and it is confusing chiropractors and the public. –
– A vertebral adjustment is a universal force (any UF, educated or not) adapted by the innate intelligence of the body for the correction of a vertebral subluxation. Notice that the nature of the vertebral adjustment is an ADAPTED universal force. It is innate intelligence that has the power to ADAPT universal forces for the living body. On the other hand, an adjustic thrust is a specific educated universal force (unadapted by innate intelligence) introduced into a subluxated vertebra of a living person by a chiropractor with the intent and HOPE that the innate intelligence of the body of that person will produce a vertebral adjustment. –
– So, by its definition, a vertebral adjustment is an ADAPTED innate force and cannot be generated by educated intelligence, ONLY by innate intelligence. –
– Examples (for Don of course 😉 ) : Person #1 falls on the slippery sidewalk in the winter… and that concussion of forces causes a VS. Person #1 gets up and continues on to the gym. 45 minutes into the workout, person #1 is on the thread mill and is doing cardio work. During that exertion, due to the extra activity of the muscles, a particular UF is ADAPTED by innate intelligence and generates a vertebral adjustment correcting the VS that happened on the way to the gym. That my friend, happens sometimes. –
– Now, person #2 , is at the gym and while doing cardio on the thread mill, slips and does not fall. Yet the slip produced an invasive external force that overcame the internal resistance of the body causing a VS. After the work out, person #2 gets into a corvette and while getting in, due to the activity of the muscles, a particular UF is ADAPTED by innate intelligence and generates a vertebral adjustment correcting the VS that happened on the thread mill. That my friend, happens sometimes. –
– Person #3, is sleeping after a heavy drinking party, and while turning in bed, an invasive external force overcame the internal resistance of the body causing a VS. In the morning, that person, chooses to visit your office. You check the spine, locate the VS, after specific analysis, you perform your adjustic thrust which is a specific educated universal force introduced into the subluxated vertebra with the intent and the HOPE that the innate intelligence of the body of that person will produce a vertebral adjustment. Yet for some reasons, the innate intelligence of that person’s body does NOT adapt that EUF and does not generate a vertebral adjustment. That my friend, happens sometimes. –
– Also, when you stated: “The Vertebral Adjustment is what the ChiropracTOR does.” According to this statement of yours, what happens WHEN the chiropractor’s “adjustment” is not used by the innate intelligence of the PM’s body? What was done by the chiropractor then? To be a vertebral adjustment, the VS must be corrected! –
– It is truly ONLY the innate intelligence of the body that can adapt universal forces in order to generate a vertebral adjustment. The chiropractor performs an adjustic thrust which is a specific educated universal force (unadapted by innate intelligence) introduced into a subluxated vertebra of a living person by a chiropractor with the intent and HOPE that the innate intelligence of the body of that person will produce a vertebral adjustment. –
– This is consistent with the science of chiropractic with its 33 principles, specifically, principle #27.
Dr, Lessard,
Great examples!
Only one question.
From Example #3
“Yet for some reasons, the innate intelligence of that person’s body does NOT adapt that EUF and does not generate a vertebral adjustment. That my friend, happens sometimes.”
1. Whether it happens or not seems rather significant but this situation seems to be an impossibility. There is no post check.
How would you know that the ii of the person’s body does NOT generate a vertebral adjustment?
I’ll see your P. 27 and raise you a P. 25, No. 25. The Character of Innate Forces.
The forces of Innate Intelligence never injure or destroy the structures in which they work.
Innate Intelligence cannot make an Adjustment because each Adjustment creates a micro-trauma.(We must exceed LOM to help correct a failure of LOM to adapt)
In response to your question “what happens WHEN the chiropractor’s “adjustment” is not used by the innate intelligence of the PM’s body?”, Not all adjustments are created equal or perfect. Which speaks to Don’s questioning “too little Force” and the need for post/re checking. Nobody ever said every application by the Chiro. would work, only that Chiro Adjustments work more often than an ignorant UF. Saying II may choose to use or not to use the EUF to correct a Sux. takes nearly all the responsibility off the Chiro. and decreases the value of the contribution. Why not just tell the truth, not all Adjustments are good ones.
The confusion lies not in the term Adjustment, everyone pro/public knows what a ChiropracTOR does, he/she Adjusts spines. The confusion comes from saying the adjustment and a correction are synonymous. An Adjustment by a Chiro, encourages a correction by II it does not garentee it. IOW II does not initiate, it responds. Adjustic Thrust is a mechanical term, a description which would include line of drive, tourqe, depth, speed and in the case of machines, repititions. Adjustment = Adjustic Thrust + II. Haven’t you ever heard, you can’t adjust a dead man, no matter how well you thrust.
One last point, in reference to your last statement. The is no mention of correction anywhere in the 33 Principles that underpin our Philosophy.
SNSC
Steve,
Not according to our glossary:
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.
Thank you for the reminder, I will have to print that glossary if I can find it again.
FOUND IT, 3-14-13
Steve,
Go on 3-14-13 and make sure to scroll down to the change that was made from chiropractic adjustment to vertebral adjustment. The post is from me on that same thread 3-26-2013 9:02pm.
Don,
You stated: ” Whether it happens or not seems rather significant but this situation seems to be an impossibility. There is no post check.
How would you know that the ii of the person’s body does NOT generate a vertebral adjustment?” What does pri.24 state and what is the nature of educated intelligence?
Dr. Lessard,
I’ll try my best here…
Princ. 24. The Limits of Adaptation – Innate Intelligence adapts forces and matter for the body as long as it can do so without breaking a universal law, or Innate Intelligence is limited by the limitations of matter.
The nature of educated intelligence is to give instructive information to matter from intelligence. Instructive information is used interchangeably with the term force here.
So, one can also say the nature of educated intelligence is to give instructive information or FORCE to matter from educated intelligence. (paraphrased from the discussion thread “Innate Intelligence” Posted by on April 26, 2013 at 4:34 pm)
Don,
WHERE does educated intelligence comes from and WHAT is it made of?
Dr. Lessard,
EI comes from EB. From what I have read, EI is instructional information (force).
To quote someone with much more EI than me, ” think of the educated brain as just another organ of the body, like the liver, except that it produces educated thoughts instead of bile. Think of it in that light. Just as the liver uses innate forces and chemicals (matter) to make the bile, the educated brain uses innate forces and information to create educated thoughts.” (Joe Strauss, “Follow-up Q&A #26, 07/25/2012, 8:50 pm) 😉
Don,
Educated intelligence is therefore energy/matter which is limited giving the EUF limited instructive information. As a result, is it possible that innate intelligence would require extra UFs “in time” in order to generate a vertebral adjustment?
Claude, do you mean Educated Brain is energy/matter which is limited? Is it possible that II could use another EUF to make a correction as well?
Dr. Lessard,
EB question:
I will assume, as Steve has suggested, you meant Educated brain is matter.
All matter, including educated matter, is limited.
Therefore, anything that comes from EB (instructive information/force/EUF) is limited.
As long as the EI is limited by the EB matter, yes, I would agree.
extra UFs question:
You wrote: ” As a result, is it possible that innate intelligence would require extra UFs “in time” in order to generate a vertebral adjustment?”
I have accepted that UF’s are not stored or warehoused. I also understand that ii uses all the UF’s available to it in that moment in time to create the correction or otherwise adapts them (e.g bucking. fracture, soft tissue injury).
I would not understand your statement “require extra UFs “in time” in order to make a vertebral adjustment”.
For me, the correction is either done or not given all available forces available to ii at that time.
Steve,
If as you say: ” II does not initiate, it responds” then you are saying that it is energy/matter that controls life and not intelligence.
No, I am not. II must have a Force to adapt, Uf or EUF. Why do you think it is depicted as a cycle? When we put something in we expect II to respond. When we Adjust we hope II will adapt the given Force to make a correction, no? Only the misguided or egotistical Chiro. thinks he/she made the correction.
Steve,
You gave the answer in your long post anyway and I quote: “Adjustment = Adjustic Thrust + II. Haven’t you ever heard, you can’t adjust a dead man, no matter how well you thrust.”. What you are saying here is that an adjustment is not an adjustic thrust and I agree. We’re ultimately saying the same with different reasoning. That’s OK. All the chiropractor can do is to introduce an EUF and HOPE that innate intelligence will generate a vertebral adjustment.
… and an EDUCATED universal force does not “takes nearly all the responsibility off the Chiro. and decreases the value of the contribution.” as you stated above. It simply clarifies it!
takes nearly all the responsibility off the Chiro. and decreases the value of the contribution, was referring to II’s acceptance, or not of the EUF. It becomes too easy to say II didn’t use the force for correction instead of Hey, maybe I should re-analyze or modify my technique. Not to belabor a point, but this is why we postcheck.
Steve,
You make and excellent point here. I don’t think it is be-labouring it because IMHO, it hasn’t been inquired into deeply enough.
If too little force is used and II cannot make a correction because Adjustment = adjustic thrust + II then something needs to be done.
Likewise, If Adjustment = adjustic thrust + ii and it was done on a dead person and ii was not present then something needs to be done. IOW, find someone that is alive and don’t waste your time. 😉
Is offering too little forces just as futile an effort as attempting to deliver forces into the spine of a dead person in HOPE that ii of the body will use those forces for coordinated action of mutual benefit?
Maybe we can clarify together. Thanks.
Don,
Inadequate force like sloppy line of drive or a shallow thrust would all decrease the efficiency of the EUF. Although we will never know exactly what II’s needs or capabilities are, we must always use our best science and continually refine our techniques. BJ encouraged us to do as little as possible to the body so the body (II) can do more for itself. He also said it was better to err on the side of too little than to do too much. Not every Adjustment is going to be perfect, that’s why they call it a practice. 😉
SNSC
Steve,
I am not disagreeing with decreasing the “usefullness” (my substitued word for efficiency) of the the EUF and that we will never know the exact needs of ii.
What I am having difficulty with is what you stated as “It becomes too easy to say II didn’t use the force for correction instead of Hey, maybe I should re-analyze or modify my technique.”
In OSC/OSC is there a “re-analyze or modification” in the case of too little force?
From what I have been reading, IMO I may be a different approach (TSC?).
Don,
As I have said before, I am learning OC and as C.L. says creating new possibilities in my understanding. I am not sure post checking is a philosophical issue. That said, I know of no other way to be assured I have done my job. The old saying, Adjust it and trust it, only works for me when I am convinced the Adjustment has occurred.
SNSC
I understand Steve. The deeper I inquire into chiropractic in order to have a greater understanding of its philosophy, science and art, I realize HOW privilege it is for me, WHO chooses to be a chiropractor, to also be one WHO chooses to practice the chiropractic objective… and HOW humbling it is at the same time. Thank you for “rolling in the deep” with all of us on this blog. 🙂
I too feel miniscule in the greater scheme of things and am appreciative that I may play a role. As for rolling in the deep, I hope I am not the anchor.
… once in a while?
Steve,
Yes I meant educated brain is energy/matter therefore limited. Yes also, that innate intelligence might use another EUF. Yet… as you mentioned before, BJ said we should strive to do the least we possibly can which means: IN DOUBT… DON’T ! Wait until the next visit.
Don,
It’s ALWAYS time for innate intelligence to generate a vertebral adjustment. For the chiropractor, each visit is “that time” to LACVS and perhaps perform an adjustic thrust with the intent and the hope that the innate intelligence of the PM’s body will adapt the EUF into an IF any in order to generate a vertebral adjustment. The next visit will also be “that time” for the chiropractor and so on, and so on, and so on…
Dr. Lessard,
I still don’t understand.
You asked “is it possible that innate intelligence would require extra UFs “in time” in order to generate a vertebral adjustment?”
If you were to ask, “is it possible that innate intelligence would require extra UFs in order to generate a vertebral adjustment?”
I would say YES!. It requires those beyond what is available.
How would you know that the ii of the person’s body does NOT generate a vertebral adjustment?”
Don,
You ask: “How would you know that the ii of the person’s body does NOT generate a vertebral adjustment?” The same way my educated intelligence CANNOT know that the innate intelligence of the person’s body generated a vertebral adjustment as a result of my performing an adjustic thrust. Finite educated will NEVER know infinite innate. Can you see that? _
Dr. Lessard,
I can agree that finite educated will NEVER know infinite innate.
Please answer as directly as you can..
We use logic and deduction in the identification of the PRESENCE of vs.
Can we not use that same logic to identify its absence?
Why or why or why not?
examples are appreciated 🙂
Don,
Joseph mentioned way at the beginning of this thread that an EUF is an educated guess. How can an educated guess be logical. From which of the 33 principles would that be deduced? –
Dr. Lessard,
I can see your point.
Wouldn’t the identification of the presence of vs also be an educated guess subject to the same limitations in knowing infinite innate?
Joe, Steve and Dr. Lessard,
For my understanding, if you please…
Post check vs. Spinal Check inquiry
1. How does the timing of the analysis differentiate the re-check, spinal check and post checks?
2. Is the check still about what the ii of the PM’s body is doing or trying to do?
3. If the forces were too little from the EUF, doesn’t that mean they came in subluxated, were supplied an EUF (in this case one that was too little), got off the table subluxated and will remain that way until their next visit?
Don,
– 1. There is ONLY the spinal check of the specific moment for the chiropractor. Re-check is about the technique. Post check is ALWAYS from the previous visit (including visit #1… since it is ALWAYS innate intelligence generating vertebral adjustments). According to your analysis on subsequent visits, it is you WHO can choose to perform or not to perform an adjustic thrust. Then it is you WHO can post check on the next visit, and so on, and so on, and so on. –
– 2. What I described in answer #1 is ALWAYS about what the innate intelligence of the PM’s body is doing or trying to do. –
– 3. WHO knows? It is you WHO can choose to LACVS on the next visit anyway regardless, won’t you? And it is you WHO can choose to do that visit by visit by visit by visit by visit… at a specific moment in time… ad infinatum…
Dr. Lessard,
This issue of post check and spinal check is truly confusing for me. 🙁
1. It seems you are saying the all analysis of the working muscle is a spinal check regardless of time.
The recheck IS a spinal check and the post check is a spinal check also. The INTENT of why it is done is the difference.
Spinal check is to determine what the ii of the PM’s body is doing or trying to do via the spinal muscles, (either correcting a vs that is present or not working at correction because vs is absent).
2. I agree. 😉
3. I have no idea what this means. I am sorry. 🙁
With apologies,
Don
Don,
LACVS is an ART and as such is TOTALLY subjective. Having said that, –
– 1. There’s ONLY spinal checks. –
– 2. Ok. –
– 3. It is me WHO chooses to LACVS every visit the PM comes in for a spinal check… and it me WHO chooses to perpetuate this ad infinatum to the best of my educated abilities.
Dr. Lessard,
So far so good. 🙂
DON3. If the forces were too little from the EUF, doesn’t that mean they came in subluxated, were supplied an EUF (in this case one that was too little), got off the table subluxated and will remain that way until their next visit?
CL3. WHO knows? It is you WHO can choose to LACVS on the next visit anyway regardless, won’t you? And it is you WHO can choose to do that visit by visit by visit by visit by visit… at a specific moment in time… ad infinatum…
DON3. I have no idea what this means. I am sorry. 🙁
With apologies,
CL 3. It is me WHO chooses to LACVS every visit the PM comes in for a spinal check… and it me WHO chooses to perpetuate this ad infinatum to the best of my educated abilities.
Don3. I am looking to improve my educated abilities. Is this necessary or unnecessary since ii makes all corrections?
In the case of too little force, regardless of the person applying the force, (you, me or a new graduate) wouldn’t that require a better educated ability in the force application?
Don,
Yes.
Don,
You said: “Wouldn’t the identification of the presence of vs also be an educated guess subject to the same limitations in knowing infinite innate?” The answer is: YES!
Don,
Let us inquire, together without condemnation, into the nature of educated abilities. Educated intelligence is an accumulation of information, percepts and experiences. HOW has your educated intelligence improved your educated abilities from your first day of practice? From information, percepts and experiences that you have accumulated from the first day of your practicing chiropractic… correct?
Dr. Lessard,
The process of learning always involves a process of reflective practice. Information and experiences compared to what is known allows one to learn. The comparative aspect of the process where one makes meaningful connections to self and the world are where learning takes place.
What it sounds like is being suggested is learning in the absence of those connections and process of comparative practice.
I am finding that hard to understand.
Don,
Is all of it in constant motion>
Dr. Lessard,
Does learning require connections and reflection?
Don,
ALL energy/matter is in motion. Through cellular replacement at the rate of 500,000,000,000/day we experience our very own body in CONSTANT motion. You posted that “The comparative aspect of the process where one makes meaningful connections to self and the world are where learning takes place.” Comparing to WHAT? The past? Yet the past, IS past, NEVER to be replicated… EVER. We are dealing with LAW, most specifically, the law of life. Here is an opportunity for you to be inspired to invent a NEW possibility for yourself and your life, so that you can be moving from creating the future through the lens of the past… to creating the future through WHO you choose to BE in the present moment. –
– Don, in order to have a “beginner’s mind” does it not require to “see” without compare? Since energy/matter is in constant motion, and we are not the same person we were when we got out of bed this morning, comparing ONLY “brings back” past experiences into the present moment? Correct? –
– Does a cat have the ability to “self-reflect” or of self-awareness? Does a cat compare from past experiences? Let’s suppose you were to ask a cat (and if it could answer you), “what time is it?” It’s answer would be: “It is NOW of course!” It’s ALWAYS now for a cat. Yet, that cat does learn many things… doesn’t it? Let’s suppose that the cat jump off a fence and lands on the lawn and that concussion of forces causes VS. Do you think that the innate intelligence of the cat’s body will strive to adapt UFs for the purpose of generating a vertebral adjustment to correct the VS of that cat? –
– Doesn’t it seems to you that learning is about “engaging” a relationship with energy/matter moment by moment, (visit by visit in your office), so that educated will be EDUCED from information, percepts and experiences for the present moment without comparing? WHAT else is AMP? –
– ALL of life is ALWAYS in constant motion and is NEVER repeated anyway… WHY should the art of chiropractic be any different since we are dealing with the law of life and the chiropractic objective is to: “LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the living body. PERIOD.” ? –
– Philosophically, the ONLY immutable constants in chiropractic are the 33 principles of the science of chiropractic.
Dr, Lessard,
To EDUCE means to infer. An inference is the combination of backgraound knowlege or data and a connection of sorts that was not present to begin with. The use of the word EDUCE makes my point.
How does one EDUCE if not by creating connections and reflecting?
I also need to clarify that I know very little of cats. 😉
This is why I can’t speak to them. Whether they self reflect r consciously, unconsciously or otherwise not reflect at all. I have no idea.
I just know they are devilish little buggers that know how to get their way. 😉
Don,
Last I checked, the definition of EDUCE is that the word comes from EDUCERE which means to draw out, to call forth.
Dr. Lessard,
Let us use educe as to draw out. Speaking of educated educed from experiences. What is in the experiences itself that makes the learning?
Don,
What is the experience of the newborn WHO chooses to suck at the breast of the mother at birth… and that’s for ALL the mammals species? Where is, as you posted: “the experiences itself that makes the learning?”
Dr. Lessard,
That is to suggest that a baby nursing on her mother is comparable to the Educated universal force application that is applied in HOPE the the ii of the body will produce an adjustment. Are these two comparably similar? I see some but not all of the suggestion.
If you would like, we could use this as an example 😉
Maybe you can demonstrate the ability to educe this learning from me without me making any connection and no reflection on my part.
Don,
What is the nature of the activity of that newborn? HOW does that activity happens within the newborn?
Dr. Lessard,
I do not know how that activity happens in an newborn.
Don,
At birth, the innate intelligence of body is 100% and educated intelligence is 0%. It’s blank! Questions: What is the content of the educated intelligence of a newborn? Does it have stored experiences to compare? Does it have percepts to reflect on?
Dr. Lessard,
Based on what you wrote above, there are no stored experiences at birth. As an aside, most of those Mozart muscial CD companies that market to soon to be mothers so they can place headphones on their bellies may disagree with you though. 🙂
Assuming you are correct, yes, at the start of educated intelligence there is presumably nothing stored to compare to.
I honestly don’t know the answer to this question but when does educated intelligence start in a human being Dr. Lessard?
Don,
Your question will be answered by you down the thread. 😉 Since there are no stored experiences to compare to, WHAT is the nature of the force MOVING the newborn to nurse?
Dr. Lessard,
The nature of force is instructive information to unite intelligence and matter.
Don,
Very well Don. HOW is this instructive information expressed by the energy/matter of a newborn? Hint (pri.14) 😉
Dr. Lessard,
Principle 14 Universal Life.
Force is manifested by motion in matter; all matter has motion, therefore there is universal life in all matter.
I always equate this to matter in the elemental state. (Art . 364).
Instructive information is expressed by matter of a newborn is through princ. 21 and 23.
Don,
Of course it’s about energy/matter in the elemental state. So, principle 21 is about ACTIVE organization from innate intelligence adapting UFs and energy/matter for use in the body so that ALL parts of the body will have coordinated action for MUTUAL benefit (pri.23). HOW is instructive information from the innate intelligence of the body (adapted UFs into IFs) of a newborn is expressed by the newborn’s energy/matter?
Dr. Lessard,
I don’t know.
Remember, I have yet to connect most of the dots.
Don,
Is the action of the first nursing of a newborn an intelligent move in the scheme of life?
Dr. Lessard,
It’s funny you asked because my answer should be based on what the innate intelligence of the body determines (which my educated can never know for certain).
This leaves me to decide based on other things such as authority such as what I hear the producers of baby formula producer thinks (who may assume their formula is better than mother`s milk), a lactation consultant or based on a mother’s opinion (and these vary alot).
So, what should my answer to your question be based on in lieu of knowing what ii of the body knows, Dr. Lessard?
Don,
For your understanding of the process, any answers concerning the art of practicing chiropractic or concerning the creation of instructive information by intelligence and expressed by energy/matter as motion, should ALWAYS be based on the 33 principles of the science of chiropractic.
Dr. Lessard,
I don’t know how answer your question, “Is the action of the first nursing of a newborn an intelligent move in the scheme of life?” based on the 33 principles of the science of chiropractic. Maybe you can show me how that could be done.
Don,
Universal intelligence creates instructive information which unites intelligence and energy/matter in order to maintain it in existence and that instructive information is expressed by energy/matter in the form of motion. There is an innate intelligence in a newborn’s body that is maintained in active organization, thereby alive, by adapting universal forces and energy/matter, without breaking a universal law, for use in the body of that newborn so that all parts of that newborn’s body will have coordinated ACTION for mutual benefit. Therefore, the ACTION of the first nursing of a newborn is an intelligent move in the scheme of life. –
– Now transpose that to the art of practicing chiropractic and observe what’s going on.
Dr. Lessard,
I will substitute where appropriate.
From the point of view of the practice member:
“Universal intelligence creates instructive information which unites intelligence and energy/matter in order to maintain it in existence and that instructive information is expressed by energy/matter in the form of motion. There is an innate intelligence in PRACTICE MEMBERS body that is maintained in active organization, thereby alive, by adapting universal forces and energy/matter, without breaking a universal law, for use in the body of that PRACTICE MEMBER so that all parts of that PRACTICE MEMBER’s body will have coordinated ACTION for mutual benefit. Therefore, the ACTION of the first EDUCATED UNIVERSAL FORCE RECEIVED of a PRACTICE MEMBER is an intelligent move in the scheme of life. -”
Now, from the point of view of the chiropractor:
“Universal intelligence creates instructive information which unites intelligence and energy/matter in order to maintain it in existence and that instructive information is expressed by energy/matter in the form of motion. There is an innate intelligence in the CHIROPRACTORS body that is maintained in active organization, thereby alive, by adapting universal forces and energy/matter, without breaking a universal law, for use in the body of that CHIROPRACTOR so that all parts of that CHIROPRACTOR’s body will have coordinated ACTION for mutual benefit. Therefore, the ACTION of the first EDUCATED UNIVERSAL FORCE DELIVERED of a CHIROPRACTOR is an intelligent move in the scheme of life. –
How was that Dr. Lessard?
It seems that as this reads, ALL educated universal forces delivered or received are equally and comparably intelligent moves in the scheme of life. Would you agree with this interpretation?
As an aside, If we are using this as an example of educing an understanding from me, I realized that you are asking me to make connections to my prior experiences or learning of babies. This requires me to reflect on my current schema. As I do this, I build more and more connections that I, rightly or wrongly, assume were not previously there. Maybe this is your point, Dr. Lessard? That all the connections are there and it is for us to discover?
Are all connections there and it is discover?
How does that apply to refining the art of EUF application?
Are all connections there and it is up to us to discover them through self reflection?
How does this apply to the refining of the EUF application, especially in the case of too little force?
Don,
In your last post, you are using EDUCATED universal forces. EUFs are LIMITED instructive information coming from educated intelligence which is using the educated brain and is limited by the limitations of energy/matter. Therefore, your statement: ALL educated universal forces delivered or received are equally and comparably intelligent moves in the scheme of life” cannot be true since energy/matter of the educated brain is limited. When I asked you to transpose, I also asked you to OBSERVE what’s going on. –
– What is really going on when the body of a “living thing” is maintained in active organization by its innate intelligence with and without VS?
… also notice that the newborn has no experiences to compare with the first nursing… that’s a huge hint!!! 😉
Dr. Lessard,
I am trying to use my educated right now to figure out the answers to your questions and I am noticing my limitations are greater than most here! The huge hint is probably not enough.
🙁
Can you spell it out for me? I don’t see the connection.
Don,
Let’s take a different approach. Some 30 years ago Dr. Michael Kale went to South America on a mission to check ONLY the atlas of people. I saw a video cassette of Michael in ACTION. He was, in what looks like a huge ware house packed with people waiting to be checked, with 10 knee chest tables, all lined up, without talking to anyone going from table to table, palpating the atlas of the person WHO was already kneeling in position, forehead face down on the head piece. After palpating the atlas, Michael then turned the head of the person either left or right and positioned himself and introduced an adjustic thrust which was an HIO toggle-recoil. It took him about 30 seconds from beginning to finish. Michael did that for 18 hours per day for 5 days non stop. Over 10,000 spines of people were checked during that particular trip by him alone. He did not speak to the people. The people had NEVER had their spines checked before, so they had no experiences to compare. The ONLY connection at that moment, was the adjustic thrust of Michael Kale. –
– When you understand that the 33 principles of the science of chiropractic were ADDRESSED for 10,000 people in 5 days, without words, does that help you?
Dr. Lessard,
I think we may be speaking of the same situation but approaching from different perspectives here. It may be a bit long but allow me explain. My original question (and I use that term loosely here because I realize there was a sequence of questions) was how does the chiropractor refine his technique in the case of too little force?
This was the result of learning from Dr. Strauss that any observation of bucking, fracture or soft tissue strain will be a key indicator of too much EUF delivered.
We are now at the point of answering the question of refining the forces of too little force and your example of the newborn and another example of Dr. Kale were given. I can see you are eluding to the fact that in both cases there are no experiences. Again, this is from the point of view of the recipient. I am looking for how the chiropractor (in other words, the deliverer of the EUF) refines his too little force.
I could be wrong here but i am assuming Dr. Kale clearly had many experiences delivering EUF’s into the UC spines of many prior to those days. How would you explain his method of refining those forces?
Or better yet, hypothetically speaking because this example will not be realistic, IF ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL, would the first EUF delivered from the 10,000 from Dr. Kale’s hands and the 10,000th be the same? What do you assume he watches for to indicate that the force was too little.
If he does not, then what logically follows is that I may be able to substitute student in his place. the student could be instructed to deliver a force light enough to not elicit a too much force reaction. A
Though we know that there is a major difference in experience here, what would you say woild be the difference Dr. Lessard? (Please answer these questions, it seems many go unanswered and it may save us some time).
Sorry about the length of this explanation. Looking forward to your response!
Don,
Do you think that the innate intelligence of the body can generate an adjustic thrust without EUF?
I meant to say: Do you think that the innate intelligence of the body can generate a VERTEBRAL ADJUSTMENT without EUF? The adjustic thrust is the an EUF performed by chiropractors… I checked my slipping before Joseph got to it!!! 😉
Dr. Lessard,
I have accepted the fact that the ii of the body makes all vertebral adjustments regardless of the source of the UF and also whether the UF is educated or not.
Don,
Therefore, this is where the principles of the science of chiropractic take us. It’s the too much EUF that really concerns us and as Joseph mentioned, the body of the PM will react to it in some consequential way and you will be able to observe and take note WHAT not to do the next visit. The practice of chiropractic is an ART and it’s the “DON TECHNIQUE” that matters to you. Trust it and the rest will follow, I promise. When in doubt, DONT! 😉
Dr. Lessard,
Could we apply that same thinking to the “too little” EUF scenario?
It’s ALSO the too LITTLE EUF that concerns us, the body of the PM will not respond/react to it and you will/will not (I am not sure about this part yet) be not be able to observe and take note WHAT not to do the next visit or what to do more of. The practice of chiropractic is an ART and it’s the “DON TECHNIQUE” that matters to you. Trust it and the rest will follow, I promise. When in doubt, DO but DON’T do too much! 😉
I meant “Do but Don’t do too little OR too much!
Don,
If YOUR child is on YOUR chiropractic table and YOU are in DOUBT about your analysis, which rule would YOU use as guidance? –
– (A) “When in doubt, DONT!” –
– or –
– (B) “When in doubt, DO but DON’T do too little OR too much!”
Dr. Lessard and Steve,
Thank you for giving me clarity on the questions I am asking.
IMO, there is a delicate balance between the damaging effects of vs and the potential consequences of the “too much” EUF reaction that is not being addressed in this dialogue. Whether we are speaking of children or not is never an issue. My hope is that all chiropractors treat their people like family. What is an issue is if the chiropractor is conscientious of the both sides of the matter at hand. Namely, the effects of leaving the vs in place versus the effects of a reaction to “too much” EUF.
I will never dismiss the fact that the potential for a reaction exists but to assume that leaving the vs to interfere with the coordination of the body for a length, any length of time is an area yet to be explored for me. Is it always beneficial to not deliver an EUF if your analysis has established the vs is still present?
To state this in other terms, assuming that one were to exercise extreme caution on their pm of 89 years of age who has hardening of the arteries, osteoporosis and a cervical fracture. You detect a vs and deliver the gentlest EUF you have ever delivered and no reaction. You re-analyze this person’s (this practice family members spine 🙂 and determine that the vs is still present.
Is it best that you should never re-analyze after the EUF so that you don’t have these conficts? Trust the deduction of the 33 and practice the ART of chiropractic and its objective.
or do you open the can of worms we are dealing with and re-analyze, to have to answer some hard questions like:
If the body is still correcting after the EUF but not done, when is the best time to re-check and introduce another EUF?
Why right after the EUF? Why one week after?
How long does it take the ii of the body to make a correction? How do we know?
OK, that is about Every single question that I had because I know asking will only lead me to progress through inquiry. Not asking, leads me to stagnation of thought and no deepening of my understanding of it all.
Btw, there are some things I do not question but as many have said here and I totally agree, those things are not chiropractic. 😉
Don,
I think you have reached the point in your inquiry that only you can answer. Only you can decide how you want to practice. Post checking, reapplication of EUF, or monitoring, are all individual choices. The encounter and our best judgment is all we have, all of us the same. Try your best, pay attention, modify as needed, keep learning. I don’t practice the same way as I did 25 years ago, and I hope in 25 years I will have improved from today.
I really wish Joe would enter into this discussion. I just know that if he did, he would lay all these questions to bed with one great baseball analogy and I would be speechless! LOL. 🙂
Steve,
If the focus of this inquiry was the answers or end product and less about the questions then it would not be the inquiry method.
The same can be said with my last post. Driving toward questions which do not necessarily have easy answers, working through these more difficult ones and coming through it with sound reasoning is my goal. Just imagine after working through this situation of “too little” force, we may come to questions that are even more enlightening than the questions we have now.
I think at every point of the inquiry I can only decide what to accept and reject based on my reasoning. I invite others to share their reasoning to the questions I posted above. No judgement but just looking for different points of view on the matter.
Maybe if more people could share how they reasoned their responses to the questions above, we could arrive at a deeper level of this inquiry.
Don,
Some questions have no answers, only opinions. In my opinion too little force is too little force. If the EUF is insufficient to initiate a correction by II then it is probly absorbed by the body as a nussence, much like hitting the door jam with your shoulder as you pass through. Negligible damage and no benifit is most likley the result. I think the real question is what do you do after you decide that the EUF did not accomplish the goal? That brings us back to opinions.
SNSC
sorry, nuisance
sorry, I meant nuisance
Steve,
I think we are assuming that the person IS determining if the EUF was used by the ii of the body. Some chiropractors analyze and introduce the EUF without that re-analysis immediately or shortly after. One the next visit, which is presumably any length of time greater than 24 hours later, another spinal check is performed. At what point did the chiropractor determine the EUF was not used? (Do EUF’s have a goal? I thought it was the ii of the body making all corrections. At least that is how I see it.)
To your point, some may argue there are no answers, only justified true belief.
My understanding of the area of “proof” and providing proof has been expanded by reading Dr. Strauss’ work. For example, most believe the only proof is empirical evidence and shy from consciously acknowledging deductive reasoning or seeing faith as methods of perception.
To be completely honest and show i have no ulterior motive for posing these questions i will share something.
I do see the validity of not post checking for some reasons, namely, the situation that arises where we run the risk of focussing on changing the indicators that demonstrated the vs in the first place.
For instance, if I used a working muscle to detect a vs and after EUF and re-analysis I find it isn’t working now, I assume the ii of the body made the correction and ease is present (no vs).
If, however, after the EUF and the re-analysis (this term is used here to indicate performing the same analysis technique again) I find the working muscle working again, we run the risk of introducing multiple EUFs in an attempt to change the working muscle to a non working one. We are now attempting to change physiology. This is a decidedly different objective and what IMO Dr. Lessard and Dr. Strauss have been successful in getting me to discover. Btw, thank you to you both!! 🙂
Do EUFs have goals, does the Instructive Information have a desire to be used, I don’t know…….P. 11. The Character of Universal Forces. The forces of Universal Intelligence are manifested by physical laws; are unswerving and unadapted, and have no solicitude for the structures in which they work. Even though we consider the EUF to be somewhat adapted, by Educated Intelligence, I would presume ” no solicitude” still holds true.
Tha GOAL of the Chiropractic Adjustment is to submit a EUF into the spine, in the hopes II will respond by adapting that Adjustic Thrust into an IF for use in correcting a SUX. If the Chiro. adjusts a spine and II corrects the Sux, the goal is achieved. If II does not make a correction, the Sux. remains and the goal is not achieved. One might say anything done to the spine that does not facillitate a correction is a manipulation not an adjustment.
If the criteria by which you have determined that a Sux. exhists does not change after you have provided your EUF/Adjustic Thrust, you have choices. a) repeat the AT, b) modify and repeat the AT, c) do not repeat the AT and monitor the presence of original findings. Yes we attempt to change physiology, the physical representation of a Sux. If we use that criteria for analysis then it is valid after our attemp as well as before. It seems illogical to say working muscles are evidence of II’s effort to correct a Sux, but only prior to our intervention.
SNSC
Steve,
I agree with your statement of EUF having no solicitude. That is the way I understand it as well.
You stated “It seems illogical to say working muscles are evidence of II’s effort to correct a Sux, but only prior to our intervention.”
Could you explain the breakdown in logic?
If we attempt to change physiology and choose to either:
a)repeat the AT
b)modify and repear the AT
c)do not repeat the AT and monitor the presence of the original findings
When do we leave it alone and when do we repeat?
I understand well that exercising caution is needed and after the point of too many forces or to great a force we will observe reactions (bucking, soft tissue strain, fracture). No one should wait for this to happen but conversely, at what point do we determine too little forces have been delivered and a repeat or modification is necessary?
If there is you were an OSC/OC with no post check, how would you know?
I still have no answer for this question.
My hope is this inquiry will lead me somewhere. Thanks.
You stated, “For instance, if I used a working muscle to detect a vs and after EUF and re-analysis I find it isn’t working now, I assume the ii of the body made the correction and ease is present (no vs).
If, however, after the EUF and the re-analysis (this term is used here to indicate performing the same analysis technique again) I find the working muscle working again, we run the risk of introducing multiple EUFs in an attempt to change the working muscle to a non working one. We are now attempting to change physiology.”
I don’t think you can have it both ways. If you use (aberent) physiology to detect a Sux., then a change in that physiology after the EUF/AT demonstrates a correction has , in your professional opinion, been made. The opposite holds true as well. If you don’t post/recheck i don’t know how you would tell the difference. Again, to thrust again is a technique question, opinion.
It seems we have concluded II does not store Force for later use. In this case the subthreshold EUF/AT is unrelated to any additional application. Each sucessive EUF/AT is a new event to II and capable of being sufficient. With each application of EUF we risk under/ over thrusting, this is the Art part.
SNSC
Steve (and Dr. Lessard (further down below :),
Here I believe we have to get this sorted.
You stated that to thrust again is a technique question. I would like to challenge that. (even though my understanding of this is a bit shaky)
I agree that II does not store forces for later use.
However, how did we deterine that the “too little” (subthreshold) EUF is unrelated to any additional application?
If each successive EUF is a new event to ii and capable of being sufficient, how do we determine if it was sufficient?
This is probably a question better answered by Dr. Lessard.
The OC/OSCors may not be the only one having things both ways here. If someone performing post/re-checks are attempting to change physiology, does monitoring innate not change the objective of the practice from ciropractic to something else?
In other words, if an OC/OSC has the sole objective of LACVS for the full expression of the innate forces of the ii of the body and introduces EUF’s in the HOPE that the ii of the body makes the correction, wouldn’t the intent be solely to introduce the EUF and nothing else?
Doesn’t the introduction of post/re-check mean that the OSC/OCor is exchanging the HOPE for the INTENT or OBJECTIVE of changing the physiology of the person through effecting a change in the post check (medicine’s objective)?
I know you stated this is not a philosophy question but I see it intimately connected to which method of reasoning one is using. funny thing is, eventhough I can see that, I still can’t figure out how the “having things both ways” continues to exist.
Let me know your thoughts.
OK Don,
Let’s look at it a different way. Your child lays in the bed with fever. Do you automatically assume they are Subluxated, no. Some fevers are II adaptation some are pathological, we at this point don’t know. You decide to analyze and discover no indicators of a Subluxation. Do you at this point adjust your child? Of course not. The next day your child is vomiting, you analyse and discover indicators of Subluxation, do you adjust, certainly you do. We do not adjust because the patient is uncomfortable, we only adjust when indicators of a Subluxation are present.
Now at this point you could wait a day or two and reanalyze or would you recheck the child’s spine sooner? Regardless of continuation or cessation of the vomiting, only by repeating the analysis, post adjustment, would you know you have done all you can do to as a Chiropractor to facilitate an Innate correction. Once the Subluxation is cleared, and you know this by rechecking, what more can you do? What if the Subluxation was not clear? Two minutes, ten min. thirty min. sixty min. twenty four hours, what would you do with your child? When do you say, I will submit another EUF/AT?
Are we attempting to change physiology, yes, the physiology (study of the physical state) of the spine (Subluxation), not the physiology of the body. There are mainly two things that I consider when adjusting, need and spinal integrity. Need, is there a Sux. or not? Spinal integrity, how much force can the spine tolerate, should I use light force or full force. If you feel a need to arbitrarily set time frames on II as to when it should respond that is a personal choice. Yes Art, Science and Philosophy can guide you but YOU must make the choice.
Don, I cannot speak for Dr Kale but I can speak of him. In his classes and in his office he did pre and post check with the NCM. If after a short rest the NCM did not show improvement (straight line) he would adjust again. Not always the same LOD or segment. I once had the opportunity to adjust Mike and his legs bucked (I was startled) he said that was a great adjustment and I quote “you got to the cord”. Understand, Dr Mike Kale studied and worked with Dr Lyle Sherman, BJ’s clinic director at Palmer. He (Mike) knew Upper Cervical Specific as well as anyone can. Mike also said ” you don’t want to be the first or last patient of the day, the Dr is not warmed up for the first and thinking about going home for the last”.
No two interactions with Dr/Pm are alike, not all adjustments are perfect. Insufficient force is like insufficient funds, first you must recognize where the deficit is. Speed, LOD, Torque, Depth, Segment, Tissue Pull, Motivation, Visualization. How do you find out? Reanalysis, call it what you will. Then choosing to readjust or wait is up to you.
Steve,
Thanks for sharing your experiences with Dr. Kale.
So it seems Dr. Kale used the NCM.
Recognizing the deficits because not all (EUF’s delivered) are perfect is the trickiest of situations when there is no reanalysis.
You mentioned many observations. Speed, LOD, Torque, Depth, Tissue Pull, Motivation, Visualization, NCM reading.
In my opinion, some, not all of these can be observed before, during and after the EUF delivery.
In your opinion, which of these are used solely DURING AND/OR AFTER the EUF delivery to refine the art of the EUF delivery?
Don,
1. What method do you use to locate the Sux?
2. How much confidence do you have in this method?
3. If there was a change in your findings after the adjustment what would you conclude?
4. If there was NO change in your findings, what would you conclude?
In the Dojo it was said…
In the begining you are unconsciously incompetent (you have no idea what you are doing, right or wrong).
In time you will become consciously incompetent ( you begin to realize your mistakes).
After more time you will become unconsciously competent (through study and practice you start to do things correctly but not confidently)
Given enough time and diligence you will become consciously competent (you will own the activity)
The following may also help and apply to our practice/technique. “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates believed that the purpose of human life was personal and spiritual growth. We are unable to grow toward greater understanding of our true nature unless we take the time to examine and reflect upon our life. As another philosopher, Santayana, observed, “He who does not remember the past is condemned to repeat it.”
SNSC
Steve,
I will try to answer your questions in sequence.
I use muscle palpation as my method of detecting vs. I like to think of it as Dr. Lessard and Reggie have said, it is my technique, suited to my body type, size and stature. It is the “DON TECHNIQUE”. 😉
I find that my level of confidence in the technique I use is proportional to my understanding of the philosophy and how my technique meshes with it. In other words, my understanding of philosophy drives my technique confidence. Btw, I am a newbie at the philosophy thing.
To be honest, your questions about change in findings are difficult to answer with certainty right now because of this matter of “too little” force.
I will let you know that, previously, I ALWAYS did a post-check (in other words, re-palpated to determine if the working muscle was still working). If the working muscle was still present then I would introduce another EUF. If no change I would not introduce a third but leave it for the next check. I realized after the discussion on this blog that this issue of introducing two forces and not three is a contentious one because two is an arbitrary number that someone passed on to me. I never questioned it. I am questioning the “no more than two” knowledge gained from an authority I have.
Great quotes, Steve.
I personally like this one by Bruce Lee.
“I fear not the man who has practiced 10000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10000 times.” – Bruce Lee
🙂
Dr. Lessard,
Please read Don 09/18/2013, 10:04 am. Steve’s response may not be your thinking though. I am curious, please let me know your thoughts on the questions in that post.
Dr. Lessard,
I believe the term we can use here is PERCEPTUAL LEARNING.
Petrov has conducted experiments with no feedback. You would like the results.
It seems baseball swinging examples abound Dr. Strauss!. 🙂
Enjoy!
——-
Relations to other forms of learning[edit source | editbeta]
Declarative & procedural learning[edit source | editbeta]
In many domains of expertise in the real world, perceptual learning interacts with other forms of learning. Declarative knowledge tends to occur with perceptual learning. As we learn to distinguish between an array of wine flavors, we also develop a wide range of vocabularies to describe the intricacy of each flavor.
Similarly, perceptual learning also interacts flexibly with procedural knowledge. For example, the perceptual expertise of a baseball player at bat can detect early in the ball’s flight whether the pitcher threw a curveball. However, the perceptual differentiation of the feel of swinging the bat in various ways may also have been involved in learning the motor commands that produce the required swing.[1]
Implicit learning[edit source | editbeta]
Perceptual learning is often said to be implicit, such that learning occurs without awareness. It is not at all clear whether perceptual learning is always implicit. Changes in sensitivity that arise are often not conscious and do not involve conscious procedures, but perceptual information can be mapped onto various responses.[1]
In complex perceptual learning tasks (e.g., sorting of newborn chicks by gender, playing chess), experts are often unable to explain what stimulus relationships they are using in classification. However, in less complex perceptual learning tasks, people can point out what information they’re using to make classifications. [excerpt from Wikipedia, “Perceptual Learning” Sept. 18, 2013]
——
Don,
We already know that educated intelligence is 0% at birth and that it is through instructive information that the newborn moves into intelligent ACTION. We also know that experiences follow along with percepts which are… well… PERCEPTual and are used as learning tools by educated intelligence? Doesn’t it seem to you that on the 118th birthday of chiropractic, that it is we WHO could choose to REALIZE that chiropractic was way ahead of its time… and may I say still is?
Chiropractic Principles have always existed, even prior to their recognition. Chiropractic is timeless. It is the people, many DCs and most of the public, that are behind the times.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY CHIROPRACTIC PROFESSION. 118 years old, yet still a developing toddler.
It is me WHO chooses to point the 33 principles of the science of chiropractic, to anyone WHO would choose to grow in their understanding of themselves, the universe and of life itself. As the major premise states: A universal intelligence is in ALL matter… therefore, ALL energy/matter can be studied and understood with chiropractic and its science. Then, going deeper, it is chiropractic with its philosophy that educes from people an appreciation of the “raison d’etre” for its science. The application of the chiropractic art logically and rationally follow in order to fulfill the chiropractic objective for the species of vertebrates kingdom.
I have been meaning to ask why the switch, 33 scientific vs. philosophic principles?
PS I pity the invertebrates.
Steve,
A basic science is a science of the development of scientific theories and/or objectives. WHAT are the absolute constants of chiropractic that can be applied to the understanding of energy/matter? In other words, WHAT in the profession of chiropractic is constant, unchangeable and can be used in service of EVERY vertebrates?
prin·ci·ple
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
Claude I have an original Chiropractic pun for you……..Intelligence said to Matter, “get organizedf”. Matter replies “Force me”.
Steve,
That’s so great!!! 🙂
“Intelligence said to matter. “get organized”. Matter replies “Force me”.
Steve Jones D.C.
I don’t understand why I get spell check on my laptop with Windows but not with Linux? Any ideas, anyone, anyone?
Steve,
Locate the interference on the right side of the prompt and toggle the ON switch with specific line of drive and lightning speed! LOL (just kidding). When things like this happens, it is best to ask your IT. You’ve got an IT don’t you Steve? 😉
Which direction of torque, CW or CCW. would that be???????
Now let’s see…….I have an II, and a IF, I have a UI and a UF, I even have a EUF, I also have an IB and a EB, but I ain’t got no IT.
Steve,
Let us inquire, together without condemnation, into WHO you choose to BE in relationship with Linux… shall we? 😉 –
– IT time to get IT –
– PERIOD! 🙂
Steve,
Principle 1 states: A universal intelligence is in all matter and CONTINUALLY gives to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence. From this we, together without condemnation, can deduce that instructive information created by universal intelligence have the goal of giving all properties and actions to energy/matter in order to maintain energy/matter in existence. –
Principle 10 states: The function of force is to UNITE intelligence and matter. From this we, together without condemnation, can deduce that instructive information created by universal intelligence have the goal of UNITING intelligence and energy/matter since energy/matter cannot exist without the presence of intelligence. We also know from principle 4 that Instructive information is the link between intelligence and energy/matter . –
– Our perception of physical laws acting upon energy/matter demonstrates that these laws are the same for ALL energy/matter. Gravity is gravity for a rock, water and a human being. The law of gravity exists whether we drop anything or not. The mere fact that we stand on the earth, is proof. This is a unique characteristic of physical laws and UFs are concerned with maintaining the organization of energy/matter on the atomic level… hence principle 11 states: The forces of universal intelligence are manifested as physical laws; are unswerving and unadapted and have no solicitude for structures of matter. –
– Once again, it is humbling to follow the rational logic of the 33 principles of the science of chiropractic.
I assume you are referring to my thread on 09/21/2013, 7:33 pm.
It may be a fine point but I would think that it is Intelligence that has the “goal” of maintaining and organizing matter. Force is just doing it’s job of transmitting that goal from Intelligence to Matter. P. 11 says the Forces of UI are unsolicitous. Even then we may be getting into the oldthink (anthropomorphism), do laws have goals or are they the expression of a goal that preceded them. Does the wrench “want” to turn the nut?
Thanx again for stretching my brain.
Steve,
Good point! That’s WHY the major premise begins with: universal intelligence. Universal intelligence is the start point of chiropractic. –
– Do physical laws have goals? Does the law of gravity have a goal? Universal intelligence is the law of organization maintaining energy/matter in existence and innate intelligence is the law of active organization maintaining energy/matter living. Therefore, we must realize that we cannot answer this question philosophically and since this is a chiropractic philosophy blog, you asked a question with an answer that would go beyond chiropractic philosophy.
Hold on Claude kind sir, let’s not dismiss prematurely.
If Intelligence requires matter to be expressed, and only the promotion of living matter allows the continuation of II expression, maybe, just maybe, II is a selfserving Law. Hmmmm, sumtin ta think ’bout (SC accent)
SNSC
Steve,
Thank you for the SC accent… it evokes fond memories! 😉
Principle 1 states: A universal intelligence is in all matter… which means that universal intelligence is intrinsic within matter for existence. Principle 20 states: A “living thing” has an inborn intelligence within its body called innate intelligence… which means that innate intelligence is intrinsic within living matter for life. Without the law of life, living energy/matter would become universal matter. We have designated in previous threads that energy/matter that expresses only universal forces as universal matter or non-living matter. Of course, innate matter also manifest existence and is maintained in existence by universal intelligence. So, universal intelligence and innate intelligence are both laws of organization. The distinction is that innate intelligence is “active organization” (adaptive organization or reorganization for the purpose of adaptation if you will). Laws CANNOT be self serving. Laws a sets of rules for the maintaining of existence and/or life. These laws were created, they did not just happen and since we concluded, together without condemnation, on 2/27/12 that universal intelligence is NOT God, I am repeating that, we must realize that we cannot answer this question philosophically and since this is a chiropractic philosophy blog, you asked a question with an answer that would go beyond chiropractic philosophy.
OK let’s try on the idea that II is ..self supporting…how does this fit? II is expressed via Force in Matter. If it were not for Matter, Force would have no application. How convenient is it that Innate has but one reason for existence, to adapt Force for the organization of Matter, and Matter has but one reason for being organized which is to express the Force of Inteligence. Stay with me now.
P. 3. The Union of Intelligence and Matter. Life is necessarily the union of intelligence and matter. I see this as, each are dependent upon the other.
P. 24. The Limits of Adaptation.
Innate Intelligence adapts forces and matter for the body as long as it can do so without breaking a universal law, or Innate Intelligence is limited by the limitations of matter. This tells me, II will inhabit Matter as long as it is organizable. So, II organizes Matter yet it requires oganized Matter to exist.
As an aside, I thought we had concluded that whether U/I Laws were created or have always existed ( a concept most cannot comprehend) is not whithin our lexicon. P. 1 only recognizes that they are.
SNSC
Don,
You have great questions! As I mentioned (above) 😉 this is where the principles of the science of chiropractic take us. It’s the too much EUF that really concerns us and as Joseph mentioned, the body of the PM will react to it in some consequential way and you will be able to observe and take note WHAT not to do the next visit. The practice of chiropractic is an ART and it’s the “DON TECHNIQUE” that matters to you. Trust it and the rest will follow, I promise. When in doubt, DONT! –
– It is NEVER about the WHAT !!! –
– It is ALWAYS about the WHO !!! 🙂
Dr. Lessard and Steve,
If I use the “Don Technique” and trust it, is that using faith? I have to read up on if chiropractic uses faith as a method of perception/reasoning.
With the issue of fever, I fully agree that there are some quetions regarding frequency of care that have not been answered yet.
To answer your questions.
Determining pathology versus ii adaptation is an unknown and any condition is an incidental to what we do. As I suspected, we all agree here.
Indicators of subluxation are the only actionable causes for an EUF introduction.
You stated that once the subluxation is cleared, and you know this by rechecking, what more can we do?
I’m not sure if I am explaining well enough but your question seems to me to be the definitive difference between what the person who post checks and the person who does not check diverge.
To explain, as I have learned from Dr. Lessard, we deliver the EUF alone (no monitoring innate after technique application). I surmise what an OC/OSC would say is, “we apply the EUF, what more can we do?” This is the pivotal difference here.
Everthing else follows from this.
You and I have assumed that the post-check is completely necessary for so long. What if it is not?
At this point it is all or noting ;( I need an answer to this “too little” force issue.
So, at the risk of not being impartial, I will say this:
IMO, setting arbitrary timelines on when ii should respond is alot more than a personal choice. I believe it has a lot more to do with persons understanding of chiropractic (docotor or recipient) and may even DEFINE if that person is chooseing to practice objective chiropractic or not.
It seems to me that delivering forces into the body with an intent is good. If the intent is to make the body do something, that’s not bad but that may not be chiropractic. Is applying forces using a pre-determined timeline determined our educated intelligence still objective chiropractic?
Steve and Dr. Lessard, you are both much better qualified to answer this than me. So, let me have it. All these slips need to be checked!! 🙂
Don,
Glad you’re down below… 😉 If we assume the veracity of the major premise and if we accept it, we actually trust its veracity and deductively we should “attempt to dismantle” it with rational logic. If we can’t dismantle it with rational logic, the major premise stands strong until dismantled. If you want to use faith and believe it, that’s good too as it is a valid form of perception. –
– Now regarding “too little force” issue, it you WHO chooses to make it an issue. Let me repeat myself: This is where the principles of the science of chiropractic take us. It’s the too much EUF that really concerns us and as Joseph mentioned, the body of the PM will react to it in some consequential way and you will be able to observe and take note WHAT not to do the next visit. The practice of chiropractic is an ART and it’s the “DON TECHNIQUE” that matters to you. Trust it and the rest will follow, I promise. When in doubt, DONT! – 😉
Don,
Joe and Claude are the authorities here. If you want OC listen to them. I have only my experiences and interpretations, as well as a lot of time with the Green Books and the Blue Books amongst others. That said, I do not understand how anyone can “monitor II”, { (no monitoring innate after technique application).} From my understanding you cannot observe the metaphysical. Therefore all we can do is address the physical representation. We look for indicators of Sux. since we can’t measure loss of Force itself.
To say you know where/what indicators of a Sux are before Adjusting but not after does not compute. Findings should change , not their interpretation. If you do not post check for a change in findings then all Adjustments are valued the same. Insufficient, adequate or over thrusting evaluation has little significance if not used for modification of application. Insuficient or adequet can only be distinguished by post checking. Overage often has other more obvious manifestations. If you have faith in your indicators, use them as they were designed to be used. That is, before and after an Adjustment to demonstrate the presence and absence of Subluxations.
Don I hope this all helps more than confuses. Let’s face, it our end goal is that Matter is better coordinated/organized. All of this is so Matter will best express Intelligence. IOW It is the Matter that matters. Do not overly disregard Matter in your pursuit.
Steve,
You stated: “All of this is so Matter will best express Intelligence.” This is not rational logic as principle 13 states: “The function of matter is to express force”. In other words, energy/matter expresses the INSTRUCTIVE INFORMATION created by intelligence. Example: (for Don) 😉 When your father, Dr. Jones was giving you instructive information as HOW to deal with the practice of chiropractic, if you were acquiescing, you were expressing the INSTRUCTIVE INFORMATION of Dr. Jones, your father… you were NOT expressing your father. –
– Then you stated: “IOW It is the Matter that matters.” This is faulty reasoning based on principle 10 which states: The function of force is to UNITE intelligence and matter. In other words, what really matters is the expression of INSTRUCTIVE INFORMATION by energy/matter, so it can be UNITED as intelligence sees fit moment by moment. Following the same example of your father, Dr. Jones, what really mattered in his giving you his instructive information, was that it is you WHO would choose to express them within your limitations to do so. –
– You stated: “Do not overly disregard Matter in your pursuit”. What happened to BJ’s pun? “Christian Science is always mind never matter. Medicine is always matter… never mind”. 😉 Let’s face the FACT that, chiropractic is about FORCE, the link between matter and intelligence, and that the interference with transmission of innate forces is WITHIN the matter, between brain cell and tissue cell. (pri. 28,29,30,31,32). –
– Principle 29 states: There can be interference with the transmission of innate FORCES and since interference with transmission of innate FORCES within the body is ALWAYS directly or indirectly dues to VS (pri.21), it gives rise to the chiropractic objective which is the: LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –
– Now since it is NEVER about the WHAT and it is ALWAYS about the WHO, it is the chiropractor WHO can choose to practice the chiropractic objective. –
– Deducing from rational logic of the 33 principles of the science of chiropractic, philosophically, when a chiropractor WHO chooses to practice ONLY the chiropractic objective, that particular chiropractor is congruent with the 33 principles of the science of chiropractic. –
– PS: It is the 33 principles of the science of chiropractic that are the AUTHORITY of OC. IMO, the person WHO is the authority on the SUBJECT of OC is Joseph B. Strauss. Just look at his vitae… it could fill a book!!! LOL 😉
… directly or indirectly dues to VS (pri.31) NOT (pri.21). Oops!
Dr. Strauss,
I can use all the help I can get here.
So, if you are reading this and if you would be so kind, could you please share your perspective on the “too little” force issue?
Thank you.
Don, after so many replies on this thread, I am not sure what the “too little’ force issue” is any longer. Could you possible reiterate it for me? Thanks.
Dr. Strauss,
Thanks for getting back to me. I’m having some Internet difficulties. I apologize for not getting to you sooner.
Could you share your perspective on these three inquiries please?
1. What is a spinal check and how does it differ from a post check?
2. It has been suggested that OSC/OC has no post check. Could you explain if indicators of subluxation are checked again after EUF introduction. Why or why not?
3. Finally, the issue of too little force, If the forces were too little from the EUF, doesn’t that mean they came in subluxated, were supplied an EUF (in this case one that was too little), got off the table subluxated and will remain that way until their next visit?
In the case of too great a force the OSC/OC can observe bucking, soft tissue strains or fracture but how does the OSC/OC determine if the EUF delivered was too little?
Don: 1.I think the point that was being made is that there is only spinal check which may be done prior to delivering an EUF, on minute after (or less), 5 minutes after, 5 hours after o 5 days after. Some may refer to one or more of these spinal checks as a “post check”. They are all being done for the same reason, to see if the individual is subluxated or not. Is there another reason to check the spine (to determine whether it was a good or bad adjustment?[sarcasm])
2.Doing a spinal check after a EUF has been introduced is for one purpose, to see if the ii of the body is doing something with the force I introduced. If it appears to be utilizing that force, I have to decide what to do. My usual choice is to leave it alone and check the person later. It may use that force and the force of getting in the car to go home to correct the vs. It may be insufficient to correct the Vs and in 24 hours, I may assume they have gone through their normal days activities and if still subluxated, I may introduce another EUF.
3. Our job is to introduce an EUF to set the bone in motion toward the direction that he ii of the body appears to want to move it. If I am confident that I have done that I can and should do no more. The PM’s body can and should do the rest. I’m sure others have different criteria for their procedure and I would hope that they would add to this already lengthy but valuable discussion.
Joe,
Would you explain how II stores a force for latter use. I would think every force that enters the body, EUF or IUF(Ignorant Universal Force), would be a separate event . If II’s action is to adapt force, wouldn’t each new force introduced be adapted or not adapted at the time of it’s introduction? If it is not adapted, as in Don’s question of insufficient EUF, what happens to the unadapted Force? My guess is that it is absorbed as a sub-threshold force incapable of generating or (being used in) correcting a Sux. Just like, not every fall produces a Sux., and not every fall produces an “accidental correction” ( BJ’s term for unintentional forces adapted to correct SUX.)
Joe,
You have succinctly laid the post check and spinal check issue I had to rest. Thank you!!
All spinal checks are performed with the intent of seeing if the ii of the body [has done] something with the force introduced to it.
My insert in parenthesis. I changed doing something purposefully. Let me know if this needs to be corrected.
Spinal checks are done for the same reason seeing if the ii of the body has done something with the force.
They can be done before or after the EUF.
If after it can be immediately, 5 seconds, 5minutes, or 5 days.
The outcome of the spinal check is that they are either subluxated or not.
#3 I am not sure your response answers the question #3.
Dr. Lessard has said that this is as far as the 33 takes us and it takes us no further. Let me know if you agree.
Could the chiropractor be confident and the vs still remains in place?
Would you agree that the absence of vs indicators are not what the OC/OSC is looking for but something else? If you can, please explain what that is.
I’m sorry for being unrelenting with this inquiry.
Thank you for your time and patience…especially your PATIENCE Joe! 🙂
My pleasure Don.
Joe,
Could the chiropractor be confident and the vs still remains in place?
Would you agree that the absence of vs indicators are not what the OC/OSC is looking for but something else? If you can, please explain what that is?
Don, Q1 Answer: sure we are only human. Q2 Answer: the most common indicator is nothing at all if you mean sign or symptom in the medical sense. If you mean “chiropractic indicator”, a “working” muscle is what he OSC/OC is looking for. Can you think of anything else that might be a chiropractic indicator of a VS (a response)?
Don,
All spinal checks are done to detect the presence or absence of Sux. As you put it (10/01/2013, 8:41 pm) “All spinal checks are performed with the intent of seeing if the ii of the body [has done] something with the force introduced to it.” this could only be possible as a “post check/recheck. Also, you did not specify as to what kind of Force. Intentional/EUF or accidental/IUF would qualify in your statement.
Joe,
As Dr. Lessard already knows I like examples. Here is one I hope you can lay to rest as succinctly as you did my spinal check question! 🙂
An OSC/OC is confident and repeatedly delivers forces that are too little. How does we determine the force was too little?
IOW, I presume the observant practitioner will be cautious in delivering too many or too great a force and modify as necessary.
Is it incumbent on this same practitioner to observe and be cautious, observant and modify forces that are too little?
If yes, in your opinion, what would he or she look for before, during or after the EUF introduction?
Joe,
Re-posting this one for your feedback…
As Dr. Lessard (and you) already knows I like examples. Here is one I hope you can lay to rest as succinctly as you did my spinal check question! 🙂
An OSC/OC is confident and repeatedly delivers forces that are too little.
Q1)How does he determine the force was too little?
IOW, I presume the observant practitioner will be cautious in delivering too many or too great a force and modify as necessary.
Q2)Is it incumbent on this same practitioner to observe and be cautious, observant and modify forces that are too little? Why or why not?
Q3)If yes, in your opinion, what would he or she look for before, during or after the EUF introduction?
____
Thanks Joe!
Don, I had replied to this post when you originally asked it. Apparently it is in the ether world or wherever old post go to die. My apologies.
Q1 Answer: By his spinal check which indicates that the ii of the P.M’s body is not responding o the EUF.
Q2. Answer: I would say so. Of course too little force has less potential for a UF reaction than does too much force.
Q3. Answer: What the ii of the body is attempting but failing to do in correcting the VS (before)
(after) what he body is doing as a result of the EUF. If there is a change in the working muscle, I would check again later or on the next visit.
Joe,
Thank you for retrieving it from the ether world!
😉
JoeStrauss 10/10/2013, 1:08 am:
Don, I had replied to this post when you originally asked it. Apparently it is in the ether world or wherever old post go to die. My apologies.
Q1 Answer: By his spinal check which indicates that the ii of the P.M’s body is not responding o the EUF.
Q2. Answer: I would say so. Of course too little force has less potential for a UF reaction than does too much force.
Q3. Answer: What the ii of the body is attempting but failing to do in correcting the VS (before)
(after) what he body is doing as a result of the EUF. If there is a change in the working muscle, I would check again later or on the next visit.
Claude,
In the critical analysis Matter expresses Force because of Intelligence. The end product is that Matter is organized. Intelligence and Force do not profit from Chiropractic care, only Matter does. Yes Chiropractic acknowledges Intelligence and deals with or focuses on Force, but it is so Matter will benifit. In your example, why do you think dad instilled his knowledge in me? It was so I could better serve the patients or the Matter of my practice. Chiropractic Art, Science and Philosophy are all designed to teach us how to assist matter in prosperity. I do not serve Intelligence or Force, for they are laws and products of laws, I do all this to better serve (improve the Matter in) my people. Truly the better I understand and honor these laws and applications the better I may serve. Chiropractic is about Life, we deal with Force because it is, in our opinion, the criticle and most influencable aspect of the Triune that is Life. It could be said that Matter displays Life by expressing Force in the presence of Intelligence.
If Chiropractic is not humbly done so the person that receives it has more Life in their body then it could only be so the Dr can egotisticly promote his/her view of the universe.
You stated, “what really matters is the expression of INSTRUCTIVE INFORMATION by energy/matter, so it can be UNITED as intelligence sees fit moment by moment.” . Tell me Claude, why does that matter? WHY do YOU CHOOSE to do WHAT YOU do???
Intelligence/Chiropractic, Force/Adjustment, or Matter/Practice Member. Which of the three is your Raison d’etre?
SNSC
I am but a small portion of limited matter attempting to express all the intelligence I can adapt for transmission through this vehicle of communication. I truly thank you all for all the adjustments. (Not a bad statement for my headstone if I do say so myself) 😉
My thoughts: We all address the matter.
The practice of medicine addresses the matter for the purpose of changing/improving the matter.
The practice of chiropractic addresses the matter for the purpose of changing /improving the force so the intelligence can change the matter.
Don,
Since it is the innate intelligence of the body that generates vertebral adjustment and NOT the chiropractor, what concerns is “too little” EUF to the chiropractor? VS is addressed is it not? The PMs are under regular care are they not? UF are created by universal intelligence and are limitless and are ALWAYS available to the innate intelligence of the body are they not? The adjustic thrust that you perform on the subluxated vertebra is an educated guess is it not? WHY would you second guess your primary guess? WHEN would you be satisfied, second guess?… third guess?… What would your be rational logic? UFs are the domain of universal intelligence. The adjustic thrust is the domain of the chiropractor. The vertebral adjustment is the domain of the innate intelligence of body.
I think we need to clarify the difference between a vertebral adjustment and a correction of subluxation. Innate Intelligence can not adjust a Sux., it is by definition beyond the LOM, which II must work within. If II could adjust all Subluxations there would be no need for Chiropractic. If the “working muscle” could move the bone II would not need additional force. Yes II can use other forces in correcting Sux, but a fall down the stairs is not an adjustment even if it results in a correction. A trip on a snowy sidewalk is a manipulation (general, nonspecific force) that may or may not result in a Sux. or a correction. The terms Educated Universal Force or Adjustic Thrust implies we have focused on the site of interference and are attempting to use a sufficient force, as the most effective and least damaging intervention to assist II. Adjusting is a method, correction is a result.
If we are going to be precise, Chiropractors do not LACVS. Chiropractors locate, analyze and adjust Subluxations to facilitate their correction by Innate Intelligence.
Steve are you saying that vertebral subluxation did not exist until 1895 or that none was adjusted until that date. From your post that is the only two conclusions that I can draw. Perhaps I am misreading your statement.
Joe,
Sux predated Chiro. just as gravity predated Newton. What did not exist prior to 1895 was the Adjustment. When DD laid hand to bone in order to remove interference a new concept came into being. That man with his limited education could assist II in the correction of Sux. by Adjusting individual vertebra. It was not II that unlocked Harvey’s spine, it was DD. Nor was it DD that restored Harvey’s hearing, that was done when II corrected the Sux. and transmission was restored. II has always had UF to work with but it is only on rare occasions that a fall or bump exceeds LOM precisely enough to facilitate a correction. It is the scientific Chiropractic Adjustment, discovered in 1895, that most often leads to correction of Sux. by II. Chiropractors Adjust, Innate Intelligence corrects.
Steve, is your point a correction occurs by a “bump” or “fall” occurring on “rare occasions” (how do you know that?) and an adjustment occurred only since 1895 and only by the hands of a chiropractor. Just trying to understand your technical language.
A correction occurs only if and when II can adapt sufficient force. That force can come from an “accident” or be intentionally delivered by a Chiro. I believe we have proven Chiropractic Adjustments increase this occurrence well over those of an accidental nature. I personally have never tried pushing my folks down the stairs or the old hit em with a shovel but I am confident EUF outranks IUF.
Steve,
Please re-visit our glossary about educated universal forces, adjustic thrust and vertebral adjustment. –
– As per definition, an adjustic thrust is NOT a vertebral adjustment. It is an introduction of an EUF which is a guess. –
– As per definition, a vertebral adjustment is the innate intelligence of the PM’s body adapting the EUF into a IF for the purpose correcting VS. –
– As a side note, VS further limits the TRANSMITTING matter. When the innate intelligence of the body generates a vertebral adjustment by adapting a UF, it restores the LOM to its original limitations, it NEVER goes beyond since innate intelligence adapts forces and matter for the body as long as it can do so without breaking a universal law (pri.24). Whether it is a UF from an accidental fall or an EUF intended by a chiropractor that is adapted by the innate intelligence of the body, it is ALWAYS accomplished WITHIN universal laws as innate intelligence is ALWAYS normal (pri.27).
Steve,
Please, re-read my post of 10/04/13 3:21pm
Claude,
Please reread my thread. I did not say EUF/AT were adjustments. I said they were components of the adjustment process. They are the mechanical aspect of our part of the intervention we call an Adjustment. Other aspects would be pre and post analysis and intention (that II will correct). I would contend that a physical therapist applies an EUF and an Osteopath an adjustic thrust, but only Chiropractors Adjust spines.
With all due respect I am challenging the definition as written in the glossary. A Vertebral Adjustment can not be performed by II alone because it requires more force than the body can generate on it’s own. P. 24 says II can not surpass the LOM. If a Sux. is created by an external force greater than internal resistance (LOM), then it will take a force greater than resistance (LOM) coupled with Innate Intelligence to remove it. I say again, II cannot correct a Sux. on it’s own, unless you believe II can create accidents (IUF) to promote it’s own agenda. Oh wait, that would violate P.25.
II corrects Sux., Chiropractors Adjust spines to encourage and assist.
What is IEF? It isn’t in the glossary.
I think it stands for Ignorant Universal Force but I cannot find the common definition for this term.
I am also not sure of the difference between it and Universal Forces.
Steve, how do you define it and are all UF’s either EUF or IUF’s?
Thanks.
Steve,
In the Chinese census of 2010, there was 1.3 billion people living in China with about 20 registered chiropractors. HOW does the innate intelligence of the body of 1.3 billion people correct VS if not by generating vertebral adjustments by adapting UF on a constant basis? Innate intelligence is generating vertebral adjustments ALL the time… we, all of us, just did not know that before, and now we know it deductively. –
– We ALL stand on the shoulder of our chiropractic ancestors, and rightly so. Yet, with all due respect to DD, when you state that: “When DD laid hand to bone in order to remove interference a new concept came into being”, that is not true. DD did NOT know interference to innate forces existed on Sept. 18, 1895. DD had no notion in his mind about VS and its correction and therefore could NOT lay his hands with that intent in mind. It was a lucky thrust ( a crude shove as BJ called it) that DD did and it was this “accidental” EUF that was introduced that happened to be adapted by the innate intelligence of Harvey’s body that generated a vertebral adjustment and corrected the VS. Furthermore, when this historic event took place, DD thought he had found the cure for deafness. That was NOT the beginning of a NEW concept of LACVS. It was pushing on bumps of the back to cure diseases. The concept of VS came along a few years later. –
Dr. Lessard,
The innate intelligence of the body does generate the vertebral adjustment NOT the chiropractor.
The domain of the chiropractor is to offer/deliver an EUF (adjustic thrust) in hope that it will be used to make an correction.
IMO, the logic is that the domain of the chiropractor is to address the VS.
In addition to addressing, (and this is where we may vary in opinion) the chiropractor also chooses to refine his practice of delivering forces in HOPE that he can deliver a force that is ii can use for the correction and is neither “too great” or “too little”. This is done because that is the pursuit of mastery of our domain thus leaving the rest to ii.
A thought here. II does not generate Vertebral Adjustments, it completes them.
Steve,
Of course it completes the adjustic thrust, which is an EUF as an educated guess anyway, into a vertebral adjustment, the same way a fall is an “accidental” UF and is completed by innate intelligence into a vertebral adjustment. –
– Does a VS which is a vertebra OUT of juxtaposition along with the other three components, require a vertebral adjustment to be put back IN juxtaposition?
No Claude, I don’t think so. Whether the force is a EUF or an IUF matters not to II I’m sure, as long as II can adapt the force for use in correcting the juxt./Sux.. It does however require that additional force (EUF/IUF) that II is incapable of generating. II is adaptive not creative when it comes to force.
It seems only logical that if an IUF (or EUF) is so overwhelming that it is unadapted and exceeds LOM, locking the articulations, that creates a Sux.. Then II, which must operate within the LOM, would be unable to unlock and deconstruct the Sux. without another (adaptable) force. If that force is too little no correction occurs. If that force is too much another Sux, or worse is the result. Not every Adjustment is perfect.
As you stated (10/05/2013, 1:43 pm:) “These UFs are setting the vertebra into motion to an extent such as some of these UFs are adapted by the innate intelligence of the body which generates a vertebral adjustment”. Setting the vertebra in motion is the required initial step to an Adjustment. My point is II can not “set the vertebra in motion” on it’s own, so generating is the wrong word. II completes the Adjustment. We (EUF) and the occasional accident (IUF) are the generators.
Just because: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz9RAs5dXOQ
… also, it is a concussion of forces that puts the vertebra out of JUXTAPOSITION with the vertebra above, the one below or both, to an extent less than a luxation which occludes an opening, impinge upon a nerve and interferes with the transmission of mental impulses. It is called VS. So, in order for VS to be put back in JUXTAPOSITION, a VERTEBRAL ADJUSTMENT is required, not necessarily an adjustic thrust. It’s definitely the innate intelligence of the body that generates vertebral adjustments in order to put back in proper JUXTAPOSITION the vertebra that was out of JUXTAPOSITION by adapting UFs (educated or not) into IFs within limitation of matter and time. These UFs are setting the vertebra into motion to an extent such as some of these UFs are adapted by the innate intelligence of the body which generates a vertebral adjustment thereby restoring the FLOW of mental impulses between brain cell and tissue cell. The limitation of transmitting matter is then eliminated which brings the overall limitation of matter to its original pre-determined genetic state. The entire process is done without breaking a universal law.
Claude,
How many people from any country have gone to bed with a Sux. and awaken without. No way to know how often or even if it happens. We, as far as I know have nothing but supposition this takes place. As you say a “concussion of forces”, II cannot produce a COF. II adapts external invadeing forces, it does not create them. I have never disagreed with II restoring juxtaposition therefore transmission, just that II is capable of doing it alone. It takes sufficient incoming force to overcome articular locking which is not likely produced by a roll over in bed. You know as well as I an audible click or wakeing refreshed means nothing, with regards to presence or absence of Sux.. If II could adjust vertebrea we would all be Sux, free.
DD may not have had Chiropractic fleshed(pmp) out in 1895, but he was first to discover we could make a difference, in some one elses spine and nerve system. That Adjustment not only birthed a profession but changed mankind as well, in our ability to serve another. What DD did know, according to his writings, was that something was interfering with the nerve system. With all respect to him, I and millions of others are extreamly greatful he “pushed that bump”. Regardless of what he knew or didn’t know, or even how it was described, he did the same thing in his office to Harvey that you and I do every day. He identified, analyzed, adjusted, and monitored the Sux. Why didn’t Harvey’s own II correct his Sux.? He had 15 years of deafness, what was II waiting for?
SNSC
Steve,
Law does NOT wait. It rules. The law of gravity does not wait to hold your two feet on the ground. It just does what it does. Innate intelligence is the law of active organization (life) and does not wait to adapt universal forces and matter. It just does what it does. It controls “living things” and keep them living within the limitation of matter and time. –
– I know it is difficult to let go of the tentacles of antropomorphism and the personification of innate intelligence. It will take time to “heal” that deep wound in the chiropractor’s psyche. Yet, it is what it is. I got what you said. I accept the way you are and the way you are not and I want to get whatever you have to say. Thank you for “rolling in the deep” with all of us. –
Claude,
The point is II corrected Harvey’s Sux. only after DD Adjusted his spine.
II adapts force it does not create it. An Adjustment requires an input of force, realignment requires instructive information, or adapted force. Input and adaptation are two different things. The Chiro. provides the force input durring the Adjustment, after which II may or may not correct the Sux.. Not all Adjustments are sucessful and result in an II correction. In fact DD’s first two attempts were insufficient. That II is necessary for a successful correction only means II is a component, an external force is also a component. The Adjustment supplies the external force. (EUF)
Don,
IUF, Ignorant Universal Force, is any non-educated, unadapted UF. I find it easier to type than falls, bumps, accidental impacts or any other assorted indiscriminate external invadeing force. IMHO there are only two possibilities, EUF or IUF, that II can use in the adaptation phase of the complete normal cycle to create IF for correcting a Sux..
SNSC
Steve,
Please explain to me HOW universal intelligence can create ignorant instructive information that gives energy/matter all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence?
ig·no·rant
ˈignərənt/
adjective
1.
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Your definition supplies the description, uneducated.
As for awareness, I think we touched on this term before. It would seem “awareness” is an anthro. left over. Laws are constant, perception/awareness of the matter in which they work would be unneccessary. Since we agree gavity does not wait, can we agree gravity is not aware of your pesence. Nor is gravity affected by it’s interaction with you. So it would seem UI being unsolicitous and unswerving is also unaware.
When you cioned the term Educated Universal Force (EUF) to describe the Chiropractic Adjustic Thrust as a somewhat adapted UF (by our Educated Intelligence), the logical counter-term would be Ignorant Universal Force (IUF), to describe any other (unadapted) UF applied to the body. As an example, a fall produces an impact with the ground. That impact produces a UF that is lacking in knowledge of the body. It is unaware, uneducated and unsophisticated as well as unfocused and uncontrolled. A fall creates an IUF.
IOW, UFs by definition are ignorant as far as organizing Matter into a living state, no? SNSC
Steve,
Does it seem rather inconsistent to label the intelligence that runs the universe, ignorant.? Yet, I understand fully what you are saying. Do you remember that we posted, way back, about VS interfering with the TRANSMISSION of mental impulse with intelligent direction (IFconstructive toward structural matter) that were reverted back to a nerve impulse without intelligent direction (UF deconstructive toward structural matter)? Does “without intelligent direction” clarify your point? I would like to get inputs from many more people about this.
Just as the universe has intelligence, UF has instructive information toward matter, it is NOT “without intelligent direction” for basic matter. Our terms EUF and IUF related only to types of force specifically applied to the body
Maybe crude or undeveloped or raw or basic or foundational or just plain, even uneducated would be possibilities to counter EUF. Personally I think I like raw as well as ignorant…… IUF or RUF vs. EUF. Raw however, like ignorant has negative connotations as well. But, check out 2.a&c. below.
raw (rô)
adj. raw·er, raw·est
1. Uncooked: raw meat.
2.
a. Being in a natural condition; not processed or refined: raw wool. See Synonyms at crude.
b. Not finished, covered, or coated: raw wood. See Synonyms at rude.
c. Not having been subjected to adjustment, treatment, or analysis: raw data; the raw cost of production.
3. Untrained and inexperienced: raw recruits.
4. Recently finished; fresh: raw plaster.
5. Having subcutaneous tissue exposed: a raw wound.
6. Inflamed; sore: a raw throat.
7. Unpleasantly damp and chilly: raw weather.
8. Cruel and unfair: a raw punishment.
9. Outspoken; crude: a raw portrayal of truth.
10. Powerfully impressive; stark: raw beauty; raw talent.
11. Nude; naked.
Thanks Steve. Maybe after some refining and clarification, that term will be added to the glossary.
Joe,
Please read my post of 10/05/2013, 12:36 am.
Steve,
So, what you are saying is that we perform the adjusting thrust to set the vertebra into motion and innate intelligence generates the vertebral adjustment by putting IN proper juxtaposition the affected vertebra. That is consistent with the 33 principles, since innate intelligence is ALWAYS normal (pri.28) and the educated of the chiropractor has no clue as to WHERE the vertebra should be positioned.
No Claude,
I am trying to say the Adjustment consists of
1. identification/location
2. analysis
3. EUF/AT
4. response/adaptation by II
5. realignment/return of juxtaposition
6. correction of SUX./restored transmission
It takes all 6 steps or components to make an ADJUSTMENT
If you skip 1 & 2 you are manipulating, if 4 & 5 & 6 do not occur you have a manipulation or an unsuccessful adjustment.
The generator or first physical change is the thrust (or IUF), without it there is no II response, nothing to adapt. We must consider the source of the force. A fall or even a manipulation can lead to Correction but is not an Adjustment.
I don’t Adjust Sux., I Adjust spines hoping II will correct the Sux. in that spine.
When I first started reading this blog I remember reading, Chiropractors do not LACVS. They Locate, Analyze, and Facilitate the Correction of Vertebral Subluxations. I would have to say now, the Adjustment is the best way we know to facilitate an Innate Correction
Steve,
Where, in your opinion, does the vertebra belong for proper juxtaposition? You have to know that in order to adjust anything, otherwise you are performing ONLY an adjustic thrust.
Steve, thanks for the interesting points of view. Some input, if I may: perhaps we need to make a distinction between adjustment and Adjustment. An adjustment is what a specific chiropractor does by virtue of any technique that LACVS (specific refers to intent, not a particular technique). It consists of what you so eruditely describe in steps 1-6. However Adjustment is done by the ii of the PM’s body and is steps 4-6. It occurs by the use of any UF (by the ii of the PM’s body) The issue for discussion is step 3. I’m not sure what AT means and EUF would be what you are calling a manipulation and might be more correctly termed a U(uneducated) UF or a UUF. Anyone can manipulate/introduce a UUF a person but they may or may not facilitate an Adjustment (bring about steps 4-6). Only a chiropractor who correctly LACVS can make an adjustment which brings about an Adjustment, a much greater percentage of the time. Thoughts on that?
AT is Adjustic Thrust, as we previously called it, an EUF(now Claude has revised his opinion of the designation EUF)
Without steps 1 & 2 any contact with the spine is a manipulation as a Sux. is a specific entity that must first be identified. I whole heartedly disagree with the big A little a, and think it is confusing. Chiropractors Adjust vertebra, II corrects Sux.. An Adjustment requires both to be successful, not all are. A manipulation by a person or accidental impact may also result in an II correction but that is NOT an Adjustment that is simply an opportunistic Correction.
If an “opportunistic Correction”, a manipulation and an chiropractic adjustment all can result in an “ii correction”, what’s the difference except that the chiropractic adjustment feeds the already overinflated ego of the specific (intent not technique) chiropractor? Further, how do you determine the difference between an ii correction that is the result of an opportunistic correction (what you call an “accidental impact”), a manipulation and a specific chiropractic adjustment?
The goal of an Adjustment is a Correction, is it not? One is a procedure the other a result.
The difference is that one (Chiro. Adj.) happens most of the time and the other (opp. Cor.) only rarely. The opportunistic/ accidental Correction most often comes with additional trauma. The specific (not tech.) Chiropractic Adjustment hopefully comes with minimal physical cost to the receiver. Equating the OC with the CA is short sighted and demeaning to the Chiropractic profession. The end result may be the same but I refuse to throw people down the stairs and hope for the best, and then charge them for it.
Steve,
Upon further thoughts into the nature of the adjustic thrust and deeper understanding of the concepts, the adjustic thrust requires an educated force (EF) which is a force of the body used by educated intelligence for so called voluntary actions. It’s not a universal force, it is a force of the living body. –
– universal intelligence creates universal forces to maintain energy/matter in existence. –
– innate intelligence adapts universal forces and matter (matter, here, includes educated forces as being adapted forces of the living body by educated intelligence) into innate forces for the purpose of maintaining the body of a “living thing” in active organization. –
– educated intelligence uses forces of the body and adapts them into educated forces for the purpose of so called voluntary actions of a “living thing”. –
– Notice that: (instructive information giving energy/matter its properties and actions, thereby maintaining it in existence)… (instructive information giving living energy/matter coordinated action all the parts of its body, thereby maintaining it alive)… (instructive information giving living energy/matter so called voluntary action, thereby adapting to its environment). –
… of course it’s about UF—IF—EF
Interesting that EUF is now changing or being replaced by a new term, EF.
There may be more significant implications to this than meets the eye.
For that reason I will be satisfied, for now, to accept that ii of the body simply uses all forces regardless of origin to adapt for its purposes.
My force provided may be less useful being body checked by Guy Lafleur but I continually refine them to avoid being a “too great” a force. I still have questions about “too small” a force and the consequences of that. For now, and until I can “manipulate” and answer out of someone here 🙂
I will……”when I doubt…I do not.” Thanks Dr. Lessard, Joe and Steve.
Claudius my deep friend,
I have some questions for you to ponder brother.
Does the physical brain adapt or create educated force? What is the sorce of that force, UI, II, EI? (P. 8 & 23)
Then is physical matter adapting metaphysical force, can this be right? (P.13)
Can there be interference to EF? (P.12 & 29)
Does EF transmit organizational instructive information to the receiver, through matter?(P.28) If it is unadapted for the living material of the receiver it is indeed a UF for that body, is it not?
You write – innate intelligence adapts universal forces and matter (matter, here, includes educated forces as being adapted forces of the living body by educated intelligence)…I’m not sure how matter is adapted ? Matter is maintained by UF and organized by IF. Matter can not be force and express force simultainiously can it?(P.23)
SNSC
Pandora’s box? Or not?
This thread is getting interesting….and longer.
It is what it seems to me. Unbridled inquiry. 🙂
Steve,
Very well Steve. Let us inquire, together without condemnation, into the nature of the force used by educated intelligence for so called voluntary function. –
– It is your educated body that you use to perform an adjustic thrust is it not? When it you WHO choose to perform an adjustic thrust, what is the nature of the force that you choose to use to accomplish this task? –
– In other words, what is the nature of the impulses you choose to use and where do these impulses come from? Innate brain or educated brain, or both?
… of course the impulses I’m asking about are the ones you use to MOVE your educated body and, with your educated intelligence, direct your educated body to perform an adjustic thrust.
That’s what I’m asking you
Steve,
The nature of the impulses you choose to use, with your educated intelligence to MOVE your educated body and give instructive information to your educated body to perform an adjustic thrust are MENTAL impulses supplied from innate brain through the educated brain which gives rise to so called voluntary functions. Of course, the cells of your educated body are innate body when it concerns metabolism and the so called involuntary functions. –
– Now, the next question is: Since it is you WHO choose to use mental impulses adapted by the innate intelligence of your body in order to give instructive information to your educated body, do you realize that these mental impulses come from WITHIN your innate brain via your physical brain and your educated brain, and that it is you WHO choose to use your educated intelligence to “somewhat adapt” them to your intent in order to perform your adjustic thrust which is an EDUCATED guess?
” are MENTAL impulses supplied from innate brain through the educated brain” ….you seem very close to saying MI/IF is readapted and expressed as volentary functions. (a metaphysical adapted by a physical) Matter expresses Force it does not adapt it.
I think I would be more comfortable assuming the Educated Brain functions as it does due to the nature of it’s construction. Just as adreanal glands produce adrenalin as a function of their makeup/design and II regulates their function in order to coordinate production with the needs of the body at the moment.
As a child we learn (EB) to control muscles like we learn language, trial and error. The Adjustic thrust is also a learned behavior. I would think II maintains the Educated Brain yet does not pass MI through it. MIs are designed to keep all the brain cells working together, in harmony with the rest of the body. Educated Intelligence would be a product of matter like adrenalin is.
The extension of the EB is the volentary nerve system, at the end of which is volentary muscles. I can not see a direct connection between Laws of Organization (II) and me snapping my fingers, other than II makes it possible by maintaining my brain, nerves , muscles, and bones in existance. The Adjustic Thrust is a product of Matter(EB) working through Matter (muscle, bone, ligaments,etc.).
IMO The muscles that are involved in the AT are driven by electo-chemical power, a measurable material entity, Nerve Impulse. A physical force not a metaphysical one. Educated Physical Force or EPF would differentiate this Force from a metaphysical Force such as UF or IF, if this is your desire.
Next inquiry, No I don’t think II is involved in my ability or desire to Adjust my people, other than maintaing my body in existance so I can CHOOSE to do it. II may however over time, adapt and develope my body to do it better through conditioning.
OK tired and going to bed and think about it some more, I look forward to your response.
SNSC
Steve,
Educated intelligence is a product of matter. Educated body is all the tissue that is supplied by the innate brain through the educated brain ALL the mental impulses that it needs. The function of the educated brain is reason, memory, learning and the so called voluntary functions. Being made of tissues, the educated brain is supplied with mental impulses by innate intelligence. It is an organ used by innate intelligence for some specific functions the same way that adrenal glands or kidneys are used by innate intelligence for some specific functions. –
– It is NOT the whole physical brain. It exist and its location is unknown. Some of if is mapped by anatomists and physiologists… yet much of its location has not been discovered as of yet. –
– One of the many functions of the educated brain is that innate intelligence uses it to “add a different code” to the mental impulses and store them, so these NEW SPECIFICALLY CODED mental impulses can be CONSCIOUSLY directed at will for so called voluntary functions by YOU. –
– It is through the five senses that the educated brain receives environmental informations that is used by innate intelligence for the purpose of meeting the constant needs of energy/matter. Some of these environmental informations are kept as “cellular memory” as we well know today through the new science, even though the mechanism by which this takes place is not known. –
– Can you “see” that for you to perform an adjustic thrust, which is an educated guess, you must use you educated intelligence to tap in the reservoir of “new specifically coded” mental impulses stored away in your educated brain by innate intelligence, in order to voluntarily and at will, MOVE your educated body accordingly?
Two things strike me odd. First you insist that EB which is Matter, adapts force ( “add a different code” to the mental impulses). Second, this notion of storing MI (reservoir of “new specifically coded” mental impulses stored away)
Cellular memory is a function of Matter is it not? II being 100% and a Law should not need a memory of past events, it does not learn.
As you state so eloquently in your first paragraph, “The function of the educated brain is reason, memory, learning and the so called voluntary functions. Being made of tissues, the educated brain is supplied with mental impulses by innate intelligence.”…I can agree EB is organized and maintained by II to interact with the external environment. I do not understand EB consciously controlling MI. An Adjustment is a physical act for the giver, physical and metaphysical for the receiver.
Steve,
Go back and read what I wrote: ” One of the many functions of the educated brain is that INNATE INTELLIGENCE USES it to “add a different code” to the mental impulses and store them, so these NEW SPECIFICALLY CODED mental impulses can be CONSCIOUSLY directed at will for so called voluntary functions by YOU”. –
– The educated brain does NOT adapt force. Innate intelligence does!!! Innate intelligence uses the educated brain to further adapt the mental impulse by vesting it with a NEW CODE specific for use by educated intelligence. The “new specifically coded” mental impulses by innate intelligence, are those impulses stored in your educated brain ready to be used by your educated intelligence in order to voluntarily and at will, MOVE your educated body accordingly. HOW ELSE DOES IT HAPPEN? Where does your educated intelligence gets its supply of “new specifically coded” impulses to MOVE your educated body?
… principle 23 states that “the function of innate intelligence is to adapt universal forces and MATTER for use in the body.
Yes Claude Intelligence adapts Matter, not the other way around. The EB is Matter so it can not adapt Force it can only express Force. P.13
Steve,
Again it’s innate intelligence that adapts those forces used for so called voluntary functions by vesting them with a “new specific code” and stores them for in the educated brain for use by innate intelligence. It’s ALWAYS intelligence that adapts forces and it’s ALWAYS matter that express forces. –
– When educated intelligence uses these impulses vested with new specific codes stored in the educated brain, educated intelligence does use them for so called voluntary action and guide them voluntarily and at will. So, when those impulses are used by educated they become instructive information in order to MOVE the educated body and that includes performing an adjustic thrust which is WHY the adjustic thrust is an EDUCATED guess.
… mental impulses supplying educated body come from innate brain by way of educated brain since some of the impulses are vested with a “new specific code” by innate intelligence and are stored in the educated brain to be used by educated intelligence for so called voluntary functions. There are two types of mental impulses: some coded by innate intelligence for so called involuntary functions such as metabolism and some coded by innate intelligence and stored in the educated brain for so called voluntary function such as moving educated body voluntarily educated intelligence and the will.
I always thought the AT was an educated guess because we can never know exactly where a bone should be at any given moment in time, only II “knows”. We locate and analyze as best as we can physically, to conceptualize the point of interference to a metaphysical Force, trying to move that bone in the best direction. That is why it is an educated guess.
Claude, would you please site your sources for twice adapted forces “stored” in the EB, I can find nothing on it.
… such as moving the educated body voluntarily BY educated intelligence and the will.
My understanding was that all the body is the Innate Body (structure, metabolism, coordination) Some of the body is Educated Body, directed by Educated Brain for voluntary function. II does not concern itself with learned functions like playing music, giving Adjustments or choosing a gray shirt.
Steve,
The adjustic thrust is an EDUCATED guess due to the fact the adjustic thrust is determined by EDUCATED intelligence which is fallible. On the other hand, it is the infallible innate intelligence that will adapt universal forces and/or educated forces and generate from those adapted force a vertebral adjustment. –
– Universal forces are NOT twice adapted by innate intelligence. Innate intelligence adapts some universal forces and vest them with
a “specific code” for so called involuntary functions of innate body and adapts some universal forces and vest them with different “specific code” for so called voluntary functions of educated body. –
– Innate intelligence adapts universal forces ONLY once due to principle 27… there is no need to recode. I used the word NEW to stress that the mental impulse is different for so called involuntary functions as compared to so called voluntary functions. It’s the code that dictates the type of instructive information that innate intelligence “marks” the impulse with, that determines whether that impulse will be used for so called involuntary functions or so called voluntary functions. BJ and RWS used the term “tincture”. There is NO way that BJ and RWS could ever develop the understanding of code. The notion of computer language was not in their consciousness. So, the best they could come up with was “tincture”.
My understanding of “tincture” was the effect EB had on the MI as it pased through. BJ attributed all action in the human experience to II. The EB due to being made of Matter was incapable of perfect transmission. BJ wrote of Sux between IB and EB further reducing the purity of MIs received in and expressed in the EB as thoughts and volentary action. It seems this “II does it all” idea is hard to shake.
In order for II to create MIs for storage it would have to anticipate the future and then trust the less than perfect EB to warehouse and distribute “new” MIs accurately.
For someone to say the code is different for one type of tissue than it is for another, wouldn’t they have to know the code? Again I don’t recall this and would love some references.
voluntary
Sorry No Spell Check
No Steve. ONLY the already coded mental impulses for so called voluntary functions of educated body which are consciously guided are stored in the educated brain. NOT the already coded mental impulses for so called involuntary functions that are ONLY under the control of innate intelligence. –
– For example, when you consciously MOVE you educated body in such a way as to perform an adjustic thrust, you use mental impulses with a specific code for so called voluntary functions and voluntarily guides them according to your will. Your do NOT have access to mental impulses with a specific code for so called involuntary functions which are under the sole control of innate intelligence as in the function of the pancreas to produce insulin. –
– The functions of educated brain is for reason, memory, learning and the so called voluntary functions and can be consciously used by you for the purpose of adapting to the environment. In order for you to consciously give instructive information to educated body, you need to guide mental impulses with specific codes for so called voluntary functions, like using your pisiform to perform an adjustic thrust. The reservoir of coded impulses for voluntary functions is within the educated brain stored as reason, memory, percepts, education, etc… –
– An infant at birth has very few percepts, little memory, no education, and has a very limited ability to reason. That’s why the infant needs protection by the parents. The educated intelligence of the infant, which is the capability of the educated brain to function, is close to zero, yet the educated brain of the infant as an organ is 100% or less depending on if there is any damage to the brain. The infant can only guide a few impulses with specific codes for so called voluntary functions which is basically about forcing air and sounds out of the body to get attended to. –
– Why is it so difficult for you to conceive that there are different codes for different tissues? EVERYTHING that we create outside ourselves, comes from inside ourselves, correct? For example, the mental impulse for the liver is coded for the liver and is useless to the heart. The mental impulses coded for the educated brain for so called voluntary functions are useless for the liver for so called involuntary functions. My cell phone number is coded for my cell phone and is useless to ring your cell phone. Do all computers have the same coded email address? –
– With regards to sources and references, Strauss has mentioned somewhere in his Blue Books that the result of the activity of the functioning of the innate brain or the educated brain, is called “thought”. He differentiates the thought coming from innate brain as mental impulse moving through the nerve system giving life to the organs of the body and the thought coming from educated brain as being ” a second generation” mental impulse for the purpose of so called voluntary function. Perhaps, Joseph could validate my memory. It was definitely, Joseph WHO influenced me to think in that direction. –
– When everything is said and done, it is ONLY innate intelligence that adapts forces, coding those forces accordingly, assembling them in the innate brain and transmitting the coded impulses for so called voluntary functions to the educated brain for you to use consciously in order to MOVE your educated body. In the final analysis, it’s ALL about the law life “doing it all”, through active organization within the limitations of energy/matter and time. We just so happen to be in on the deal and sometimes, consciously. 😉
– As we inquire deeply, together without condemnation, into chiropractic philosophy, let us be open to the possibility that we may stumble upon some concepts backed by the 33 principles that are only now ready to be discovered.
Sorry Claude, still hung up on this issue of storage.
II adapts UF to create MI. II adapts UF as received, it can not “get an advance” of Force Units (Foruns) in a time of crisis. Nor can II delay or “put off” incoming UF . II may only adapt or not adapt those Forces as they arrive. P. 33. The Law of Demand and Supply suggests II “supplies” only on “demand”. IOW II is reactive to the evironment as well as resonsive to the needs of the body. In earlier threads it was explained that “congestion above and starvation below” was illogical due to the fact that IF was designed only for the time of it’s expression in Matter. Instructive Information unable to be transmitted no longer existed beyond the point of interference, as MI was unadapted back to merely a Nerve Impulse.
In order for MIs to be stored in the EB for voluntary expression later, II would have to anticipate and create IF in advance of body need. II would no longer be reactive or responsive in present time. It would also mean II, through voluntary activity attempts to manipulate the environment. Is this how you see the Law of Organization?
As far as coding, I would think every MI created was distinctive. Each one a perfect message, for a particular destination with an individual need, at an exact moment in time, with regard for the whole body.
SNSC
Steve,
You state: “As far as coding, I would think every MI created was distinctive. Each one a perfect message, for a particular destination with an individual need, at an exact moment in time, with regard for the whole body” That means a multitude of different codes according to need, and that includes specific coded mental impulses for so called voluntary functions… so you are correct. –
– Do human beings manipulate the environment? If so, do they use coded mental impulses for their so called voluntary functions to MOVE their educated body to manipulate the environment? If so, human beings are using their educated INTELLIGENCE which is a product of energy/matter with the purpose of expressing instructive information from innate intelligence are they not? HOW do human beings tap into the reservoir of ALREADY coded innate forces for so called VOLUNTARY functions to manipulate the environment? Educated intelligence being a product of energy/matter CANNOT manipulate innate intelligence that maintains it in active organization since it is NOT its function. (pri.13). WHAT is the nature of those instructive informations from innate intelligence that you use, since it is you WHO is FREE to choose to manipulate the environment or not? Do you see the possibility of a “NEW SPECIFIC CODE”, adapted by innate intelligence, with a “free pass” so to speak, including “freedom of use at will” by educated INTELLIGENCE? Educated intelligence can ONLY express innate forces. It does NOT changes the mental impulse that is ALREADY coded for so called voluntary functions. It is the human being WHO chooses to use the educated intelligence to USE mental impulses that are ALREADY coded, by innate intelligence, for so called voluntary functions with a “free pass” to do with it what the human being chooses to do with it. –
– So called voluntary functions can ONLY be manifested through educated body, ONLY if educated intelligence has access to the reservoir of mental impulses, adapted by innate intelligence, with a NEW SPECIFIC CODE with a “free pass” (second generation mental impulses as Strauss puts it) within educated brain, that it is you WHO can choose which voluntary function you will to perform, like an adjustic thrust… which is then your EDUCATED guess.
OK Claude,
Upon intensive head squeezing, this is what has dripped out.
UI is manifested as UF to maintain and organize Matter.
II adapts UF into IF to maintain and organize living Matter.
EI adapts IF into EF for living voluntary Matter.
Essentially we have 3 segments of Intelligence, using 3 types of Force, to work in 3 levels of Matter.
The question is not whether humans manipulate their environment, for surly they do (I’m doing it right now). The question is does Innate Intelligence manipulate the environment in which it finds itself.
Steve,
Clarification:
Educated intelligence uses, at will, ONLY innate forces already adapted by innate intelligence with a SPECIFIC CODE for so called voluntary function of living matter. –
– The answer to your question: …”does Innate Intelligence manipulate the environment in which it finds itself.” —- HOW can law manipulate anything? It’s LAW! Gravity does not manipulate. Law constantly “acts”. In other words, law does what it does.
What does Intelligence do? P.8 The function of intelligence is to create force.
What does Force do? P.10 The function of force is to unite intelligence and matter.
What does Matter do? P.13 The function of matter is to express force.
In order to be logically consistant, I can only come to one conclusion. Educated Matter must be expressing Educated Force which was created by Educated Intelligence.
The fathers gave us 3 types of Intelligence to consider and 3 levels of Matter/organization to demonstrate those 3 types.
Level one, the foundation, is UI which creates UF to organize ALL Matter.
Level two, II creates IF. II and IF use some of the Universal Matter and some of the Universal Force in a REORGANIZED fashion to produce Living tissue. Living tissue being reactive to the environment.
Level three, EI creates EF. EI and EF use some of the Innate Matter and some of the Innate Force in a REORGANIZED fashion to give volition to some of the Innate Matter, making it responsive to the environment and creating believe it or not………Universal Force.
Example, Man throws rock(EI/EF?EM), rock hits another man leaveing bruise. Rock is UM under UF to 2nd man’ body, no different than if rock fell from cliff. 2nd man’s body reacts with broken blood vesels, makes man holler. 2nd man begins to heal (II/IF/IM) then responds, picks up bigger rock (EI/EF/EM) and hurls it at 1st (UM/UF to 1st), and the cycle of life continues…;) Now how can you argue with that?
SNSC
Steve,
Of course NO arguments with that! –
– Simply a little clarification: The function of innate intelligence is NOT to create forces. That’s the function of universal intelligence. The function of innate intelligence is to ADAPT universal forces and matter for use in the body (pri.23)… and assemble them in the innate brain with specific codes for so called involuntary functions and with a NEW SPECIFIC CODE for so called voluntary functions that are sent to the educated brain, by innate intelligence, to be ACCESSED and USED by educated intelligence in order to MOVE educated body to perform any voluntary function that it is you WHO choose to perform, including an adjustic thrust which is your educated guess. –
– In other words, educated intelligence does NOT create forces that’s the function of universal intelligence. Educated intelligence does NOT adapt forces, that’s the function of innate intelligence. Educated intelligence USES the ALREADY adapted innate forces with a NEW SPECIFIC CODE for so called voluntary functions in order to MOVE your educated body to perform your adjustic thrust which is your EDUCATED guess. –
– Your example: Man throws rock (with his EI using coded IF for so called voluntary functions MOVING his educated body), rock hits another man leaving bruise. Rock is UM kept in existence by UI through UF which is MOVED by EI of first man using ALREADY coded mental impulses by innate intelligence for so called voluntary functions in his educated brain, through MOVING his educated body into throwing rock toward 2nd man’s body, no different than if rock fell from cliff. 2nd man’s body reacts with broken blood vessels, makes man holler. 2nd man’s educated intelligence responds, using ALREADY coded mental impulses by innate intelligence for called voluntary functions in his educated brain, though MOVING his educated body by picking up bigger rock (with his EI using coded IF for so called voluntary functions MOVING his educated body) and hurls it at 1st (UM/UF to 1st), and the cycle of life continues THROUGH THE LAW OF ORGANIZATION, THE LAW OF LIFE, AND THE LAW OF “people like you and me WHO choose to go deeper into the nature of educated instructive information”. 😉 –
– I sure HOPE that it helps YOU understand that mental impulses for so called voluntary functions are impulses with a NEW SPECIFIC CODE that are assembled in the innate brain and sent to the educated brain…. that when it is you WHO can choose to think thoughts, you actually tap into the reservoir of these mental impulses with a NEW SPECIFIC CODE and USE them AND that it is you WHO is free to choose to guide those ALREADY code mental impulses by innate intelligence, in such a way as to MOVE your educated body to perform an adjustic thrust which is your EDUCATED guess.
Your explaination is inconsistant. II can not adapt Force for an undetermined use in the EB, that is not law it is chance. II is Law, it does not need to think or reason or snap my fingers. These are not organizational or maintainence activities. My contribution to this blog has no positive or negative survival value for my body. It is an exercise to strengthen my educational and professional understanding. II is neither “aware” or “concerned” except that now it is past my bed time which is a negative survival value.
Steve,
These adapted forces by innate intelligence for so called voluntary function have a NEW SPECIFIC CODE that maintain educated intelligence which is a product of matter in active organization. How else could you have an educated intelligence if not through storage of memory, percerpts , knowledge, etc… to be USED by YOU at will as you did before going to bed? –
– Matter cannot adapt innate forces… it expresses innate forces. Educated intelligence is a product of matter, therefore, educated intelligence cannot adapt innate forces. Educated intelligence can USE a NEW SPECIFIC CODED mental impulse for so called voluntary function MOVING your educated body to either type your post with your computer or shut it down and go to bed. It is you WHO chose to shut down your computer and go to bed, is it not? HOW did you MOVE your educated body to do that? By USING mental impulses, did you not? WHAT kind of mental impulses? For so called involuntary functions or voluntary functions? The answer is obvious is it not? Mental impulses for so called involuntary functions and so called voluntary functions have DISTINCTIVE CODES! One code is for “SOLE USE” of innate intelligence. One code is for “SHARED USE” by educated intelligence. Chance would occur ONLY if there would be the same code for all mental impulse… Could you imagine the same phone number for all the cell phones of the world? Or the same email address? –
– By the way, that was elegant choice you have made to stop a negative survival value and turn it into a positive survival value when it is you WHO chose to use your educated intelligence and USE some NEW SPECIFIC CODED mental impulses to MOVE your educated body to go to bed. –
– It’s ALWAYS about the WHO is it not?
… I think this “shared use” of mental impulses with a NEW SPECIFIC CODE for so called voluntary functions is what Strauss means by “second generation” mental impulses as opposed to “first generation” mental impulses that would be the “SOLE USE” of innate intelligence for called involuntary functions, like metabolism. ONLY Joseph knows what he meant by this. 😉
Matter does adapt forces. The sense organs respond to UFs and adapt them into vibrational impressions that are transmitted afferently through the nerve system.
If we agree EF transmits EI to EM, our only point of contention is, where does EB get the raw force and how does it adapt that force. Since voluntary activities are not organizational or maintenance, could EB also be adapting UF?
Let’s look at the fact that the Physical Brain is fueled by sugar. Sugar entering the body as a UF must be deconstructed to release energy, that energy feeds the cells, the cells of the PB transmit Instructive Information to the voluntary muscles.
For so many years the Innate Brain was modeled after our idea of the Physical Brain, this is no longer true. We now understand II t be a group of Laws. The IB is now considered a location of adaptation of metaphysical to physical. The IB does not think or dream, it does not rationalize, it does not communicate Thought Flashes, it does not concern itself with the environment except to recognize external changes and coordinate adaptation of the body to those changes.
To say II cares what color tie I wear and makes me reach for that tie now seems preposterous.
Steve,
It is me WHO choose to state the obvious! The ONLY function of matter is to EXPRESS force (13). It’s NOT the sense organs that adapt universal forces into vibrational impressions. It is the innate intelligence of the body that uses the sense organs to respond to the environment and adapts universal forces into innate forces for use in the body so that all the parts will have coordinated action (23).
Before we continue, it might be useful to you to differentiate educated intelligence (capability of educated brain) from educated mind (activity of educated brain). Innate intelligence will organize activity in educated brain within the limitations of educated brain. This in turn limits the capability of educated brain… Hence the limitation of educated intelligence to USE the ALREADY specifically coded mental impulses for so call voluntary functions to MOVE your educated body to perform an adjustic thrust which is definitely your limited educated guess.
… in other words, there is a limit to the usefulness of the educated mind (activity of educated brain as an organ) to innate intelligence depending upon the amount of experiences STORED away and the actual ability to group these experiences. The question is: WHAT is the nature of these experiences that can be SHARED by innate intelligence and educated intelligence, STORED away within the educated brain, in order to adapt to the environment?
II does not use sense organs to respond to the environment, they interpret changes. P. 33 Demand and Supply. Sense organs are on the demand side of the equation. The supply or response, coordination, comes from ADIO, no? Wouldn’t sense organ activity be OIBU or Cellular Intelligence, for it alone coordinates nothing?
Vol.4.The sensory or sense organs receive impressions from objective realities through the sensory or sense organs, transform then, into sensation-conscious sense perception.
In the newborn, Vol 32.Impressions begin to be received through eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and skin. These impressions travel afferently from external sense organs to internal educated brain. There they are interpreted.
Where do Nerve Impulses come from? Are they not Force created by Matter?
No Steve… FORCES CAN ONLY BE CREATED BY UNIVERSAL INTELLIGENCE (pri.8) to maintain energy/matter in existence (MP) and CAN ONLY BE ADAPTED BY INNATE INTELLIGENCE (pri.23) to maintain the energy/matter of the body of a “living thing” in active organization (pri.21). On the other hand, FORCES ARE EXPRESSED ONLY BY energy/matter (pri.13). ALL that energy/matter can do is to MANIFEST FORCES through motion (pri.15). I hope YOU are clear on that. The 33 principles of the science of chiropractic are the stable platform on which the WHOLE of chiropractic stands on. –
– Regarding your question, the nature of nerve impulses was discussed at length a few months ago on COTB under the heading “MENTAL IMPULSE”. In short, a nerve impulse is an impulse without intelligent direction due to the further limitation of the transmitting matter caused by VS. In other words, a nerve impulse is a UF and is deconstructive toward the energy/matter of a “living thing”. Within the definition of VS it can be noted as …”INTERFERING WITH THE FLOW of mental impulses between brain cell and tissue cell. The interference is WITHIN energy/matter and comes from the further limitation of transmitting matter caused by VS. –
– The question is: WHAT is the nature of these experiences that can be SHARED by innate intelligence and educated intelligence, STORED away within the educated brain, in order for you to adapt to the environment through so your called voluntary functions performed, with your will, by your educated body?
If the Nerve Impulse is a UF, where does it come from? Is it not generated by the nerve cell?
Steve,
– Universal intelligence creates universal forces –
– Innate intelligence adapts universal forces transforming them into mental impulses –
– Vertebral subluxation causes a further increase in limitation of the transmitting matter which interferes with the FLOW of mental impulse. This interference of the FLOW of mental impulse with intelligent direction means that the mental impulse becomes a nerve impulse without intelligent direction which then violates principle 32 causing incoordination. –
– Again, Steve, we did discuss this issue at length in previous threads. 😉
Steve,
It is ONLY intelligence that does ALL of the “interpretation”. Matter ONLY express WITHOUT interpretation (pri.13) regardless of the “form” of language that was use in the green books to explain this phenomena. Your quoting of Vol.4. “The sensory or sense organs receive impressions from objective realities through the sensory or sense organs, transform then, into sensation-conscious sense perception” this does imply that it is innate INTELLIGENCE that does the interpretation, it is its function (pri.23). Matter is the receptor, it you will and simply express what it receives. –
– Then you quote” “In the newborn, Vol 32.Impressions begin to be received through eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and skin. These impressions travel afferently from external sense organs to internal educated brain. There they are interpreted.” … BY THE INNATE INTELLIGENCE OF THE BODY. –
– Again, the question remains: WHAT is the nature of these experiences that can be SHARED by innate intelligence and educated intelligence, STORED away within the educated brain, in order for you to adapt to the environment through so your called voluntary functions performed, with your will, by your educated body?
Yes II does the interpretation but it is the matter, sense organ, that transforms a UF into a message or value that can traverse the nerve system afferently. Heat or more precisely a change in tempurature does not travel up the nerve, a nerve impulse does. A nerve impulse created in the receptor cell (Matter) because of the change in the environment. If the impression received by II is not a NI, what is it?
Steve,
You state: “A nerve impulse created in the receptor cell (Matter)”. It may appear like that and it is not true. The impulse is ADAPTED by innate intelligence of the body which is (metaphysical and thereby) EVERYWHERE using the innate brain which is (metaphysical and thereby) WHEREVER the innate intelligence of the body is. –
– The impulse is then sent afferently to the physical brain for coordination of actions of ALL the parts of the body (pri.32). –
– Example: It is me WHO chooses to tap on selected key of the keyboard to write you a message with my computer. It is not my computer (matter) that “adapt” these TAPS to send to your computer. It is the “software” somewhere within your computer that does that. When you download and application for you to have access to a specific voluntary function, like i-tune, for your listening pleasure, it is a NEW SPECIFIC CODED software that you download for your computer in order for you to access it, at will. I know examples break down… I also know you have a sound educated intelligence and that you can follow what I am saying. –
– ONLY the innate intelligence of the body through innate brain can ADAPT universal forces like heat (pri,23). –
– It is me WHO chooses to follow the science of the 33 principles of chiropractic in order to understand the nature of: “these experiences that can be SHARED by innate intelligence and educated intelligence, STORED away within the educated brain, in order for you to adapt to the environment through so my called voluntary functions performed, with my will, by my educated body”… –
– Again, the question remains: WHAT is the NATURE of these experiences that can be SHARED by innate intelligence and educated intelligence, STORED away within the educated brain, in order for you to adapt to the environment through so your called voluntary functions performed, with your will, by your educated body?
I would contend that it is the keyboard that transforms the physical push of the key to an electric signal. I tried pushing upon the motherboard to no avail. Obviously that signal is worthless without the motherboard and software. The software however is useless without the keyboard/ mouse as well.
The signal for t is different than the signal for q so it is a differentiated signal. The nerve impulse for heat is different than the signal for deep pressure so there must be some qualitative or quantitative difference in the receptor or in the product of that sensor being pushed past it’s threshold. I ask again what is the nature of that signal? Before we can discuss the nature of information storage we need to establish just what is being stored, no?
Just received and opened Dr Strauss’s new book, (THANX Joe), Chiropractic Philosophical Constructs. Chapter 4, The Educated Brain as an Organ of Adaptation.
Steve,
Since it is the function of the innate intelligence of the body to adapt universal forces (pri.23) within the innate brain, the nature of the signal is a mental impulse to be sent from the innate brain via afferent nerves to the physical brain for COORDINATION.
I thought it was II’s job to coordinate. P.23
Steve,
The mission of innate intelligence is to maintain the material of the body of a “living thing” in active organization (pri.21) and HOW it does that is by ADAPTING universal forces and matter for use in the body, so that all parts of the body will have coordinated action for mutual benefit (pri. 23) within the limitation of matter (pri.24). –
– The process of adapting universal forces by the innate intelligence of the body takes place within the innate brain which is a metaphysical concept (yes, we’ve been through this at great length before on past threads). Then the innate intelligence of the body sends mental impulses to the physical brain from the innate brain and uses the physical brain for coordination. The physical brain is the actual physical organ mental for impulses coordination between brain cell and tissue cell and can be interfered with by VS as it further increases the limitation of the transmitting matter.
… The physical brain is the actual physical organ FOR mental impulses coordination between brain cell and tissue cell and can be interfered with by VS as it further increases the limitation of the transmitting matter.
Correction …The physical brain is the actual physical organ FOR mental impulses coordination between brain cell and tissue cell and can be interfered with by VS as it further increases the limitation of the transmitting matter.
You say II is everywhere because it is metaphysical.(10-21, 11:25) Is II in my desk? Is II in my toenail? II is not in the body it is of the body. The body expresses the Forces of Innate Intelligence. Force unites Intelligence and Matter, it does not make then interchangeable. This infers point A to point B, not point everywhere/anywhere to point B
If the IB was everywhere, why would it use the nerve system to transmit it’s Forces, shouldn’t the IB be at the head of the nerve system? As stated previously, if II/IB was everywhere we wouldn’t need nerves.
Steve,
We’ve been through that before on past threads. 😉
Yes Claude we have. It seems as though there are still conflicts of opinions. Your statement implies II does not transmit MI for coordination of matter, but to be coordinated by matter (PB), now which is it?
In P.33 Innate is the banker (decision maker), brain cells are the clerks (physical laborers). Clerks carry out the bankers desires and make a physical reality of those desires. Am I to understand you are saying the clerks(PB cells) modify or recode the orders(MI) of the banker(II)? If II and IF are perfect, this should be unnecessary.
No Steve,
I stated: “Then the innate intelligence of the body sends mental impulses to the physical brain from the innate brain and ( the INNATE INTELLIGENCE of the body) USES the physical brain for coordination.
For coordination or distribution? Isn’t coordination an Innate function. Isn’t the “coding” of “instructive information” the coordinating factor?
… pretty much the same way the INNATE INTELLIGENCE of the body USES the liver for metabolism.
… and the function of LIVING energy/matter (be it brain, liver, heart, bones, etc.) is to EXPRESS the instructive information of its innate intelligence (pri.13 and 20) through motion (pri.15 and 21) within the limitations of matter (pri.24).
Steve,
Principle 23 and 32 are about coordination of ACTION. Pretty much like Chicago O’Hare Airport that is a hub of coordination of flights (believe me you that there is much more to coordination of flights than YOUR getting to YOUR destination on time)… The physical brain is the “hub” if you will that is USED by the innate intelligence of the body for coordination of ACTION. –
– That’s WHY if there is a defect with the physical brain (brain damage) often time there is some type of paralysis of some action. We call that: incoordination of action. Something that YOU can see that Steven Hawking is experiencing. The perfect coded mental impulses by the perfect innate intelligence of his body are present… It is the energy/matter of Hawking’s body that is NOT fully expressing the innate forces of the innate intelligence of his body due to the limitations of HIS matter.
the question remains: WHAT is the NATURE of these experiences that can be SHARED by innate intelligence and educated intelligence,
From what I can surmise the Physical Brain collects data. It registers vibratons such as light,sound tempurature and sensory impressions for storage. It (PB) then evaluates that information and stimulates a survival enhansing respons in the physical body. Why would II (Laws of Organization) need to share these experiences?
The question then is how much involvement does II have in the every day running of the body? Does II speed up the heart when the need arises, or does the PB do this because II designed it that way? Does II respond, is II aware or did II create the PB for these functions? Does II organize and maintain the brain matter or does II run the brain or does II do both?
Maybe if we can answer these queries we can know what an Adjustic Thrust is, EF, EUF, EIF or IF?
Steve,
You stated: “From what I can surmise the Physical Brain collects data. It registers vibratons such as light,sound tempurature and sensory impressions for storage.” HOW are these “vibrations” and “sensory impressions” STORED in the educated brain and under WHAT form? –
… in other words, WHAT is the NATURE of these “vibrations” and “sensory impressions” that the universal cycle talks about and that are STORED in the educated brain and grouped in such a way that your educated intelligence can access whenever you will it for your so called voluntary functions in order to MOVE your educated body to perform an adjustic thrust which is your EDUCATED guess? –
– Clue: YOU won’t find it in the green books… The information we have today on the subject was NOT available 50 years ago. YOU may find it in the BLUE BOOK “CHIROPRACTIC PHILOSOPHICAL CONSTRUCTS” by Joseph B. Strauss, DC., F.C.S.C. 2013, ISBN 1-890419-23-0. 😉
I remember reading long ago that memory in lower life forms is mostly chemical, but in higher lifeforms it is electrical. So I guess human memory is stored charges within the CNS. Then we have facilitation, meaning the more we run a sequence the firmer it is embedded.