Here’s a question for thought and discussion: It’s easy to think of improvements for your car; better gas mileage, longer wearing tires, better stereo system. Can you think of an improvement for the human body? One rule, the improvement cannot in any way decrease the body’s overall quality of function. Example; we could create a spine that would not subluxate, by making it solid bone, but then we would lose flexibility and mobility. Prize: a Blue Book of your choice if you can be the first to come up with one that no one can find fault with!
There are none other than a red warning like like Reggie has mentioned!
Light
That way, each person would know when they are subluxated – even though they may feel perfectly fine!!
Yeah, but where would you put that light???? 😉
As often as I bang my head, I’d be constantly picking broken glass out of my skull. VS or DIS-EASE is not a normal, natural state. We were not designed to subluxate so ii could not make provisions for it. Good try Bob but the judges are going to disallow that one.
Leg hair for women. Necessary? Not. Time to upgrade.
Joe, I was gonna donate the book since I think I have all of them!!
The idea is to read them first before you donate them! 😛 😉
Read and memorized already!! Funny….I was gonna send you the book. :):)
how about body parts that don’t sag with age? Save a lot on plastic surgery bills…
Is male pattern baldness (or at least the biochemical process that enables it to occur in many men) necessary to allow some to keep a cool head during stressful times, or is it just a reaction that has no purpose?
All you said is correct, and we should not forger the essentiality of the soine Ability to SubLuxate. Subluxation is a great tool innate can use, when people experience overstress (trauma, more stress than the spine ans nervous system can handle). Subluxation is a tool innate can use to protect life.
Than if not corrected, it becomes a burden, which diminishes coordination and life expression.
In the right time, for a very short and limited time subluxation is a great tool for innate, to protect life.
We should protect the spine ability to subluxate. If a subluxation is not corrected, innate will have less power to subluxate and protect life, when faced with the next overstress.
So when we adjust the subluxation, we prepare the body to face, deal and adapt in overstress situations.
Ronen, so are you saying/believing that subluxation is a good thing put there by the ii as a protective mechanism?
It is my understanding that a (vertebral) subluxation by definition is an interference with the innate control mechanism of the body. There is no way in which ii could function better when its out of control. Mental impulses transmitted over nerves are created in response to a specific need. If no impulse is needed then ii wouldn’t create it. It certainly wouldn’t create one and then put in a vs to block it. Vs are always negative. The job of ii is always positive. The purpose of ii is to maintain life at its highest possible peak of perfection, and it can do that much better without vs than it can with. So there is never a circumstance in which the body functions better with a vs and there is never a circumstance in which a vs is good for the body.
Joe’s Chiropractic Philosophy book explains this better than I ever could. Also his Enhance Your Life Experience is excellent for a better understanding of ADIO and is invaluable as a tool to help explain it to your practice members.
“never”….aka “none” was my point…..I want my book!!
You explained it very well, Tom. Thanks.
Since Chiropractic deals with intelligence, force and matter, and since we consider intelligence and force to be 100% correct, we could only improve the matter. If the tissues of the body were more durable we would degenerate slower and have more time to locate, analyze and correct subluxations
More durable?…then exercise —- but then how do we know what exercise or how much exercise would be good?
“How much exercise would be good?” – I posit you would have to determine what your goal/s is/are. Eg, more CV endurance? Establish a (current) baseline and determine what the patient’s (client’s) needs are. Then set up a program to progressively get them there. Same holds for strength (and flexibility). Fitness professionals have been doing this for decades (if not longer).
If you don’t know how to determine what a client’s needs are, then you might want to consider getting a fitness professional’s help! Innate would then respond to the SAID principle. Couldn’t resist contributing, hope to not offend. 20+ years in fitness (before Doctorate in Chiropractic).
No offense taken………and I hope I don’t offend you……..but exercise is not chiropractic. And while one can think he/she determines what the right exercise is or the right amount of exercise, does he/she really know? Common sense for me, says exercise is good for me. I will add that right now I am 46 years old and have more strength and endurance than I had when I was 26. But what I do each week may not necessarily be good (constructive) for someone who comes to see me. In fact, it might be destructive to that individual. In other words, setting up a program to progressively get them there, as you say, might be destructive to them. How do you know, ahead of time, what is the right amount of exercise and the right type of exercise, for any one individual? In all honesty, “chiropractic” thinking prevents us from making such claims. Now, if you’re a “fitness professional” who holds a chiropractic degree, then that is completely different. It also requires different thinking. Thank you!
That’s a pretty good suggestion, Steve. Here’s my thoughts: Since the ii of the body can create new cells to replace sick and dying ones (and even healthy ones), there is no need for them to be “more durable”. They are going to be replaced eventually. That leaves the question as to why have them die or be replaced so frequently. Aside from the theological issue, there is a chiropractic philosophical one and it relates to the concept of cellular intelligence, and a cell having the ability to live for itself (without the authority of the ii of the body). If the cell had the ability to be more durable, then cells outside the control of the ii would be more of a threat. Some cells, like RBC’s, cannot even reproduce (perhaps because ii has no neurological control over them). But if individual cells lived longer and were more inherently durable, then cancer cells, would be more powerful and less resistant to radiation/chemo but more important (as far a we’re concerned) more resistant to the ii of the body destroying them. Sick cells might last longer and it would be harder for the ii of the body to replace them with healthy ones. Of course this is all predicated upon the idea that a cell no longer under the ii of the body’s control does not die but live for itself under the control of cellular intelligence. I would love to see how someone who rejected cellular intelligence would handle this question. (I just read your comment for one last time before submitting my comment and I wonder if I even addressed your thought. There has been so much levity on this thread, I wonder now whether your comment was meant to be serious. Either way thanks for taking the time to post, you have to be a pretty busy guy these days!)
No Joe your right, durable could be good or bad depending on the situation. But philosophically speaking the matter is the only option for improvement since the other two choices are by definition perfect. Hey, my daughter suggested we make the body transparent so we could see changes (good or bad) sooner. Wouldn’t that be awesome, to see the living moving spine and observe the mechanical effects of the adjustment immediately?
The comment was meant to be a philosophical point more than an actual suggestion, besides I already have all your books.
tried… but can’t think of any improvement… I’d have to go with the thought that the body is perfect for what it’s intended to do…
Only problem with that Steve is that on some people others can look in and see that nobody’s home! 😉