The reason Spinology can stay away from theological concepts is that it begins further down the “deductive line”. This avoids the real philosophical issue that Stephenson, B.J. and I address and apparently differ on. That’s the Spinologist’s prerogative and is a difference between spinology and OSC. The Spinologist never tells you where he gets his Major Premise from. It seems that Spinology avoids theological concepts in establishing the Major Premise. Again, that’s their prerogative. BJ and Stephenson used a theological concept (God) in explaining universal intelligence. Reggie used inductive reasoning when he taught chiropractic philosophy.
So where does Spinology start? Nerve interference, muscle imbalance, loss of mental impulse, bone out of place?
Soinology stayed away from Theological concepts, for the same reason that this subject keeps on popping up. Reggie told me that it would be folly to deny that there was a God who created all that is. As B.J. said,”We believe that God is here, and that we are as near to Him now, as ever will be. We do not believe that He started(created) this world a-going, and went away and left it to run itself.” The problem was, and still exists, that there are as many definitions of what Universal is, as there are theological approaches for those definitions. He saw it as just so much more confusion to a message that was already hard enough for even Chiropractors to understand, so why add even more debateable info to deal with? Let everyone retain whatever theological belief system thay choose, but leave it out of the Chiropractic message you are trying to get out to an already skeptical world. Reggie did not even want the theology part of it to be a part of our philosophy at ADIO, because too many toes may be stepped on, and the most neccessary part of the Chiropractic message would go in one ear and out the other. Look at what has happened since, the subject is still coming up as an issue. Reggie was not going to have that occur in Spinology. The most important thing about the Spinology philosophy, was to help everyone who showed an interest to understand, was that there was an all consuming, Universal power that created all that exists. Regardless of what you insist on calling it, It will be, was, and always will
be there, doing what It does without any opinions from us. Reggie was presenting a fresh idea, that even so many Chiropractors have yet to come to grips with, and continue to steal the best parts of. He wanted to keep it all as simple as possible, with as little chances for debate as coul be avoided. He did tell myself and a small handful of others, that it was not God that he objected to, it was the closed minded approach of the many organized(or, what he called dis-organized) religions. He said that they were a collection of like minded, weak minded, misguided people, who have allowed themselves to be lead
by other weak minded people who believed in superstitious claptrap.
When asked about how he defends being a Jew, he said that he may
have been born a Jew, but he in no way practices it. He said that if there is a God In his life, It is all wrapped up in our Spinology philosophpy. Whether one see’s God in all of this or not, it is what we do with our hands to be instrumental in creating a better world, one person at a time that matters most. Even if we leave God out of the message, eventually nothing will keep that from coming through!!!!!
OK, OC does not discuss god nor does Spinology, so where is the difference?
Spinology recognizes UI, but is “inductive”?
Spinology, in my limited understanding, begins with the same Major Premise as chiropractic (OC and traditional) but does not take a position on from where it comes. Traditional chiropractic says that universal intelligence is God. Objective chiropractic says the Major Premise comes from induction of empirical observations of the universe if you do not want to use a theological construct. If you want to begin with an already believed non-chiropractic theological construct, you can deduce universal intelligence as a creation of God. Is that correct Spinologists?
So, TC says UI is god, OC may or may not say UI was created by god, and spinology says there is only UI as far as we are concerned.?? It was my understanding that OC started with the major premise as empirically observed, leaving the source of UI up to the individual”s interpretation.
Personally I think BJ took god out of his fathers chiropracTIC when he started with the major premise, and chiropracTORs have been putting it back in ever since. As with dis-ease, it is the TOR that will not relinquish disease.
Steve, I think you are correct in taking the position that”..TC says UI is god (sic), OC may or may not say UI was created by god(sic), and spinology says there is only UI as far as we are concerned”. My understanding is that Rgggie believed that it was not relevant to OC or spinology and explained it inductively using the same methods that theologians used to explain God (teleological. ontological and anthropological) when he was in chiropractic and just ignored it when he was in spinology. I think we can assume that ignoring ui’s relationship to God was what he preferred since spinology came after his teaching of NTOSC. I think BJ had the same desire and left it out of the 33 principles. (He also left disease out of the 33 principles for the same reason, (IMO) The only problem with BJ’s handling of the theological issue was if he wanted to take “god out of his fathers chiropracTIC when he started with the major premise” why did he give his “approval” to Stephenson’s text and make numerous mentions of god in his own chiropractic writings. Those chiropractors who ” have been putting it back in ever since”, are only doing so because they think that they are following the writings of BJ. The same can be said for their preoccupation with disease, BJ often talked about chiropractic getting sick people well of medical conditions even though he did not address disease in the 33 principles. My assertion that ui is created by God, besides satisfying my personal theological belief is also an attempt to reconcile what chiropractors have put in the philosophy, based upon their understanding of BJ’s writings.
Could someone compare and contrast OC and Spinology? I fail to see much significant difference.
Steve, again this is the limited understanding of an objective chiropractor:
1. Traditional chiropractic corrects vertebral subluxations to get sick people well.
2. Spinology corrects vertebral subluxations (which they call obtrusions) to improve performance.
3. Objective chiropractic corrects vertebral subluxations to enable the forces of the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed, Period.
Note: Spinologists’ input is welcomed inasmuch as my experience is 5 years in TC, 40 years in OC and 12 years observing spinology.
Hey Joe, good to see that you are still going strongly. I stumbled across this discussion and thought I might put my two bob’s worth in. Having left chiropractic in 1996 to start a new profession, which I foolishly named Spinology (foolish, because even though there were no actual practitioners of Reggie’s old profession still standing, they certainly came out of the woodwork once we gained accreditation in 1998- after successfully defending our right to exist in a court hearing in 1998), I might be in a good position to address Steve’s query. In our world Spinology became NeuroSpinology in 2009 in a deliberate attempt to maintain purity, and it is quite different to OSC in a number of ways. Firstly, the major premise of OSC revolves around universal intelligence. ALL chiropractic philosophers, including Ralph Stephenson, BJ Palmer, Reggie Gold and Joe Strausss, recognised this to be an acknowledement of God. The most fundamental principle of OSC therefore is, in effect, a divine one, because it is God that “gives all matter its properties and maintains it in existence”. In NeuroSpinology the foundation premise is that there is an inherent organisational striving in all living matter that compels it to, at all times, attempt to adapt the forces to which it is exposed for its own benefit. When you look closely you will see a significant differentiation between the two constructs. On the one hand you have the core proposition that innate intelligence is an extension of universal intelligence in the living body, and therefore an extension of God. On the other hand, there is an assertion that living matter has a unique characteristic that dictates its attempts to adapt all of the forces, from any source, to which it is exposed, for its own advantage. Some will argue that these amount to the same thing, but they don’t. Universal intelligence, in the words of BJ Palmer, is “the power that animates the living world”, with innate intelligence a localised extension of it . Where does it come from? Clearly from God. Inherent organisational striving is a much humbler entity; simply a characteristic of living tissue in the same way that respiration and absorption are. Where does this characteristic come from? It doesn’t come from anywhere. One of the fundamental premises that is common to both OSC and NeuroSpinology is that the characteristics and functions of any matter is determined by its structure. The answer is there before us. You change the structure of anything, and you change its properties and characteristics and inevitably alter how it works. So it is with inherent organisational striving, as well as reproduction etc etc etc. There is no mystery here.
However, there are other differences beyond the philosophical. The “bone out of place pinching a nerve” idea simply doesn’t exist. There is no structure in the body that would (or could, for that matter) deliberately hold a vertebrae in a dissociated structural relationship with its immediate neighbours. There is therefore no point in trying to “put a bone back in place”, or “set” the vertebrae. They aren’t UNset to begin with. NeuroSpinologists address spinal obtrusions, which are a situation where the body is unable to maintain control of the relationship between adjacent vertebrae, bringing inevitable neural consequences. We do so by applying specific, repetitive techniques for the purpose of stimulating the associated neural circuits and, eventually, facilitating the body to develop a superior level of neural capacity and potency.
Of course there are many other differences, such as in political structure, education and so on. I hope this helps you Steve. Good to read some of your work again Joe. It’s been too long…
Anthony, it is good to hear from you. I still remember our first meeting in Chandler Arizona when you were still in chiropractic. Was that really in the early 80’s? I was impressed with your insight and enthusiasm for chiropractic at that time. I am not very knowledgeable about Spinology (except as it relates to OSC) and know nothing about NeuroSpinology. Perhaps some former or present Spinologists who frequent this blog may want to comment. I do recall that I always opposed mixing chiropractic with medicine and religion and have been outspoken about it since the early 70’s. So it is highly unlikely that I ever confused God with universal intelligence (I am, at this moment, covering that very issue in a book I am writing contrasting Traditional chiropractic with Objective chiropractic). You are correct that BJ and RW did so in their writings. Reggie never did though, one thing I admired about Reg. We did use the same arguments that Paley and other natural theologians used to support an argument for God in explaining how we inductively get universal intelligence and our major premise. But that was as close as he and I came. I realize that structure/function may be satisfactory in explaining Spinology and perhaps NeuroSpinology but it seems to me to be inadequate to explain the source of universal intelligence. But, that said, I don’t think we can explain the (S)source of universal intelligence without leaving chiropractic philosophy and entering the field of theology, something we are reluctant and is not necessary to do in the chiropractic arena.
Thank You Anthony.
Hello Anthony,
Are you still in Sydney? I tried calling you and asked you to reply, still waiting. Could you please call.me.
Thank you ,
Claire Smith
Clare, I have not had any contact with Anthony since 2014. Perhaps a spinologist) (some of whom read this blog could update you on his whereabouts.
Hi Clare, sorry it’s been 2 years since you posted, but I rarely get on this, or any, site. My personal email is at@neurospinology.com if you are still interested in getting in contact. Cheers, Anthony PS Hey Joe, if you are reading this. I hope everything is awesome in your world and that you are powering on to ever greater things. Best, Anthony
I would only add from what I have read in addition to performance the focus on potential is very important. Spinology is concerned with human POTENTIAL to be fully expressed all aspects of life, tangible and intangible.
You are correct Don. I goofed. That sentence should have read: “2. Spinology corrects vertebral subluxations (which they call obtrusions) to improve human potential“. I don’t know whether that is the effects of my brain bleed or just old age. In either case, thanks for picking up on my slipping/error. The good thing is that now perhaps the readers of this blog will pay closer attention to what I write if only to check my slipping/errors. Steve, Reggie maintained that Spinology was not part of the health field but part of the human potential movement (hence no need for licensure). That distinguished it from TC (#1) and I would add OC, NTOSC (#3) which addresses only the expression of the forces of the ii of the body which is not related to “sick people” (in the medical/health sense) or people desiring to improve their “human potential” (Spinology and the human potential movement). Both #1 and#2 are worthwhile endeavors but not OC which is like nothing else and is unique. Thanks for picking up on that, Don, and your gracious correction.
Traditional chiropractors LACVS to get sick people well. They relate to health care. There is NO mention of health (human or animal) in any of the 33 ABSOLUTE principles of Chiropractic’s Basic Science. –
Spinologists LACO to improve human potential. They retaliate to the human potential movement. There is NO mention of potential (human or animal) in any of the 33 ABSOLUTE principles of Chiropractic’s Basic Science. –
Objective chiropractors LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD. Principles #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 mentioned one or more of the following: intelligence, innate intelligence, force, body, expression full and subluxation. The chiropractic objective is based and articulated from 31 ABSOLUTE principles is Chiropractic’s Basic Science. It also relates to principle #6 via principle #14 since MOTION requires TIME to be manifested within the physical realm. It also relates to principle #17 via principle #30. –
– Therefore, together without condemnation, we conclude through rational logic and deductive reasoning that the chiropractic objective is the: LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence if the body. PERIOD. And that it is contained within, and deduced from, ALL 33 ASOLUTE principles of Chiropractic’s basic Science. –
– Chiroptactic is SEPARATE and DISTINCT from EVERYTHING ELSE and is INCLUSIVE of EVERYONE regardless of creed, education, culture, politics, race, gender or financial ability to pay. –
– An objective chiropractor is one WHO chooses to practice the chiropractic objective. –
– AMAZING ISN’T IT? –
– Carry on. ADIO,
You are welcome Joe.
I may have also slipped up by being too short with my words (see post below).
Thank you to those who take the time to correct me.
I understand the opportunities are many. 🙂
and thanks for the post!
Hello Don. My name is Glenn Allen. I have been with Spinology and Reggie since before day 1 of it’s existance. I can assure you, that it was never about performance, and all about human potential and life expression on all levels. If performance was enhanced as the result of a successful correction, wonderful. However, it was no more addressed than was any of the myriad of other potentials, tangible or intangible. Either you have decided to actually delve into the facts regarding Spinology before talking about things you know nothing about,(which has been the bane of Spinology for decades), or you have a refreshing desire to seek out those things that common sense and truth just will not leave alone. Thank you for your post. It has relieved some of the uneasy feelings resulting from resent remarks. There are so few of us left, so please accept my invitation, if you want to know about the original, and therefore only Spinology, feel free to contact myself or Tom Gregory. There is nothing to hide, and everything to share.
Glen,
It does seem there are few of Spinologists on this side of the globe. Thank you for sharing your understanding of Spinology.
For the record, I am not a Spinologist but have an avid interest in it’s practice and philosophy so I read and ask questions. I have had the fortune of connecting with a few Spinologist and all are open to sharing just as you are and I thank you for that.
As for the performance comment. I should have qualified that as it is my understanding that a Spinologist would be concerned with performance inasmuch body chemistry controls ALL human performance. The CNS coordinates and harmonizes the chemical producing cells (A la Reggie’s Letter N talk) and Spinology does not relate to only one level of performance (e.g. health, memory or mood, etc.) but it relates to all levels of human performance in every facet of life.
I hope that makes my thinking clearer and it is is still incorrect, please let me know!
Thanks