Definition:
1.The essential nature, essence or essential part.
2.The ultimate reality that underlies all outward manifestations and change
3b. The matter of particular property
The substance between the metaphysical law of gravity and the metaphysical force of gravity is matter. You cannot experience the expression of that universal force unless you drop your keys or step on a bathroom scale.
The substance between the metaphysical law of life, innate intelligence and the metaphysical innate forces is matter, the nerve system. If there was no matter, there would be no need for the nerve system and no need for a chiropractor. Intellectual adaptation would automatically result in physical adaptation.
The substance (essential part) is the matter that manifests one or more of the signs of life (innate intelligence) as opposed to matter that merely manifests existence (universal intelligence).
This is precisely WHY ( if you need to know) that the function of force is to UNITE intelligence with e/matter. E/matter is indeed the substance between intelligence and force. Since the major premise is our start point, together without condemnation, we deduce that the three UNITED factors of the triune, namely intelligence, force and e/matter are NECESSARY for their own existence (pri.3) and are SEPARATE and DISTINCT from one another (pri.4). –
– Therefore, we can conclude that intent, being a product of e/matter, is the substance between innate intelligence and its instructive information as regards to so called VOLUNTARY actions. Intent, then, will be manifested by SPECIFIC motion in e/matter (pri.14). Joseph’s insight into “substance” reveals that intent is TRULY known, ONLY, by its originator. –
… therefore, it is true that we never know how far reaching the LACVS will affect the lives of millions tomorrow. This is the possibility of WHO you chose to be as a chiropractor. AMAZING ISN’T IT? 😉
Force unites intelligence with matter
E/matter is the substance between intelligence and force.
The act of uniting, the intelligence creates force expressed by matter would seem to alter the meaning of the word, Between.
You suggest that Intent is the aspect of e/matter that is being made reference of.
I’m curious, I’m interested in a resolving and/or more complete explanation of a most insightful and exploratory post.
David,
It’s all ONE, yet SEPARATE and DISTINCT. Remember that to inquire deeper into the philosophy, you’ve got to hold the tension of opposites that your dual thinking creates until… 🙂
Claude,
Tension of Opposites, OK.
Tension of Contradiction? How does a deductive science based on logic approach that paradigm offering comprehension?
David,
aLL is RigHt anD aLL iS WELL reGardleSS oF WhAT YouR mIND doeS wiTH iT!!!
One has to waddle in the shallows lonnngggg enough….. until one can swim in the deep to “see-through” the works of reality. 😉
Claude,
You’re a funny boy.
I’m a waddler. Don’t think you really addressed by question, though.
Be that as it may
Alice In Wonderland seems to be alive and well 🙂
It’s not the first time that Joseph has been misunderstood. 😉 Concepts require words and words are NOT “it”… words are pointers to reality. So, the word “between” points to the real… yet it can be mistaken as the real. Ultimately, Joseph’s insight is brilliant and reveals that intent is only known to its originator. Also, intent being a product of e/matter points to further possibilities as BJ’s quote denotes.
Essense is basically p7 as it pertains to those requirements, that intelligence is proportional to, manifesting as the intent, or purpose behind matters existence and in living things, p32, the substance within the parts of an organism, fulfilling their offices and purposes.
Fulling offices and purposes is the intent that is offered to the originator defining the WHO, the WHAT, the HOW and the WHY.
Joe is brilliant. Agreed 😉
I think Joe has an IQ one point above a moron!
Joe,
All things aside, YOU posted this gem.
YOU made reference to substance (e/matter), acting between intelligence and force. Claude made reference to ‘intent’ as a product of e/matter. Claude stated you are misunderstood sometimes. Claude said you were brilliant. I agreed. I tried to deduce substance from p7s reference to matters requirements. You claimed to be moronic.
Now that I’ve sorted this out. Again. Would you please, logically explain your point, your analysis, YOUR OBSERVATION. OF THIS ORGANIZATION. As the term SUBSTANCE relates to it, that being TBE TRIUNE 😉
David, an innate force is the intent of the innate intelligence of the body. That is called intellectual adaptation. Whether it results in adaptation depends upon the matter:
1. The innate forces getting through, no interference with the conducting matter and
2. The matter functioning, no permanent damage to the organ that the innate forces are supplying.
With regard to the educated brain there is an intermediate step. The innate forces reach the organ(the educated brain cells). Provided there is no chemical, genetic damage to those cells, they will carry the innate forces on to the educated body (muscles) with the intent of educated activity (putting on your coat because the temperature is -5 degrees in Québec. So Claude as usual, is correct.
Joe,
Are you trying to insult me?
I’m the only one who’s allowed to be self deprecating!
Oh, Oh, I see… The other Joe.
Did the “adjustive thrust” “correct” the “subluxation” and thereby enable the “mental impulse” to permit “innate intelligence” to reach the cell with its “intent”, or did it create a “subluxation” where there was none and thus inhibit the “mental impulse” from reaching the cell and causing the “nerve system” to be degraded to only transmitting a “universal force” “nerve impulse” instead?
“Occasionally we use the terms “mental impulse” and “nerve impulse” interchangeably. While it probably does no harm when we are explaining chiropractic to patients, nevertheless we should strive for proper use of our technical vocabulary. There are some basic philosophical differences. A mental impulse is a metaphysical thing. It is an innate force traveling over the specialized tissue of the nervous system (at least in the human organism). It is the expressed wish of the innate intelligence of the body. It is always perfect, in every respect.
The nerve impulse, on the other hand, is a physical thing. It brings about action at its point of destination but that action is not necessarily the desire of the innate intelligence. Supplying an electrical charge to a frog’s leg can cause the muscles to contract, resulting in movement. You have created a nerve impulse. It has resulted in action but not in adaptative activity (especially if the frog is dead).
There is an interesting concept that we deduce from this. The mental impulse is a nerve impulse that the innate intelligence is using for constructive purposes. We have said that mental impulses are innate forces. Therefore, the nerve impulses, if not an innate force, can only be one other thing a universal force. The ramifications of that deduction are great. As a universal force it has the potential destructive capabilities of any universal force. The subluxation causes an innate force (mental impulse) to become a universal force (nerve impulse). So instead of the rock on the garden hose concept of interference that was a simplistic explanation of subluxation we have something more. Using the garden hose analogy: instead of a soft, fine spray of water coming out of the hose which will water the newly seeded lawn, we have the forceful quality of a violent stream which can wash away the seed. The water is the same. The intelligent manner in which the water is directed will make the difference. I don’t allow my five-year-old to water my newly seeded ground because she does not have the ability to direct the water in a soft, fine spray. In the body, the subluxation creates a universal force (nerve impulse) out of an innate force (mental impulse) which was previously a universal force that the innate intelligence of the body had changed into an innate force. “
Rich, are you asking a question or making an assertion? Your quote is very good,by the way, who wrote that?
http://192.185.236.3/1987/04/01/mental-impulses-and-nerve-impulses/#more-314
Rich, that analogy just blew my mind. I will have to really think on that one. The idea that a subluxation creates a universal force out of an innate force is intriguing.
Initially, I feel that the word “creates” is the wrong word. A subluxation is an interference, a distortion. Can a subluxation create anything other than disorder? “Creates” sounds too constructive to use with the subluxation.
Therefore perhaps if we change “creates” to “disturbs”, or simply “distorts” we have a more solid idea?
Thanks for the mind bend!
Matthew, first let me welcome you to the blog and thank you for your interest and input. If I can jump in here to your reply to Rich:
1. The quote containing the analogy was first written in 1987 in the Pivot Review, the predecessor to this blog. You may want to read the entire essay which, like all Pivot articles, can be found in the archives elsewhere on this blog. Tom in a comment below yours has graciously put up a link to that article.
2. I agree with your comment about the use of the term “create”. Unfortunately we are stuck with the English language which is very poor for communication. We say that an artist creates a masterpiece when he only rearranges already created oil paints on an already created canvas. We are said to “create” a dark room by turning off (removing) the light. Disorder is created by removing order. The mental impulse, innate force, itself has been “created” by the innate intelligence of the body using an already existing universal force which has been “invested with new character”. The vertebral subluxation merely removes that investment and it reverts back to a universal force. It as you say “distorts” the mental impulse. Good observation! I’m glad this blog is making you think.
Read posts 12/24/2014 11:26pm and 3:07am and 12/26/2014 7:38pm for further clarifications.
The way to get there is to first go under categories at the top of this page. Scroll down at bottom of the page. Go to previous page #9 and scroll to a “Reader’s Question #3” then go to the posted dates mentioned above.
Unlike Tom WHO is the computer wizard on COTB, this is the long way to get to any previous blogs. 😉
Sorry, it’s under the title “Response and Reactions” not a “Reader’s Question #3”