Lately, I have been trying to clarify and reconcile the difference between traditional chiropractic (TSC ) and objective chiropractic (OSC) and, more important, understand why those who espouse them both think that what they do is straight chiropractic. I have come up with a theory. I believe that B.J. did not accept the idea of limitations of matter, except in the situation of the conductive matter (nerve tissue) not being capable of carrying a mental impulse. If the impulse could get through, I think that B.J. believed that the innate intelligence of the body could and would heal tissues unless they were too damaged and that could only happen due to trauma, something very different than DIS-EASE.
Consequently, I think that B.J. believed that there was no such thing as limitations of matter due to the body not being able to heal itself. The exception, interference with the transmission of innate forces and therefore someone not healing, was because the interference to the transmission of innate forces was not removed. In other word, the vertebral subluxation was not corrected. That is why he was so obsessed with LACVS. Further, I think that was why he was preoccupied with specificity and technique and that this was largely responsible for the development of a very good technique and his desire to promote proper analysis. We should all be thankful for that obsession. But it’s easy to see how this could lead to thinking that vertebral subluxation was the cause of all disease. Granted, we probably fail to see people get well because we did not correct the vertebral subluxation but I think B.J. overcompensated with that idea by thinking it was always because the vertebral subluxation was not corrected. Did B.J. believe to his dying day that any condition could be cured if the innate forces could get through and the only reason someone did not get well was because the vertebral subluxation was not corrected? If he believed that, would it not affect how he viewed the chiropractic objective? It was to get sick people well and I think he maintained that if the vertebral subluxation was corrected, every sick person would eventually get well, every time.
I have not been able to find anything in B.J.’s writings that would indicate that he believed differently. The principle of limitations of matter is part of the 33 principles (#.24). But one would think that being such a big issue among chiropractors in his day and today, especially being used as the excuse/reason for mixing, he would have devoted some of his millions of words to developing and explaining the limitations of matter concept in more detail. In fact, principle #24 does not address limitations of matter as the result of an overwhelming external invasive force, genetic defects, congenital conditions, long standing diseases or disease just too great for the body to handle. It really just addresses the limits of adaptation which is more about universal law and innate forces than it is about the matter, its condition and inherent limitations.
The issue of limitations of matter is the 600 pound gorilla in the room. Mixers seem to want to placate it. OSCors say it’s none of our business (it’s the person’s business and whomever they choose to address the matter) and TSCors….well frankly, I don’t know where they are. I do know that more of them eventually turn to mixing or addressing the matter in some other way (nutrition , massage and exercise). Some of these are good and beneficial. But affecting the matter ( in order to change the matter) is just not chiropractic. Chiropractic is about affecting the force. B.J. seems to me to either pretend or did not believe that the 600 pound gorilla existed.
There are some TSCors out there who rarely get on this blog but are happy to castigate me in other media. I would challenge them to debunk this theory as we discuss it (as Claude would say “without condemnation.” After all, I don’t have all the answers and am still learning.) Just find, for me in B.J.’s writings, where he maintained that limitations of matter involved more than the ability of the innate intelligence of the body to conduct innate forces over the nerve system, that it involved something within the tissue cell (TC), that is, in the non neurological matter of the body itself.
First of all I think dis-ease and LOM being confined to nerve tissue is a false assumption. Is this exclusive to OSC? Traditionally dis-ease is in the body (all matter) and is manifested as “tissue insanity ” or loss of coordination. Hence the connection to wellness/ healing. Sanity and coordination should produce health, should it not?
Secondly, you asked for non-neurological references to LOM, here are a few from the GB. In the last one BJ defines the limits of his own matter.
Innate, however, does not record in the Educated Brain all that she
knows, any more than you or I record all that we know on paper. If
we worked every minute of our lives, we could not. When we realize
that the educated mind is, after all, very finite, we can see that it is
impossible for Innate, in a mere lifetime, to make educated records
of her infinite knowledge. (Another instance of the limitations of
matter, prin. 24.) (vol 14)
Hence, there are limitations in structures
of matter; in its imperfect building; its imperfect arrangements; the
wrong kind of matter for the purpose or even the lack of matter
which should be in that structure but is not. From this fact arises the
expression so often used fundamentally in Chiropractic. The
expression of intelligence may be hindered by the limitations of
matter. (vol 14)
Educated minds probably have very few entirely original
thoughts. They are so bound by instinct, habit, precedent, and the
limitations of matter, the influences of environment containing
thousands of similar influences and combinations of circumstances,
that few minds are peculiar enough (literally they are peculiar), to
lead off into untrammeled pathways, (Vol 14)
This is a principle from the Triune of Life (Prin. 4) for more
specific application. Intelligence is always perfect—always one
hundred per cent. The forces which it assembles are always correct.
They are not correct when they reach Tissue Cell if there is
interference with transmission, but that is not because of
imperfection in Innate’s work, but because of the limitations of
matter (Prin. 24). It is because the conducting tissue is imperfect or
the receiving tissue (Tissue Cell) is imperfect. Both the conducting
tissue and the receiving tissues are matter which is the third factor
of the Triune of Life, and the only member of it which can be
imperfect. The imperfection, of course, is in structure. (vol 14)
Art. 387. SUBLUXATIONS DEFINED ACCORDING TO
CAUSE.
A Subluxation is the result of unbalanced resistive forces in
response to an invading penetrative force.
The resistive forces, in this case, are unbalanced because of the
limitations of matter, or the nature of the invading force. (vol 14)
In the practices of Dr. Haynes and Thompson
of Everett, Washington, there may be special means of determining whether or
not poor, disease ridden, depressed individuals sitting across from the desk can
be told whether or not their limitations of matter has been exceeded or whether
they can recover and recuperate their health through the wonderful science
known as Chiropractic. ( Shall Chiro Survive)
It must be remembered that although Innate’s management is nothing short of miraculous, she
is after all limited in what she can do because of the limitations of
matter.” (vol 18)
For this reason, Innate IN MATTER never is able TO
PREVENT a burn or bruise on the skin, a fracture, dislocation,
subluxation, or misalignment, when EXTERNAL invasionary
force EXCEEDS potential internal forces as expressed in re-sistance
action IN MATTER. For this reason, fractures, disloca-tions,
misalignments, and subluxations CAN AND DO occur
regardless of unlimited capacities of Innate IN THE ABSTRACT,
because of the limitations OF MATTER to prevent the process by
itself.( vol 38)
IS THE LIMITED expression of matter, of man, a hypocrite when HE tells
the sick world how to get well and by doing down the wrong road, here
and there, then and now, fails to serve health to himself?
“Physician Heal Thyself!”
There is an issue of matter, where one can take just so much
punishment down through the years, and no more. When that time
arrives, Innate rebells and teaches the individual that a limitless Innate
must do much within the limitations of a material body and, if the
individual pushes beyond that breaking point, beyond human possibility,
something gives, after which limitations of matter have been reached. (vol 39)
Steve, first let me thank your for your response and the work that obviously went into your comment. Let me respond paragraph by paragraph, at least to the things that I apparently did not make clear.:
Para. 1. A. (intro) I never meant to say or imply that L of M were confined to nerve tissue. That was the position and point that I believe B.J. held and your comments (in the form of BJ’s writings) and what I have just remembered Reggie once saying have almost convinced me B.J. was right.
1.B DIS-EASE is a chiropractic construct from B.J. down to and including osc. It is a state of the entire body and is caused by nerve interference due to vertebral subluxation (Prin.#31).
Para. 2 (vol. 14 #1 reference) the educated brain is a reference to neurological matter not non-neurological material.
Para.3 (vol. 14 reference #2) again, this involves the educated brain, a neurological tissue structure, the purpose of which is in part to convey mental impulses.
Para 4. (vol. 14 reference #3) not sure how this excerpt from Stephenson relates to the discussion, but it is still involving neurological matter.
Para 5. (vol. 14 reference #4 This although also written by Stephenson reinforces my position that the only limitation of matter was thought to be (by B.J.) a limitation of nerve tissue (innate force conduction) not the Tissue cell in a state of DIS-EASE.
Para 6. (vol. 14 reference #5) same as above answer. Limitation of the nerve tissue is what limits the ability of the body to adap to penetrative forces.
Para 7.(vol14 Art 387 this is addressing the cause of VS. Again it is talking about unbalanced innate forces that are unbalanced because of the limitations of nerve tissue.
Para.8 (in the practices of Haynes and Thompson…) I knew Charlie Haynes from Washington but I am not familiar with the context of this statement. I think it may be that chiropractors have adopted and adapted Lof M to support their arguments. I know that many who advocate the use of supplements exercise and massage use L of M but B.J. never advocated those things. True he allowed the use of exercise equipment in the BPPRC but not as a prescribed therapy.
Para 9 I think that Vol. 39 was published posthumously. Probably written just months before BJ’s death and perhaps it was a reflection on his realizing that death was the only true L of M and/or L of Time. Understanding his immortality and imminent death he wrote that statement.
Steve, do you believe that other than heredity, congenital and neurological interference there are still L of M, that is, a condition of the matter that has gone too far for the ii of the body to heal even if it’s free of vs?
In defense of BJ’s argument, Reggie once told me he believed that often nerve interference due to VS would result in permanent damage to the nerve tissue rendering the nerve incapable of ever carrying a mental impulse to the tissue that was in a state of DIS-EASE. That is a possibility that I am willing to concede to BJ which would support his idea that the only L of M was with the nerve tissue and its inability to carry mental impulses which was due to VS or permanent trauma damage to the conducting nerve. I think I can buy that. In that case I can see why the TSC feels he needs to directly address the matter with supplements, exercise or something else. Even if he could correct the VS, he could not eliminate the nerve interference because the conducting nerve has been traumatized and permanently damaged by vs. Is that what Principle #31 is saying? Isn’t that what our mixing brethren want to do with OTC and prescription drugs? Some friends of mine, for that reason, say there is no such thing as TSC, they are merely conservative mixers.
Joe & Steve great food 4 thot….Why a Chiropractor would want to take the responsibility of prescribing anything is so foolish. I think it is an ego thing and it take the responsibility from pt. 2 D.C. In our litigious society you are now in the medical realm and will be judged within that scope….very frightening to me. LACVS only!
takes
Isn’t it odd, we can read the same words and get different ideations.
Para.3 makes no mention of EB but addresses all matter.
Para. 5(It is because the conducting tissue is imperfect or the receiving tissue (Tissue Cell) is imperfect. Both the conducting tissue and the receiving tissues are matter)..specifically mentions transmitting and receiving matter.
Para. 6 Resistive forces.. producing a Subluxation or a bone fracture because of LOM has nothing to do with nerve tissue. (as stated in Para. 9)
I believe Para.7 was a segment of correspondence reprinted.
As for exercise in BJ’s clinic, if I recall correctly, it was never prescribed. BJ said as people improve they will generally have more energy and should use that energy.
Yes Joe, I know there are limits to matter. Temperature for instance, DD said anything above 98.6 softens tissue structure, I had many sunburns as a child. On the other hand (actually both hands) I am personally familiar with frostbite. I also recognize surgical or traumatic amputation as a permanent unhealable situation. Most people will not regrow a Gallbladder or finger.
I think we all agree that Sux further decreases LOM as does poor diet and sedentary lifestyle, lack of sleep and negative thinking. I’m pretty sure poor hygiene and physical abuse affect the substance of the matter without always having neurological involvement as well. Can we also agree our purpose is to help restore Force transmission, but the benefit of Chiropractic care is improved activity in matter.
I tend to think dis-ease is a possibility in any living matter where Intelligent Force is disrupted.
SN…I still like BJs term “tissue insanity” it implies all inmates are accounted for but nobody is in charge. (Matter is working although Intelligence is missing)
Steve,
When intelligence is missing… there are no instructive information to unite matter and intelligence. In other words when intelligence is missing, matter cannot be kept in existence or living (pri.1 and pri.20). I know you did not mean what you posted. That may explain the opening sentence of your last post. 😉
You’re right, my bad. I meant Innate Intelligence (the Law of Organization) is missing. Thanks for the check.
Here is my theory. Every particle of matter is limited due to principle #6. We know that force is manifested by motion in energy/matter (pri.14) and that is WHY electrons, protons and neutrons are constantly MOVING. And since we know that motion “measures” distance, we can conclude that space and time limit energy/matter. Principle 24 applies to ALL energy/matter and not only to nerve tissue. –
– On the other hand, DIS-EASE is lack of adaptation. Lack of ADAPTATION of WHAT? Universal Forces of course! Here’s HOW it works! The function of innate intelligence is to adapt universal forces for coordinated action (pri.23) vesting these UFs with a NEW specific innate code. These NEW innate instructive information are transmitted through the nerve system (pri.28) and that transmission of innate instructive information can be interfered (pri.29) by VS (pri.31). It is the transmitting matter that is lacking “ease” which causes the innate code to be “lost” and the mental impulse with intelligent direction reverts back to what BJ calls a “pranking” universal force (nerve impulse without intelligent direction) which is destructive toward living matter and causes principle 32 to be violated. That’s WHEN there is lack of coordination of action of the parts of the living body. –
– DIS-EASE (lack of ease which interferes with the flow of mental impulse) is within the transmitting matter (BJ was right!) NOT with the result of causing medical diseases… with the result of incoordination of action of the parts of the living body. In other words, VS causes DIS-EASE within the transmitting matter which in turn furthers the already existing limitation of matter which reverts the specific innate code (mental impulse) to a generic universal code (nerve impulse). It is most probably TIME that is further limited as there are more unadapted forces than adapted forces and the innate intelligence of the body requires time to adapt energy/matter without breaking a universal law).
Dis-ease is a state of living matter while unadapted, being unaffected by Innate Intelligence. This Matter is no longer functionating for the unital good. Would this not hold true for all Matter “downstream” of the Subluxation.
Steve,
“Downstream of the subluxation” as you posted is incoordination of action which is the violation of principle 32. The tissue cell IS being affected by innate intelligence otherwise it would NOT be kept in active organization (living). The fact is that it is the innate intelligence of the tissue cell that maintains those “downstream” tissue cells… then those “downstream” tissue cells are not fulfilling principle 32 which in turn affect ALL the parts of the organism. –
– Innate intelligence is 100% normal EVERYWHERE in ALL “living things”. DIS-EASE is a lack of ADAPTATION of the TRANSMITTING matter CAUSED by VS which further increases the limitation of matter of the LIVING vertebrate body, with the logical deducted consequence of violating principle 32 in which ALL the parts of the living organism lack coordination of action and are NOT fulfilling their offices and purposes. –
– That’s the reason WHY the chiropractic objective is to: LACVS for a FULL expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the LIVING vertebrate body. PERIOD!
As this confusion seems to reoccur I think we (specifically I) need to make more effort to differentiate between the common Innate Intelligence of the Body and II of the tissue or cell. It seems only OSC considers these additional levels, and logically so. However, I think most people that discuss II are refering to II as the law of Organization as it relates to the unital organism. For those of us in transition from TSC to OSC it would be nice to agree that II as it is written, without qualifiers, pertains to the classic definition that has served the profession for a century.
That being said, it is my understanding that everything downstream of the Sux. expresses Dis-ease due to lack of IIOTB. The nerves and all the tissue they individually supply, although still transmitting or receiving nerve impulses (UI/UF), are no longer contributing to the survival of the organism. Incoordination and disorganization are examples of Dis-ease, wheather this situation manifests as disease or not is insignificant to our objective.
You say ” DIS-EASE (lack of ease which interferes with the flow of mental impulse) is within the transmitting matter (BJ was right!)”. This makes me wonder, do you recognize dis-ease in other tissue as well? Or do you choose to focus exclusively on the state of the nerve tissue to more clearly define your objective.
SNSC
Steve,
I truly do appreciate your WILLINGness to get it and I admire you for that! Specially due to the fact that your are a 3rd Generation Chiropractor. What an amazing background you have that is steeped into Chiropractic History. –
– First, let me quote YOU: “it is my understanding that everything downstream of the Sux. expresses Dis-ease due to lack of IIOTB.” This is NOT true according to principle #22. There is ALWAYS 100% IIOTB! Could it be that the reason you state otherwise stems from your “original” learning that the IIOTB “resides” in the physical brain ONLY (you know, the BIG fellow upstairs and the LITTLE fellow downstairs)? In other words, that “she” innate can’t go downstairs from above in the brain, down below to the tissue cell if there is VS? –
– Second, the differentiation of “levels” of intelligence clarify the understanding of the “ALWAYS 100%” presence of the innate intelligence of the “living thing”. When the IIOTB is absent… DEATH is present in that particular body. I must point out that this particular dead body is still be a “living thing” at the cellular level since there is 100% presence of the innate intelligence of the cell until its energy/matter expire at that level also. Principle #22 is clear that the requisite amount is ALWAYS 100%… the MEASURABLE amount is about energy/matter due to its specific level of organization. –
– The hard work for you and ALL chiropractors (including me), is NOT about learning something NEW. The hard work for you and ALL chiropractors (including me) IS about UNLEARNING. And we do that by inquiring, together without condemnation, deeper into the philosophy. In order to go deeper, here is the question: –
– WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF DIS-EASE?
Please correct me if I slip, II is the Law of Organization that coordinates matter for the good of the whole body. When Innate Force is properly transmitted through the nerve system, all segments of the body work together with EASE. Subluxation interrupts the “flow” of IF and is the cause of DIS-EASE
By the way…2nd gen. Chiro.
Steve,
The CAUSE of DIS-EASE is VS! Now, please bear with me and let us continue our inquiring, together without condemnation, further. WHAT are the four components of VS?
Misalignment, occlusion, irritation, alteration of conduction.
Steve,
The misalignment of the vertebra involved,the occlusion of the IVF involved, the irritation of the nerve tissue involved and the alteration of conduction of the flow of mental impulse are due to structural bone/matter altering nerve/transmitting matter. Yes or No?
Yes
Steve,
Therefore, can you see that, it is the transmitting matter that is lacking EASE due to the structural bone/matter altering the nerve/ transmitting matter (VS) and that this lack of EASE interferes with the FLOW of the mental impulse with a specific innate code (IF) which is constructive toward living energy/matter… and that it is exactly this interference transforms the mental impulse into a nerve impulse which has lost its specific innate code (UF) which is deconstructive toward energy/matter? Can you also see that, it is precisely at this point, that the nerve impulse has a generic code which will be received by the tissue cell and used by the innate intelligence of the tissue cell for its own “cellfish survival, thereby violating principle #32 by lacking harmonious actions and causing incoordination of action for the mutual benefit of the whole living body?
… in other words, can you see that, it is the transmitting matter that furthers the limitation of matter of the living body causing the adapting ability of the innate intelligence of the body to be further limited by energy/matter for coordinating the actions of ALL the parts of the living body WITHOUT breaking a universal law? Can you also see that, it is to fulfill principle #32 that we practice the chiropractic objective which is to “LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the living vertebrate body. PERIOD!” ?
It is the loss of Transmission that initiates the cascade of dis-function. The transmitting matter above and below the Sux are identical, are they not, except one carries MI/IF the other UF. DD said the change of tension caused a change of tone or transmission. Are you aware of any studies that demonstrate an actual change of the structural matter pre and post Sux? I guess the question is, is DIS-EASE a structural or a functional loss? (considering the “cellfish” Cellular Innate Intelligence of the nerve cell)
Steve,
You said it correctly: “The transmitting matter above and below the Sux are identical…” It PRECISELY at the point of contact of what you called “irritation” that the lack of EASE occurs… hence it is the transmitting matter that in a state of DIS-EASE which interferes with the FLOW of mental impulse from brain cell to tissue cell and vice-versa VIOLATING principle #32, Once again you are correct… “The transmitting matter above and below the Sux are identical”. I think that you get it!!! –
– It was BJ’s contention of ONE CAUSE, ONE DIS-EASE, ONE CURE to get sick people well. The contention of the chiropractic objective of to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the living vertebrate body. PERIOD! –
– Since you like to quote DD, let him answer your question: It is DD himself WHO chose to declare: “Structure determines function”. Therefore, DIS-EASE is a structural energy/matter loss which interferes with the FLOW of mental impulses from brain cell to tissue cell CAUSING incoordination of action of the ALL the parts of the living body, thereby violating principle #32 which is the functional loss. In other words, the functional loss is the lack of COORDINATION OF ACTION OF ALL the parts of the living body which result from the DIS-EASED transmitting matter caused by VS that has interfered with the FLOW of mental impulse from brain cell to tissue cell. When principle #32 is violated and this lack of coordination of action occurs within the living body, the innate intelligence of the cell maintains this particular cell in a “cellfish” state of active organization without consideration of the mutual benefit of any other cell. –
– What a profound privilege to practice the chiropractic objective!!!
Claude, is the matter of a corpse and that of a living human being “identical”? Is the matter of a telephone in use the same as the matter of a telephone out of order?
The matter of a liver cell taken from a corpse and one taken from biopsy of a living body will be pretty much the same. The matter of the microphone of a telephone in use is indeed the same as the matter of the microphone not in use. Yet, the transmitting matter subjected to VS is NOT “identical” to the transmitting matter that is NOT subjected to VS due to hard bone on soft nerve causing a change in the structure of the transmitting matter from the impingement. This in turn increases the limitation of the transmitting matter causing it to be DIS-EASED (lacking EASE) which interferes with the FLOW of mental impulse
… It then violates principle #32. VS interferes with the transmission of innate FORCES by changing the structure of the transmitting matter causing DIS-EASE within the transmitting matter. This will produce in coordination of action of all the parts of the body.
Hold on Claude,
It sounds like your response to me, “The transmitting matter above and below the Sux are identical”, does not match your response to Joe, “the transmitting matter subjected to VS is NOT “identical” to the transmitting matter that is NOT subjected to VS”?
I always assumed the Sux. induced change in LOM concerned the destabilization of the structure of the matter at a cellular level. It seems now that it is more of a functional loss. It isn’t the cells that change it is the capacity of the cells to work in harmony and contribute to the overall good.
Subluxation, by nullifying the expression of Innate Forces (of the body), further increase LOM (of the body), producing Dis-Ease (of the body). All this can and does happen without alteration of the cellular structure.
Steve,
DIS-EASE occurs at the point of contact WHERE the occlusion of the opening of the IVF happens. Below and above that point, within the cells of the nerve tissue, ALL is well . It’s precisely at that point of contact that the energy/matter of the nerve cells is altered and is lacking EASE which interferes with the FLOW of mental impulses (IF) (the fourth component of VS). As the tissue cell receives the de-coded impulse, it is a nerve impulse (UF) and the innate intelligence of the cell will adapt that UF in order to maintain that cell for its own active organization in a cellfish way. It violates principle #32 causing incoordination of action of ALL the parts of the living body. DIS-EASE takes place within the transmitting matter at the precise point of contact of VS. Incoordination of action takes place at the tissue cell. It is VS that causes DIS-EASE. It is DIS-EASE that causes lack of coordination of action of the WHOLE body. Incoordination of action does happen without alteration of the cellular structure of the receiving cells. Yet, vertebral subluxation occludes an opening and impinge upon nerve cells and ALTERS the cellular structure of those impinged nerve cells. It is those impinged nerve cells that are altered and interfere with the FLOW of mental impulse which in turn lose their SPECIFIC INNATE CODE becoming nerve impulse with a GENERIC UNIVERSAL CODE. This GENERIC UNIVERSAL CODED nerve impulse (UF) is received by the tissue cells involved on the receiving end and become available to be adapted by the innate intelligence of the cell giving those receiving cells active organization for cellfish purpose without regard for the whole living body. If it were not so, the UF would deconstruct ALL of those receiving cell at once since these UF would not be adapted for the welfare of the tissue cell.
Maybe it’s me but it seems your still giving me East-West at the same time, you write,
1.Below and above that point, within the cells of the nerve tissue, ALL is well.
2. It’s precisely at that point of contact that the energy/matter of the nerve cells is altered…
3. Incoordination of action does happen without alteration of the cellular structure of the receiving cells.
So tell me flat out so even I can understand:
a) is Dis-Ease in the liver if the nerve to the liver is impinged?
b) is Dis-Ease in the nerve “below” the Sux.?
c) is Dis-Ease only in the particular nerve cell that is irritated?
d) is Dis-Ease only at the point of boney contact?
PS…If you are going to spell selfish as cellfish you may want quotation marks to signify a pun, personally I like it.
Steve,
DIS-EASE is ONLY at the point of initial contact within the particular nerve cell impinged by the occlusion to the opening by the loss of juxtaposition of the vertebra involved. Below the Sux is what we call INCOORDINATION OF ACTION which is a violation of principle #32. DIS-EASE is NOT in the liver. There is NOTHING wrong with the cells of the liver. Those cells are ONLY under control of the innate intelligence of the cells of the liver if the nerve going to the liver is impinged. It is a “cellfish” cell about its own survival and that cell has no coordination with ALL the parts of the living body for mutual benefit. Can you see the distinction between DIS-EASE and INCOORDINATION OF ACTION?
Claude, I cannot seem to find that term “we call INCOORDINATION OF ACTION”. I’m sure you didn’t just make it up but I cannot locate it. Thanks for your help.
Actually Steve, I’m more confused than you are but misery does love company:)
A vertebral subluxation is a vertebra that has lost its juxtaposition with the one above, the one below, or both, to an extent less than a luxation, occluding an opening, “DIS-EASING” a nerve and interfering with the FLOW of mental impulse from brain cell to tissue cell and vice-versa. VS is the CAUSE of DIS-EASE! DIS-EASE is impinged nerve cells. DIS-EASE is due to the occlusion of the opening of the IVF pressing upon some nerve cells which changes the physical structure of those nerve cells by impinging them. It is this change in the structure of some transmitting matter that produces incoordination of action of ALL the parts of the living body. Principle #32 has been violated.
Claude, It would seem to me that “incoordination of action “ (by the way, I am coming to like that term even if you made it up) refers to a state in which principle #32 (the principle of coordination) is not being expressed due to the presence of principle #31 (the principle of subluxation). I see that as a state of DIS-EASE which affects the entire organism. In other words if a vertebral subluxation affects only one tissue cell below the point of interference and it must at a minimum do that, the entire organism (in our case the whole human body) is in a state of DIS-EASE, just as a one-celled organism would be inasmuch as DIS-EASE like EASE is an absolute state unless we have degrees of DIS-EASE? I think not. I think this is where B.J. changed the meaning of the term DIS-EASE from the medically accepted term of the 19th century. In the 1800’s m.d.’s saw and used the term DIS-EASE like kidney or liver DIS-EASE for the prodromal state that eventually led to diagnosable kidney or liver disease and they ultimately just got to calling it kidney or liver disease as their diagnostic skills and technology improved (and in their arrogance, they believed they had found the cause of each disease). B. J. , I believe, saw it as a state of lack of coordination within the entire organism, not just the kidney or liver. Knowing the interrelationship of the body, B.J.’s definition and hence his philosophy went in a different direction than the medical one and makes more sense to me. This may also be why B.J. developed the HIO technique and how some chiropractors ended up seeing the vertebral subluxation as the cause of all disease.
Joseph,
You stated that: “incoordination of action “ (by the way, I am coming to like that term even if you made it up) refers to a state in which principle #32 (the principle of coordination) is not being expressed due to the presence of principle #31 (the principle of subluxation). It is true! You are emphasizing what I said previously. –
– What I am getting from the rest of your post is that DIS-EASE is synonymous with “incoordination of action” and it is NOT. The lack of EASE occurs precisely at the point of contact within the transmitting matter WHERE the occlusion of the opening of the IVF or NC impinges some of the cells of the nerve involved. It is this impingement of some of the transmitting matter that interferes with the FLOW of mental impulse from BC to TC creating “incoordination of action” of the entire organism which violates principle #32. Principle #31 is very specific as it identifies VS as the CAUSE of the interference with transmission. The reason WHY “subluxations in the spinal column” interferes with the transmission of mental impulse is due to the first three components of VS (loss of juxtaposition, occlusion of an opening and impingement of a nerve) which create a lack of EASE of some cells of the nerve involved. Then and ONLY then will the MI revert “to its elemental state”, as RWS mentioned in his text, and produce incoordination of action of ALL the parts of an organism (being one cell amoeba or a 40 quadrillion cell human being). Again, I must emphasize that the innate intelligence of the cell will adapt the nerve impulse with its generic universal code for the survival of the cell ONLY. This means that the components of the cell are maintained in active organization at the cellular level ONLY without regard for the mutual benefit of the whole body. In other words, the “cellfish” cell with have incoordination of action with regard to other cells. It will NOT express the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. It will ONLY express the innate FORCES of the cell for its own “cellfish” purpose and that cell violates principle #32. –
– This begs the question: Is it possible for a vertebra to lose its proper juxtaposition with the one above, the one below, or both, to occlude an opening and to impinge some of the transmitting nerve cells WITHOUT those same impinged nerve cells lacking EASE?
Joseph,
Principle 23 states: “The function of innate intelligence is to adapt universal forces and matter for use in the body. so that all parts of the body will have co-ordinated action for mutual benefit”. When VS is present, it causes DIS-EASE interfering with the FLOW of mental impulse (IF) which loses its SPECIFIC INNATE CODE being constructive toward living matter and is transformed into a nerve impulse (UF) with its GENERIC UNIVERSAL CODE being deconstructive toward living matter. It is this nerve impulse that will be received by the tissue CELL that causes the innate intelligence of the CELL to act “cellfishly”, “disharmoniously’ if you will, violating principle #32 which is called the Principle of Coordination and is directly related to principle #23. WHEN the principle of coordination is violated, action of the parts of an organism will have incoordination and will NOT fulfill their offices and purposes. –
– RWS uses the term incoordination quite often in his book. He calls it “unsound tissue” which means to him, a lack of adaptation of matter caused by uncontrolled universal forces which make tissue cells act
incoordinately (incoordination of action). He says it this way: “Interference with transmission PREVENTS Innate from adapting things universal for use in the body from COORDINATING THE ACTIONS of the tissue cells for the mutual benefit of all cells (emphasis mine). Accordingly, the universal forces wear or injure the tissue cells, or cause them to act inharmoniously and thus injure other cells as well. When a cell is injured, worn down, or “out of condition,” it is not “at ease”. Mental force must reach organized matter to make it vibrate properly, that is live. Matter may be vibrating adaptively, it is not ‘living”. Mental forces kept from matter cause it to revert to its elemental state.”
– WHAT does “PREVENTS FROM COORDINATING THE ACTIONS” mean if not incoordination of action?
… I must emphasize that the innate intelligence of the cell will adapt the nerve impulse with its generic universal code for the survival of the cell ONLY. This means that the components of the cell are maintained in active organization at the cellular level ONLY without regard for the mutual benefit of the whole body. In other words, the “cellfish” cell with have incoordination of action with regard to other cells. It will NOT express the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. It will ONLY express the innate FORCES of the cell for its own “cellfish” purpose and that cell violates principle #32.
Correction: Mental force must reach organized matter to make it vibrate properly, that is live. Matter may be vibrating, BUT IT IS NOT VIBRATING ADAPTIVELY, IT IS NOT LIVING. Mental forces kept from matter cause it to revert to its elemental state.”
– WHAT does “PREVENTS FROM COORDINATING THE ACTIONS” mean if not incoordination of action?
Claude, thanks for that lesson but this explanation by Stephenson which you are talking about is found on page 80, Art. 121 under the heading “Disease and Dis-ease. So to answer your question:
“WHAT does “PREVENTS FROM COORDINATING THE ACTIONS” mean if not incoordination of action?” I think Stephenson is clearly describing DIS-EASE “the body (emphasis mine) being minus something that should be restored…the body lacks ease, health coordination, transmission, well being, 100% quality, soundness, sanity, etc……” I think Stephenson is clearly saying DIS-EASE is the state of the entire organism.
Joseph,
With all due respect to RWS, his stating the DIS-EASE is the state of the entire organism is becoming synonymous to “incoordination of action”. Yet that is NOT what principle #32 is stating. DIS-EASE minus something is “a further increase of LOM of the transmitting matter” which in turn further increases LOM of the WHOLE body. Some of the transmitting matter (nerve cells) lacks EASE. EASE of transmission is the entity which is lacking CAUSED by VS at the point of contact of the hard bone on a soft nerve. This lack of EASE of the transmitting matter interferes the the proper FLOW of mental impulse between BC and TC which in turn violates principle #32 due the lack harmonious action of ALL the parts of the body, in fulfilling their offices and purposes. Indeed the chiropractic objective rises out of principle #32. The LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the living vertebrate body, restores the INTEGRITY of principle #32. The Principle of Coordination is the raison d’etre of the chiropractic philosophy. It is the solid platform of chiropractic! –
– Again here is the question: Is it possible for a vertebra to lose its proper juxtaposition with the one above, the one below, or both, to occlude an opening and to impinge some of the transmitting nerve cells WITHOUT those same impinged nerve cells lacking EASE?
… We must remember that in 1927, VS was thought to be “a foot on the hose” interfering with a quantity of energy as it was being squeezed through the nerve. Today we realize that it is NOT energy being squeezed due to a “narrowing” of the nerve tissue. VS is a change in the structure of some of the cells of the nerve (transmitting matter) which interferes with the CODE of the instructive information (mental impulse). The specific INNATE code of the mental impulse and changed into a generic UNIVERSAL code of a nerve impulse (what RWS calls ” the force reverts to its elemental state”). It is this nerve impulse which is received by the tissue cell that the innate intelligence of the cell will adapts for the “cellfish” purpose of the cell ONLY without regards to the other cells of body. The Principle of Coordination has been violated and ALL the parts of the body have “incoordination of action” and cannot fulfill their offices and purposes.
The question is for anyone WHO chooses to BE giving an answer of YES or NO! It’s as simple as that! –
– Is it possible for a vertebra to lose its proper juxtaposition with the one above, the one below, or both, to occlude an opening and to impinge some of the transmitting nerve cells WITHOUT those same impinged nerve cells lacking EASE?
Claude, since you made up the term, I guess “incoordination of action” can be defined in any way you want. If you do not want it to be synonymous with DIS-EASE, so be it. But DIS-EASE is(in my understanding) the incoordinated activity of the body. It occurs when one or more cells are acting on their own, under the control of the cellular intelligence, rather than the innate intelligence of the body, causing the entire body to be in a state of DIS-EASE. It is due to vertebral subluxation. If it is also due to anything else, that is not a consideration of our chiropractic philosophy or objective. That is my understanding from B.J.’s writings (thank you Steve for your corroboration), RWS’s writings, Reggie’s lectures, and my own deductive reasoning. I would like to hear others analysis of this issue, particularly with regard to the interpretation of Principle #32.
vol.3. If there is sufficient interference with the transmission of mental
impulses through the nerves, there will be dis-ease in the body…
vol.3. Dis-ease
Webster defines dis-ease as, “an alteration in the state of the
body or of some of its organs, interrupting or disturbing the
performance of the vital functions, or a particular instance or cause
of this; any departure from the state of health presenting marked
symptoms.” In using this word chiropractically it is always
hyphenated to indicate that it is a condition wherein there is a lack
of ease. Incoordination is the term used in Chiropractic, meaning a
lack of coordinate action in the body which is caused by
interference with transmission of mental impulses.
vol.3. Break the circuit completely and death, or partially by subluxation and dis-ease, are the relative products.
vol.25. If quantity flow is reduced, diminished, less than normal for that amount of matter, tissue cell action will be slowed down and products or by-products of the matter will be reduced in ratio—a condition called dis-ease.
vol.25. —which reduction, from normal quantity, slows action of body
tissue cells or body organ actions in exact ratio as normal quantity
is lowered to an abnormal level;
—which decreases quantity and quality of these tissue cell or
body organs should produce as products or by-products;
—which, given time for destruction, to accumulate, develop and
grow these effects, is a condition called dis-ease.
vol.25. We continued to hypothesize, between 1907 and 1935 that ease was because of continuity flow of energy current thru a continuity circuit between brain cell and tissue and reverse circuit; AND the moment this continuity energy current circuit WAS REDUCED, INTERFERED WITH, or RESISTANCE OFFERED TO ITS FLOW, that moment dis-ease began at periphery of efferent nerve.
vol.25. Dis-ease begins and grows IF continuity of energy is
interfered with BETWEEN brain and body, or body and brain.
vol.25. Sickness, ill-health, dis-ease enter only when the matter involved moves too rapidly or too slowly.
vol.25. If dis-ease is also a question of abnormality of
quantity of action in tissue cell, then there can be developed a
technique, means, and method of measuring that reduced quantity
and compare it with the normal developed or generated in brain.
vol.25. This “dis-ease” now means TWO things: CONGESTION in
brain, STARVATION in body; too much energy IN brain, not
enough IN body.
vol.25. A concussion of forces, vertebral subluxation, occlusion,
pressure, interference, resistance, reduction in quantity flow,
blocking—and this is THE BEGINNING or primary of functional or pathological dis-ease.
vol.25. Dis-ease was analyzed to be either plus or minus of one or several of nine primary functions.
vol.25. Dis-ease is an abnormal condition of motion, existing because of lack of energy which creates functional inactivity motion.
——–
It seems clear by the references that BJ thought of DIS-EASE as a condition of the body. Also that restoration meant EASE of the body.
I would love to see references whereby DIS-EASE was defined as a local phenomenon isolated to the point of contact in a Subluxation. Possibly someone could tell me when this definition was changed and by who(m)?
Joseph,
The corroboration that Steve quoted from the Green Books is true in so far as BJ and RWS considered mental impulse as energy which was in accord with WHAT was known in 1927. They were both using analogies many times in the green books that were mechanistic at times ( “foot on the hose preventing the water to get through to the garden”, “rheostat turn down preventing the electricity to get through to the motor”, etc…) , and personified at times (“innate upstairs imparting her unlimited knowledge to limited educated downstair”). BJ and RWS also thought that the innate brain was ONLY in the physical brain. It makes perfect sense WHO they chose to BE regarding the development of Chiropractic. They certainly had not read your book on Chiropractic Philosophical Constructs to pass along the NEW information that you have acquired for the past 50 years. It is rather clear that both BJ and RWS were MOVING “Toward a Better Understanding of The Philosophy of Chiropractic”. That may be the reason WHY they give so many synonyms for the term DIS-EASE which may indicate that they were perhaps grappling with the nature of the term itself. As Steve quoted in vol.25 that VS “and this is THE BEGINNING or primary of functional or pathological dis-ease” may give us some “clue” as to answer the remaining question: –
– Is it possible for a vertebra to lose its proper juxtaposition with the one above, the one below, or both, to occlude an opening and to impinge some of the transmitting nerve cells WITHOUT those same impinged nerve cells lacking EASE? –
PS: It is NOT my intention to change anything postulated by BJ and RWS… ONLY to refine “our” understanding with the NEW information and insights that we are acquiring NOW, “together without condemnation” which I personally believe would perhaps clarify “our” communication of the story over and over and over and over again in as many creative ways as doable. 😉
Claude, to directly answer your question (which you most graciously asked three times and apparently did not receive a satisfactory answer.) I would agree that those impinged “transmitting nerve cells” are “lacking EASE” However, the tissue cells that the innate intelligence of the body was using those impinged nerve cells to coordinate activity for the good of the entire organism will also lack EASE and they (the tissue cells) will be in a state of DIS-EASE. As a result the entire body is in a state of DIS-EASE, not lacking innate life (for those affected tissue cells have cellular intelligence and the ii of the body is still present) but lacking coordinated activity, having what you are calling “incoordination of action”, what I am calling functional life, what B.J. and RWS CALLED DIS-EASE meaning the affected tissue cells, as a result of the affected nerve cells are not acting for the good of the entire organism. By removing the interference through an adjustment of the subluxation, coordination of action, functional life, or EASE is restored to the nerve system, the tissue cells and the body as a whole. Does that make sense?
I think that the above concept works whether the “mental impulse” is viewed “as energy”, (a. the 1927 understanding), immaterial information (b. our present OSC model) or a combination of both (a&b), a model I m inclined toward.
Joseph,
That makes perfect sense as long as DIS-EASE is synonymous with “incoordination of action”. Yet, according to RWS a little later on page 81, he states: “Dis-ease is the condition of tissue cells when there is incoordination. It is the result of incoordination when the tissue cells do not do their duties coordinately.”… which means that he says that incoordination IS the CAUSE of DIS-EASE? VS the CAUSE of DIS-EASE (pri.31), NOT incoordination. I think RWS may have meant “disease is the condition of tissue cells when there is incoordination” as in “to get sick people well”. Of course that would make sense as he goes on to explain this phenomena with an example of symptoms of diseases… gas and tympanites of liver!!! If, according to RWS, dis-ease is the result of incoordination of the tissue cells, HOW can dis-ease and incoordination be the same? HOW can the cause and the result be the same? To confuse the subject further he writes: “When there is incoordination tissue cells are sick and not at ease.” Doesn’t it seems that “not at ease” for RWS means “sick”? –
– He goes on to say: “So many terms, namely dis-ease, incoordination, paralysis, physical insanity, used “ALMOST” synonymously, are confusing to the student” (emphasis mine). He then suggest, to simplify matter, the terms dis-ease be used, with the understanding that it indicates UNSOUND TISSUE (physical insanity). He directs the student to art.264 where he states that “paralysis is the condition of any part of the body which is suffering incoordination.” Now we have incoordination as cause of paralysis. Before, he has incoordination as cause of DIS-EASE. Yet, principle #30 states that interference with the transmission of innate forces causes incoordination OF dis-ease and principle #31 reveals VS as the cause of interference with transmission. –
– You stated: “I would agree that those impinged “transmitting nerve cells” are “lacking EASE”. The next question for you (or anyone else) to answer is: Does this mean, that prior to VS, all of the transmitting matter had the entity of EASE and that the force that was transmitted had a SPECIFIC INNATE CODE which is a mental impulse sent from physical brain cell and received by tissue cell for coordination of action of all the parts of the body in order to fulfill their offices and purposes? –
That makes perfect sense as long as DIS-EASE is synonymous with ‘incoordination of action”. Thank you Claude. That one statement has put this entire discussion to rest unless you can explain the difference between incoordination of action and DIS-EASE. If A=B and B=C then A=C
You further write as a question: “Does this mean, that prior to VS, all of the transmitting matter had the entity of EASE and that the force that was transmitted had a SPECIFIC INNATE CODE which is a mental impulse sent from physical brain cell and received by tissue cell for coordination of action of all the parts of the body in order to fulfill their offices and purposes?” -answer: YES
Joseph,
I rely on you and this blog to dismantle my own deductive reasoning on this subject of the distinction between DIS-EASE and “incoordination of action”. I understand that the explanation rest with me and I fully accept that responsibility. My intent is to present what I see as a result of VS… step by step. For this to occur I would appreciate the participation of anyone willing go the way, without condemnation. In order to simplify and describe clearly the steps I see, I will go step by step and ask whether or not there is faulty reasoning on my part along the way. If there is, I will stop and think it further. If there is not, we will continue further. –
– The question is: “Does this mean, that prior to VS, all of the transmitting matter had the entity of EASE and that the force that was transmitted had a SPECIFIC INNATE CODE which is a mental impulse sent from physical brain cell and received by tissue cell for coordination of action of all the parts of the body in order to fulfill their offices and purposes?” You, Joseph, answered: YES. –
– Let us develop an example to follow through… A particular living vertebrate body is free of VS and principle 32 is revealed through the harmonious action of all the parts of that body and all of these parts are fulfilling their offices and purposes. An external invasive force overcomes an internal resistive force of the body as a result of a concussion of forces and CAUSES a loss of juxtaposition with the vertebra above, the one below or both, to an extent less than a luxation, occluding an opening (IVF or NC), impinging a nerves which changes the structure of some of the cells of that particular nerve and causing them to lose the entity of EASE which interferes with the FLOW of mental impulses (IF) from BC to TC by down coding it heir specific innate code to a generic universal code transforming them into nerve impulses (UF). –
– Without going any further, let me ask you if I have faulty reasoning up to this point? If I have, I will think it further. If my reasoning is sound, then I will proceed further. Thank you.
You write of BJ and his “mechanistic” descriptions of the Subluxation and you question the multiplicity of terms used to describe the results of Sux.. Yet I am sure you are aware these men were in uncharted territory and exploring concepts that were up until this time unknown. Still somehow however, they had to relate to the known world. A world full of people that suffered from a separation from wholeness, known then only as sickness. We have many categories and labels for someone that is below potential now but let’s face it, if you are not all that you can be, you are sick.
In my opinion BJ and RW and others were so far ahead of their times, we have yet to catch up. The concept of Ease and Dis-Ease are as clear as the digital world we all now live in. On or Off. You have EASE or DIS-EASE.
If as we say, there is a structural change which produces an alteration of function, then we are all mechanistic to some degree. When “physical/mechanical” circumstances are correct we can be harmonized and fully coordinated by the Laws of Organization we denote as Innate Intelligence, when “physical/mechanical” barriers prevent the transmission of Intelligence (Force) to Matter we suffer. Do we suffer dysfunction, ill health, in-coordination, sickness, disharmony, insanity, failure to thrive, loss of potential, or DIS-EASE, YES.
Innate Intelligence, with it you have life, without it you have death, partial Innate is partial life/death. Dis-Ease describes all the variations of partial life. EASE or DIS-EASE! ADIO
Steve,
YES! ADIO. I understand your post and it is true. We ALL owe the deepest gratitude to these men WHO were in uncharted territory and WHO chose to explore concepts that were up until this time unknown. –
– If ALL of us, together without condemnation, could for the moment, forget EVERYTHING we leaned, and, without condemnation, inquire further into the depth of chiropractic philosophy, we might honor these men WHO were before us. I know without a doubt that if DD, BJ and RWS would be alive today, they would be the one WHO would be on this blog leading us deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper still. WHO do they have to continue their legacy in propelling chiropractors toward a greater understanding of chiropractic philosophy? WHO will choose to take the future risks into the unchartered territory of TODAY… with its NEW information? –
Quite an interesting discussion and questions, fellas.
I have a question that I am not sure fits here, but something I have been wondering for quite awhile.
I never hear these terms really used anymore much, but when I was in school (grad WSCC ’97), we were taught about two differebt types of nerves (categories if you will) that existed and those were called “throphic” (pronounced trõ-fic) nerves and “tropic” (pronounced trõ-pick). I am not remembering which is which right off the top of my head, but one type is the one actually responsible for keeping a cell or cells alive in the body, and the other is respinsible for conveying information and coordinating (or incoordinating action) as the case may be.
Has anyone else familiar with this? Maybe this is no longer the case, however, when we learned this, it was from a very well re-knowned and well-published neurophysiologist that taught for us and also the local medical school.
I am not sure, how or even IF, it fits into this discussion but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.
Thanks!
Michael,
I heard about trophic impulses about which Reggie said that they were metaphysical impulses as opposed to simply electro-chemical impulses.
Later on, I read about trophic and tropic hormones that are necessary for the growth of neurons. The concept of “specific innate code” (active organization) and “generic universal code” (maintaining existence) pertains to innate forces as compared to universal forces making a distinction for principle #26 to carry on the universal cycle of life. Do you think that trophic impulses and tropic impulses as you were taught were similar in meaning?
Joseph,
I am also inclined toward the model of a mental impulse with the two components of energy and information. Together without condemnation, we have posted in the past that universal intelligence creates universal forces (pri.8) which are instructive information which unite intelligence with energy/matter (prI.10). This union of energy/matter with intelligence within the living human body is due to the creation of a metaphysical generically coded universal chemo-electric impulse (nerve impulse) within the energy/matter of the “living thing”. At the VERY SAME MOMENT of creation of nerve impulses, the innate intelligence of the body adapts those very metaphysical universal “coded” chemo-electric impulses (UF) within the energy/matter into metaphysical specific innate “coded” chemo-electric impulses (IF) which are assembled within the innate brain (which is “located” wherever innate intelligence is). As we mentioned before, we must remember that the innate brain is a metaphysical construct to assemble mental impulses which are then transmitted to the physical brain for coordination and distribution throughout the nerve system.
– Let us develop an example to follow through… A particular living vertebrate body is free of VS and principle 32 is revealed through the intrinsic harmonious action of all the parts of that body and all of the parts of this particular living body are fulfilling their offices and purposes. An external invasive force overcomes the internal resistance force of the body as a result of a concussion of forces and CAUSES a loss of juxtaposition of a vertebra with the one above, the one below or both, to an extent less than a luxation, occluding an opening (IVF or NC), impinging a nerve (which changes the structure of some of the cells of that particular nerve and causing them to lose the entity of EASE) which interferes with the FLOW of mental impulses (IF) from BC to TC (down coding their specific innate code to a generic universal code transforming the mental impulses into nerve impulses (UF)). –
– Without going any further, let me ask you if I have faulty reasoning up to this point? If I have, I will think it further. If my reasoning is sound, then I will proceed further. A simple yes or no answer would be fine. Thank you.
Can we discuss the energy and information concept. As you have stated previously, it is not energy but information that is carried over the nerve system. I’m thinking the cells of the body, including the nerve cells, make their own energy. All living tissue takes in nutrition for fuel and raw materials. Since a nerve cell is on or off and the sequence of on/off is what makes the coded information (UF/IF), why would the brain need to transmit energy? Could this be a last century concept we need to revisit?
Steve,
You wrote: ” As you have stated previously, it is not energy but information that is carried over the nerve system. ” That’s absolutely true! The key words are “carried over the nerve system”. HOW does this “carried over the nerve system” happened? The mental impulse, which is an innate code of instructive information, travels from innate brain to physical brain for DISTRIBUTION and COORDINATION of the tissue cells through or over the nerves. There is measurable distance from brain cells to tissue cells as it travels at 290 mi/hr. The function of instructive information is to unite intelligence and energy/matter (pri.10). The function of energy/matter is to express instructive information (pr.13). The very expression of instructive information by energy/matter which is created by intelligence is manifested by the motion of electrons, protons and neutrons. In other words, that’s HOW energy/matter is given all of its properties and activities by universal intelligence (pri.1). Therefore, WHAT is it that “carries the mental impulse over the nerve system”.
First you allude to the idea the MI is both info. and energy, now you suggest the MI is carried by energy. Is there a difference between the “energy” of a MI and the “energy” of a NI, excluding the Information coded specifically for the target tissue of course? Perhaps you are referring to the “energy” generated by the nerve cell to propel neurotransmitters across the synaptic gap? I guess the question becomes is energy transferred from BC to TC or is energy inherent within the nerves, as in the mechanism of operation?
Steve,
The coded instructive information (the MENTAL part of the mental impulse) is made manifest (the IMPULSE part of the mental impulse) by being “carried” (propelled if you will) by the inherent cellular structure of the transmitting matter to the receiving tissue cell. The function of nerve tissue is to transmit coded information throughout the body for coordination of action of ALL the cells of the living body. The LIVING body is both metaphysical and physical. The mental impulse is a fully metaphysical adaptation of a universal force by the innate intelligence of the body and is 100% perfect which is given a “physical” manifestation by its being propelled by the transmitting matter. –
– As an example (for Don) 😉 The keys that I tap to write this message are physical, it’s the “post” that I send in English that is metaphysical. It is my intent. Yet, unless I push the “post comment” command with the mouse, it will remain forever here, in this computer. It is WHEN I use the “command prompt” that my metaphysical intent is transmitted via satellites that it takes on an aspect of “physicality” and EVERYONE on this blog can receive even though it is addressed to you. It is this physical energy of the transmitting matter (nerves/synapses and satellites/software chips) that gives intent a physical manifestation.
I thought “intent” was manifested by destination matter. MI was metaphysical until demonstrated in matter.
Sorry I got lost, now energy is in transmitting matter and NOT being transferred from brain to tissue????? As in, given up by brain and accepted by end point tissue????
Steve,
WHY would energy be transferred from brain to tissue? It’s information that is transmitted… not energy. Energy/matter is simply the transmitting matter component is already there ready to perform its function. The function of nerve cells is to TRANSMIT instructive information.
Claude, you wrote, “WHY would energy be transferred from brain to tissue?. Perhaps for the same reason that information is transferred… the tissue cell needs it. If science has acknowledged the trophic/tropic impulse they must see/understand it as more than just metaphysical (science does not address or even acknowledge the metaphysical, [which limits their ability to understand truth]) Maybe “The function of nerve cells is to TRANSMIT instructive information.” and nerve energy, making the old Palmer model (rock on the garden hose) at least partially correct.
When you write, “I am also inclined toward the model of a mental impulse with the two components of energy and information.”, it would seems as if you want us to picture energy and information are being transmitted. Am I the only one who read it that way?
Back in the day, BJ discussed MI as energy. We have concluded now that MI is information sent specifically to Matter for a specific adaptive response in present time. When you throw around terms like energy/matter or energy and information transmission, it is misleading. This would be especially true for those new to the blog or OSC.
Good point Steve.
Thank you Dr. Lessard. Eventhough I don’t post, I still try to read as many posts as I can and I caught this one.
I think Dr. Strauss used a similar example before. Admittedly, I don’t remember all the details of the example. I do remember that it didn’t speak of the energy aspect of MI transmission though.
To paraphrase:
Imagine a person typing a message to another. The thoughts of the writer are metaphysical yet exist all the same I. The mind of the writer. He/she sits to type them out. The letter or email is made out in a physical state so that the receiver can access the message. It is sent. Over satellites, FireWire, telegraph wires or even the pony express. IOW, the transmitting matter to the receiver who then reads and interprets the message.
All examples break down at some point. How energy plays I to this I am uncertain.
Maybe it woild help to make the analogy with a letter carrier? or a pony?If that pony does not have the energy to carry that messenger and that message, there will be less than perfect communication for the receiver.
Does that help Dr. Lessard?
Don,
Thank you. Do you think that a letter carrier or pony would be more effective than computer software, cyberspace and computer chip? Remember that energy and matter are the same… E=MC2.
… and I mean as an analogy. 😉
Dr. Lessard,
I believe the computer software/cyberspace/computer chip and the pony express examples are good. I think it is more a matter of the listener and their ability to connect to the better example.
Personally, I if I were trying to emphasize the physicality of energy pushing a metaphysical coded message made physical and carried by something exhibiting energy then the pony example works for me. It has a more tangible image for me. Not to suggest it will for everyone.
The signal moving from my computer into space hitting a satellite seems intangible or less physical in nature. Hope that clarifies it a bit. Thanks again.
Hey Joe
Science could be wrong. It has happened before. Imagine a time pre-Palmer. The scientist sees a wasting of denervated tissue, therefore assumes nerves nourish the tissue with energy, the only “known” nerve product at the time. Then Palmer comes around and classifies the Nine Primary Functions of the cell, including expansion. Palmer also explains the MI as the master organizer of all tissues. Would it not make sense? We now know cells create their own energy and actions and secretions. They just need to be told when and how much, in order to add positive survival value to the unital man.
Steve,
You stated: “it would seems as if you want us to picture energy and information are being transmitted”. Not quite that way. The function of the transmitting matter is to “carry” information to its tissue cell destination. For that to happen energy is used to propel the innate coded instructive information. Therefore, without energy to propel the mental impulse, it could not reach the tissue cell destination for coordination of action. In fact, the mental impulse is metaphysical and as it is carried through the nerve system, it has a physical aspect as in “e-mail” or “snail-mail”. The e is electronically transported and the snail is post office transport. The innate force is nerve transported. The transportation system give the message a physicality to the metaphysical message. Otherwise, it would have to happen through something like “thought flashes” or telepathy from person to person or from brain cell to tissue cells WITHOUT the nerve system. The transmitting matter gives the metaphysical mental impulse a physicality of matter that is necessary for being received by the tissue cell destination for manifestation. –
– I’m sorry you feel confused about the terminology. I’m accustomed to confusion myself as I read DD, BJ and RWS. Reggie did not go that deeply into the philosophy. He got the Big Idea and went right to the practicum. And Strauss… well, it is my opinion, that he is the most clear sighted chiropractic philosopher that we have at this time. Joseph does clarify conflicts and he is humble enough to hold the tensions on both side of the pendulum (conservative and liberal). The reason I use the words like deconstructive instead of destructive, energy/matter instead of matter, transmitting matter instead of nerve, instructive information instead of innate forces, innate code information instead of mental impulse, is to “see through” WHAT is so…that will hopefully resonate with you and others on the blog and perhaps inspire you to move a little deeper into the philosophy. As far a those who are new to the blog, I would humbly suggest that I is they WHO could choose to go back to the the past blog of the last 2 years for them to acquire a foundational platform on which to stand in order to move deeper into the philosophy.
Joseph,
You stated: “”Maybe “The function of nerve cells is to TRANSMIT instructive information.” and nerve energy, making the old Palmer model (rock on the garden hose) at least partially correct.” –
– The nerve energy is intrinsic to its matter. Remember that matter and energy are one and the same as in E=MC2. WHAT is it that gives the nerve cell the function of TRANSMITTING instructive information? In order to TRANSMIT instructive information, the nerve cells use their energy/matter to propel the mental impulse to its tissue cell destination. It’s not energy that is transmitted. WHAT is transmitted is the coded innate instructive information. Energy is doing the transmitting of the instructive information. Energy is the motion of the physical molecules of the transmitting matter MOVING the metaphysical mental impulse from physical brain cell to physical tissue cell for coordination of action. That is the function of the transmitting matter (nerve cell). Therefore, energy is NOT transmitted from brain cell to tissue cell. It is the mental impulse that is transmitted from brain cell to tissue cell and its FLOW that can be interfered with by the impingement of the nerve due to the occlusion of an opening resulting from the loss of juxtaposition from the vertebrae involved. Thus, the intrinsic energy of the transmitting matter propels the instructive information from brain cell to tissue cell pretty much like a chain of people passing sand bags from one person to the other in order to create a water proof barricade. The people involved in moving the sand bags are stationary and they are not moving from the truck to the barricade. It’s the sand bags that move from the truck to the barricade. Unfortunately, the Palmer model (rock on garden hose) is NOT correct since its premise involves the mental impulse as being energy and the mental impulse is NOT energy. The mental impulse is an innate coded instructive information and purely metaphysical which is transmitted by nerve tissue. As the mental impulse is propelled by the transmitting matter, it takes on a physicality as it is being carried by the nerve cells. Just as the sand bags take on a physical bit of barricade manifestation along the way to the barricade itself due to the fact that the people KNOW that each sand bag will FORM the barricade. Each nerve cell carrying the instructive information are part and parcel of the “intent” of the metaphysical instructive information for the need of the tissue cell destination. They have to be! As I direct the mouse to “post comment”, this specific step is the beginning of a physicality of my metaphysical post to you. You and the others WHO will choose to read this post, will be able to de-code the text as you receive it physically and metaphysically in you computer. Aren’t you glad that I did not write this post in French? 😉
Dr. Lessard,
As the mental impulse is propelled by the transmitting matter, it takes on a physicality as it is being carried by the nerve cells.
Could you explain this a bit more?
In trying to makes sense of this, I keep going back to the fact that the mental impulse always remains metaphysical yet the sandbag is always physical.
Physical energy of the matter (E=MC2) is adding a dimension of complexity to an already difficult concept for me to grasp. Not that that is anyone’s difficulty but mine. It is just really hard to understand the workings of transmission of metaphysical all the while thinking about the depth of a statement such as E=MC2. Whew! 🙂
Don,
Is it only a physical sandbag that is carried? Or is it a sandbag with a specific metaphysical code of a “barricade”? You see, the sandbag is purely physical until the “carriers” know that it will serve as “barricade” at the destination point. Therefore, the reverse is true as regard to the mental impulse which is metaphysical until it is propelled by energy/matter at which point it takes on a bit of physicality. Otherwise, it will forever remain metaphysical since it won’t reach the destination cell. The moment the mental impulse is “created” (adapted universal force by the innate intelligence of the body), in the innate brain, it is sent to the physical brain where it unites intelligence and energy/matter. It is this union of intelligence and energy/matter that transformed the metaphysical into physical propulsion and becomes part and parcel of the “hardware” which is the entire nerve system that is used for coordination of action. As I tap the keys to create this post to you, my intent is given physicality that the computer software will propel into cyberspace in the FORM of a signal to a satellite 12 miles up in the sky that eventually will be displayed on your screen across the Canadian Borders. Whew! Sacre Bleu! 😉
Dr. Lessard,
I haven’t read French in almost 18 years. Funny how it all comes back to you. C’est incroyable! 🙂
Could you explain part and parcel of the hardware which is the entire nerve system that is used for coordination of action?
I can see the application of the cyber space example however, I am not sure how the “interference” of the transmitting matter in the example of the living body and the your example are the same.
Don,
Do you know that your body is mostly empty space pretty much like cyberspace? That’s a fact of physics. We’re just a few electrons, protons and neutrons moving at gigantic speed. The hardware is the transmitting matter which function is to “project, propell and relay” the instructive information to all the cells of the body for distribution and participates in the coordination of action of ALL the cells of the living body from the innate intelligence of the body. The interference to the FLOW of mental impulse occurs within the transmitting matter which consist of the physical brain, the spinal cord and nerves, in other words, the entire nerve system. –
– As I tap the keys on my key board, my message is given a physicality that at any time could be interred with… all the way to your screen. The space in between my “intent” and the hardware is just cyberspace. The interference to the FLOW of the signal, if any, would occur within the components HARDWARE and SOFTWARE of the wide world web, NOT in the “cyberspace” itself as it is empty space. In the living body, the interference to the FLOW mental impulse occurs within the transmitting matter of the whole body , NOT in the “living” space itself as is it is empty space. –
– It was BJ at one time WHO said that we were 99.49% immaterial and 0.51% material. He was about 1/2% off as physicists estimate, that the human body is about 99.99% empty space, meaning immaterial. BJ was an amazing thinker and had a genius ability to create hypotheses that we can follow through today. The INFORMATION age is upon us to analogize HOW the living human body functions. It is us WHO can choose to use the WEB as analogy to resonate with people and inspire them to move from point A to point B all the way toward the chiropractic objective which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the living vertebrate body. PERIOD.
I am glad we have settled this question of energy transfer. Like a telephone. It takes energy to transmit a conversation (MI) but that energy is within the phone system only. It starts with the microphone (Innate Brain cell) in one handset and it stops with the other handset speaker (terminal nerve axon) but is not received by the listener(cell), only the message(information) is.
Now, this matter (NPI) of “physicalization” of the MI. Since the Innate Brain is actual as it can be damaged by toxins and trauma, and the Physical Brain is incapable of creating the Force Units necessary to form a MI, it would seem as though the MI becomes physical before it enters the PB.
SN If enrgy and matter were the same thing the equation would read E=M, the most obvious difference is one is material the other immaterial, no?
SNSC
Steve,
I would totally agree with your statement that energy is not equal to matter otherwise the equation would be E=M.That is an excellent observation! (Not to suggest your other thought were not 🙂
Hmm…interesting thought…Is delving into Einstein’s theory subject to be interpreted as “mixing” chiropractic with something else or is it still “principles” all the same and true OSC? …
Don,
We start our philosophical structure with a treaty on matter. Any additional knowledge of matter can only enhance, and substantiate our following deductions. Two points to consider, our “scientific” understanding of matter is based on theories as no one has seen an atom and mixing would be putting our Educated Intelligence ahead of Innate Intelligence. If our logic is correct then our Principles stand up to any discipline.
Steve,
You bring up a very good point. The innate brain is wherever the innate intelligence of the body is… therefore, at the precise moment that innate intelligence of the body adapts the universal force into an innate force, the very “creation” the mental impulse gives it physicality and is simultaneously part of the physical brain to be transmitted for coordination of action of the tissue cell. This means that it happens ALL at the same time. There no distance covered and no time involved as the innate brain is wherever the innate intelligence of the body is… which is everywhere in the whole living body. –
– The reason WHY energy and matter are the same, is that it involves space, distance and time… hence the equation E=MC2. Both energy and matter are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Electrons, protons and neutrons are physical and occupy space and cover distances in time at mega speed. Even light is physical at it covers distance in time from stars as far as 10 billions light years away from us. Metaphysical is beyond distance, space and time.
Dr. Lessard,
The physical occupies space, distance and time.
The metaphysical is beyond space, distance and time.
Steve, Dr. Strauss and others, can we all agree on these two statements before any more deductions are made?
That would help me understand this a lot better.
Don,
“The physical occupies space, distance and time.”
“The metaphysical is beyond space, distance and time.”
I agree with these two statements!
Claude,
With all due respect, the concept of “The innate brain is wherever the innate intelligence of the body is” is a false premise, which means the following deduction, “therefore, at the precise moment that innate intelligence of the body adapts the universal force into an innate force, the very “creation” the mental impulse gives it physicality and is simultaneously part of the physical brain to be transmitted for coordination of action of the tissue cell” is unsubstaniated. P. 28 (The forces of Innate Intelligence operate through or over the nervous system in animal bodies.) indicates IF are distributed by the nerve system from a central location . If the IB is everywhere because Innate Intelligence is, then there would be Innate Force everywhere. This negates the need for a nerve system.. P. 29. (There can be interference with the transmission of Innate forces.) would also be inconsistant if II/IB/IF were everywhere in the body at once. The Complete Normal Cycle describes an order of Reception, Interpretation, Ideation and response which includes assebling Foruns into a MI and transmission to the Innate Body and/or the EB. A process that according to P. 6. (There is no process that does not require time.) involves time
Does this premise ( “The innate brain is wherever the innate intelligence of the body is”) stem from the notion of Cellular Intelligence? That there is intelligence displayed in a living cell is a non-issue. However, as far as we know P. 28 and 31 do not exist at the cellular level. Possibly Cellular Intelligence is a part of and yet apart from Innate Intelligence as we commonly understand it to be. Could we not better compare the intelligence of a tissue cell and that of a plant. Obviously 100%, for the organization and signs of life but no nerve system. Maybe at the cellular level II and IF are everywhere and transmission is unecessary.
SNSC
Oh what fun it is to ride in an investigative open blog.
Steve,
I guess you missed that part: is SIMULTANEOULSY PART OF THE PHYSICAL BRAIN to be TRANSMITTED for coordination of action of the tissue cell”. I think you are confusing innate brain with physical brain. How do you think innate brain sends the impulse to physical brain?
BJ wrote of the Innate Brain and the Educated Brain both being parts of the physical brain. If this is true then IB is contained by the nerve system, not everywhere II is displayed.
Steve,
You stated: “If this is true…” It was the thinking of the day which was “correct” then since innate intelligence had a personality and resided in the brain. Yet, with NEW information, evidence points to something innate brain being metaphysical. Read Strauss’ book “Philosophical Constructs”, he explains WHY the innate brain is a metaphysical construct very very clearly. –
– Remember that we are inquiring, together without condemnation, deeper into the philosophy with NEW information. We are NOT critiquing BJ… we are honoring his genius for without BJ’s writings this blog would NOT have been created by Joseph.
It was the thinking of the day that started all of this. Whether II had a personality was a matter of perspective. The existence and location of IB is not. There must be someplace for the conversion of metaphysical to physical. I have recently purchased the Blue Book you mention and look forward to “NEW” information. We shall swim deeper yet.
On the way to Joe’s house, I stopped at the Palmer’s, just to refresh my memories. It seems that they referred to the Cerebellum as the Innate Brain and the Cerebrum as the Educated Brain. (1910) It has been written elsewhere that Innate used non-myelinated and Educated the Myelinated fibers. Now I know this is not “new” information but it is often beneficial to compare and contrast the past with the present.
Steve you posed this same idea to me in a post dated August 10, 2004. On January 1, 2013, I had a 2.2 cm x2.3 cm left cerebellar hemorrhage found on an MRI. One year later there are some residual effects, in my balance, particularly when walking down steps.(Some reading this blog may also question my cognitive skills:)) But in any case, I would not say it involved my innate brain, which in my opinion is, like the innate intelligence of the body, metaphysical and an absolute, either 100% or 0%.
Did not mean to strike a nerve,Joe. I am grateful for your recovery and appreciate all you do. Between the books and the blog I am not sure how you will find time to start putting all your works on a CD. I know we have discussed the fibers before but the cerebrum/cerebellum was something I kind of expected through other readings but had not seen in so many words, until yesterday. I am looking forward to reading the new Chiropractic Philosophical Constructs as I respect your opinions and enjoy the manner in which you articulate them. If I didn’t think you had something valuable to offer I would have disappeared long ago. Besides, who else would Claude have to frustrate him?
Now that you brought it up, let me ask you. If IB was damaged (as Palmer said it could be by trauma or toxins), how would we know? Evaluation of Matter would be unsatisfactory as we can not know if a loss of MI production, Vertebral Sux. or LOM were producing the lack of Innate expression.
No problem Steve, I am happy to share my amazing recovery and am thankful for my wonderfully created body in achieving that healing. I very much appreciate your input and for keeping Claude on his toes. I would appreciate the references by B.J. re. traumatic or toxic damage, so I may read them in their context. I will get back to you as I sort it out.
Steve,
Again, BJ mentioned that the innate brain could be damaged by trauma and toxins as he thought the innate intelligence resided ONLY in the physical brain, and even though the location of innate brain is theoretical and unknown, it is rather evident, that it is BJ WHO chose to assume that the location of the innate brain WAS within the physical brain. It just happens to be a false assumption. The confusion appears to have been between due to thinking that coordination of action needed centralization and since the physical brain IS the organ used by the innate intelligence of the body for coordination of action, it seemed logical to ASSUME that the innate brain was located in the physical brain. Let me state it again, It is a false assumption. The innate brain is WHEREVER the innate intelligence of the body is. The question is: WHERE is the innate intelligence of the body located in that body? –
– Much of RWS’s text is based on concepts that were POINTING to something deeper. He himself mentioned that as NEW information is revealed, it will prove the validity of the chiropractic theory. Furthermore, it is me WHO choose to continue to inquire deeper in order to VALIDATE the insights that the original concepts pointed to. Yes, there are risks involved and as long as we have people like yourself WHO choose to be OPEN and inquire, together without condemnation, the truth will prevail through refinement and clarification. –
Here you go Joe, as requested, some references.
Vol 5 P317 The innate brain can be injured only through traumatism;
Vol.14 Art. 43, 201, 210
I’ll throw in a bonus on Innate Thought Flashes, Vol 33There is a very strong binding parallel between what Innate does
to a liver, as an example, in producing bile, and what Innate
COULD DO in producing Innate thoughts in an educated physical
brain. After all, educated BRAIN is a physical tributary to Innate
brain, same as liver, spleen, etc., are tributary organs to the same
Innate brain.
Yes Joe, the human body is the pinnical representation of what Intelligence can do with Matter. Will forward some notations when I return to the office. Greenbooks on searchable CD, remember?
————————————————————————————————
OK Claude, If I may address your last statement first? Stephenson was correct, new (scientific) information has validated some of our Principles. It has been written that the Afferent Pathways had yet to be physically identified prior to Vol.14 publication. The AP existence was only “known” philosophically.
Prior to that, you ask where II is located. Metephysical II is not confined or defined by space or time so it has no location.
BJ said the IB accumulates UF from within the body. UF entering the body (as Universal Matter) through food, water, air and various other forms would have to be processed physically. The conversion to Universal Force and on to Foruns (MI) within the IB must therefore take place in Matter. If ADIO is accurate, we can only reason that MIs are created or deposited at the head of the nervous system.
Example: I lay a perfectly cooked steak (Universal Matter) upon my belly, it does nothing for me. The steak continues to decompose. Or, I put the steak inside my belly and II uses my body to create life from it. The deconstruction of Universal Matter (digestion) produces/releases Universal Force,no? Now, if we can assume that the Nervous system is the only conveyer of IF then all processes concerned with II and IF would have to occur in Nerve tissue. Although the entire body expresses IF it does so because of the Physical Brain and it”s extensions.
Could it be that one purpose of the human body is to release UF for II to use in maintaing the human body? Ahhh, the cycle of life.
Sorry No Spell Check
Steve,
Again you seem to miss what I posted previously:
… “is SIMULTANEOULSY PART OF THE PHYSICAL BRAIN to be TRANSMITTED for coordination of action of the tissue cell”. I think you are confusing innate brain with physical brain. How do you think innate brain sends the impulse to physical brain?” (1/2/14, 10:36pm and 1/3/14, 4:49pm).
– You stated: “Although the entire body expresses IF it does so because of the Physical Brain and it”s extensions.” Does this mean that you think that WHEN a cell has incoordination of action due to VS that it does not express innate forces? A cancer cell does express the innate forces of the innate intelligence of that cell WHEN it assimilates and excretes nutrients, grows and replicates itself. The innate intelligence of the body adapts universal forces and assembles them within the innate brain. At the SAME MOMENT that the innate intelligence of the body adapts the universal force into an innate force, the very “creation” the mental impulse gives it physicality and is SIMULTANEOUSLY part of the PHYSICAL BRAIN to be transmitted for coordination of action of the tissue cell. This means that it happens ALL AT THE SAME TIME. There is no distance covered and no time involved as the innate brain is wherever the innate intelligence of the body is… which is everywhere in the whole living body. –
… in other words, the innate intelligence of the body “creates” instructive information within the innate brain IMMEDIATELY giving the mental impulse physicality within the physical brain as there is no time and space involved since there is an innate awareness for every innate need. Then, the innate intelligence of the body uses the physical brain for coordination of activity MEDIATELY by propelling the mental impulse through the nerve system (pri28) for coordination of activity which involves time (pri6) and space in which there can be interference with the TRANSMISSION of innate forces (pri29) due to vertebral subluxations (pri.31). This means that the innate intelligence of the body uses the energy/matter of the physical brain/nerve system as MEDIATOR for transmission of mental impulses, hence the term: transmitting matter.
“Does this mean that you think that WHEN a cell has incoordination of action due to VS that it does not express innate forces?” Yes Sir that is correct. If the continuity between brain cell and tissue cell is disturbed and the tissue cell is not receiving Mental Impulses then it cannot express Innate Intelligence of the body. Obviously the cell does not immediately cease to exist as it is maintained by “cellular intelligence”. Cellular intelligence is not the same as IIOTB. P. 28- The forces of II operate through or over the nerve system in animal bodies. I am not aware of a nerve system within the cell.
One point you keep avoiding, If II is everywhere in the body, why do we need a nervous system to transmit Innate Force?
Now lets discuss cancer, a subject I am all too familiar with and have considered at great length. We are told that we all have had, are having or will have cancerous growth at some point in our lives. This abnormal tissue is usually kept in check by what I can only assume is Innate Intelligence. (P. 23….adapts UF and Matter for….mutual benefit.) Cancer cells are destructive toward the host so I also assume they are outside the scope of II. (P.25…IF never injure or destroy) Do I think II promotes and fosters or maintains cancer for the good of the body, hell no. Do cancer cells express Innate Intelligence of the body, no. There is this notion of cellular intelligence that may explain the cancer’s “drive to survive” but I have a hard time calling that II for the reasons mentioned above. Cancer may be the epitome of incoordination.
Vol 24. P 528. An interference to nerve force mental impulse current between healthy-thinking Innate brain TO to its Innate body, CAN create cancer in cells.
Steve,
Is the cancerous cell living or non-living?
Living, but they do not contribute to the life of the body. According to BJ, they are deprived of IF.
Therefore they (the cancer cells must have an innate intelligence of their own, apart from the ii of the person’s body). It has a cell/cancer intelligence that produces its own innate forces.
Joseph,
ABSOLUTELY!!!! The innate forces of the the innate intelligence of the cell are the instructive information that keep the cell ALIVE with or without coordination of action. WHAT keeps the body alive, is the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body whose function 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. That WHY the innate intelligence of the living body MEDIATELY uses the physical brain and nerve system to TRANSMIT instructive information to ALL the parts of the living vertebrate body for COORDINATION OF ACTIVITY. To use the words of example given by Michael Kale… The physical brain and nerve system are: “HOUSTON CONTROL”. They are MEDIATOR used by the innate intelligence of the living body to distribute mental impulses in the physical realm which involves principle #6, space and distance.
– It’s very important to understand the MEDIATION of the physical brain and nerve system as the mental impulse takes on a physicality in time, space and distance. That’s WHY it is imperative for chiropractors to practice the chiropractic objective which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the living vertebrate body. PERIOD.
Steve,
That statement of BJ violates principle #20. A living cancer cell assimilates, excretes, grows and reproduces. Only the innate intelligence of the cancer cell can do that. That cell has incoordination of action and is therefore “cellfish” and just living for itself. BJ never addressed the innate intelligence of the cell since he thought innate intelligence resided “upstairs” in the physical brain.
If you re-read carefully the previous posts, you will notice that the innate intelligence of the body uses the physical brain and nerve system for the purpose of coordination of activity.
… in other words “the forces of innate intelligence are the instructive information whose operation is to coordinate the activities of the cells through or over the nerve system (pri.28)and there can be interference with with the TRANSMISSION of innate forces (pri.29).
… in the ABSENCE of interference with TRANSMISSION of innate forces, the innate intelligence of the body can fulfill its mission which is to maintain the energy/matter of the living body in active organization (pri.23). Therefore, the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the living vertebrate body can be fully expressed to fulfill the principle of coordination of action of all the cells of the living body (pri.32).
Saying a cell has II violates P.28. Besides, cut off from the body a cell is not self sufficient, it can not support it’s own life, it does not have that much intelligence.
Steve,
Innate intelligence is ALWAYS 100% in EVERY LIVING cell. It’s the TRANSMISSION of innate forces that can be interfered with due to VS that causes incoordination of action. It’s rather clear that a “living thing” has innate intelligence (pri.20) which is an absolute. Either innate intelligence is 100% or it is 0%. It certainly does NOT violate principle #28 in which the nerve system is used by the innate intelligence of the body for coordination of activities. Erythrocytes do NOT have nerve supply, yet they have innate intelligence, so with phagocytes. Have ever seen under microscope HOW phagocytes ingest living bacteria? Both are living things… therefore both have innate intelligence of the cell adapting universal forces into innate force for those living cells without nerve supply. –
– Once again, for clarification, the innate intelligence of the living vertebrate body USES the physical brain and nerve system to TRANSMIT innate forces (pri.28) for coordination of action of all the parts of that body (pri.32). –
– Remember that the innate intelligence of the living vertebrate body uses the physical brain and the nerve system to TRANSMIT instructive information to all the cells for coordination of activity.
… correction:
Remember that the innate intelligence of the living vertebrate body uses the physical brain and the nerve system (pri.28) to TRANSMIT instructive information to all the PARTS for coordination of activity (pri.32).
Steve,
So that you can reference my post to Joseph. 😉
The innate forces of the the innate intelligence of the cell are the instructive information that keep the cell ALIVE with or without coordination of action. WHAT keeps the body alive, is the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body whose function 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 (PRINCIPLE #23). That WHY the innate intelligence of the living body MEDIATELY uses the physical brain and nerve system to TRANSMIT instructive information to ALL the parts of the living vertebrate body for COORDINATION OF ACTIVITY (PRINCIPLE #28). To use the words of example given by Michael Kale… The physical brain and nerve system are: “HOUSTON CONTROL”. They are MEDIATOR used by the innate intelligence of the living body to distribute mental impulses in the physical realm which involves principle #6, space and distance.
– It’s very important to understand the MEDIATION of the physical brain and nerve system, (USED BY THE INNATE INTELLIGENCE OF THE BODY TO TRANSMIT INNATE FORCES FOR COORDINATION OF ACTION) honoring principles #23, #28 AND #32, as the mental impulse takes on a physicality in time, space and distance. That’s WHY it is imperative for chiropractors to practice the chiropractic objective which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the living vertebrate body. PERIOD. –
– I am sure that WHEN everyone reads “Philosophical Constructs” by Strauss, all this will be CRYSTAL CLEAR!!! He has a way to refine and clarify that is second to none! 😉
As a mental exercise I am going to propose the cell (cancerous or normal) is non-living. If it is non-living then it displays only Universal Intelligence. How can this be substantiated? When someone asks why fingernails and hair continued to grow after death, we say the chemicals must have finished reacting out. The UF within the follicles or nail-beds continue to cause interaction and build these tissues after II has left the premises.
If we look at a cell removed from the body, the signs of life such as respiration, assimilation, reproduction, excretion, or mobility, stop very quickly. One might say they had to react out. A cell could not survive on it’s own without the support system of the body to supply all it’s needs as well as a near perfect environment. How many times would a cancer cell reproduce on the workbench? Yes the heart will beat for a short time after “brain death” but I imagine digestion and immune responses go on as well. Are these cells alive or are they just reacting out? Was the frog leg alive when we stimulated it with electricity, no. If you recall the response (chemical Rx) began to fade and failed fairly quickly. If, as we are told, new cells replace the old in the healing process then maybe cells are disposable units that perform a function, by design, when told, and only if well supplied. Joe asks, is the sperm alive? Along these lines, I would have to say no, not until it meets the egg, then, only if implantation occurs to give it the power of life.
Much like the light bulb that can not produce light on it’s own but displays light when energized, the cells of the body may not contain life but only display life when life-force is provided to them.
Hey Claude, I just read where BJ said the Educated Brain was also theoretical, does that mean it too is everywhere?
Remember, this is an exercise, the more comments and opinions the better the work out.
Life is the expression of intelligence through matter P.#2. You write:”As a mental exercise I am going to propose the cell (cancerous or normal) is non-living”. I think, Steve. you need to make a distinction between existence (universal life), a cell demonstrating one or more of the signs of life (cellular life) and coordinating life (expressing the innate intelligence of the body/entire organism). Which is the (cancerous or normal cell) expressing when you say it is “non-living”?:
A. universal life, example; a cell of a corpse, embalmed and in the ground for two weeks or more.
B. cellular life, example; what the chiropractor refers to as DIS-EASE-lacking coordinated activity due to vertebral subluxation.
C. coordinating life, lacking life despite expressing the ii of the body, sorry I cannot think of an example except perhaps a cancer cell functioning in a subluxation free body.
Joe,
Thanks for providing that post!
I can clearly see the distinction between universal life and the others. Less so, that between coordinating and cellular. Could you please explain?
Also, with respect to: “C. coordinating life, lacking life despite expressing the ii of the body, sorry I cannot think of an example except perhaps a cancer cell functioning in a subluxation free body.”
Would an immune cell in an autoimmune disorder be another example in addition to the one you gave above? Why or why not?
With my current understanding, autoimmune disorders seem to escape the my logic of the 33. Thanks again.
FYI, the post is addressed to Joe however, if anyone else has an answer to these questions, I would be more than happy if you chimed in also. 🙂
Don,Here’s an analogy, Remember it is only an analogy! If I am teaching a class and I am analogous to the ii of the body, when the entire class is focusing on me and my philosophical points the class is in a state of EASE. When one student looks out the window and his mind is drawn to the golf course (the 9th hole of a PGA golf course sat alongside my classroom in the last chiropractic school I taught at). His mind was still working except that it was on golf rather than chiropractic philosophy. The class was no longer in a state of EASE but in DIS-EASE because one student (cell) was functioning for self rather than on my words. When a cell and only when a cell is not under the direction, coordinating activity, of the ii of the body, its cellular intelligence is causing it to focus on self (playing golf) rather than contributing to the body (of the class). The student is in the class(room) but not part of the class. In this case if he is a body cell ,he needs to be brought back under the control of the ii of the body (the instructor) . If he should run up to the window and press his nose against it and yell out “did you see that great drive?!” Now he is a cancer cell disrupting the rest of the body (class) and needs to be removed by a lymphocyte (the biggest student in the room)
All matter expresses Univesal Intelligence therefore Universal Life. The question is does the cell display more than Universal Intelligence/Life?
Do we make a distinction between what the cell contains vs. what it displays. The signs of life we attribute to the cell are only fulfilled when the cell is plugged in to the system. For the cell to have full expression for it’s full expected duration as designed, it must be (continuously) provided with “the spark of life”. If we remove and isolate the cell it continues to function only until the chemistry is fully reacted, or the Universal Matter depletes below a physiologically functional threshold. If the cell can not perform it’s duties without outside influence is it truly alive? Or, is the cell really alive outside the body?
So, do you think the cell, exhibits life, contains life, produces life, or responds to life?
SNSC
Steve, I don’t understand what you mean by your question, “Do we make a distinction between what the cell contains vs. what it displays” A living cell (one exhibiting one or more of the signs of life) also has universal life when examining its atomic structure. The signs of life can be present with or without being “plugged in to the system”. However by being in a state of active organization with other cells, under the control of the ii of the body, “plugged in to the system” as you call it, the cell has greater adaptability and can “have full expression for it’s full expected duration as designed” provided it receives is full complement of innate forces (what I suspect you are calling “the spark of life”). If we remove and isolate the cell it continues to function only as long as the ii of the cell can adapt universal forces and matter for the cell’s use, which given the circumstances(UF tend to be destructive toward structural matter P.#26) and an absence of coordinated function with the rest of the organism, is apparently not very long. Is that what you mean by” the cell it continues to function only until the chemistry is fully reacted, or the Universal Matter depletes below a physiologically functional threshold. You write” If the cell can not perform it’s duties without outside influence is it truly alive?” I would guess is depends upon what “level” of innate intelligence it has (cellular, tissue, organ, system)and what “level is needed” for it to utilize those outside influences and thus adapt.
I think your final question is or should be “does the cell express intelligence through its matter? Answer that and you can answer the life “exhibits,… contains,… produces,… responds to…” question.
Joe,
I can see how having a PGA golf course could be a little distracting for the students and the teacher. LOL!
Could you briefly explain your view of the autoimmune response question. I have had more than my fair share of questions how the 33 principles play out when (IF) the body attacks itself.
Is this similar to the case of cellular intelligence expression in the dis-eased body or state of dis-ease?
Don, having a golf course next to my classroom did not affect me, the teacher, except when the arrogant Philly television sportscaster would hook a drive and it would bounce off the lowest classroom window pane (which had been replaced with Plexiglas after being broken a few times). Then we would all go to the window and laugh at him as he retrieved his out-of-bounds shot
Joe and OTB gang,
Could you direct me to the date or dates of any past posts on your OTB blog on the OSC perspective of autoimmune activity? I’m searching for anything I can sink my teeth into. I have some questions I would like to investigate. I have already read Sinnott’s work.
Anything else you can offer from this blog would be great.
Thanks.
To all of you bloggers,
Steve asked me an EXTREMELY important question: “Hey Claude, I just read where BJ said the Educated Brain was also theoretical, does that mean it too is everywhere?” –
– Once again, Steve, thank you for going deeper. Your question proves that BJ was WAY WAY ahead of his time. He had a true vision and many insights into the reality of the human body. Today’s NEW information validates and vindicates BJ’s statement that RWS recorded in art.44. –
– Please remember that much of RWS’s text is based on concepts that were POINTING to something deeper. RWS himself mentioned that as NEW information is revealed, it will prove the validity of the chiropractic theory. Here is the NEW information: –
– About 20 years after BJ’s passing, molecular biologists, neuro-physicists and biophysicists made a discovery. Immune cells can make the same chemicals or the same neuropeptides that the brain makes when you think. With this NEW information, we are forced to a startling conclusion… that the immune cells are “thinking” cells. They are not verbally elite as the brain cells that they don’t think in English with an accent Quebecois… nevertheless, they are thinking cells. They make the EXACT same chemicals than the brain makes when it thinks. This means that as the peptide is not confined to the brain, it’s in other parts of the body. In fact, scientists called them immunomodulators since these chemicals, which are the equivalent of thoughts, modulate the ACTIVITY of the immune system. For example: Stomach cells make the same peptides and respond to them, gut cells, lung cells, heart cells, skin cells, kidney cells, they ALL make the same peptides and respond to the same peptides. These peptides are in fact equivalent of thoughts and they don’t emerge necessarily in the brain at all. We have a thinking body. EVERY cell of the living human body is a thinking cell!!! We have a fully integrated thought processing software throughout our ENTIRE body. –
– We used to equate intelligence with the brain and with all these NEW findings we cannot do that anymore. Intelligence has escaped the confines of the brain. Intelligence is in EVERY cells of our body and EVERY cell of our body is in fact an intelligent cell, thinking cell and ALL the cells in the body think SIMULTANEOUSLY. There is NO hierarchy that my brain thinks first, my hypothalamus thinks second, my heart thinks third… It’s NOT that way at all. –
– Here’s an example: Let’s say I have the thought or idea I need water. I’m thirsty. Then my brain cells will make a chemical called angiotencin-2. That chemical influences my behavior in such a way that I start looking for a water dispenser (or the myriad brands of water of your choice) or start asking somebody where I can find some water. At the very same time as my brain produces angiothecin-2, my hypothalamus also make the same chemical called angiotencin-2, which causes secretion of another hormone called ADH having my body holding on to water, yet at the very same time, my heart cells make angiothencin-2, my heart cells hold on to water, and my kidney cells make angiotencin-2, so I don’t lose water in the urine, my skin cells make angiotencin-2 simultaneously as well as they are feeling thirsty… in other words, the “idea” that I am thirsty does not emerge first in the brain. It’s SIMULTANEOUSLY everywhere in the whole body. Each cell gets the “idea” IMMEDIATELY at the SAME TIME… even though it “feels” and we think that we get it first in the brain. –
– As you can see, this NEW (30 year old) information is confirming the NEW PARADIGM of BJ as he mentioned that the location of the educated brain is theoretical in art.#44 of RWS textbook in 1927!!! The NEW PARADIGM states that the idea is NOT even confined to our bodies… it’s in ALL of space and time all at the same time!!! We are part of a fully integrated universe in which a thought processing software is incorporated to ALL energy/matter throughout ALL of space and time. Which means that not only do we have a innate intelligence giving FORM to a thinking body… this thinking body is part of a thinking universe which is given FORM by a universal intelligence!!! –
– And this my friends, IS THE MAJOR PREMISE OF CHIROPRACTIC: “A universal intelligence is in all matter and continually gives to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence. –
Steve and Claude, I have a little different take on article 44: Steve wrote, “Hey Claude, I just read where BJ said the Educated Brain was also theoretical, does that mean it too is everywhere?” –Theoretical def. relating to or being theory. When we discuss “theory” in chiropractic we are addressing two situations. The first is related to metaphysical assumptions. Since we cannot empirically demonstrate metaphysical concepts, we must fall back on our philosophy, our principles and deductive reasoning. When we address the physical/material we must demonstrate it by the above or by empirical proof (and hope that the latter does not contradict the former). In the case of the educated brain (EB), when Stephenson says it is “physical tissue” (article 44, p14), he is saying that in 1927 the physical educated brain had yet to be located. While its exact location may not yet be fully demonstrated/understood, I think science has empirically shown that it is somewhere in the cranial vault and probably in the frontal lobe. In other words its existence (in 1927) had yet to be demonstrated but it is (can be) demonstrable because it is physical matter, unlike the innate brain which being metaphysical can only be demonstrated philosophically but is not demonstrable empirically.
The rest of Claude’s essay is an excellent treatise/explanation of how the innate intelligence of the body brings about adaptation when the EB is aware you are thirsty but you are not holding a bottle of water in your hand and it (the ii of the body) must adapt to that Limitation of matter.
Joe, The exact same wording was used for both aspects of the Physical Brain. The Educated Brain and the Innate Brain are described as actual but theoretical in location. The EB and the IB were both thought to reside within the PB they just didn’t know where. If science has since verified the existance and location of the EB, why is it so hard to imagine the IB is discoverable. Lack of discovery does not confirm lack of existance.
DD wrote that the IB developed from the embrionic brain. How might that figure into the conversation.
Claude, That the body responded as a unit we have traditionally attributed to Innate Intelligence of the body being transmitted to the matter (cells). Now you suggest that response is in the matter? Again, if each cell knows how to respond to the environment in a coordinated fashion, why do we need a nerve system. Did the molecular biologists, neuro-physicists and biophysicists say why these cells created these chemical? Indeed are neuropeptides not merely the building blocks of thoughts, just as Foruns are the structural units of MI. Candice Pert said these (neropeptides) are the chemicals of emotion not the emotion itself, did she not?
P. 28. The Conductors of Innate Forces. (The forces of Innate Intelligence operate through or over the nervous system in animal bodies.) What you articulate describes matter creating matter to act on matter. Immunomodulators
Steve,
The innate intelligence of the body uses the brain and nerve system to conduct innate forces (pri.28) for COORDINATION OF ACTION. That’s WHAT the word OPERATE means in terms of innate forces since the function of innate intelligence is to adapt universal forces and matter for use in the body, so that ALL PARTS OF THE BODY WILL HAVE CO-ORDINATED ACTION FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT (pri.23). The operation of innate forces are COORDINATION OF ACTION!!! –
– Furthermore, metaphysical means that it is BEYOND time, space and distance. Innate intelligence IS a metaphysical concept! The innate brain is WHEREVER the metaphysical intelligence of the body is… which means that the innate brain is BEYOND time, space and distance. Once again, please, read Strauss’ volume on Philosophical Constructs. It will definitely clarify and refine your understanding of the innate brain.
Joseph,
Indeed the educated brain is physical unlike the innate brain which is metaphysical. It is true that science is attempting to locate WHERE is the seat of reason, thinking and volition, what chiropractic philosophy calls, the educated brain. After all, to innate intelligence, the educated brain is an organ like the liver, the heart or the spleen. Up to now, the frontal lobe seems to be a possibility for the location of the educated brain. –
– I postulate that the physical brain is used by educated intelligence to access the “tinctured” mental impulses with a specific innate code for so called voluntary functions in order for living vertebrates to adapt to their external environment. Then, it is also possible for the capability of the educated brain to be active throughout the body. Educated intelligence (capability) would then use of the educated brain (specific cells of the body) in order to create thoughts (instructive information) from the educated mind (activity of educated intelligence) for so called voluntary functions. This would explain how the innate intelligence of the body brings about adaptation when the innate brain is aware of bodily needs in order to best adapt to limitation of energy/matter.
Joe, The exact same wording was used for both aspects of the Physical Brain. The Educated Brain and the Innate Brain are described as actual but theoretical in location. The EB and the IB were both thought to reside within the PB, they just didn’t know where. If science has since verified the existance and location of the EB, why is it so hard to imagine the IB is discoverable. Lack of discovery does not confirm lack of existance.
DD wrote that the IB developed from the embrionic brain. How might that figure into the conversation.
—————————————-
Claude, That the body responded as a unit we have traditionally attributed to Innate Intelligence of the body being transmitted to the matter (cells). Now you suggest that response is in the matter? Again, if each cell knows how to respond to the environment in a coordinated fashion, why do we need a nerve system. Did the molecular biologists, neuro-physicists and biophysicists say why these cells created these chemical? Indeed are neuropeptides not merely the building blocks of thoughts, just as Foruns are the structural units of MI. Candice Pert said these (neropeptides) are the chemicals of emotion not the emotion itself, did she not?
P. 28. The Conductors of Innate Forces. (The forces of Innate Intelligence operate through or over the nervous system in animal bodies.) What you articulate describes matter creating matter to act on matter. Immunomodulators it seems are the products of intelligence not intelligence itself.
Sorry No Spell Check, home computer (Linux)
Steve,
You stated: “DD wrote that the IB developed from the embrionic brain. How might that figure into the conversation.” This makes perfect sense as long as “Innate” is living “upstairs” in the physical brain directing the living cells “downstairs”. It just so happens that, with today’s NEW information, that this is a false assumption. Innate intelligence is NOT a personality. Innate intelligence is the law of active organization.
Don,
Autoimmune diseases arise from an ABNORMAL immune response of the body against substances and tissues normally present in the body. Therefore, since interference with TRANSMISSION of innate FORCES (pri29) cause incoordination of actions of all the parts of the living body in fulfilling their offices and purposes (pri.32) and that VS is the physical manifestation (pri.30) of that interference with TRANSMISSION, we must conclude that VS could interfere with the immune response. It is my opinion that a phagocyte, produced by cells of a particular living body, is “branded” as “self” for recognizing cells of that particular body that are part of the “self”. If, there is interference with TRANSMISSION of instructive information from the innate intelligence of the body, it is conceivable that a phagocyte would be NOT be “branded” as “self” and could NOT recognize “self” cells, thus would then attacks cells that are normally present as they are part of the “self”. This would be an ABNORMAL immune response and would fall under autoimmune diseases. –
– It is my personal opinion that, since coordination of activity is mandatory for proper function of the entire living body, immuno modulators, being under the control of the innate intelligence of the living body, would also need to be “branded” for that particular living body by the instructive information of the innate intelligence of the living body. Otherwise, since every one of us is totally unique, it would be illogical that a white blood cell produced by someone else and “branded” as someone else’s “self” would be accepted by your particular body WITHOUT IMMUNOSUPPRESSANTS. Does that make sense?
Dr. Lessard,
If we start with the premise that the autoimmune response is an ABNORMAL immune response then yes, I this would make sense.
Let us look at this from a different angle that someone posed to me.
Please let me know what you think.
The ii of the body is always normal and its function is always normal (princ. 27) and the forces of Innate Intelligence never injure or destroy the structures in which they work (princ. 25).
In the living body assuming no subluxations are present, how is an autoimmune response happens and not contradict principles 25 & 27?
A question based on a false premise will yield a false conclusion. Since interference with TRANSMISSION is ALWAYS due to VS and will cause incoordination of action. In the absence of Interference with TRANSMISSION of innate forces, the innate intelligence of the body will fulfill its mission which is to maintain the energy/matter of the living body in active organization (pri23) and will not contradict pri25 and 27.
… In other words without VS it is pri.32 that rules and there will be NO autoimmune response.
Dr. Lessard,
Without VS there would be no autoimmune response.
This is where the syllogism/inference (is there a better word idk?) comes in.
VS present = incoordination= possibility of autoimmune response
Without VS present = coordination = ?? NO possibility of autoimmune response
Someone may look at this and assume that since an autoimmune response cannot exist without a vs, with time and a clear NS all autoimmune responses should abate.
Although, we understand that the purpose of OC is not to treat or cure and disease or condition, the statement that with vs there would be no autoimmune response.
I hope I have explained this clearly? I am really looking to understand this better. Thanks.
the statement that with vs there would be no autoimmune response remains unclear for me.
Don,
Autoimmune diseases arise from an ABNORMAL immune response of the body against substances and tissues normally present in the body. Therefore, since interference with TRANSMISSION of innate FORCES (pri29) cause incoordination of actions of all the parts of the living body in fulfilling their offices and purposes (pri.32) and that VS is the physical manifestation (pri.30) of that interference with TRANSMISSION, we must conclude that VS could interfere with the immune response. In the absence of Interference with TRANSMISSION of innate forces, the innate intelligence of the body will fulfill its mission which is to maintain the energy/matter of the living body in active organization (pri23) whereas the principle of coordination of action is intact making it IMPOSSIBLE to have “self” immune cells attacking “self” body cells. ONLY if principle 32 is violated would there be a possibility for an autoimmune response. –
– My conclusion is based of rational logic from deductive reasoning of the 33 principles of chiropractic. If the 33 principles of chiropractic are true, and I believe that ALL 33 principles are true, and I have applied rational logic to my deductions, then my conclusion is also true.
Dr. Lessard,
Yet I assume, there are people with autoimmune diseases that have no vs.
How do you reconcile the fact with the statement that autoimmune responses do not occur unless there is a vs present?
Thanks.
Don,
Which ones of the 33 principles are involved for the basis of your assumption?
Dr. Lessard,
I am only looking for an opinion. Your opinion on how you reconcile these two observations.
IOWs if some people have autoimmune diseases and have no vs, how do you reconcile that fact with your statement that autoimmune responses do not occur without a vs present?
Maybe we can go one step at a time:
In your opinion, is a person with an autoimmune response the same as a person with autoimmune disease?
… once again, we must be cautious NOT to relate to any types of diseases with our practice members. It is the LACVS that is our objective. It is ALWAYS mandatory to discuss the chiropractic principles with the practice members by asking them whether or not the body will function better with or without subluxations. After they answer, then direct them to the checking room. 😉
Dr. Lessard,
Not a very easy thing to do IMHO. Often the syllogisms are made by the listener regardless of the intent of the messenger.
Communication is key. Less than full and effective communication and the message breaks down and the listener has to fill in the gaps with their own connections/syllogisms. Understanding is not optimal.
Full and effective communication equals optimal message delivery. This is all sounding so familiar to me now. 😉
Don,
That’s WHY it is so important to OWN the philosophy in order to be able to communicate the story over and over and over and over again… in as many creative ways as doable for the listener. EDUCE from them that which is ALREADY within them…. and believe me you, it is they WHO often times will choose to fight you in order to be right. Yet, it is you WHO can choose to keep on telling the story over and over and over and over again… in as many ways as doable. 😉
Don,
You asked: “In your opinion, is a person with an autoimmune response the same as a person with autoimmune disease?” –
– Your question is outside of chiropractic philosophy. From the 33 principles, I maintain that in the absence of Interference with TRANSMISSION of innate forces, the innate intelligence of the body will fulfill its mission which is to maintain the energy/matter of the living body in active organization (pri23), which is ALWAYS normal (pri.27), never causing injury to the living body (pri.25) whereas the principle of coordination of action is intact making it IMPOSSIBLE to have “self” immune cells attacking “self” body cells. ONLY if principle 32 is violated would there be a possibility for an autoimmune response. –
– It is very important, that in conversation with each other or anyone else for that matter, that we remain within chiropractic philosophy and its 33 principles. Otherwise… we are OUTSIDE our territory which is OUTSIDE-IN and which is NOT our position. –
– If you insist on ASSUMING your question, then I must ask you one more time: Which ones of the 33 principles are involved for the basis of your assumption? If your assumption is NOT based on any of the 33 principles, then we do NOT have to move any further in a direction that will yield a conclusion that will NOT be true in the context of chiropractic philosophy. –
– Again, WHEN the integrity of principle 32 is intact, then there will be coordination of action of ALL the parts of the living body and ALL those parts will fulfill their offices and purposes. If, however, principle 32 is violated by VS, then it is me WHO choose to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the living vertebrate body. PERIOD! –
– If some people insist in asking me similar questions, I will gently “re-orient” them by telling them the story over and over and over and over again in a different creative way than before. Please remember WHAT it is that JOE D. said many times before: TMITWDITO.
… or TOITMITWD. 😉
Dr. Lessard,
Is immune response or autoimmune response a part of OSC?
Let me clarify the question, on one hand you stated that without vs there would be no autoimmune response. Then I asked if a person with an autoimmune disease could be free of vs.
Honest question..i really can’t see it. Can you explain how making a statement of autoimmunity is acceptable but answering my question is outside of chiropractic philosophy?
Is it because the autoimmune disease is a condition?
My best guess here is that the only autoimmune response that the OSCor recognizes is that one that the ii of the body initiates. Since we have no way of determining whether expression of health, sign, symptoms or condition one profession names is correct according to the ii of the body and its determination we take a different approach.
That approach is what I am inquiring into. Is it that the ii of the body works whether there is an autoimmune response or not and the person is better off free of vs either way..or…is it that the autoimmune response can never take place in a person free from subluxation?
Some may argue (and have vhemenently with me 🙂 that that last question is testable. Although my. Ritical thinking skills are not what they used to be but I would have to agree with him on that one.
Could you shed some light on this for me Dr. Lessard, Joe, Steve or anyone else? Thanks.
Don,
Stick to the 33 principles. Chiropractic philosophy is real and has a solid science to back it up. Use it! With chiropractic philosophy you can make statements on anything you wish regarding the living vertebrate body… that a living vertebrate body with coordination of action is functioning normally. Normal means NORMAL!
Does it not?
*critical thinking
Don,
BJ once stated, to the Chiro., there is no difference between a headache and a heart attack except location. I would ask you, what is the difference between autoimmune and any other physical abnormality?
Everyone’s body works better without Sux, no matter what the condition the living matter might be in at the present time.
Steve, Don, I would like to hear Don explain why there is a difference and Steve explain why there is no difference or better yet Steve take the position that there is a difference and Don, that there is no difference. Years ago Flesia and Riekmann (when both were teaching at Sherman) debated full spine vs. HIO . Halfway through the debate they both began arguing the other position. It was hilarious and very informative. If I can find the old tape recording and digitalize it, I will put it on the blog. By the way Steve , it was not until bJ was dead for over 30 years that the Green Books were put on CD. I’m not even dead yet.
I can certainly try. No promise that it will sound cogent.
Steve, thanks for the response. I am looking for a response that is representative of the OSC/OC approach. Do you feel that that statement from BJ is an accurate reflection of OSC/OC thinking on autoimmune response? I honestly don’t know but feel something is amiss here when I try to put all these pieces together. Sorry, I must be the only one feeling this way about the topic.
Here are my thoughts. Dissect the, please and I will do my best to reflect on the feedback. Thanks.
OC/OSC focussed on enabling the ii if the body to coordinate the actions of the body for mutual benefit of the organism. For this and many other reasons, the OC/OSC has a focus/objective of LACVS to enable the transmission of innate forces/MI of the innate intelligence of the body flow free of interference from vs.
This objective is not shared by most other professions. The OSC/OC does not attempt to usurp the “authority/ability” of the ii of the body to run the body. Thus the OSC/OC does not involve themselves in diagnosis, symptoms, conditions or diseases.
Moreover, the OSC/OC does not provide prognoses or prognosticate what the ii of the body will do in any given situation. He/she operates under 33 guiding principles and one directive. This directive is their objective (some may say their “specialization” in a sea of the health providers with other objectives)
This is my thinking.
Now, assuming that this is correct.
I must clarify what I mean by autoimmune.
I have read now autoimmune used by itself. Autoimmune disease. autoimmune disorder. And autoimmune response. Autoimmune abnormality.
When I use autoimmune, I am of the opinion that what we observe may or may not be a body attacking itself. We just don’t know either way.
Can the same be said for pain as it can with autoimmune responses.
An example for Don ;).
If you experience pain in your neck (as some of you are undoubtedly experience right now with this post) upon analysis it may be noted that you have subluxation at C3/C4. The Pain may go away after it is corrected but then again it may not! because there are many other things that cause pain inthe neck!! (poor posture, sleep position, strain, very long posts and threads on the COTB).
The finer aspects of immune function and immunology are not my area of expertise. i shy away from them but i do propose that whether it is pain or autoimmune responses, we should be consistent with what and how we address it. Unless there is something I have missed here.
Feedback is appreciated.
Apologies for the horrific spelling. I am on an ipad and I’m a keyboard kind of guy. This touch screen stuff is for the birds! Lol.
For Joe,
Don,
I wrote “BJ once stated, to the Chiro., there is no difference between a headache and a heart attack except location.” Although the text was appropriate for the thread the original context was changed. BJ stated this but alluded to the difference as being which vertebra needed adjusting. We must remember BJ, as a youngster vowed to find the cause of disease. His “difference” was not the pathology but the cause. This is typical of the Traditional Straight Chiropractic of the day, as it pretty much still is. DD tabulated Zones or “places” for conditions such as Stomach Place, Kidney Place, Center Place. These “places” were the spinal segments he found to relate to loss of normal functionating. BJ expanded and refined this analysis with “Nerve Tracing” which led to the Meric Chart. Later, BJ disregarded these references when he moved into the HIO era. It has been said/written HIO stood for (W)hole In One, demonstrating BJ’s concept of one cause, one cure. As classically trained Chiropractors we understand that Subluxations alter function. Even though we no longer focus on the tissue that is experiencing “too much or too little functiononating” we know not all Subluxations are not the same.
As I am tasked with the position of, there is a difference, yet wish to remain within the OC paridigm , I will take the following stance. There is a difference between a headache and a heart attack in that if I walk into your office and I tell you I am haveing a heart attack, please check my spine on the way to the hospital. If I am endurring a headache, I may ask to be checked and rested for thirty minutes and then checked again.
PS, Hey Don, lol @ your “example for Don”
SNSC
Steve,
You quoted BJ on this thread and saw that it did not apply. Now, give a context to BJ’s quote that you quoted before and you even bring DD into the picture… Why do you do that? I am just trying to understand your thinking. 😉
Joe,
I have read “Chiropractic Philosophical Constructs”, I enjoyed it very much. However, I have a few questions. Specifically about MI traveling up the nerve system. Since it is not exactly “The 600lb Gorilla” subject, I am wondering would you rather discuss it here or through email?
Claude,
The BJ reference fit the situation. Especially in light of OC, as a malfunction is a malfunction is a malfunction. Since we no longer focus on getting the sick well, what or where their symptoms are is insignificant in our decision to render care. BJ’s point (and mine) in any context was that Chiropractors look at things differently. We are not allopathy that fights fire with water, nor are we homeopathy that fights fire with fire, we are unique in our perspective and how we traditionally relate to (or presently do not relate to) disease. Don’s concern was the significance of autoimmune vs. other conditions, my attempt was to remind him all dysfunctions are the same in the eyes of a Chiropractor. Dysfunction is an effect and since our focus is elsewhere they all carry the same weight. As Don confirmed in his response to Joe’s request for a debate, we adjust spines to affect transmission we do not occupy ourselves with conditions.(excellent teaching technique, arguing the counterpoint to previous statements)
The reason I bring BJ and DD into my contribution is that that is what I know. It may be easy for someone like yourself to dismiss traditional Chiropractic as antiquated and undeveloped when compared to OC, I however cannot. It was actually difficult for me to fulfill Joe’s request and argue for “the differences”, even though I have lived a lifetime being told there are, these days I see things differently. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle
Steve,
I appreciate your position and I admire you for your openness. DD and BJ will ALWAYS be our FOUNDER and DEVELOPPER of chiropractic. I hope that you can know by now that I do NOT dismiss DD, BJ, or traditional chiropractors… Even mixers for that matter. Chiropractic is SEPARATE and DISTINCT from EVERYTHING, as you mentioned above in your own way, AND chiropractic is INCLUSIVE of EVERYONE. That’s reason good enough to remain in dialogue with EVERYONE. The way I see it, chiropractic is chiropractic regardless of what we think it is. The 33 principles and the chiropractic objective that has emerged from them stand firm as a solid foundation to clarify, refine and further develop. Ultimately it is WHO we choose to be in relation with the 33 principles that determines our position.
Thank you Steve for your extremely important contribution to COTB.
… I do understand your mind a little better now! 😉
This is a ‘thread’ to remember and refer to.. for philosophical study , thanks!