Some aspects of vitalism (and some vitalistic approaches to chiropractic) claim that their aproach is an attempt to get us in “balance with nature” as if nature and man are one giant organism like the body, that needs to be in balance….that’s the religion of pantheism. In chiropractic philosophy that is not so. The intelligence of the universe, by virtue of universal forces, creates a situation in which all life forms are competing. The innate intelligence of every organism is selfish in the sense that its only concern is for the tissues in which it resides. Therefore it is not balance but a battle in which each organism hopefully has sufficient forces to withstand an assault by other organisms. Like nations all having the bomb. Life is more like a Mexican standoff than a giant block party. Balance, when and if it exists, is because of balance of power, not unity. When the balance no longer exists, one will attack the other if it can. Just as when a nation becomes weaker it is often immediately attacked by its neighbor. Outside-in thinking fails to recognize the destructive forces of the universe which tend to be destructive toward structural matter. Any force other than those created by the ii of our body tends to be destructive. Bacteria act as a universal force, as do falls, stresses, poisons and other events that we ordinarily see as universal forces.
Hey Joe,
Albert Einstein once said that the most fundamental question we can ask ourselves is whether or not the universe is friendly or hostile. He suggested that the way you answer this question would determine your destiny.
I say it is neither.
P# 11. ….unswerving, unadapted, no solicitude.
BJ wrote subluxations were caused by an awkward concussion of forces, Claude says external invading overcoming internal resisting.
Maybe innate’s job is to reconcile the inner with the outer. If external force is matched/equaled by internal force there should be no loss or gain.
Furthermore you opening statement, “Some aspects of vitalism (and some vitalistic approaches to chiropractic) claim that their aproach is an attempt to get us in “balance with nature” as if nature and man are one giant organism like the body, that needs to be in balance” , insinuates we are separate from nature. We are part of nature. We are a specialized portion that strives for survival within the system. We also contribute to the constructive survival value of the planet, or to it’s destruction. (As if we were one giant organism)
Hi Steve,
The first rule of philosophical discussion is to define your terms. Are you equating nature and ui? Chiropractors seem to make “nature” whatever they want it to be at the moment so let’s stick to our uniquely chiropractic lexicon.
Einstein apparently did not give you the “neither” option…for a reason?
I think you are taking Principle #11 out of context. The context is that uf have no care for universal matter. They will break it down to its most stable state which we usually describe as negative; erosion, rust, decomposition, decay. The forces of the universe are also “destructive” toward structural (innate) matter. Prin .# 26.
I don’t know what BJ meant by “an awkward concussion of forces.” I like Claude’s description but then, Claude is still around to answer the question, “what do you mean by that”….BJ is not.
Innate’s job is not reconciliation but adapting uf for use in the body as innate forces, or, adapting the matter to the universal forces which indicates a conflict or struggle, a struggle which we say in chiropractic, if lost by the organism results in death.
Reconcile in this case does not mean “to cause to be friendly again” because we are really all one big happy family but more “we’ll be friends because I can’t (b)eat you and you can’ (b)eat me.
As far as us all being “part of nature”, again I need a definition of nature. If nature is the lion and the zebra in oneness that only occurs after the lion has eaten the zebra! We strive for survival in a system that is not friendly and without the ability to adapt is downright hostile and deadly. (I guess Einstein knows where I stand! I tend to think he felt the same way otherwise he would not have helped build a bomb that could destroy billions of living organisms in a single second.)
We do not innately contribute to the survival value of the system anymore than does the smallpox organism or the malaria causing mosquito. We may educatedly attempt to contribute but we usually manage to screw things up, doing more harm than good toward its survival and we probably all would be better off if we just educatedly got out of the way. Which is incidentally, what we NTOSchiropractors do (remove an interference and get out of the way) The results and ramifications of the removal of that interference is not our concern.
Hey Joe,
Yes I do define nature as all that UI has manifest. Yes UFs are destructive but they also supply us with everything (raw materials) we need to survive. Is it not UF that binds 2H’s and an O? The sun is a UF that we could not do without. Those that are deconstructive forces are necessary to perpetuate the cycles of life. If water did not erode rocks we would have no minerals in the sea. I am afraid we some times get the idea that all UF (not unlike OIBU) is “bad”, but obviously both sides of the equation are needed. Neither do I see life as competition but more a mutual striving for survival. I do not compete with microbes, I adapt or die. Microbes do not compete with me for even if they “win” they die with me. How often does the zebra kill the lion, they both adapt or die.
As for P# 11, I think the Captain on Deadliest Catch said it well. He said ” the sea does not love you nor hate you, it does not care, but it tolerates no mistakes”. Had the zebra not been caught off guard or weak it would live on to reproduce. The lion keeps the herd in check (balance). The zebra is however in harmony with the grass, the water, the air, and the little birds that ride on his back eating tics and fleas. Nature is a complete system. I will not say self supporting because I assume there is an intelligence behind it. Just like in the body, many things we think of as unpleasant are needed for continuity and for complexity to be cohesive.
P#26 without it (UF) there would be endless construction. If we indeed have a new body every seven years we would double our size with each cycle. There must be osteoclasts to keep up with osteoblasts.
As I interpret it BJ meant any uneven match, in that over resistance to the incoming stress could also cause a subluxation. ie, If I expect you to push me with 30lbs. and put out 30lbs. resistance, but in actuality you only give 10lbs., the overcompensation on my part could be enough mechanical stress to subluxate my spine. So as opposed to Claude’s statement, resistance can overcome invasion to the same effect as invading forces overcoming internal resistance. (nothing personal Claude, just trying to get this straight)
I used the term reconciled to portray adaptive balance. When my body needs water ii creates thirst. We reconcile cold by shivering and getting goosebumps to create and store heat. The mosquito and lion reconcile overpopulation, sad but true. We too contribute to the system, some positive some negative, but we are part of nature so we have a roll to play. Could it be that George Carlin was right? He said the earth has us humans here because it wants a layer of plastic added to it’s surface.
When you said,”Outside-in thinking fails to recognize the destructive forces of the universe which tend to be destructive toward structural matter”, that made sense, OI thinking is by it’s very definition a destructive force.
On a final note I would like to change my response to Einsteins quote, I think it is BOTH.
Hey Steve,
Could you give me a concrete example where there would be overcompensation from the internal resistance of the body that would OVERCOME the external invasive force to an the extent of causing a subluxation… when you as a person are not aware of the event taking place within you? 😉
Hey Claude,
How about this, I was trying to think of a non-physical example of overcompensation.
BJ said a chemical habit such as smoking is counteracted (brought into balance by innate) with a neutralizing chemical produced within. If the habit is stopped the neutralizing chemical, still being produced, will initiate urges for the original habituated chemical(a want to smoke again) seeking balance. Would you consider this an overcompensation? Would you just chalk it up to time lag until the “anti-chemical” was no longer needed and no longer produced. Or would you say BJ missed the mark? Or are you thinking, Steve your full of s#*t, go away.
Steve,
No. I would NOT consider this an overcompensation. WHAT you and BJ are describing involves principle #24, “The limits of Adaptation”.
Hey Claude,
I can accept that, thank you.
Steve,
Is it not UF that binds 2H’s and an O? No, it is ui. Prin. #1. Actually uf (the sun’s rays) will break down H20 (matter) into simpler components hydrogen and oxygen. The sun’s rays, not the sun are uf.
All universal forces tend to be destructive toward structural matter. We must distinguish between those that are constructive only when ii adapts them and those that in their destructive character happen to benefit us. Heat kills pathogenic germs and that is good for us (unless you are a germ)
You may see life as a “mutual striving” but invariably that striving involves competition and a fight to the death. Did you ever see one of those videos of a WBC attacking and destroying a bacteria? Sure the bacteria will die but he gives no thought to that. Bacteria don’t think, they live on weak, depleted tissue, the weaker more depleted the better for them. Don’t personify organisms demonstrating ii. If you insist on personifying think about the story of the frog and the scorpion who wanted a ride across the river.
I think you miss Claude’s point, but don’t feel bad BJ seems to have missed it also! In your example you are confusing innate forces for educatedly generated forces. Innate intelligence will never create too much force. That would not be intelligent and ii always acts intelligently. But sometimes IF are “tinctured” by ei and that is when problems occur. You are blaming an educated error on ii!
When you talk about “reconciling’ and “adatative balance´I think you are leaving chiropractic philosophy and getting into theological discussion and that was the point of my initial post. We are trying to keep from bringing theology into the discussion…not so easy is it? But I am enjoying the discussion and your probing mind.:)
Hey Joe,
OK let’s go slowly here. Intelligence creates force, force acts upon matter, correct? Then it seems to me that UF binds molecules according to the laws of UI. Or can intelligence act on matter directly? Are you saying H and O bond with molecular intelligence?
You say, “All universal forces tend to be destructive toward structural matter.” The suns rays are necessary for plant growth, how is that destructive? Unless you think photosynthesis is a entropic process this would be constructive. Wait, would photosynthesis be the plant’s ii adapting the sun rays?
In the overcompensation department, I see your point, ii. will never make mistakes. Looking back on BJ’s example, (man jumps into feather bed at unexpected height) it was an educated miscalculation. Truly then any mismatched overage would be an educated discrepancy but nonetheless, they exist do they not?
How does reconcile and adaptive balance get to be theology? Possibly not the best words but they do infer an intelligent effort was made not just an automatic equalization. Ii’s purpose is to adapt UF for use in the body, right? To reconcile is to respond to change. Ii causes the body to change (adapt, reorganize, develop, recreate) in accordance with need. The greatest need would be changes in the environment. Adaptive balance would be for a body to be in harmony with the internal and external situation at the time. Obviously an ongoing endeavor. Ear drum pressure, when we adapt to altitude change the pop would be creating internal to external balance. Increased heart rate with strenuous activity, surely you’ll not tell me that is reflex. No that is innate reconciling demand with supply. Please explain the (unintentional) theological aspect of my statements!
Matter is neither created or destroyed. It just changes forms according to the action universal laws. It is manifested in different ways, sometimes as living tissue that has the ability to reorganize itself. We just use a different term (ii) to describe it. The principle of organization also causes chemical reactions, the binding of certain chemicals. However the forces of the universe (UF) tend to be destructive as regards structural matter. We use often destructive as a negative term but matter is at its most stable (organized) state at the atomic level. H2O becomes ice when a UF is absent. Heat (the uf) causes it to become water and eventually when enough heat is applied, it becomes hydrogen and oxygen. But we must keep in mind that the negative aspect of uf is only because they are destructive toward structural (innate) matter. The uf of gravity is destructive toward my bones but keeps us on the earth. The attraction of masses causes the tides that erodes the beaches at Long Beach Island but makes them wider at Ocean City (more hot sand before you get to the edge of the water). It’s true that there is aother level of organization (molecular??). It is the law that binds 2 atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen into a molecule of water but the forces of ui (sun) will break down those molecules into their most stable, simplest atomic structure. When you bring innate matter (matter expressing ii) into the mix a whole new concept is taking place. But you have figured that out with your photosynthesis example. (Nothing makes an ex prof feel better than when someone figures out the answer for themselves…very good!)
Steve,
The reason WHY it is NOT universal forces that bind atoms into molecules is due to the fact that the function force is to unite intelligence and matter (pri10) and 2 atoms of H are matter binding to one atom of O is matter as well. Uniting matter and matter in an organized state is NOT the function of force. 😉
Thank you gentlemen. That’s why I keep coming back, crystal clarity.