If we were dealing with energy alone in analyzing the mental impulse, it may be able to be measured or empirically demonstrated. But, if we are addressing an immaterial thought, either wholly or in part, we will never measure that component. We must always use our philosophy to understand the mental impulse.
Agree!
Hey Joe,
Never say never. At one time the world was flat and the moon made of green cheese. Besides, if you don’t tell any one, I’ll tell you, I am working on an Immateriometer as we speak….write. Shhhhh mums the word.
DON”T TELL YOU KNOW WHO
Still piecing this one together.
Correct me if I’m off track.
Triune is intelligence, matter and force.
Force is the same as energy.
Innate forces or innate energy unite intelligence and matter.
The mental impulse is an innate energy.
The mental impulse is a universal force/energy adapted by the ii for the body.
Where does the immaterial THOUGHT come in?
The thought comes from the “mental” part of the impulse verses the “nerve” impulse.
Don, I don’t see force as the same as energy. I see it as metaphysical (information) attached to a physical nerve impulse (energy).
Don,
Which of the 33 principles mentioned that force is the same as energy?
Drs. Strauss and Lessard,
I assumed force and energy are the same. I guess it was wrong on my part. It is not in the 33 principles.
Corrected version would be.
Correct me again if I’m off track.
Triune is intelligence, matter and force.
Force is force not energy.
Innate forces unite intelligence and matter.
The mental impulse is an innate force with a message.
This message is metaphysical and immeasurable…with our current scientific understanding.
Are all universal forces adapted by innate intelligence mental impulses? Are there innate forces in the body adapted by ii that are not mental impulses or that do not have this coded message?
Don,
You asked:
– “Are all universal forces adapted by innate intelligence mental impulses?” YES!
– WHEN universal forces are adapted by innate intelligence they are vested with a NEW character and they become innate forces. An innate force is a mental impulse with intelligent direction superimposed on a nerve impulse flowing through the nerve system in the LIVING body. –
– “Are there innate forces in the body adapted by ii that are not mental impulses or that do not have this codes message?” NO! –
– An innate force is mental impulse with intelligent direction superimposed on a nerve impulse flowing through the nerve system of the LIVING body. –
– Don, I know you like analogies. Re-read Joseph telegraph analogy. It clarifies the concept rather well. 😉
Dr. Lessard,
Thank you for clarifying. All innate forces in the LIVING body are mental impulses.
All forces in the LIVING body that possess intelligent direction from the ii that were adapted from universal intelligence are mental impulses.
I absolutely love analogies!!
Dr. Strauss’ example hits the mark for me.
The information within the nerve impulse is immeasurable. It is coded in the “language” of the wisdom of the body/innate intelligence.
Two questions:
1. I am assuming here that this is chiropractic philosophical deduction from the 33. There is no empirical way of “showing it”. With that said, other than the telegraph analogy, is there any other method of explaining this that you find helps new pm’s understand it?
2. He lost me at the end with the “monkey randomly hitting the telegrapher’s key” part. Care to explain? Thanks.
Don,
1. Any communication system would help explain. The written word is merely blotches of ink on paper unless you understand the code (the language). You could still understand the languge and not get the meaning of the sentence (the thought).
2. The monkey ananlogy: To understand the telegraphers message one would have to know Morse Code. So even though you “saw” a message being sent (measuring the mental impulse) you would not know whether the dots and dashes were a thought or someone was “monkeying around” with the telegrpher’s key and the message had no thought. A knowledgeable telegrapher would begin to see the message and say “there must be an idiot or a monkey on the other end, this message makes no sense!” The VS “monkeys around” with the communication system. Not at the source however, innate intelligence is no monkey, but along the course of the transmission.
Question: What in this analogy is the job of the chiropractor?
Hint: Glenn Campbell wrote a song about the chiropractor!
Joe,
Would you consider telling us what you personally believe in this matter? Do you believe that “science” will some day measure the mental impulse as being a mundane constituent of the the electromagnetic spectrum? And if you do not believe that such a measurement will ever occur (or is not possible), then from where do you believe the mental impulse originates, and how does it become confluent with energy and matter in the physical realm?
Eric, I think I have gone over my thinking on this subject on the blog before. I know I have lectured on this idea. That’s okay, I never mind repeating. I draw the analogy between the telegraph and the mental impulse. The wires are the nerve system. The telegrapher the innate intelligence. The electromagnetic force is the nerve impulse and the message in the form of Morse code attached to it is the mental impulse, the thought of the ii of the body. The nerve impulses are measurable but the message, the dots and dashes, is not discernable until and unless we know the code. When and if we ever learn the ii code, we will know the information and perhaps be able to measure it. Meanwhile the best we can hope to do is to perceive that there is something being transmitted (dots and dashes). We do not even know that it is information. It may be a monkey randomly hitting the telegrapher’s key.Play with this analogy.. I would like to hear your thoughts and that of others.
Hey Joe,
Please correct me if I stray. Innate Intelligence converts Universal force to innate force. Innate Intelligence forms the Mental Impulse. Innate Brain attaches MI to IF which is transmitted to Physical Brain. PB converts IF to physical force for the purpose of transmitting the MI to the physical body. The body expresses MI as normal function.
Is that close?
Steve, my understanding is that innate force and mental impulse are synonomous terms. I am inclined to say that ii attaches a mental impulse/innate force to a nerve impulse all of which occurs in the innate brain. The MI the travels directly to the organ (the “reflex”mechanism or to the physical brain for more actions of expression eg educated functions.)
Hey Joe,
I wonder then why we have two terms. Could it be explained this way? Force has three phases. Starting out at the source it is UF. II converts it ti IF. The physical brain converts IF to nerve impulse. As long as the nerve impulse is uninterrupted (at ease) it maintains the aspect of ii known as MI. Upon subluxation (dis-ease) the MI or innate quality is lost. As an aside, why do we not include/use a term such as universal impulse to denote the character of UI transmitted within the UF?
Steve, if you don’t mind, let me give you my philosophical theory and you can reconcile them or throw out whatever does not make sense to you. The human body is constantly subjected to universal forces (physical, chemical, gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.). Some of the forces are invested with new character by the ii of the body and become IF/MI in the IB and sent to varous parts of the body for coordination of all parts. The rest(those that the ii does not adapt to or negate) continue to flow over the nerves as nerve impulses which are actually uf. Science calls these trophic impulses. As uf they tend to be destructive toward structural matter. But the ii of the body adapts them so that the individual cell can use them for its own (the cells) constructive purposes. The mi attaches to the nerve impulse just as in our telegraph analogy the Morse Code message “attaches” to the electrical (or whatever they are) impulses traveling over the wires. When a VS occurs, the mi and trophic impulse (nerve impulse) both begin to act as universal forces. The cell will either die because uf are destructive or if the cellular intelligence can adapt them for its own use (depending on the quality of the cells matter), they will continue to act selfishly. That is why cancer cells function so well. They have cellular and eventually tumor intelligence (now there’s an ugly thought).
I don’t understand the last sentence of you comment but I will try to reconcile it with my theory. By the way, I recently heard a report that said some scientists credit their discoveries, including Nobel Prize winning ones on taking mind altering drugs. I can assure you that the above thoughts come to you totally drug free.
Hey Joe,
Are you saying the nerve impulse which is physical, originates in the IB, which is metaphysical? How can this be? I thought II influenced/ stimulated the PB to produce a MI embedded nerve impulse. Doesn’t the physical force need a physical generator?
Steve, a nerve impulse is a universal force (see my earlier comment). I think BJ was in agreement with that. Only MI/IF are generated in the IB. A nerve impulse is a mechanistic non- vitalistic phenomena which come from ui or from the hands of the chiropractor….I think.
Joe,
I like your analogy here an awful lot. I think it is very complete. I do find it interesting however that you “personify’ ii (as a telegrapher). Is it not interesting how when conceptualizing ii (given what it does), it lends itself most readily to personification? There would need to be intelligence, intent (thinking as RWS says) and action by an entity that produces the effects in matter we attribute to ii. Personification seems to me a far more intuitive fit (even your monkey) than to suggesting that ii is a “law”. How would you re-write your analogy using something analogous to a law in the place of the telegrapher?
Boy, you are persistent Eric!:) In our analogy, the telegrapher is creating the message. I never mentioned who originated the message. Was it the sheriff telling the sheriff in the next town an outlaw was on the way, the school marm (sp?) contacting her folks back east, or the general store owner contacting his supplier. The reason I did not go into that is because it is not important to the analogy. Likewise, what or Who is responsible for the message is not relevant to chiropractic. That’s why we begin with the message originator (ii). I think we both agree who the Source is. We just disagree whether going back that far leaves chiropractic philosophy and goes into theology. By the way, it was the sheriff! (I’m a big western fan with 118 Louis L’amour leatherbound novels in my collection).
Joe,
I wish I had me a nice school marm when I was a young’n. Instead I had killer nuns with razor-sharp talons and laser-beam eyeballs (might explain a lot about me).
Your “telephone game” explanation does not really go to the heart of my point. All of your examples are still “personifications” and not “laws”. I think by now I fully understand why you have done what you have done with the definitions of ui and ii, and I don’t necessarily disagree with your motive for doing so. However there remains the problem of what ui and ii imply within the original language. The “law” is that some “entity” is dialing in the data. The “law” does not “do” the dialing. What you end up saying if your describe ui and ii as laws is that the “law” is accomplished by the “law”. Good grief !!!
Eric, you are correct. Everything breaks down unless we start with God. But chiropractic is not meant to or need to start there unless we want it to be a religion anymore than it needs to start with getting sick people well unless we want it to be the prctice of medicine. As a law, ui (the law of organization/existance) and ii (the law of life) are sufficient to meet the needs of chiropractic. As a religion/belief system they are lacking, in my opinion. I think/hope/pray we have finally agreed to disagree and laid this issue to rest.
Joe,
I think Steve (though perhaps inadvertently) sheds bright light on this discussion, and in a way that is supportive of what I have been trying to get across (which by the way is not, nor has ever been that we must promote chiropractic as a religion!). DD brought his worldview into chiropractic philosophy – one in which the spiritual and material worlds are confluent. And so for better or worse, you get a little spirit and matter in every bite of the traditional philosophy as it is written. The phrasing of the MP and terms like ui and ii come equipped with metaphysical/theistic baggage that will not go away by altering a definition here or there (look how even Steve equivocates on this in his last post! : ) ).
I fully agree that chiropractic need not begin with God. It just has the tenancy to be wide open to doing so when using the traditional philosophical language and constructs!
If our goal is to bring chiropractic to the masses, and if you truly believe that the theistic underpinnings of our traditional philosophy are counter-productive, then as I have stated ad nausium, the proper path would be to write out a new monologue. Continuing to use the traditional one while and claiming it is not theistic will not stand up to the scrutiny of the academic world – if and when we do get to point where they are willing to take notice. Do we want to be ready when that happens?
You may be correct in your assumption that modern mainstream society has a limited appetite for a “healthcare” paradigm that brings God into discussion. However, do you think society has any greater affinity for notions like an “innate brain” that has no physical location, or a metal impulse that has no measurement, or any of the other numerous metaphysical constructs in our traditional philosophy?
I believe there is a way to articulate the objective of chiropractic to the masses without any overt metaphysics/theism at all. It just can’t be done with our traditional philosophy.
Hey Eric,
Have you ever wondered if personification is a normal human trait? The ideas we share are confined by the language we have in common. This may indeed be the fly in the (for lack of a better term) ointment that is Chiropractic Philosophy. I know we go back and forth on this, but consider how the human mind works. DD described the order of the universe in terms he understood, according to his world/life view and level of education. He logically attributed this order to intelligence (the point we often get stuck on). The very nature of the word intelligence lends itself quite readily to personification. In ancient times they worshiped the sun, the giver of all life. Yet even then they addressed the god(personification) Ra who represented or was represented by the sun. If the religious books of today described god as a nebulous form of infinite energy people would still be praising Ra. Today it is said “we are created in his image” so we personify god, even to the point of giving “him” gender. If you will recall the statement “we see the world not as it is, but as we are” then personification makes more sense. The Palmers were as well as we are hidebound in our ability to communicate abstract and concrete concepts. Ever heard someone say, look at my boat, ain’t “she” a beauty. It’s only natural. As for the use of the word LAW, I believe the reference is to the aspect of infallibility. Innate is not a law nor is it a person( as in giant/pigmy ). Innate is a concept we use to describe a process or processor, is it not? Yet to call innate intelligence a force converting “machine” seems inappropriate as well. Subluxations do not destroy the intelligence just the conveyance or transmission of the product of intelligence. Mental Impulse is a product, a demonstration of the order of the universe.
order of the universe as adapted by ii.
Joe,
Help me out here. I will insert my questions into your post for simplicity.. look for the *** asterisks
“Steve, if you don’t mind, let me give you my philosophical theory and you can reconcile them or throw out whatever does not make sense to you. The human body is constantly subjected to universal forces (physical, chemical, gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.). Some of the forces are invested with new character by the ii of the body and become IF/MI in the IB and sent to varous parts of the body for coordination of all parts.
***does this include the physical brain? and does the IF/MI use the nerve system only for this travel/transmission?
The rest(those that the ii does not adapt to or negate) continue to flow over the nerves as nerve impulses which are actually uf. Science calls these trophic impulses. As uf they tend to be destructive toward structural matter. But the ii of the body adapts them
***please explain. Is this the cellular intelligence (ii of an individual cell) or ii of the body and taking place in the innate brain?
so that the individual cell can use them for its own (the cells) constructive purposes. The mi attaches to the nerve impulse just as in our telegraph analogy the Morse Code message “attaches” to the electrical (or whatever they are) impulses traveling over the wires. When a VS occurs, the mi and trophic impulse (nerve impulse)
***are the nerve impulse and trophic impulse synonymous like IF and MI? If not how do they differ?
both begin to act as universal forces. The cell will either die because uf are destructive or if the cellular intelligence can adapt them for its own use (depending on the quality of the cells matter), they will continue to act selfishly. That is why cancer cells function so well. They have cellular and eventually tumor intelligence (now there’s an ugly thought).
***this would imply the answer to the question above is cellular intelligence. Not a question…sorry. But similarly, if a woman is with child, at what point does the ii of the child exist separate from the mothers??
I don’t understand the last sentence of you comment but I will try to reconcile it with my theory. By the way, I recently heard a report that said some scientists credit their discoveries, including Nobel Prize winning ones on taking mind altering drugs. I can assure you that the above thoughts come to you totally drug free.
Thanks,
Meant to write..
***this would imply the answer to the question above is cellular intelligence. Not a question…sorry.
Cells can exist in the body with it’s own intelligence. So, if a woman is with child, at what point does the ii of the child exist separate from the mothers??
Don, my responses in Bold
Joe,
Help me out here. I will insert my questions into your post for simplicity.. look for the *** asterisks
“Steve, if you don’t mind, let me give you my philosophical theory and you can reconcile them or throw out whatever does not make sense to you. The human body is constantly subjected to universal forces (physical, chemical, gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.). Some of the forces are invested with new character by the ii of the body and become IF/MI in the IB and sent to varous parts of the body for coordination of all parts.
***does this include the physical brain? and does the IF/MI use the nerve system only for this travel/transmission? ans. a)Yes, while intellectual adptation occurs in the ib,’ (the decision by ii as to what to do), carrying out physical adaptation involves other organs , tissues and cells. So the physical brain is necessary for coordinated function.ans b. probably not but the nerve tissue appears to be best suited for transmission. But there is no way of knowing…that I can think of. Note: it is not the IF/MI, that is only the tool. It is the ii of the body that “use(s) the nerve system”.
The rest(those that the ii does not adapt to or negate) continue to flow over the nerves as nerve impulses which are actually uf. Science calls these trophic impulses. As uf they tend to be destructive toward structural matter. But the ii of the body adapts them
***please explain. Is this the cellular intelligence (ii of an individual cell) or ii of the body and taking place in the innate brain?this is the ii of the body acting in the individual cell. The only time cellular intelligence comes into play is when the cell is outside the body (disconnected) or in a state of DIS-EASE (eg.VS)
so that the individual cell can use them for its own (the cells) constructive purposes. The mi attaches to the nerve impulse just as in our telegraph analogy the Morse Code message “attaches” to the electrical (or whatever they are) impulses traveling over the wires. When a VS occurs, the mi and trophic impulse (nerve impulse)
***are the nerve impulse and trophic impulse synonymous like IF and MI? If not how do they differ? a trophic impulse is a nerve impulse but a NI is not necessarily a trophic impulse. This gets a little complicated (as if it was not already). A MI, at the point of interference becomes a NI, no longer intelligently directed. A trophic impulse (TI) is always adapted by the ii of the body for the cells use UNLESS there is a VS, then the cellular intelligence would have to take over and adapt that TI, which is now acting as a NI but only for use in the cell which at this point is a cancer cell (acting for only itself and not for the good of the whole body (phew!)
both begin to act as universal forces. The cell will either die because uf are destructive or if the cellular intelligence can adapt them for its own use (depending on the quality of the cells matter), they will continue to act selfishly. That is why cancer cells function so well. They have cellular and eventually tumor intelligence (now there’s an ugly thought).
***this would imply the answer to the question above is cellular intelligence. Not a question…sorry. But similarly, if a woman is with child, at what point does the ii of the child exist separate from the mothers?? when there are two seperate organisms, no attachment. Siames twins have an ii expressed through a unique organism. When (if) seperated there are two organisms each having ii). The unique organism we call a mother/fetus has one ii fter the fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall which lasts until the cord is cut or the placenta seperates. I have at least one post in the Pivot archives on this subject which may be helpful if you can “search” it. Tom?? I am afraid if I try I’m going to lose everything. I’m ggoing to submit this now and hope for the best
I don’t understand the last sentence of you comment but I will try to reconcile it with my theory. By the way, I recently heard a report that said some scientists credit their discoveries, including Nobel Prize winning ones on taking mind altering drugs. I can assure you that the above thoughts come to you totally drug free.
Thanks,
Joe,
Help me out here. I will insert my questions into your post for simplicity.. look for the *** asterisks
“Steve, if you don’t mind, let me give you my philosophical theory and you can reconcile them or throw out whatever does not make sense to you. The human body is constantly subjected to universal forces (physical, chemical, gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.). Some of the forces are invested with new character by the ii of the body and become IF/MI in the IB and sent to varous parts of the body for coordination of all parts.
***does this include the physical brain? and does the IF/MI use the nerve system only for this travel/transmission?
The rest(those that the ii does not adapt to or negate) continue to flow over the nerves as nerve impulses which are actually uf. Science calls these trophic impulses. As uf they tend to be destructive toward structural matter. But the ii of the body adapts them
***please explain. Is this the cellular intelligence (ii of an individual cell) or ii of the body and taking place in the innate brain?
so that the individual cell can use them for its own (the cells) constructive purposes. The mi attaches to the nerve impulse just as in our telegraph analogy the Morse Code message “attaches” to the electrical (or whatever they are) impulses traveling over the wires. When a VS occurs, the mi and trophic impulse (nerve impulse)
***are the nerve impulse and trophic impulse synonymous like IF and MI? If not how do they differ?
both begin to act as universal forces. The cell will either die because uf are destructive or if the cellular intelligence can adapt them for its own use (depending on the quality of the cells matter), they will continue to act selfishly. That is why cancer cells function so well. They have cellular and eventually tumor intelligence (now there’s an ugly thought).
***this would imply the answer to the question above is cellular intelligence. Not a question…sorry. But similarly, if a woman is with child, at what point does the ii of the child exist separate from the mothers??
I don’t understand the last sentence of you comment but I will try to reconcile it with my theory. By the way, I recently heard a report that said some scientists credit their discoveries, including Nobel Prize winning ones on taking mind altering drugs. I can assure you that the above thoughts come to you totally drug free.
Thanks,
bbsummit@yahoo.ca
Don
1
Don, sorry about duplicating your original post. Not only am I in uncharted chiropractic philosophy territory. It’s also new computer technology territory . I don’t know where my limitations are most evident! Anyway please feel free to ask for clarification but don’t expect anything more cogent.
Hey Joe,
Cellular intelligence “only” occurs outside the body or during VS? Does the heart cell not know it’s job of processing chemicals and contracting or you could say coordinating functions within the cell from cellular intelligence. It would be the ii of the body that ties that cells activity in with all the other cells for the overall good. Just as an employee knows their job but it doesn’t help the factory unless he coordinates with other employees for the common product.
Also you should know all posts appear in bold after submission.
And the mind altering drugs were used by scientists not philosophers (as far as we know ) so we never doubted you.
Steve, not sure about your comment but here is a respopnse: When under the control of the ii of the body nothing a cell does is for itself. When outside the body or in the presence of VS everything a cell does is for itself.
I never read comments or posts in the format that readers do so I was not aware of the bold situation. It looked fine on my screen. Thanks.
OK most replys appear in bold.
Hey Joe
I guess what I am wondering is if ci would control the inner workings of the cell, ie. a heart cell has a different ci than a glandular cell? Although their coordination with other cells is up to ii, each cell “knows” its own function which would seem like ci. Obviously a single cell can not function for the good of the unit independently without ii, but it still must act according to it’s design.. As in the factory, each employee “knows their own duties” (ci) but can not turn out a premium product with out the cooperation of all the other employees. That function of coordination of all employees would be the job of the supervisor (ii).
For example, the fetus. Cellular intelligence directs cell division and differentiation because ii does not “enter” until separation. The mother’s ii coordinates growth and development within her body because the fetus is part of her body, but does the mother’s ii also cause the two cells to unify and begin division or is that ci of the fertilized ovum?
Hey Joe, You can visit your blog from another computer to see what we see. Just don’t sign in as you, use a nom de plume
Joe,
I’m with you. You wrote…
“The human body is constantly subjected to universal forces (physical, chemical, gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.). Some of the forces are invested with new character by the ii of the body and become IF/MI in the IB and sent to varous parts of the body for coordination of all parts. The rest(those that the ii does not adapt to or negate) continue to flow over the nerves as nerve impulses which are actually uf. Science calls these trophic impulses. As uf they tend to be destructive toward structural matter”
Let me know if this is correct…
At any point in time in the nerve tissue of an unsubluxated living person:
1. MI/IF attaches to the Nerve impulse and travel together with intelligent direction from IB to end tissue flowing freely for full expression of ii.
2. IF/MI fully coordinated and is metaphysical and immeasurable
Questions:
a.If the IF/MI “originates” from the UF adapted by the ii in the IB, from where does the Trophic impulse originate?
b.Can trophic impulses exist in the nerve system in a situation where there are no vs’s present. If so how does the body “negate” the uf if they are destructive?
c. Do trophic impulses have a metaphysical component or only physical?
Thanks again.
I second Dr. Seiler’s question.
At what point does the metaphysical influence/join/interact (searching for the correct verb) the physical?
Don, please see my response to Eric…is that helpful?
Dr. Strauss,
Yes. Please see my response to Dr. Lessard.
Hey Joe,is v.subluxation interfering with the mental impulse & the nerve impulse ?
Good question Nathan.
I tend to think that the mi is altered in character (interfered with by the VS) but the nerve impulse is not IF the nerve impulse is responsible for trophic impulses (see my other post). Have to give it some more thought. What’s your take?
Don,
Other analogies? Anything (farming, cell phones, computers, rivers, powerplant, banking, Wall Street, milky way, family, cooking… whatever YOU choose to relate to your pms. Analogies are all around us. –
– As far as the monkey, Joseph’s humor is sarcastically funny at times 😉
Joseph,
You wrote that: “when a VS occurs, the mi and trophic impulse (nerve impulse) both begin to act a universal forces.” –
– That’s an impossibility. The mental impulse is an innate force and is an ADAPTED universal force. Therefore a mental impulse has intelligent direction and CANNOT act as a universal force. In other words, it cannot be both destructive and constructive at the same time. That’s faulty reasoning. –
– On the other hand, a nerve impulse has no intelligent direction and is a universal force. Therefore, I humbly submit to you that a VS interferes with the FLOW of mental impulse which further limits the limitation of the transmitting matter causing a reversal back to a nerve impulse with no intelligent direction and is destructive toward structural matter of the cell. –
– Early in the post, Matt Allen had it right! 😉
That’s correct Claude It should have said “when VS occurs what was previously a mi and the trophic impulse now both act as uf.” That does remind me that the VS does more that just interfere with the FLOW of mi. By changing a once constructive mi to a destructive uf we have more than what the gardenhose analogy implies. We have double destructive pontential. Thanks for pointing that out.
Eric,
I have been involved with chiropractic for almost 40 years and have communicated the chiropractic objective without any theism at all. Some people get it, some don’t and some could care less. It probably is your experience as well with the way you communicate to the public. Ultimately WHO you and I choose to BE in relation to chiropractic makes all the difference. It truly IS about intent, is it not? – 😉
– Chiropractic is a PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE and ART dealing with FORCE the second component of the triune. Nothing else in the world is about restoring EASE of the transmission of innate forces. –
– CHIROPRACTIC IS SEPARATE FROM EVERYTHING ELSE OR IT IS SOMETHING ELSE THAN WHAT IT IS!
Thanks Joe, not sure—pretty deep stuff for me@ this point. I had a P.M. ask me what a VS specifically interferes with in the nerves. He said if you kink an electrical cord ,but not sever it, the appliance still works.Your dialogue with Claude helps!The PM’S are thinking!
Nathan,
It’s true that if you kink an electrical cord, but not sever it, the appliance still work. It becomes evident that MENTAl impulses are not electrical impulses. Analogies always break down at some points. That is WHY it is important for us to go deeper and so that we can “own” the philosophy. Then, WHEN we converse with people we can be READY to interact with them –
– Electricity is a universal force and is destructive toward structural matter. If you touch an “exposed” electrical wire it is going to zap you. On the other hand if you touch a “exposed” human nerve, you are NOT going to get zapped. WHEN electricity is “conducted” through an electrical cord and you plug it to a lamp, the bulb will light up the room. At this point, the electrical cord is ALL of the intelligent direction electricity for the lamp. If the lamp has a rheostat switch you can “interfere” with the intensity of the light by dimming it without cutting the wire or unplugging the electrical cord, etc., etc… –
– My point is that communication are enhanced by analogies and eventually will break down. The MENTAL impulse is metaphysical which means it is BEYOND the physical and is NOT concrete. Only the manifestation of the MENTAL impulse is concrete. Therefore analogies can ONLY help to a point, yet I use them every day and it’s good enough for me. 😉
Claude,
Strictly speaking I believe that the MI is in the physical realm. It is downstream of the metaphysical in the normal complete cycle. The “foruns” are (in my estimation) embedded info within the stream of electromagnetic energy and are the physical realm analog of the Creators will in the maintenance of life (sorry about that bit everybody).
As I believe Joe said – there is a form of information carried within the nerve impulse (MI) that some day we may be able to read. I doubt that however. A language that results in the simultaneous distribution of a million purposeful chemical reactions per second from each of 100 trillion cells – all inter-related – is a lingo well beyond us.
Thought the brain as an organ may be involved in this, the “educated” cannot comprehend this. Brings to mind one of my favorite human paradoxes:
“If brain function was simple enough for us to understand…
we would be too simple to have a brain.”
Eric,
It might be the other way around. Not that force is “embedded” in matter… but that matter is “immersed” in force, which is the “space” between these gazillions cellular INTERactions. If that is the case, it does make sense WHAT the molecular physicists are talking about WHEN they say that WE are 99.9999% “empty” space… –
– At this level of consciousness, all my “educated” can do is OBSERVE …. or fall asleep. 😉
Claude,
So then are you disagreeing with the way MI is described in Stephenson’s? Or do I have Stephenson’s dissertation on MI wrong?
Eric,
I choose to BE simply OBSERVING what is going on inside and outside of me. Then, I choose to BE open to keep the conversation for possibility with chiropractic philosophy (which is about LIFE and therefore is ALWAYS in flux) free from “my own” interference to it. –
– In other words –
– I got WHAT you said. –
– I accept WHAT you said and WHAT you didn’t say. –
– I accept the way YOU are and the way YOU aren’t. –
– I’m committed to get WHAT ever YOU have to say to me. 😉
Thank you Claude,agreed!
Steve,
Remember that there is only ONE intelligence. We have conceptualized it into universal intelligence, innate intelligence, system intelligence, organ intelligence, cellular intelligence…. Those “distinctions” have only to do with concepts. It’s not the thing. It’s not concrete. Those concepts POINT to WHAT is. It is very important to understand that as we keep the conversation of chiropractic philosophy in flux. –
– That being said, the hierarchy FLOWS from ADIO. In the LIVING body it is ALWAYS the innate intelligence of the BODY that is the LAW of LIFE. It is ALWAYS 100% (pri.22). Therefore, the subluxation interferes NOT with the innate intelligence of the body… the subluxation interferes with the transmission of innate FORCES.-
– The subluxation then further increases the limitation of matter. The innate intelligence of the body which is ALWAYS 100% continues to maintain the material of the LIVING body in active organization within its added limitation of matter (pri.21). –
– The interference occurs between brain cell and tissue cell, NOT between intelligence and matter. It occurs within FORCE. –
– Therefore, a cell within a LIVING human body is ALWAYS under the control of the innate intelligence of the body (ALWAYS 100%) which is limited by the limitation of matter (pri.24). –
THANX Claude, I guess I was getting ridiculously trivial wasn’t I?
Steve,
Yes. You were. 😉
Claude, you wrote “- Therefore, a cell within a LIVING human body is ALWAYS under the control of the innate intelligence of the body (ALWAYS 100%) which is limited by the limitation of matter (pri.24). – My question: if the expression of the ii of the body is limited by L. of M. how can we say that the cell is ALWAYS under innate control. Isn’t DIS-EASE or incoordination a lack of control, not brcause of a failure of the ii of the body but because it is limited by the expression of force. Am I missing something here?
Joseph,
There is ALWAYS 100% of innate intelligence in every “living thing”, THE REQUISITE AMOUNT, PROPORTIONAL TO ITS ORGANIZATION. –
– A subluxation is a physical event that further limits the limitation of the transmitting matter of the LIVING body. This increased limitation of matter becomes the “new limitation of matter” that the 100% of innate intelligence has to work with. Innate intelligence will continue to be in control of the matter in which it works within its “new” limitation of matter due to the subluxation. –
– Dis-ease is not a lack of control from the innate intelligence of the body. That is logically an impossibility. Innate intelligence is ALWAYS 100%. How can perfection not be in control? –
– Dis-ease is STATE of the matter that becomes further limited, and as such, matter experiences a lack of coordination of action and principle #32 has been violated. The subluxated LIVING body is NOW presenting innate intelligence with a NEW set of circumstances (I bet Bob likes that!) to control. The interference is between matter and matter (brain cell and tissue cell). It is the matter that is expressing the innate FORCES of innate intelligence (pri.13)… It is the matter that suffers the consequences as a result of being further limited. It is the transmitting matter that is further limited CAUSING a interference to the FLOW of MENTAL impulses. This interference changes the character of the MENTAL impulse (if) reverting it back to a nerve impulse (uf). It’s like a soldier coming back home WHO has lost one leg. Innate intelligence is in FULL control of the body of that soldier. It is the soldier WHO is now limited in performing his actions of daily living, since his transportation mechanism (transmitting matter) has been further limited (minus one leg). –
– The failure to adapt is ALWAYS from the limitation of matter, NEVER from a failure of innate intelligence. (pri.22, 23, 24,25,27). –
– Therefore, we reasonably deduce and logically conclude that the ONLY time the innate intelligence of the LIVING body has less than 100% control is WHEN that body is in its ULTIMATE STATE of limitation: DEATH (0% control). There is NO “in-between”. –
– Then, the innate intelligence of the dead body is the innate intelligence of the cell and will be in full control of the cell within the limitation of matter of the cell. Then, WHEN all the cell is dead… WHO KNOWS!!!!!
– DEATH is the ULTIMATE limitation of matter. Then and ONLY then does the intelligence of the body cease to adapt forces (pri.23) and cease to maintain the material of the body in active organization (pr.21).
Claude,
I disagree. There is an absolute aspect of innate intelligence..you are either alive or dead. It is present or absent. BUT there is also a relative aspect…the expression of that intelligence through the matter. That we call DIS-EASE and is caused by VS.
Joseph,
The function of matter is to express force (pri.13) not intelligence. The expression of this intelligence through matter is the chiropractic meaning of life (pri.2). Therefore, innate intelligence is 100% present in the living body or 0% in the dead body. Nothing in-between. –
– Dis-ease is a STATE of matter not intelligence. It is caused by VS which is an interference with the FLOW of mental impulse between matter (brain cell) and matter (tissue cell). Not between intelligence and matter. Innate intelligence is ALWAYS 100% therefore perfect and is ALWAYS in control of the matter WITHIN THE LIMITATION of that matter. –
– Yes or no?
Claude,
Life is necessarily the union of i and M Princ. #3
Life is a triunity Prin. #4
In order to to have 100% life there must be 100% i, 100% f, and 100% M Prin#5
Ii is limited by L. of M. Prin. #24
That limitation is in the conducting matter Prin. #29,30
Without 100% M, the triune is not perfect #5, hence there is no perfection of the triune.
Here is the tricky part which I believe reconciles our disagreement: A cell, tissue or organ that has an interference, ie. VS in the transmission matter is no longer under the control of the ii of the body (my argument) and hence is no longer part of the body, so that the cells, tissues ,systems and organs that are not interfered with are still 100% under the control of the ii of the body (your argument). While they are still in the body, they are no longer a part of the body any more than an e.coli or a cancer cell is part of the body. This underscores the importance of the concept of cellular, tissue, organ intelligence. When I taught this concept in school, Iwould draw the analogy to the class as an organism and individual students as individual cells and innate and educated intelligence. When a class full of students were paying attention to the lecture, their educated i was subject to my ei (analogous to the ii of the body) and the class was in a state of EASE. IF a student’s mind wandered, he was “under the control” of his own educated (cellular i). In that case he was in the class but not a part of the class. (If I knew who and when the students were in that state I should have marked them ABSENT for the class but I figured most of the time it was because I was boring them!)
Does the above explanation help put us on the same page, Claude?
Joseph,
Thank you. Yes, your explanation help put us on the same page. I would add that limitation of matter exist within the LIVING body and that we can reasonably deduce that the triune is never perfect since matter is ALWAYS limited.. WHAT the VS does is FURTHER limit the transmitting matter of the LIVING body and is causing an interference to the FLOW of mental impulses, This interference creates of lack of ease (dis-ease) with the transmission of the mental impulse with intelligent direction by reverting it back to a nerve impulse which is transmitted without intelligent direction. This violate principle #32 and causes incoordination which is a lack of harmonious action of ALL the pars of the body, in fulfilling their offices and purposes. –
– If YOU are with me here, we are not only on the same page… we are on the same line of the same page. 😉
Hope someone knows the answer these three questions on MI and Trophic impulses that I had from reading some of the comments above.
a.If the IF/MI “originates” from the UF adapted by the ii in the IB, where does the Trophic impulse originate?
b.Can trophic impulses exist in the nerve system in a situation where there are no vs’s present. If so how does the body “negate” the uf if they are destructive?
c. Do trophic impulses have a metaphysical component or only physical?
Thanks again.
Steve,
This is what I blogged on 08/04/12, 2012.
There is ALWAYS 100% of innate intelligence in every “living thing”, THE REQUISITE AMOUNT, PROPORTIONAL TO ITS ORGANIZATION. –
– A subluxation is a physical event that further limits the limitation of the transmitting matter of the LIVING body. This increased limitation of matter becomes the “new limitation of matter” that the 100% of innate intelligence has to work with. Innate intelligence will continue to be in control of the matter in which it works within its “new” limitation of matter due to the subluxation. –
– Dis-ease is not a lack of control from the innate intelligence of the body. That is logically an impossibility. Innate intelligence is ALWAYS 100%. How can perfection not be in control? –
– Dis-ease is STATE of the matter that becomes further limited, and as such, matter experiences a lack of coordination of action and principle #32 has been violated. The subluxated LIVING body is NOW presenting innate intelligence with a NEW set of circumstances (I bet Bob likes that!) to control. The interference is between matter and matter (brain cell and tissue cell). It is the matter that is expressing the innate FORCES of innate intelligence (pri.13)… It is the matter that suffers the consequences as a result of being further limited. It is the transmitting matter that is further limited CAUSING a interference to the FLOW of MENTAL impulses. This interference changes the character of the MENTAL impulse (if) reverting it back to a nerve impulse (uf). It’s like a soldier coming back home WHO has lost one leg. Innate intelligence is in FULL control of the body of that soldier. It is the soldier WHO is now limited in performing his actions of daily living, since his transportation mechanism (transmitting matter) has been further limited (minus one leg). –
– The failure to adapt is ALWAYS from the limitation of matter, NEVER from a failure of innate intelligence. (pri.22, 23, 24,25,27). –
– Therefore, we reasonably deduce and logically conclude that the ONLY time the innate intelligence of the LIVING body has less than 100% control is WHEN that body is in its ULTIMATE STATE of limitation: DEATH (0% control). There is NO “in-between”. –
– Then, the innate intelligence of the dead body is the innate intelligence of the cell and will be in full control of the cell within the limitation of matter of the cell. Then, WHEN all the cell is dead… WHO KNOWS!!!!!
– DEATH is the ULTIMATE limitation of matter. Then and ONLY then does the intelligence of the body cease to adapt forces (pri.23) and cease to maintain the material of the body in active organization (pr.21).