The above quote is attributed to Governor Cuomo of New York. We have redefined “normal”. As chiropractors we must reject the redefining of the idea of normal. especially by politicians. While the above is not a chiropractic issue, how can that idea of redefining normal, and allow others to define normal on issues that affect our health and indirectly our profession?
Politicians love redefining the new normal. This issue had been particularly bothering me lately as I heard this idea of a new normal being pushed around by a couple of our national associations. I wrote the blog below to help shed some light on the issue as there is great danger in redefining our profession for acceptance versus scientific and/philosophic need.
http://chiropracticis.com/chiropractic-identity-problem/
Hey Joe,
Has OC not redefined what is normal in Chiropractic Philosophy? If normal is the correct state of affairs at this time, we should welcome change. Change IS NORMAL, it is to be expected and should be appreciated if it is for the good. Bombings are indeed a reality in many big cities, does that make them normal, not necessarily. Average or non-unique, yes. What is a normal Chiropractor? BJ used to refer to the regulars and irregulars. If we let the irregulars define our profession we will end up with an irregular profession. Just as if we let the jihadist define normal.
Steve, Where did the idea that change is normal come from? My understanding is that normal in biology is whatever the innate intelligence of the organism wants at that exact moment. It may raise the blood temperature in the case of fever or keep it the same in 30 degree weather. Pretending to know what is normal for the body at any given moment is a medical game. Only the ii of the body knows. Normal is to be expected and appreciated and it may be manifested as change or lack of change.
Hey Joe,
I’m sure you have heard the expression, “the only thing that stays the same is change”. We live in a dynamic universe, on a dynamic planet in a dynamic body. Change is normal, constructive and destructive. Sometimes II wins, but eventually UI always triumphs. Can you give me an example of something that does not change, besides principles.
If II adapts the body individually, then I guess it’s up to UI to adapt the society and planet, yes, no? Or is there a Social Innate Intelligence? If so, it needs a force analysis and most likely an adjustic thrust. (Sorry, I guess I am too attached to the outcome and I’m judging by the symptoms.)The point was, in our society and profession, just because an aberration occurs more than once does not make it normal.