Is innate intelligence (or universal intelligence for that matter) what makes us alive (or keeps us in existence) or is it just a manifestation of matter that is living (or not)? We sometimes describe innate intelligence as that which organizes matter on an active level. But could it just as easily be described as matter that is organizing itself actively, that is, demonstrating one or more of the five signs of life? Similarly, is universal intelligence what causes organization of the atoms and the planets of the universe or is it, or should it be, the description of that phenomenon? I think it is clear from the Palmers’ writing that they saw universal and innate as that which organizes matter atomically (universal) and actively (innate). This is indicated by the facts that not only did they capitalize the terms but they also used them synonymously with theological terms. Even the Triune of Life presents the idea that intelligence is separate and distinct from the matter and not merely a characteristic of its level or degree of organization.
There are those within our profession that would argue that what we call innate intelligence, or universal intelligence for the matter, is really only a manifestation of arbitrary levels of organization. They, of course, are the mechanistic chiropractors. They argue that these different levels are merely different positions on the evolutionary scale and that medicine already has a term to describe this, “viz medicatrix.” They would further argue that this does not cause the physician to alter his method of practice from a mechanistic model because it is, in and of itself, a mechanism. Their idea of innate intelligence or viz medicatrix is really no different than the principle of internal combustion, that which keeps an automobile “alive” and running. The problem with this position is that someone designed the internal combustion engine. It did not design itself. The mechanist would argue that chance and time designed the living body. To him that makes perfect sense. I guess there could be a theistic mechanist, a person who accepts that there is a God but that innate intelligence is not the cause of life, merely a name to describe the phenomena of life. I have never met a theistic mechanist personally, but I believe there may be one living somewhere in Kansas.
At the other end of the spectrum is the Palmerian idea that universal and innate intelligence are the ultimate cause, that they are entities. The Palmers believed that they organized matter on the atomic and active level. For our discussion here the Palmers believed that, innate intelligence was the cause of life, all life on every level. God, however anyone describes Him, was merely universal intelligence (or innate intelligence in living matter). If someone had a greater or different concept of God than the characteristics of universal and innate intelligence, then that idea was considered a distortion according to Palmer’s writings. B.J. had no reservations in stepping into the field of theology and criticizing it from his chiropractic philosophical position. (See Fame and Fortune Chapter XII). This idea is consistently seen through B.J.’s writings. There was nothing above or beyond universal and innate intelligence. They were the causeless cause. Needless to say, this approach creates conflict with certain religious groups, not the least of which is Christianity.
There is a third position, one that, while not totally consistent with historical Palmer philosophy, meets the spirit of the philosophy, one that is non-mechanistic and yet does not offend theological concepts. In this contemporary view, innate intelligence is viewed as a law or a principle. However, it is with the explicit understanding that there is a lawgiver behind the law. It is not the Creator of life but the creation principle by which life comes into being. As such, it carries the weight and respect of the Creator, but in chiropractic philosophy it is not necessary for us to acknowledge or study the Creator of the law any more than it is necessary for the physicist to acknowledge the creator of the Law of Thermodynamics. It is similar to the laws of this land. Laws make this country work, make it a living organism, if you will. Yet we recognize that there is something behind that law, the three branches of government, as well as the Constitution and various law enforcement agencies. Because of this position, the mechanist, who recognizes nothing more than the manifestation of a principle but not the principle, considers us religious fanatics. We say there is something more than innate and universal, but He (or some might say it) is outside the realm of chiropractic philosophy.
To the other extreme, those who hold to the traditional model of universal and innate intelligence, we seem like heretics. Not because our idea is so outlandish but simply because it is not the idea that B.J. espoused concerning innate and universal intelligence. It should be noted that referring to innate intelligence as the Law of Life, B.J. gives some historical credence to this position. The big difference between our present day straight chiropractic and the traditional approach is that we hold to the idea that chiropractic is separate and distinct from everything else, including medicine and theology, and that it should not conflict with those fields. As a result of that, some fine tuning needs to be done with respect to certain chiropractic philosophical concepts. This different way of looking at innate and universal intelligence might be a good place for that fine tuning to start. v16n3