Cycles are an important concept in the Palmer philosophy. B.J., Craven and Stephenson wrote many pages of text explaining them. They need to be examined, understood and further developed. I have addressed a number of cycles before in various ways, in an attempt to bring further light to our understanding… always being met with questions and opposition, sometimes vitriolic in nature.
I have come to the conclusion that locating the innate brain in the cranial vault and not making a distinction between its “existence is actual,… location is theoretical,” is the major problem in understanding cycles. If its location is theoretical then we cannot give the impression it is in the skull. We just do not know. It is, according to our philosophy, a metaphysical location, where the innate intelligence of the body assembles innate forces. Perhaps it has no single location any more than the innate intelligence has a single location, although some try to limit innate intelligence to the physical brain. Its location is the place where universal forces are “invested with new character” and transformed into innate forces. The innate intelligence actually is everywhere but its ”workplace” is the innate brain where it adapts universal forces for use in the body. Some examples may help: With regard to the patellar reflex, (this is for you Steve…and long overdue)the innate brain is located in the knee where it adapts the universal force of the little hammer, changes it into an innate force, where it causes the so-called reflex mechanism. With regard to an adjustment, the innate brain is in the vertemere region where the innate intelligence adapts the universal force of an adjustic thrust, transforms it into an innate force which through the muscles moves the bone back into its proper position. While it is true that the innate brain may, at times, be in the skull where the physical brain is located, we must make the distinction between the physical brain and the innate brain, one is physical, one metaphysical. In my opinion, our Developer and the above developers often did not make that distinction, and, in fact, gave the impression they are synonymous. Yet if you read their writings, there is nothing that cannot make them separate. They just never make that distinction. The innate brain is actual. There must be a place where innate intelligence assembles innate forces. However, the physical brain is physical; it is where the innate intelligence physically, tangibly “distributes” the mental impulses to the organs, tissues and cells of the body. However, it is no more the “seat” of the innate intelligence than any other organ and it has no more a living intelligence running it than does a computer. The physical brain is actually closer to a computer than it is a metaphysical phenomena. It might be nice to assign to the physical brain the running of the body but that is mechanistic and denies the metaphysical foundation of our philosophy.
Hey Joe,
As I asked before, if IB is in the knee, what need is there for a nerve system? That would mean intellectual adaptation would be localized to/at the point of impact. Are you implying II is in the tissue? I don’t mean cellular intelligence since we know CI is only for the survival of the cell. That II has an awareness of the knee there is no doubt, which leads us back to BJ’s statement on the afferent pathway ( no subluxations in the afferent side as it would stymie II’s awareness). First we must decide if it ( afferent pathway) is physical/metaphysical or just physical? Quite possibly if we solve that question first, these others would logically answer themselves.
You insist in making MI part of the afferent pathway. Nowhere in the books have I ever read this. I can agree that IB is metaphysical, which may mean omnipresent but all diagrams and explanations refer to MI as descending only, ADIO.
Hey Joe 2 ,
“That II has an awareness of the knee there is no doubt, ” I have been rethinking this statement I made. Must gravity be aware, must innate be aware? You questioned the existence of an II afferent system before in another post, now I am doing the same. Obviously the nerve system does but does innate?
I think our philosophy may change a good bit with de-personification. Terms like planning, deciding, awareness,and meta-afferent may no longer apply.
I agree Steve, with de-personification we may have to change some of our language…even make up new words, which I find to be great fun. “Planning” and “deciding” probably are misleading terms. I’m okay with “awareness” It conveys the thought in language of accommodation. We have to keep in mind that like DD, BJ and others we are trying to explain previous not understood concepts about the metaphysical in language not designed to convey that. But we need to define those terms as best we can if we are going to incorporate them into our chiropractic lexicon. That said, what the heck is meta-afferent. It’s too late and I’m too tired to try to figure it out:)
Hey Joe,
The question remains as to whether II requires an afferent pathway. If so II being metaphysical, it stands to reason that the pathway would also be metaphysical, hence meta-afferent.
Steve, you ask:”if IB is in the knee, what need is there for a nerve system?” IB is metaphysical, so its messages must become physical at some point in order for physical adaptation to occur. I can know what I want to write (Intellectual adaptation)but it does no good until I put my physical fingers on the physical keyboard. At that point my metaphysical thoughts(messages) enter the physical realm. Innate forces at some point must have a material pathway. Why? You will have to take that up with the Designer. I’m not going to second guess Him. Science has shown that electrical energy (which is part of the component of a mental impulse ie.-the physical part) travels most efficiently over wires, specialized tissue called nerves. Adaptative functions like digestion for example may necessitate the response of a number of organs, tissues and millions of cells all interacting together in a corrdinated manner. If I want to send an e-mail to a thousand practice members its more efficient to send it to my Constant Contact mailing list than to send it to each person individually. However sooner or later physical matter must enter the process of adaptation otherwise it would forever stay in the metaphysical realm and we are physical beings. The only issue to be resolved is when, where, and how the innate force, created in the innate brain travels to the the physical brain and becomes a mental impulse (a physical nerve impulse carrying a metaphysical message to a tissue cell). Perhaps, as in the case of an adjustic thrust, the innate force does not even have to reach the physical brain but the innate intelligence in the innate brain can convert a specific, localized universal force into a mental impulse and bring about the adjustment. Some of the above Steve, is well thought out deductive reasoning, some is theory , most is flat out guesswork!!
Joseph and Steve,
We all have to use words to communicate. Chiropractic has a lexicon and any lexicon is in flux according to the NEW discoveries of the time.
Ex: In 1820, the word gay did not mean what it means today. The words cyberspace and computer did not exist. Mouse and screen were not used in computer meaning, etc… –
– Chiropractic is experiencing the same thing today. Yet, we must exercise vigilance and watch for one another in this transition of growth. I want to bring to your attention principle #20: –
— A “living” thing has an inborn intelligence within its body, called innate intelligence. Is a living cell, for example, outside its living body a “living thing”? When a liver, a kidney or a heart is flown from NYC to LA for a transplant, it has its own innate intelligence of the organ has it not. It is NOT organ intelligence! It is the innate intelligence of the “living thing” (liver, kidney, heart). There is NO such thing as cellular intelligence, tissue intelligence, organ intelligence, system intelligence or body intelligence. It is the innate intelligence of the cell, the innate intelligence of the tissue, the innate intelligence of the organ, the innate intelligence of the system, the innate intelligence of the body. –
– An other example, which stands alone, is the amoeba cell. It is a “living thing” and has an innate intelligence within its body, does it not? So, can we agree on this specific use of innate intelligence of a “living thing” from now on as we communicate with people?
Claude, in your lexicon 1. How would you describe the innate intelligence being expressed through a cell within the body?
2. How would you describe the innate intelligence being expressed through a cell that has been removed from the body but is sill living?
3. How would you describe the innate intelligence being expressed through a cell within the body with nerve interference to it but it is still living?
4. How would you describe the innate intelligence being expressed through a living amoeba?
5. How would you describe the intelligence being expressed through a dead amoeba?
For the sake of we simple-minded and brevity (not one of your strong points), each answer can be no more than 5 words:)
Joseph,
Is this a test? I will answer YOUR questions even though you did not answer MY question. 😉
1. Innate intelligence of the body
2. Innate intelligence of the cell
3. Innate intelligence of the cell
4. Innate intelligence of the body (amoeba has a one-cell body)
5. Universal intelligence
Hey Claude,
How right you are. I must remember not all readers/ posters are on the same level. In an effort to spare printers ink I reduced clarity, thanx 4 the check.
Steve,
I’m just waiting for Joseph to answer my question without asking me many questions. 😉
Claude, we use words to communicate. When those word do not clearly communicate then we must change them or stop using them. There are a half dozen well-known Joe’s in the chiropractic profession, so referring to me as Joe can cause confusion for some who do not know the individual being mentioned. I have never seen the problem with referring to the innate intelligence of the cell as “cellular intelligence”. On the other hand saying “innate got me well” rather than “the innate intelligence of the body got me well” bothers me. So, I will make every effort to be clear and accurate and not call the innate intelligence of the body by its nickname. I can agree.
Hey Joe,
This is where I go loopy with your explanation of cycles. You state the Innate Brain must connect with Physical Brain for Mental Impulse to be attached to Nerve Impulse. This negates your previous claim of Innate Intelligence acting in the knee or vertamere, without Phys. Brain being involved.
If intellectual adaptation is the function of II, creating MI is the function of IB, and connecting MI and NI is the function of PB, how can the physical brain be left out of any innate function???ADIO, ADIO, ADIO
Steve, it seems to me that the physical brain only needs to be involved in the adaptation when higher levels of coordination are involved that require physical brain activity. Let’s use the adjustment: The adujstic thrust , a uf, is introduced into the vertemere region. At that place, the ii of the body in the ib changes it into an innate force which travels over the tissue/nerves to the muscles to move the bone and reduce the interference .At the same time, the ii of the body sends a mi (afferently)to the physical brain to cause coordination within the brain so that messages can be sent over nerves (efferently) to the stomach, liver, digestive tract, pancreas, ete,etc to restore proper chemistry in the digestive tract. Meanwhile message are being sent to the educated brain enabling the person to have a feeling of wellbeing because “that felt good” or discomfort because “that hurt doc” or “I didn’t feel anything move doctor”. At the same time, messages are being sent to other organs and glands, messages to billions of cells needed to replace those chemicals that are being used. At the same time the physical brain is sending mental impulses to the vertemere region, to repair and strengthen the muscles in the area so that the vertebra will not resubluxate. Also to the glands and cells necessary to accomplish that strengthening. There are probably a thousand other things taking place through the action of the ii of the body acting through the physical brain as a result of that adjustment. We never know how far reaching….do today will affect the lives of millions (of cells) tommorrow.
Hey Joe,
According to the classic cycle I think it should go like this. Adjustic thrust is applied to the spine, tissue cells receive universal force, impression is created and sent afferently (still a UF) to the physical brain and innate brain, innate intelligence produces an intellectual adaptation and forms a mental impulse, MI is sent to the physical brain and combined with a nerve impulse to be sent efferently to the muscles of the vertemere causing the bone to be navigated to exactly the right position, this process of repositioning the bone removes interference to the nerve system allowing a more coordinated function of the areas supplied by that particular nerve.
You stated, “At that place, the ii of the body in the ib changes it into an innate force which travels over the tissue/nerves to the muscles to move the bone and reduce the interference .” I’m wondering, if the afferent nerve was cut and the brain did not receive the impression would there be an adaptive response. This concept is missing in your scenario. In your example the II acts before transmission to the ascending pathway is activated.
As a side note, if as you say II is in the tissue at the point of impact, then II is in the physical brain and there is no need for an innate brain to physical brain afferent or efferent path, for it is already there.
Steve, I know the classic cycle and it not making sense started all my writing. So what is the “impression” of? The only definition of impression that seemed applicable was “a vague notion or application”. That requires some sort of intelligence. Who or what is sent afferently and is still a UF? Who sends it? A UF is not specific and tends to be destructive.
Joe, I dont understand your statement towards the end of the first post saying, “(the physical brain) has no more a living intelligence running it than does a computer.” The physical brain doesn’t having a living intelligence running it?
Scott, thanks for picking up on that. The physical brain has no more a living intelligence running it than does a computer BUT it has no less a living intelligence running it than does the computer. Both are just tools that intelligence uses. The computer-someones educated intelligence, the physical brain-the body’s innate intelligence. That’s where our understanding of the triune of life comes in. The physical brain is part of the matter, not part of the intelligence.The innate brain is part of the intelligence in that, like the innate intelligence, its existence is actual but its location is theoretical. That’s why we have the triune. The mechanistic world view is that the intelligence is inherent in the matter, not separate and distinct from it. So they see no need to address a link (force) between intelligence and matter since they are both one. Further, they feel they are perfectly qualified and entitled to educatedly alter/change/address the matter. By analogy they make movies about computers having/developing an inherent intelligence and taking over the world rather than just being a tool of someone’s educated mind. That’s called “science fiction” in the movies. In real life with regard to the body, we call that idea (that intelligence and matter are one and the same) the “fiction of science”. Does that help?
Thanks, that helps. So the innate Intelligence uses the physical brain to get things done, similar to how we use computers to get things done. Good analogy because both are used as conduits for getting vital information out to the parts and people that need the information for life.
Hey Joe,
The classic cycle does make sense with or without personification. The impressions from the tissue are what the senses of touch and heat, ect. are for. Specialized tissue designed to register environmental change and transmit that difference to the brain. The afferent message is an unadapted (UF) vibration or signal originated in the tissue. I think trying to localize II to the site of input is what got you in trouble. Which again begs the question of II’s need for an afferent/efferent pathway. Is II aware of all at all times or does II wait for input to respond to?
Now we are getting deep.
Steve, you are mixing…the normal complete cycle with the special sense cycle. When you bring in the educated brain, it’s a whole new ballgame. There is no educated brain activty associated with an adjustment (except that of the chiropractor…and then not often enough:). … “trying to localize ii” is just what I am trying not to do. That’s what LOCALIZING it in the brain is doing. Ii is aware of every innate need but is limited by limitations of matter. If it knew the stove was going to be hot you would not touch it. You seem to be confusing educated function/activity with that of the ii of the body.
Hey Joe,
Are you insinuating the physical brain and educated intelligence are synonymous? Again with the gray matter/white matter controversy. Maybe we should back up and go over issues one at a time?
May we start with Innate awareness, how does it happen? Are there metaphysical efferent and afferent …channels, paths, nerves? Indeed, if II is always 100% and perfect why must innate be made aware, is gravity aware or does it just work all the time? Is aerodynamics aware? I see them as working all the time as long as they have sufficient matter to work with, much like innate intelligence. Could awareness be a personification holdover. That would make sense, no pun intended, ok yes it was.
Claude pointed to a article in Stephenson’s text about Innate awareness, but that is not one of the 33. As we have discussed people use terms they are familiar with to describe new thoughts. Awareness really sounds like anthropomorphism
Steve,
1. The ed brain is part of the physical brain but there is more to the physical brain.
2. Innate awareness is a principle developed from 2 other principles #22. Anything logically deduced from a principle becomes a principle itself. It says there is an innate awareness of every innate need. If ii is perfect, 100%, then it is everywhere. This is what helped me realize it was not sitting in the brain. also prin.#1 if ui is in all matter and ii is part of ui, in living matter, then ii is in all the matter of the living body. There is no need for aff/eff pathways. If there were aff/ef pathways then there would be a point when before the message reached the ii of the body it was not aware which means at that time it was less than 100%. Example:When there is a need in my body for insulin, the ii immediately knows it and know what to do to meet that need, what actions to take, organs to involve. This occurs in the innate brain. Why must there be an ib? Because BJ said so! I think he felt that there must be some decision made and decision making, even if it is on the metaphysical level must occur in the brain. So innate(sic) is not made aware, it is always aware.
3 There is however,a situation where innate(sic) is “made ” aware and this involves Prin#24. Ii cannot be made aware of anything outside the body because it is limited by lim. of matter. It has no memory, doesn’t need one, it is immediately aware. Example:the body is producing the insulin I need, but suddenly I grab a candy bar. The minute it touches my lips the ii of my body knows how much more insulin I need and what to do to produce it. Think of awareness as being awake. Innate intelligende is never asleep, never has to be awakened, needs no alarm.
4. Actually, awareness is more an anthropopathism, ascribing to ii a characteristic rather than a physical part (anthropomorphism) it really does not have but helps us in understanding. That’s called language of accommodation. As long as we know innate intelilgence is not a little man sleeping up in the brain, pushing buttons and pulling levers( after he has been awakened) to make the pancreas work, i think we can use words like awareness and ii “decides”….but then what do I know, I thought it was okay to use “cellular intelligence” and needed to be corrected.:)
Wait…so cellular intelligence is out?
Sorry, the thread is long here and I just skimmed. Why is cellular intelligence not accurate?
Don,
Principle 20 states: “A “living thing” has an inborn intelligence within its body called innate intelligence. Innate intelligence is an absolute. If the cell is “living” it is called the innate intelligence of the cell. If it is dead it it has universal intelligence. To be consistent with principle 20 we call it the innate intelligence of the body, the innate intelligence of the system, the innate intelligence of the organ, the innate intelligence of the tissue, the innate intelligence of the cell. In other words, the innate intelligence of a “living thing”. It is same innate intelligence. It is the matter (“living thing”) that is different with its specific limitation of matter (pri.24).