Sometimes we are given words and terms as part of our lexicon and consequently we don’t really give them a second thought as to whether they are sound, proper, or philosophically correct. One such term may be self-organization, referring to the body as being self-organizing. At first glance it would seem to convey a correct concept. The body does have an innate intelligence and one of the characteristics of intelligence is organization. I would suggest, however that the body is in fact, not self-organizing.
From our strictly chiropractic philosophical perspective, the human organism is a triune—intelligence, force and matter. (From a religious perspective a human being is more than that). Obviously, the matter is the body. A corpse has the same matter as a living person, but it is not organized in the sense that the organs, tissues and cells are functioning in an organized manner. We could say that it is dis-organized and as decomposition occurs it becomes more and more dis-organized. After all, composition is itself a word for organization. A written composition is not just a group of words but a group of words organized into one thought.
Here is the point. It is not the body itself that is responsible for the organization. The credit should go entirely to the innate intelligence of the body. It alone causes the organization. The body has no ability to organize itself. If the world worked that way, the top of my desk would be organized! Every morning I come to the office hoping that my desk has self-organized and every morning I am disappointed. It takes intelligent action separate and distinct from the components of the top of my desk, in order for the desk to be organized. So it is with the body. Apart from the innate intelligence, there would be no organization.
Interestingly, there are those within the chiropractic community who would like to embrace a pseudo-mechanistic philosophy. They believe that what we call intelligence, which we say is separate and distinct from the matter, is merely the result of random forces inherent in the matter and that these forces simply give the appearance of intelligent action. That, of course, is the basis for Darwinism and Mechanism. That thinking is in conflict with the concept of the chiropractic Triune of Life which sees intelligence, force, and matter separate, but united. In fact, the very definition of life only occurs when they are united.
It is important for our practice members to understand that there is something separate and distinct from the matter of the body that does the healing. It is the life within this body that is responsible, for only a living body heals itself. The expression of this intelligence through the body is life and when an interference in the nerve system occurs due to a vertebral subluxation, the innate intelligence cannot organize and heal the body, as it was meant to. That is what separates us from all outside-in approaches. So the next time you are inclined to say to a practice member that “the body heals itself,” go a little further and explain that the innate intelligence of the body does the healing. If they look at you with a “duh?” look on their face, then perhaps you need to improve and expand upon your explanation of innate intelligence. V22n4
Joe,
This being the case
Why in p1
1. The Major Premise – A Universal Intelligence is in all matter and continually gives to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence.
Isn’t the word IN all matter perhaps a error of language. What’s really meant is more like OF or ATTACHED TO, etc
The IN suggests the same of II being IN living matter and that is not logical as per this post
Joe and others
Good Morning.
I have 2 questions or observations with regards to this topic of self organization.
1. Within the realm of ii, you’ve described in your books, and I believe on this blog a hierarchy, consisting of ii (body), organ intelligence, tissue intelligence, ii(cell).
Since the The Function of Intelligence is create force, and The function of force is to unite intelligence and matter, >> Thus we have here a Triune of intelligence,force,matter at each level.
pr4. states >> The Triune of Life – Life is a triunity having three necessary united factors, namely: Intelligence, Force and Matter, so ineffect, each of these hierarchial levels theoretically should represent the Triune. Certainly ii(body) does and ii(cell) does.
Each one of those fullfills
pr18. Evidence of Life – The signs of life are evidence of the intelligence of life. BUT organ intelligence and tissue intelligence, if they indeed fulfill the triune, DO NOT. Their cells do, there might be active organization and coordination of matter that (eg. organ intelligence) fulfills, but certainly as LIFE, LIFE really with regards to the signs of life, only relate to THE BODY(organism), and THE CELL, NOT the organ (no organized excretion or assimilation, etc.) and NOT the tissue (same). I’m trying to deductively and thru the 33 principles organize or logically think about this subject of body ii, system intelligence, organ intelligence, tissue intelligence and of course cellular ii, as I have described here >> TRIUNE wise. Perhaps you can shed some light.
2. The major premise exists at the atomic, elemental level. The jump to innate intelligence as a logical deduction from this major premise, I don’t really get deductively, logically. Yes I observe LIFE, and yes I observe intelligent processes, and yes I observe the Signs of LIFE, but that is an inductive process, like the Major Premise is (observation). To deductively deduce(?) (logically deduce?), Innate Intelligence from Universal Intelligence for me is not a logical progression. Yes I observe the Intelligent Design within the Mechanisms of the matter of life, but again this is thru observation, not philosophical deduction.
Yes, I can deduce that LIFE matter has Universal intelligence within or as a part of it (the physical matter, the chemistry), but the active organization that Innate Intelligence maintains as a deduction from the Major premise, where is that line of thought?
It almost seems that it could be a play on words, that word being ‘Intelligence’.
That we use it to describe UI, and since our language uses the word intelligence as a description for educated, as a description for processes that intellectually manifest from the brain, I see a confusion of definitions there. And of course just because we describe mental, educated processes as intelligent I would assume that does not really enter this discussion persae. But I could see the false linking.
Anyway, I don’t know if I’ve explained myself clearly. If not I’d like to try.
Perhaps it’s the same old issue I have had, and maybe philosophy has, that being going from non-life to life, and what that really is, and how do we really make logical connections from one to the other.
33 principles is said to do that, but I ponder over it. Maybe you can set me on a clearer path.
Thanks
Claude and Joe and others
I did ask this question(s) earlier but I feared that I would only hear crickets. So, I’m trying once more, because it is important to me for some guidance. Yes Claude I’m improvising! 🙂 However I’m always practicing and that involves getting down to basics and that is what these questions consist of.
These are 2 questions which deal with UI and II
1. Within the realm of ii, you’ve described in your books (blue books), and I believe on this blog a hierarchy, consisting of ii (body), organ intelligence, tissue intelligence, ii(cell).
Since the The Function of Intelligence is create force, and The function of force is to unite intelligence and matter, >> Thus we have here a Triune of intelligence,force,matter at each level.
pr4. states >> The Triune of Life – Life is a triunity having three necessary united factors, namely: Intelligence, Force and Matter, so ineffect, each of these hierarchial levels theoretically should represent the Triune. Certainly ii(body) does and ii(cell) does.
Each one of those fullfills
pr18. Evidence of Life – The signs of life are evidence of the intelligence of life. BUT organ intelligence and tissue intelligence, if they indeed fulfill the triune, DO NOT. Their cells do, there might be active organization and coordination of matter that (eg. organ intelligence) fulfills, but certainly as LIFE, LIFE really with regards to the signs of life, only relate to THE BODY(organism), and THE CELL, NOT the organ (no organized excretion or assimilation, etc.) and NOT the tissue (same). I’m trying to deductively and thru the 33 principles organize or logically think about this subject of body ii, system intelligence, organ intelligence, tissue intelligence and of course cellular ii, as I have described here >> TRIUNE wise. Perhaps you can shed some light.
2. The major premise exists at the atomic, elemental level. The jump to innate intelligence as a logical deduction from this major premise, I don’t really get deductively, logically. Yes I observe LIFE, and yes I observe intelligent processes, and yes I observe the Signs of LIFE, but that is an inductive process, like the Major Premise is (observation). To deductively deduce(?) (logically deduce?), Innate Intelligence from Universal Intelligence for me is not a logical progression. Yes I observe the Intelligent Design within the Mechanisms of the matter of life, but again this is thru observation, not philosophical deduction.
Yes, I can deduce that LIFE matter has Universal intelligence within or as a part of it (the physical matter, the chemistry), but the active organization that Innate Intelligence maintains as a deduction from the Major premise, where is that line of thought?
It almost seems that it could be a play on words, that word being ‘Intelligence’.
That we use it to describe UI, and since our language uses the word intelligence as a description for educated, as a description for processes that intellectually manifest from the brain, I see a confusion of definitions there. And of course just because we describe mental, educated processes as intelligent I would assume that does not really enter this discussion persae. But I could see the false linking.
Anyway, I don’t know if I’ve explained myself clearly. If not I’d like to try.
Perhaps it’s the same old issue I have had, and maybe philosophy has, that being going from non-life to life, and what that really is, and how do we really make logical connections from one to the other.
33 principles is said to do that, but I ponder over it. Maybe you can set me on a clearer path.
Thanks
David, I’m trying to catch up on my comments.
1. First,, all the signs of life are not necessarily manifested for there to be life. Ther are organisms that do not reproduce. They are still alive. There are seeds that have been found in pyramids, that put into the ground grow into plants. They do not visibly assimilate, excrete, grow but they are apparently adapting and will reproduce. An organ that was transplanted and begins to function again wa obviously alive and hence adapting. Cut off or divide a plant (eg. Hasta) and it will grow into a new plant. The skin grafted form one site in a burn victim is a tissue, part of the largest organ in the body
2. Innate intelligence is only a term of accommodation to describe matter that acts differently than non-living matter. Some chiropractors have suggested that we do away with the term ii and just recognize ui. We cannot go from non-life to life without the action of ii’s (forces). A Dead piece of meat can become Joe Strauss.
Joe,
1. OK >> so the triune is preserved in all cases
2. The issue is really Innate Forces resulting in active Organization and Coordination. But where did they come from? UI? Possibly in Living Matter, but and awkward usage, being that UI >> is atomic, so UI resulting in Innate force not only Universal force >> it’s problematic logically, therefore II is deduced. Does that sound about right? 🙂
It is the degree of complexity of structural “living” e/matter that both determines levels of organization (pri.1) and ACTIVE organization (pri.21) within the limits of adaptation (pri.24). Intelligence and instructive information are ALWAYS complete at ALL levels (pri.7, 9, 22 and 27) and are EXPRESSED by ALL e/matter (pri13) and MANIFESTED through MOTION by SPECIFIC complexities of e/matter, non-living and living (pri.14 and 32)…. –
– …. in other words, the perfection of the triune is ALWAYS present WITHIN the UNIVERSE at ALL levels of e/matter. It is as regards to ALL structural e/matter that instructive information is deconstructive (pri.26) and that as regards to ONLY structural living e/matter that instructive information is constructive FOR A TIME (pri.6, 28,29,31)… hence the validation of deducing innate intelligence (pri.20) from principles # 1, 16,18 and 19.
So >> as my story telling over and over in my own unique way, to help create gnosis>>epignosis
The specific MANIFESTIONS through MOTION by SPECIFIC complexities of e/matter
1. living (pri.14 and 32) , with ONLY structural living e/matter that instructive information being constructive and
2. structural non-living e/matter that instructive information being deconstructive >>
thus the validation of deducing innate intelligence (pri.20) from principles # 1, 16,18 and 19.
Triune >> non-living, deconstructive, less degree complexity >> UI
Triune >> living, constructive, higher degree complexity >> II
My view was basically the same, if you analyze my comment, without condemnation. Your view bases itself on the principle >> pr26 (deconstructive vs constructive) and mine on and induction or observation of the principle (26) >> distinction between innate forces and universal forces >> thus implicating the presence of intelligences manifesting different properties and actions with in different levels of complexity of matter (non-living vs living)
Also I made my analysis based on Joe’s referencing innate forces.
I saw innate forces leading to active organization of matter and then back tracked based on the triune, to deducing innate intelligence.
All kind of the same
yes/no
Thank you Claude and Joe and Joe, your re-orienting me to see LIFE(with your examples of seeds, branches, etc. ) not requiring ALL the signs of LIFE to BE Living, was very helpful to my processing and understanding
David, innate forces are universal forces (which tend to be destructive toward structural matter) which have been invested with a new character by the ii of the body, to make them constructive. There is no shortage of universal forces (eg. we have the force of gravity acting all the time) hence no shortage of innate forces. The only “shortage” is that due to limitations of matter (eg. VS) sometimes those innate forces cannot be expressed.
Joe,
Well, yes I can see, that but as you said previous and Claude was making reference, ii exists as a deduction from the 33 principles yes/no
So I was trying to find out where it deduced from.
This investment with a new character by the ii of the body, to make them constructive >> concept or fact >> had to come from some place (pr17. Cause and Effect), but OK, your saying II really is UI invested with new character. I see that as an egg/chicken dilemma.
What comes first, the ii which was ui and thus allows LIFE (from the triune), or Life Matter, that requires Innate forces to promote active organization and coordination, and constructive nature, and thus demands UI to make available at a higher complexity and manifest different properties and actions, that being II. And it is a deduction
am I creating a fruit salad of apples and oranges? I think not. Do you understand me understanding you understanding me? 🙂
Dave, Ii is deduced from Principles #1,17,18,19. Your egg/chicken dilemma is a philosophical/theological dilemma but not a chiropractic one. Remember, chiropractic does not have all the answers to life. It does not have the answer for limitations of matter. That is a medical question. It does not have the answer for eternity and relationship with God. That is a theological question. I believe trying to answer those questions from a chiropractic viewpoint is mixing. I have come up with answers for both of them personally but that is not chiropractic. I am happy to share with anyone how I personally have found answers to both the medical and theological dilemmas. But I have to take off my chiropractic hat to do that and this is not the venue for that discussion.
Joe,
Interesting…
The principle of deduction, as an example you gave in I believe it’s your blue book1 Chiropractic Philosophy, was illustrated by (A man is a father. This deduces that he has at least one child). Yes, we have to define father (non-religious, and not necessarily biological father). But There it is, a deduction.
The terms defined in the major premise (MP), deal with MATTER, any Matter, all matter. The UI gives to it, properties and actions that maintain it in existence. Is LIFE existence? NO. LIFE is a Triune that encompasses matter (organic), force(expressing intelligence) and Intelligence. P18 >> illustrates the presence of LIFE by observing it’s signs as intelligent.
Yes p1,17,18,19 deduce to 20 and I see this more clearly NOW – 07/16/14 >> but only if INTELLIGENCE can be associated with the deconstructive vs constructive properties, as I understand it NOW. This fact has been illuminated by FINALLY seeing
p7. The Amount of Intelligence in Matter – The amount of intelligence for any given amount of matter is 100%, and is always proportional to its requirements >> AS A MEANS TO UNDERSTAND a HOW or a process Where II can MANIFEST from. It is of the same Triune concept as the MP (UI). With That being a increase or a variation or a distinction in complexity, that being An Intelligence, proportional to MATTERS requirements, in this Case Living Matter
LIFE exists and would appear to be organized constructively, without which (DEATH) would manifest it’s deconstruction into the elements, in total thermodynamic balance and stable atomic organization. (Please forgive my hedging or slight inaccuracies). MY Point in this reply is to in a way acknowledge my understanding (I think) of how Principle 20 is arrived at, but it took a greater exploration and understanding of p1 and the interactions of logical places that each principle meant, or means. I might be making more of this perhaps obvious principle deductive pathway, but maybe that’s what is suppose to happen. What seems simple but unexplored, leads to error and slipping that only exploration and thought and perhaps more error, but learning is the desired outcome. I think I am.
I presume the purpose of the 33 principles is inevitably to bring a NTOCSC to the ART, to the SCIENCE and back again to the PHILOSOPHY.
Thank you for offering some of your, I’ll say personal wisdom within the medical and theological arenas. I will take you up on that.
I hope this post was NOT too tangential. If so, I do apologize.
Dave
David,
You posted: “I presume the purpose of the 33 principles is inevitably to bring a NTOCSC to the ART, to the SCIENCE and back again to the PHILOSOPHY”. –
– In earlier posts, it was made crystal clear that the philosophy correlates the science which is comprised of 33 absolute principles, the art and the practice of the chiropractic objective. The purpose of the 33 principles is to construct the structural platform on which ALL of chiropractic stands. Without the veracity and absoluteness of the 33 principles, chiropractic would have collapsed a long time ago. That’s what makes the 33 principles the AUTHORITY of chiropractic. –
– Thank you for your insight regarding “What seems simple but unexplored, leads to error and slipping that only exploration and thought and perhaps more error…” reminds me of a great quote from Socrates: “The unexamined life is not worth living”. Hence the importance of a blog like COTB which affords ALL of us, together without condemnation, to check our slippings. 😉
Claude,
Is ‘checking’ an educated OI process, even if the intent is to promote an ADIO viewpoint. For that matter, study and questioning the 33 principles, story telling (telling the story over and over)??
Where does the slipping end and the checking begin?
Dave,
When interference with transmission is corrected of course! 😉
Since checking is something one does personally for oneself, what is the pre and post check?
If I could suggest, doing what is necessary (understanding and living 33 principles (innate living), living ADIO viewpoint, check adherence to congruency (UNLEARNING, Listening for the New, maintain an attitude of OPENNESS) >> post check is more EASE
And yes
When interference with transmission is corrected of course, which can only happen by the introduction of educated ADIO directed Universal forces through the forces of changed action, changed thought, changed behavior, etc.
I’d say one attempts to make personal change (ADIO change), and then it’s up to ii withing the LOM at hand (everything takes time p6), to perform its function being p23. to adapt universal forces and matter for use in the body, so that all parts of the body will have co-ordinated action for mutual benefit.
yes/no??
I’m talking about the adjustment above atlas of course.