Chiropractic Q&A #2


Hello Joe,

I’d like to have your input on what I’ve been thinking.

The mental impulse is commonly referred to as an innate message of the body generated in the brain, which travels via nerves to all parts of the body.

I know that in chiropractic we are concerned with the whole, in this case the body. But as far as concept is concerned, wouldn’t it be correct to say that the nerves are not the only pathway for mental impulses, as if we think about the innate expression within a cell, in a tissue, in an organ, we see there’s an expression (to a lower level than the body’s) of innate intelligence, yet no nerve system within itself.

So in case of a cell for example, the mental impulse is carried by a chemical, that chemical will signal a specific action, as would the nerve impulse(carrying the mental impulse) signal a body function.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Chiropractic Q&A

This article has 12 comments

  1. Bob Vano, DC 08/03/2011, 2:05 am:

    So in your cell example, what contributed to the production of the chemical?

    • Paulo Henrique Sugimoto 08/03/2011, 3:08 am:

      The body’s innate intelligence via nerves directly or indirectly influences the cell’s function, but given the right environment, the cell will continue to function intelligently regardless of the body’s intelligence. The question then is: what is the means through which all organelles work coordinately since there is no nerve system connecting them to one another?

      • Claude Lessard 08/03/2011, 11:38 am:

        If you ever saw the inside of one of the 24 satellites circling the earth at 12 miles up in the stratosphere, you would be blown away by the amount of “wirings” interconnected with all the components and each other. (much like the nerve system of the body).
        Yet, your individual GPS or cell phones are not connected to any wiring system. How do you think that happens?

        A signal transmitter and a signal receiver. Cells function that way too, we just have not been able to isolate its mechanism and “see” it.

        If you look closely, WE cannot create what WE are not. What we can conceive in our mind and create is a small mirror of what’s really going on. That’s why physicists can proclaim that most of the human body is 99% EMPTY space (pretty much like the universe).

        Amazing isn’t it?

  2. Steve 08/03/2011, 1:26 pm:

    It was once explained to me this way. The mental impulse is created by innate to direct the body in a coordinated fashion through the nerve system. The cell also has innate intelligence ( Stephenson calls it localized intelligence ) but only enough to run the cell. it can not direct or control any other cell. The cell itself needs no mental impulse to survive, it has everything within itself to function ( given nutrition ). It does however need innate mental impulse to work in a harmonious way with other cells for a positive constructive/survival value. The organs have an innate intelligence, enough to maintain there respective function as a collective group of cells with a common purpose. Indeed the heart will continue to beat for some time outside the human body but it is not being controlled by the nerve system, therefore innate, for the overall good. Different levels of matter have different levels of intelligence, each proportional to their needs. The mental impulse is a creation of innate and by definition only goes through the efferent nerves.

    • Paulo Henrique Sugimoto 08/03/2011, 2:04 pm:

      Agreed Steve! But as you say, the cell alone has an innate intelligence (just as the body does; different levels of organization). Is it not right then to conclude that there are mental impulses generated by the cell for the cell? Or is the innate message of coordination that takes place within the cell not considered a “mental impulse”? It’s also good to remember that the mental impulse is NOT a physical entity. Thank you for you guys’ input!

    • JStraussDC 08/03/2011, 2:54 pm:

      “The mental impulse is a creation of innate and by definition only goes through the efferent nerves.”

      Steve, so what about a tree? There must be force to unite the intelligence and the matter of the tree and it has no efferent neves.

  3. JStraussDC 08/03/2011, 2:24 pm:

    Great question.

    It gives me a chance to discuss things I have not talked about since my teaching days 20 years ago. You are correct that the nerves are “not the only pathway for mental impulses.” Inasmuch as there must be some sort of communication between the parts of the cell, and there is a vitalistic aspect to an individual cell, (the cell membrane, the nucleus, and the organelles) the parts must act in a coordinated manner for the good of the individual cell. I do not know how BJ or the people who did not see the cell as having its own intelligence (what Reggie as my instructor described as the innate intelligence of the cell or cellular intelligence) explained this phenomena. An individual cell can be kept alive outside of the body so we know that the cell has an innate intelligence.

    This cellular intelligence is specific to the individual cell and the cell is only living for itself. However, if there is no interference in the coordination/communication system of the body, the innate intelligence of the body will supersede this cellular intelligence and the cell will act in a coordinated manner, working for the benefit of the entire organism. By analogy (keep in mind it is an analogy), students in a class are individual “cells”, but their educated brains are under the authority of the instructor. If that authority/control is lost (in this analogy, by an act of the student’s will) then the student is acting or thinking independent of the instructor’s authority. He/she does not hear or act upon the information the instructor gives and may go as far as joining a revolt against the instructor. He/she is still part of the class but acting on their own.

    When the control of individual cells is lost, the cell acts only to benefit itself. This may be part of the mechanism by which cancer cells are formed. If the innate intelligence of the body cannot “bring them back into the fold” then they must be destroyed or they will continue to function is a “selfish” manner.

    I believe the mental impulse is carried by the material of the cell. Whether it is chemical, as you suggest, or the intracellular fluid is anybody’s guess. But there must be a natural pathway for the force…the “cellular mental impulse.”

    • Paulo Henrique Sugimoto 08/03/2011, 2:37 pm:

      thanks Joe!

  4. Steve 08/03/2011, 4:36 pm:

    The mental impulse is a creation of innate it is not innate. To say a tree has mental impulses makes no sense, however a tree has it’s own level of innate intelligence. Just as cells divide and multiply before the nerve system is developed in humans so can these functions occur in non human living things. Our philosophy says that all ( and only ) living things have an innate intelligence, even those without a nerve system. I have never heard the term “cellular mental impulse” did you just make that up? The mental impulse tells the cell what to do not what to be. Do the cells send mental impulses back to innate, no. We call this a vibrational response for innate to interpret so as to assess the condition of the tissue and form an adaptive ideation. Then a new mental impulse is created to direct the adaptation for coordination. Otherwise I think we are thinking along the same path, we just seem to be hanging up on the term “mental impulse”

    • Paulo Henrique Sugimoto 08/03/2011, 4:59 pm:

      Perhaps the last name “impulse” reminds us too much of a “nerve impulse”. While that is the vehicle through which intelligent intention OF THE BODY is carried, we have to understand it’s not the only one.

      The deeper I dig into the principles, the more true they become in all aspects.

      Principles 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 31 and 33 specify that we’re dealing with THE BODY.

    • JStraussDC 08/03/2011, 9:32 pm:

      Nuts! You caught me Steve. I made the term “cellular mental impulse’ up. But there is something that is the 3rd leg of the Triune that makes a cell alive. I just think that since we are referring to the force created by the ii of the body as a mental impulse, we might as well call it that in the cell. It is just the same activity. What would you call the force created by the ii of the blastocyst? How about the force created by a heart being transported in a cooler to be transplanted into someone? It is causing the heart cells to act in a coordinated manner. Or perhaps you take the position that the heart is not alive…I’ve heard that argument but never heard the logic behind it. If it is alive, it expresses ii. If it expresses ii, then it is organ intelligence and must have the third aspect of the Triune. What would you call the force which unites the ii of the heart and the matter of the heart? I would call it “organ mental impulse…and confess up front, I made up that term. It’s great to see young guys like you into the philosophy, encouraging to an old philosophy professor.

  5. Steve 08/03/2011, 5:09 pm:

    Yes I believe the Network people are working with “vibrational flow” as another form of inner communication . This would help explain Dr Holders “cloaking device”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Follow Us

Subscribe to this blog
via RSS or Email: