Universal Intelligence Cannot Be God


By its very definition as the Major Premise, universal intelligence is limited to the universe.  Since even science agrees that the universe had a beginning and will have an end, the creation of the universe and the first chiropractic principle of that universe must of necessity have been created by something or Someone existing outside that universe- something or Someone who had no beginning and has no end. If we make universal intelligence God, then we better scrap our Major Premise.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 28 comments

  1. Matt Garofolo, DC 02/27/2012, 5:29 pm:

    Makes sense to me. I’ve always been puzzled by this concept that UI was God….though I think, for some, it was just a convenient way to describe a very big idea that got it “in the ballpark”. I do think that now that the distinction is important!

  2. WILLIAM HOLLENSED 02/27/2012, 5:36 pm:


    As you say in “The Nature of Man” chiropractic is not a religion. Outside chiropractic we need to be concerned with where we come from and where we are going. UI is not God. Chiropractic philosophy implies pantheism. The book is a big help. where can people get copies? We need to address our spirituality outside of chiropractic to keep both pure.

    • JStraussDC 02/27/2012, 7:16 pm:

      Good point, Dr. Hollensed. I guess some chiropractors do have a pantheistic definition of God. That is not what DD or BJ proposed. Moreover, when 86% of the american public has a Judao-christian concept of God and billions worldwide have a monotheistic model, we in chiropractic would be foolish to embrace a pantheistic concept and risk offending and turning off most of the world to our message of chiropractic. I believe if our message is for eveyone, it cannot be in conflict with theological beliefs, at least not those that recognize a principle/Being outside and above the educated mind of man. The Nature of Man is a biblical exposition of the Body, Soul and Spirit and only tangentially addresses chiropractic issues (especially this issue). Consequently, it is not available on this, a chiropractic blog. A paperback edition is available through me personally.

  3. Bill LeVan 02/27/2012, 5:48 pm:

    Depends on how we define God?

    • JStraussDC 02/27/2012, 7:19 pm:

      Hi Bill. How do you define God and how would it conflict with with my post.

  4. Steve 02/27/2012, 8:14 pm:

    I always felt the beauty of our philosophy was that the major premise was able to encompass all. No matter what the individual thought above and beyond or behind and below, it is a common starting point and equal for all. A logical starting point upon which to build a magnificently structured set of principles. In my opinion to go any further would require faith as opposed to mere observation and classification.

  5. Bryson 02/27/2012, 11:13 pm:

    I’ve always thought that it seemed arrogant for a person to “define” universal intelligence as God. My 12 years of Catholic education taught me that our puny brains cannot even begin to comprehend God and infinity. Therefore, anyone who tries to define God (and God’s limitations) is only fooling themselves.

  6. eric seiler 03/01/2012, 4:21 am:

    I contend that Universal Intelligence can be, and “is” God. While my opinion in this matter may carry limited weight, I will go on to show that this was also the position of B.J. Palmer himself.

    The 33 chiropractic principles were recorded by Stephenson in his famous text, however not without the complete approval of the text by B.J.. B.J. did write extensively about Universal and Innate Intelligence in his own texts, however he wrote in a more free-form manner about the nature of each and their association with God.

    On page 15 of the Bigness of the Fellow Within he writes; “All Universal Intelligence is Innate Intelligence. Then on page 53: “Innate [ intelligence] is God in human beings”.

    On page 117: “God is the name mankind ascribes to an intellectual law that creates, governs, runs all living things.” Note the similarity of this statement to principle 25:The Mission of Innate Intelligence – The mission of Innate Intelligence is to maintain the material of the body of a “living thing” in active organization. And 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. Given that BJ says Universal and Innate Intelligence are one and the same, I believe he is implying that all of this “intelligence” is God.

    In my favorite chapter of The Bigness… Broadcasting Station G-O-D, He states: “The world is in motion, vibrating, so is every atom or electron [the whole universe]. Back of this is the first great cause – an intelligence that began and keeps on keeping on – Broadcasting station G-O-D”

    Clearly he states that the “intelligence” that gave rise to all matter and holds it in existence is GOD. The fact that he likens God’s method of maintaining the universe to a “broadcast” is another indication of how he and his father were a century ahead of their time. Implied is that the intelligence that organizes matter is “apart from it”, yet through some Divine broadcasting method, God’s creative intelligence is projected it into both animate and inanimate matter. The intelligence that organizes matter is not a part of matter itself. It is God (somehow) in matter.

    This dynamic in at least one way seems to solve Dr. Strauss’s conundrum. Universal Intelligence/God are not physical components of the universe, but through some Divine “broadcast”, project into the energy of the universe and organize it into matter. This resonates well with the contemporary idea that while energy and matter are measurable phenomena, the intelligence that organizes them is nowhere to found in their fabric. The concern that using the term “Universal Intelligence” implies “part of the physical universe” and is therefore exclusionary of God is to assume that God is “fully” outside of the system…but this is obviously not the case if the system is held in existence by God. The spectacularly wondrous part of all of this is that God performs this feat from the other side of “the great divide”, and in a way that will likely always elude “scientific observation”.

    Assuming that Universal intelligence is God, another way of solving Dr. Strauss’s conundrum is simply one of semantics. “Universal” can certainly mean “of the physical universe”. But it can also mean something that “applied to everything”. This definition certainly does not have the effect of limiting God to the physical universe. Looking at the word this way actually creates a nice fit with the Major premise. “There is an intelligence that is “applied to everything” and continually gives “everything” its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence. Works?

    In closing…the first couple hundred pages of “Bigness” are pregnant with BJ’s appreciation for God and His connection to chiropractic principles. Page 148 – “Get more God in your sciences and more sciences in your God ( I believe he may have borrowed that from Einstein). And one step further…same page…”Get your sciences Christianized.” You may take away from that statement whatever you wish. I would simply add that a man as brilliant as he would have been well aware of the world’s other religions. Our founding father’s in chiropractic were not poly or pan-theological. BJ distilled the principles of chiropractic from above down in a decidedly Judeo-Christian manner.

    • JStraussDC 03/01/2012, 12:53 pm:

      Eric, your opinion is always appreciated and surely your research deserves respect. Before I weigh in, I would like to hear some other comments. I might start the conversation by saying that your opinion is as respected as anyone else’s, no more, no less, including BJ’s. That means it can be as right or as wrong as his. Remember, something that is paramount in this and any discussion in chiropractic is that our arguments must be based upon reason, preferably deductive. So, theBigness of the Fellow Within is only BJ’s opinion, not canon and only his opinion at one moment in his long and productive life (1948, from my memory, my Green Books are not by my side at the moment). At any rate, let’s hear the arguments pro and con and Thank you for your participation, Eric.

      • eric seiler 03/01/2012, 7:11 pm:

        Thank you for your openness here. While pulling BJ out from under a rock to prop up an argument may impress some, that was not really my intent…as I agree that any earthly mind can be fallible. The purpose of bringing in BJ is that this seems to be turning into a “semantics and intent behind language” argument. As such… I believe that some insight into the intent and mindset of those who penned the language is of vital importance to the matter. Insistently, I don’t agree with everything as written n the 33 principles myself! I have a big issue with the the way “limitations of matter” is handled from a deductive perspective… but that’s another “matter”. I will further address the issue of semantics and intent in my reply to Dr. Lessard below.

    • JStraussDC 03/02/2012, 1:21 pm:

      P.117 Bigness of the Fellow Within “God is the name mankind ascribes to an intellectual law that creates, governs, runs all living things.” Is this not a circular argument? I believe we must agree that at this point in his life, BJ did see ui as God but perhaps we can see where his reasoning is flawed. Let’s deal with one for now: Prin. #21 says the forces of ui have no solicitude. If ui (which creates uf has no solicitude) how is it that almost every religion/faith, especially Judao-christian sees God as being solicitous, having “attentive care and protectiveness” Could you please explain? Thanks

      • eric seiler 03/04/2012, 6:52 pm:


        Sorry about the delay. Was away Friday and Saturday. I will try and deal with both of your questions here as the one you present in my Energy/Matter post is indeed related.

        I would have to disagree right off the the bat about your suggestion that God cannot be a God of “no solicitude”… ESPECIALLY the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. The Old Testament is jam packed with fire and brimstone events where God was quite happy to snuff out his creations. So while God is the great giver of life..well…you get the idea.

        In this sense, we have one of the obvious (though none-the-less perplexing) qualities of God…a willingness to create as well as destroy or allow destruction. This is echoed in BJs musings as he says in on page 15 of the Bigness of the Fellow Within; “All Universal Intelligence is Innate Intelligence”. For me this identifies how it is the same God who can be very solicitous in the manifestation of Innate Intelligence and the Innate Forces that make “self-determined” living matter possible, while at the same time residing over all that is without life and left to the whims of entropy.

        In relation to your concern over my identification of Universal Forces being non-Newtonian in the Energy’Matter post, you reference again item 12. “The Character of Universal Forces. The forces of universal intelligence are manifested as physical laws, are unswerving and unadapted, and have no solicitude for the structures in which they work”. Note it says “in” which they work. These are the forces that organize energy into matter and hold it in its manifested form. These are in no way the same as the kind of forces which may work ‘on’ matter (big difference I’ll handle in a moment). In this sense, while UFs organize energy in matter, they are not protective of that matter in the same way that Innate Intelligence and IFs are protective of living matter. If you place your hand on a hot skillet, the heat will cause a re-arragnment of the matter of the palm of your hand that is quite injurious. And so Innate Intelligence conjures some IF so you’ll reflexively move your hand away. “On the other hand” the pancake batter you pour onto the skillet (lacking Innate intelligence and IF) has only UF to govern its matter, and so on the skillet it remains to be physically and chemically altered by the heat. And if your wife is a cook like mine, you end up which a burnt pancake. And the matter of the burnt pancake remains as such ad infinitum, while the matter of the burn on the hand is being actively re-organized.

        Because the deductive chain of the 33 principles is one which begins with the nature of creation, I think it is fair to look at the concept of force or forces in the context of the these principles as the fundamental, organizing forces “in” matter…not the same as the force of the wind, or an earthquake, or any of the forces generated “by” matter in its manifested form.

        Inanimate matter and the Newtonian forces it may generate have nothing to do with what manifests the matter to being with. The fundamental creative forces of UI and II are yet unexplained, and as I have suggested, are most likely metaphysical in nature , and not measurable within the physical system, just as “intelligence” is not measurable within the system. This is why Universal Intelligence must be retained within the “spirit realm” as a synonym for God/Creator(your favorite expression here). If not… then we must go looking for God inside the space/time–energy/matter system and this puts us into the inductive realm of the reductionist.

        • eric seiler 03/06/2012, 7:14 pm:

          Dr. Strauss,

          Has this conversation “died”?

          • JStraussDC 03/06/2012, 8:27 pm:

            Far from it Eric, I’ve spent much of the last two weeks adapting, or trying to adapt as the case may be, at a seminar, and giving thought to your comments, which are interesting. I’ll get back in the game shortly. Thanks for your patience.

        • JStraussDC 03/06/2012, 9:18 pm:

          Okay Eric, back on track. I want to follow up on this solicitude idea. I wrote that ui could not be God because ui has no solicitude and God does. Your response was:”I would have to disagree right off the the bat about your suggestion that God cannot be a God of “no solicitude”… ESPECIALLY the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. The Old Testament is jam packed with fire and brimstone events where God was quite happy to snuff out his creations. So while God is the great giver of life..well…you get the idea. ” God is a God of solicitude and you make that argument very clearly. Ui does not have solicitude according to RW/BJ. Are we now on the same page with the issue of solicitude…before we go on?

          • JStraussDC 03/06/2012, 9:34 pm:

            Sorry about the bolding. I’m not shouting, just forgot to turn off the bold.

          • eric seiler 03/07/2012, 12:49 am:

            Thanks for getting back…and sorry, but no…we are not on the same page here in regard to solicitude! If you read again what I wrote, clearly the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is both!…a God with and without solicitude. And there is no logical argument for why God need be one or the other. As BJ said, “all of ui is ii”…a comment eluding to the notion that these are qualities of the same entity… one being solicitous (ii) and the other not (ui). So I would again have to assert that where the matter of solicitude or lack therein is concerned, there is no reason to assume that ui cannot be God.

          • JStraussDC 03/07/2012, 1:50 am:

            Can you give me an example of how/when the Judeo-Christian God was both solicitous and non-solicitous and how a uf (an expression of ui) can be solicitous and non-solicitous. Saying because they are the same is a circular argument. It seems to me that ui is always non-solicitous and ii always manifests solicitude.
            By the way, I did not and would not askyou to quote your source for the scientific (Blumenthal) study. Your sincerity and integrity will never be an issue with me….but…I would like to know the context of the BJ statement “all of ui is ii”…

          • eric seiler 03/07/2012, 3:31 am:

            (Hope this ends up in the right part of the thread. The site gets a bit confusing for me!)

            If we use a definition of “solicitous” as one being synonymous with “concern”, then it is not hard to find examples of how God in the Old testament was quite concerned (solicitous) with his chosen people (Israelites) in the sense that He wanted their obedience and went to great lengths to protect them and teach them important lessons, versus those who he was rather non-solicitous with and essentially allowed to be used as “cannon fodder” (the Egyptians, Philistines, etc). There is so much of this going on in the Old Testament that honestly, I’m surprised you ask!
            As far as you asking how uf can be both solicitous and non-solicitous…well it can’t as defined…but this fact in NO WAY impeaches my position if the assumption is that “ui” and “uf” are the hand of God in the material world, just as “ii” and “if” are. Each distinct crafts, yet performed by the same Craftsman.
            As far as the context of BJ statement “all ui is ii” I think you will find it only serves to punctuate my point. From page 15 of The Bigness… “All things man has now were once in Universal Intelligence. Before the product, the producer. All Universal Intelligence is Innate Intelligence, the producer, in the unit man, the product.”
            Clearly from BJ’s perspective ui and ii are common attributes of a single “producer”. A producer he clearly identifies as God in multiple place in this text.
            So I sit firm on the solicitude matter. The way this expression is used in item 12 of the 33 in no way excludes the notion that ui is God.

          • JStraussDC 03/07/2012, 9:29 pm:

            Since you are using the Judeo-Christian concept of God, let’s follow that line of reasoning. We cannot try to fit our theology to BJ’s philosophy. If anything it is the other way around. I feel you are trying to reconcile Judeo-Christian theology to Palmer’s chiropractic philosophy. There is nothing , at any time in any way in theology that could give you the impression that God ever lacks solicitude. The Judeo-Christian concept of God is love, that’s solicitous, justice is a manifestation of solicitude, grace is the ultimate manifestation of “care and concern for, as the well-being of another.”
            My personal view: ui is a principle (#1), a law created by God for the perpetuation of the human race. Here is the important point; the law is not the same as the Lawgiver. The Lawgiver is the Creator of the Law, above and outside it and not subject to it just as the fire engine speeding to a fire is above the speed limit laws. When the law is superceded or “ignored” by the Lawgiver (they were not created by Him for Himself), we call that a miracle. I believe that looking at ui and God as different, reconciles all religions with chiropractic philosophy and does not create a conflict between religion and chiropractic. And when it comes down to it Eric, that’s what we are trying to do, make chiropractic philosophy acceptable to everyone.

          • eric seiler 03/08/2012, 1:40 am:


            The bulk of my reply will be under the innate vs universal post you made today. I will say here that while i respect and admire you and what you are doing, I’m afraid that you “cherry pick” the things you need to support your arguments. The God of the JC Bible is also described (in the Bible) as a jealous and vengeful God. And I’m saying this as a student of the Bible and a believe in Christ. There are some very difficult obstacles in front of you if you with to defend the notion that ui and ii are not God/Creator etc. I will pick up on this on the other posting. Please understand that none of this is written maliciously or with anything other than the best of intentions.

  7. Claude Lessard 03/01/2012, 2:55 pm:


    It is very good to have your opinion on this blog regarding the Major Premise and its relationship to God.

    When we accept universal intelligence which is the LAW that governs the universe, we do not need to accept the CREATOR of the LAW. What is needed is to accept the LAW and act according to its principles if we wish to function within this universe.

    The CREATED atheist accepts the CREATED universal law of gravity (which has been CREATED when the universe was CREATED), and yet denies the existence of the UNCREATED CREATOR of the law. If the atheist flies form NY to LA, does he not accept the CREATED law of aerodynamics which includes the laws of motion, inertia, action/reaction among others and yet denies its the existence of the UNCREATED CREATOR of these laws?

    There is a conundrum if we confuse the CREATED with the UNCREATED and making them one and the same. Law is CREATED. Universal intelligence is a law CREATED to run our created universe. And law is ALWAYS CREATED by the mystery of the UNCREATED CREATOR. That’s WHY the Major Premise of chiropractic is called PRINCIPLE #1. It truly is a LAW and the start point of chiropractic philosophy.

    ps: the mission of ii is principle 21 🙂


    • Claude Lessard 03/01/2012, 7:02 pm:

      Universal intelligence is also called the LAW OF ORGANIZATION of matter (inorganic and organic). Innate intelligence is also called the LAW OF LIFE in matter (organic only).

      There’s no problem involved with “two” intelligences, ii being part of and part from ui. From the point of view of MATTER it makes sense.

      There’s no problem involved with “one” intelligence. From the point of view of intelligence it makes sense.

      Principle 31 states that: Interference with transmission within the body (MATTER) is always directly or indirectly due to subluxation in the spinal column. Through deductive reasoning, subluxation is the CAUSE of the interference between brain cell (MATTER) and tissue cell (MATTER). The objective of Chiropractic is LACVS for full expression of the innate intelligence of the body. Period. Logically, the structural identity of chiropractic has the Major Premise as its foundation (start point) with “one” intelligence (ui) and developed through deductive reasoning 32 principles from the point of view of MATTER with “two intelligences (ui and ii).

      Chiropractic philosophy uses universal intelligence and innate intelligence articulating 33 principles. Using the Major Premise as its start point and using deductive reasoning for formulate the next 32 principles is based on rationalization and logic. It all makes sense. Many “years” of attempting to prove the 33 principles “illogical, irrational and unreasonable” have failed.

      • eric seiler 03/01/2012, 8:16 pm:

        First of all…if you read my original post, I have no logical issue with the 33 principles (other than the one I just mentioned in my reply to Dr. Strauss…which does not involve this discussion!)

        I do have a problem with some of the semantics that are being used in this apparent attempt to segregate God from the “Major Premise”. First… you suggest that UI is a “law”. If that is your belief you are certainly entitled to it…but that is not what is written. It is called a “major premise”…and rightly so. It is in essence an assumption or proposition that helps to support a conclusion (s).

        There are a series of conclusions that then come forth from the major premise of chiropractic…some of which might then be called laws. You say UI is also called the “Law of organization”…but I see that nowhere in the language of the 33 principles. UI is in fact that which “gives rise” to or “manifests” law…which is an important distinction…one which Stephenson held in apparent high regard as he worked through these principles with cause and effect in proper perspective. In the major premise UI is descried as something that is “continuously giving”. An entity, if of you will, what gives rise to and hold the universe in existence. This cause/effect relationship between UI and the universe is clearly spelled out in #12. – :”The Character of Universal Forces. The forces of universal intelligence are manifested as physical laws…” Here we see clearly in the language how UI gives rise to or manifests laws. UI is not a law…but rather that which gives rise to it. Universal Intelligence/God is not the stuff of the universe…but that which gives rise to it. And my treatment of how the expression Universal Intelligence can be used to describe something “extra-Universal” or “God” without breaking any rules of logic is laid down in my previous post.

        There appears, for whatever reason, to be an effort here to segregate God from the major premise by “massaging” the language and the intent behind the language of those who wrote it. I still contend that there is no logical, semantic, scientific, or theological argument which affirms that UI cannot be synonymous with God…and as written in my previous post, it seems plane that this was BJ’s position as well.

        If someone does not care to have theology and science on the same plate…that’s their personal preference. But that is no basis for revising what Stephenson wrote. He obviously felt they belong together within a unified principle…which for me works very well…and in my opinion is one of the most admirable things about our profession.

        • Claude Lessard 03/02/2012, 2:58 am:


          Joe D. is very fond of a quote from Dr. Seuss: “Be who you are and say what you mean, those who matter don’t mind; those who mind don’t matter”.

          My question for you is:

          It’s you WHO chooses to believe that universal intelligence is GOD. It’s you WHO chooses to have a “nice fit” to the Major Premise by changing it’s words. WHY are you not beginning your Major Premise with: “There is God “applied to everything”? Does it not seem to you that you are NOT revealing yourself as you are believing? Does it not seem to you that you are NOT saying what you mean? I would not mind at all. YOU are entitled to you opinion. If you believe that universal intelligence is God, would you NOT want to honor God by stating it boldly as the beginning of the Major Premise? I’m just wondering….

          I see no attempt to segregate God from the Major Premise. On the contrary. Universal Intelligence is CREATED by the UNCREATED CREATOR to give to the matter of the universe all its properties and action, thereby maintaining it in existence. Intelligence is an attribute of God and is NOT God. REALITY,(ALL THAT THERE IS), possesses infinite attributes many known and many unknown. God cannot be defined in words or concepts and rightly so. God is beyond the beyond. Concepts point to TRUTH. Truth can never be expressed in mere words. Truth is sighted suddenly, as a result of a disposition… and you may disagree with me and you might sight the truth. But it has to be an disposition of openness, of willingness to discover something NEW.

          Major Premise:

          What would you call NOT “giving to it all its properties and actions”?
          What would you call NOT “maintaining it in existence”?

          ALL implies ALL OF IT does it not? Could ALL matter be maintained in existence without ORGANIZATION?

          Indeed principle #11 states: The forces of universal intelligence are manifested by physical laws; are UNSWERVING and have NO SOLICITUDE for the structures in which they work and these universal forces are destructive toward structural matter (pri.26) and are created by universal intelligence (pri.8).

          Given the Palmer’s and Stephenson’s superb “intelligences” does it not seem to you that there’s a reason WHY they were the one WHO chose NOT to use the term God? Don’t you wonder WHAT that reason is?

          • eric seiler 03/02/2012, 4:04 am:

            I regret that you don’t follow my logic. While I may not be the most articulate writer, I thought I had done a better job in presenting my position. And frankly, I’m surprised by your suggestion that I’m somehow “un-revealing”.

            About the only thing I can derive from your reply that merits a response is your question as to why Stephenson did not just use the word God…which is of course…an excellent question. I wish I could ask him, but because this will have to wait until the afterlife, I can only speculate for now. Perhaps because the 33 principles are published in a “Text Book”, Stephenson felt it prudent to stick with a more “universally” acceptable term… not wishing to place a distinct sectarian spin on things… to give the expression broader appeal. Universal Intelligence seems a rather generic way of expressing the notion of God or a Creator, and so perhaps this explains why. However, as I have already demonstrated, in his more relaxed editorials and narratives, BJ uses God and Universal Intelligence interchangeably throughout a variety of discussions, and this is undeniably revealing about the intent behind the expression.

            Dr. Strauss has eluded to the notion that perhaps BJ equivocated on this position elsewhere, or recanted it outright at some other point in his “long and productive life”. If this is true, I would be most pleased to see the evidence!

  8. Claude Lessard 03/08/2012, 9:17 pm:


    If someone “can’t as defined” answer the question of how can uf be both solicitous and non-solicitous…. and then, say that: “but this fact IN NO WAY impeaches my position”… Well, I say that if someone wishes to ignore a fact, it is their prerogative and I respect that. And if someone must change the lexicon and definitions of the principles of chiropractic to fit their “position”, then, this is definitely someone WHO chooses to NOT accept the WHAT of a fact.

    -The way you describe your perception of DD and BJ is fine. You are to be commended for seeking the basic fundamentals of the PHILOSOPHY of chiropractic.

    – By changing the word Universal Intelligence and replacing it with the word GOD in the Major Premise as you wrote previously, is, in my opinion, going backwards. The PAST of making chiropractic into a religion or into therapeutics in dealing with people has been a failure. The PAST tries to control the present to change the FUTURE and it does NOT work and will NEVER work, regardless of how much you try. You will ALWAYS wind-up “re-arranging” the furniture on the deck while there is a hole at the bottom of the ship.

    The PRESENT with CHIROPRACTIC has a NEW correct solution comprising a separate and distinct philosophy, science and art. — The FUTURE will take care of itself if the PRESENT is right!


    -Chiropractic is NOT religion (it has no rituals, worships, prayers or volitional communications with universal or innate intelligence).
    -Chiropractic is NOT therapy (it does increase or decrease motions of the matter).
    -Chiropractic is NOT pain management (it does not mask, numb pain of the emotions, the psychology or physique of the person).
    -Chiropractic is NOT treatment of diseases (It does not stimulate or inhibits functions of the matter of the body).
    -Chiropractic is NOT medicine (it does not attempt to cure the ailments of the body).
    -Chiropractic is NOT an alternative to medicine (it does not treat diseases of the emotions, the psychology or the physique of the person with natural methods ).


    -Chiropractic is PHILOSOPHY of the LAW of innate intelligence (it does have 33 principles to validate its objective).
    -Chiropractic is SCIENCE of the NERVE SYSTEM (it does correct interference to the nerves system, the vertebral subluation).
    -Chiropractic is ART of the LACVS (it does have specific techniques of of introducing uf in the human spine FOR the adjustments of vs by the innate intelligence of the body).

    -CHIROPRACTIC DEALS WITH FORCE which is the second component of the triune. Principle #4 states: “Life is a triunity having three necessary united factors, that is, intelligence, force and matter”.

    It is within FORCE that the integrity of the triune is lost. And the interference exist within matter, between brain cell and tissue cell. And this interference further limits the limitations of the matter of body and alters the character of FORCE within the matter.—
    (Read my previous posts regarding the mental impulse (if) and the nerve impulse (uf).

    -The FACT that chiropractic deals with FORCE — IS— the ONLY and I repeat the ONLY distinction that makes chiropractic separate from EVERYTHING else. CHIROPRACTIC can BE in harmony with EVERY religions, therapeutics, alternatives, psychology, etc…—-





    – AND further more:



  9. William Bartlett 05/22/2016, 3:20 am:

    nice! different structures are made, this universe simpky being one of many, which have no “life” or awareness until the crown of intelligence is put on them. same intelligence, different structures, produces different secondary cultures, values, intelligence. itsall good. all about creating and exploring. love the post.

Leave a Reply

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



Follow Us

Subscribe to this blog
via RSS or Email: