Innate v. Universal


If they are both principles of organization, why do we need both terms? How does this relate to our present discussion (See Wednesday’s, 2-29-12 post)?  And why would B.J. write on page 15 of the Bigness of the Fellow Within: “All Universal Intelligence is Innate Intelligence” ?

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 24 comments

  1. Gary Brettmann 03/07/2012, 5:21 pm:

    Because Universal Intelligence is the governing force around us & Innate Intelligence is the Governing for within us.

  2. Steve 03/07/2012, 6:28 pm:

    All the Universal laws apply in living things. ( Princ. 24- ii cannot break U. laws) We do however need a distinction for laws concerning LIFELESS matter.

  3. eric seiler 03/07/2012, 8:39 pm:

    I believe the answer to all of this lies in the first half of your first question “If they (ui and ii) are organizing principles…” This in my opinion is a “BIG IF” and again, in my opinion… they actually aren’t. Ui and ii are synonyms for God/Creator/(Your Favorite Expression Here). God is no more a principle than you or I are. God/ui/ii are the same “entity”…the entity which gives form to both the animate and inanimate universe. We need both expression for the obvious reasons… because God is solicitous with living mater and non-solicitous with the inanimate.
    BJ appears to have understood this fully well and that is the basis for your second question. Giving the readers the full context: From page 15 of The Bigness of the Fellow… “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”…not “principles”. And this producer is one BJ clearly identifies as God in multiple places in this text.
    Lets take ui out of the major premise and put in God instead: “God is in all matter and continually gives to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence.” That statement certainly holds up if you believe that the universe does not exist apart from that which created it. And while that “statement” may be a premise or principle – the “word” God is not. If we put the expression “ui” back into the statement, the statement is still a premise or principle, and the term “ui” still in not.

    • JStraussDC 03/07/2012, 11:57 pm:

      Eric, God, ui and ii are not the same entity. ui and ii are creations. They did not exist before the universe existed. God did. Didn’t we go around in this circle before? God preexited the universe and the creation of matter. If BJ wanted ui to be God, then why didn’t he just call it that. All we are trying to do is clarify this chiropractic philosophy and keep it separate and distinct from everything else. If that was Bj’s intent he pretty much failed because there is a whole lot of confusion and mixing out there. I can think of many reasons why ii/ui should not be considered synonomous with God. I can only think of 2 reasons why they should. First, if you consider BJ, the first and last word in defining and explaining chiropractic and theology and second if you purposely want to confuse the world as to what we are and what we do.

      • eric seiler 03/08/2012, 3:17 am:

        I hope you will take the time to fully digest what I write here, and understand that it is written with all due respect and with the best of intent.
        The Chiropractic Textbook by Stephenson was published in 1927. The Bigness of the Fellow Within was published in 1949 which would be about 12 years before BJ died in 1961. This means that BJ, at a time he compiled and published “Bigness” he was about 67 years of age. One can assume a man who devoted his entire adult life to the deeper meaning of our profession by the age of 67 would be quite settled in his understanding of the subject matter he was so central in bringing to life. Also by the age of 67 he had about 22 years to ruminate over the language and the intent of the language published in the Chiropractic Textbook. One only needs to read the first 200 pages of “Bigness” to see that BJ saw ui and ii as being synonymous with God…not mundane created phenomena. The Title of the 944 page book is modeled after this very fact! One need only read BJ’s one page Forward to understand what he meant by “The Bigness of the Fellow Within”. He was alluding to God in man. You ask “if BJ wanted ui to be God, why did he not just call it that?” Ok. Page 36 of “Bigness”: “We know there is a universal intelligence–call it “God” of you wish”. Again from “Bigness”: “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” On page 53: “Innate [ intelligence] is God in human beings”.
        Clearly BJ saw ui and ii NOT as created phenomena, NOR as principles, but as being synonymous with God. And if this is not quite good enough for you, I will quote D.D. Palmer himself from “The Moral and Religious Duty of a Chiropractor” published in 1914, page 3: As a philosophy it is the science of all sciences. It deals with subjective, ethical religion–the science which treats of the existence, character and attributes of God, the All-pervading Universal Intelligence. Here we see the term COINED and DEFINED by DD, 13 years before it appeared in the 33 principles.
        You say ui and ii cannot be God because they are creations. Again while I respect and admire what you are doing, it seems you may find yourself in poor company with such a statement. This is merely your opinion– “Joe’s personal definition” for better or worse, and as I have explained in my other posts (explanations which have drawn little discussion) there are no compelling historical, semantic, logical, metaphysical or deductive arguments that I have seen that support your position that ui CANNOT be God. If anything, these methods of examination fit the notion that ui is God overwhelmingly well.
        Clarifying chiropractic philosophy will NEVER be accomplished by “bending” the language to try and obscure our spiritual roots. They exist whether we like them or not. And I see them as no impediment to giving chiropractic a clear mission. While BJ did believe in God and did equate ui and ii to God, he did not like religion nor did he wish chiropractic to be bogged down as such. Belief in a Creator is no more a religion than atheism is. It is merely a position on whether or not we live in a created universe. Traditional chiropractic philosophy begins with the idea that we do, and trickles down nicely from there. What’s the problem with this?

        • WILLIAM HOLLENSED 03/08/2012, 6:17 am:

          Eric you state “Clearly BJ saw ui and ii NOT as created phenomena, NOR as principles, but as being synonymous with God. ” I agree with you. There are many in the world who talk about intelligent design. The God BJ refers to is not the Christian God of the Bible that I believe in. Rob Sinnott does a great job in his text on philosophy of removing religion from chiropractic. BJ’s religion after Mabel died in pantheism and for any number of reasons I would like his “GOD” left out of our profession.

          • eric seiler 03/08/2012, 12:17 pm:

            I have not read Sinnot’s book, and I would be happy to do so if it is truly instructive in this matter. Meanwhile, it is abundantly clear that we all try to “clothe” God in personal ways. There are apparently close to 300 recognized versions of Christianity…and that’s just Christianity! The fact that humans will find reasons to argue over the “precise nature” of our Creator is as central to human nature as being bipedal. However this kind of “religious” behavior is secondary to the very common conception that we live in a created universe, and this seems to be where the discussion of God BEGINS and ENDS where chiropractic philosophy is concerned. Whether God has a beard or not, or any other doctrine divinely inspired or purely man-made can be left for other arenas of argument and need not percolate into chiropractic any further than the identification that a Creator or God is present in the universe giving form to all matter. I believe it is evident that this was the intent of our founders when they selected and perpetuated the expression “Universal Intelligence”.

          • JStraussDC 03/08/2012, 11:51 pm:

            Our philosophy is deductive.
            Ui does not demonstrate solicitude
            God demonstrates solicitude
            Ui is not God
            That is deductive reasoning….what part of the above do you disagree with?

      • eric seiler 03/09/2012, 3:19 am:


        Major Premise: There is a universal intelligence in all matter, continuously giving to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence, and giving this intelligence its expression.

        BJ says “We know there is a universal intelligence–call it “God” if you wish”

        Deduction: God is in all the matter of the universe.

        Item 12 of the “33” – 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.

        Deduction: God creates inanimate matter with forces that have “no solicitude” for such matter.

        Item 16 of “the 33” – A living thing has the intelligence of the universe [Universal Intelligence] inborn within it, referred to as its innate intelligence.

        BJ says “Innate intelligence is God [Universal Intelligence] in man”

        Item 23 of the “33” The Function of Innate Intelligence. The function of the body’s innate intelligence [God in man] is to adapt universal forces and matter for use in the body, so that all parts of the body will have coordinated action for mutual benefit.

        Deduction: God has solicitude for the matter in life by the way He organizes and adapts it.

        Deduction – God can be both solicitous and un-solicitous when it comes to the organization of matter.

        BJ says – “All universal intelligence is innate intelligence”

        Deduction: ui in matter, and ii in the matter of life are God’s presence in both.

        God as personified in the Old Testament is both solicitous and un-solicitous.


        God repeatedly hardens Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus so that he will not let the Israelites go…even after Pharaoh of his own volition wished to let them go. God essentially “forced” Pharaoh and his people to endure plague after plague…culminating in the death of every Egyptian first born child before He opened Pharaohs heart to “let the people go”. God was very un-solicitous with the Egyptians while being very solicitous with the Isrealites. And as I said before…this theme is repeated all through the Old Testament.

        Deduction: The God of the OT in His infinite wisdom was incredibly cruel and un-solicitous with some of his creations, while very solicitous with others.

        Deduction: God can be both solicitous and un-solicitous.
        Deduction: There is nothing about the nature of God as depicted in the OT that is incompatible with the un-solicitous nature of universal forces.

        This is deductive reasoning, right?
        What part of the above do you have a problem with?

        • Paulo Henrique Sugimoto 03/09/2012, 4:04 am:

          We need to address our spirituality outside of chiropractic to keep both pure.


        • JStraussDC 03/09/2012, 7:08 am:

          I’m sorry Eric, but the above are not examples of deductive reasoning. They are also poor chiropractic philosophy and poor theology.
          Here is, once again, an example of deductive reasoning:
          “The forces of ui…have no solicitude….” (Principle #12)
          God has solicitude (John 3:16) “the world” includes Pharaoh of the Exodus, Hitler,Stalin,Obama, you and I and every other member of the human race who ever lived.
          Therefore we deduce:ui is not God.
          That’s deductive reasoning. Can you see the difference between the structure (not necessarily the content) of your reasoning and mine? Although the content is also bad.

          • eric seiler 03/09/2012, 1:55 pm:

            Don’t be sorry Joe. I have very broad shoulders. I hope yours are as broad! When I see words like “poor” used in the description of someones thinking it sometimes signals the fact that the critic is becoming exasperated. I hope that is not the case with you, and that we can stay with this.

            If your supposition that ui cannot be God is based on the single line of deduction your provide…it is my sincere belief that this will eventually prove to be a house of cards.

            Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

            There is of course a reasonable degree of similarity between the opening line of Bible and the “major premise”. Both are undeniably devoted to the origin of matter.

            Genesis goes on to describe the process of creation – one which God is fully “hands on” with. God (at least in accordance with the Old Testament depiction) did not conjure up a bunch of energy and then allow it to finds its own way into manifestation. The will of God is present throughout ALL of creation.

            There is nothing in Genesis or anywhere else the Bible I’m aware of that suggests that at any point in the creative process, or after creation was complete, that God introduced into the universe any mystical organizing “force” or “forces” that would organize or manifest matter apart from His will.

            Entertaining the notion that there is an organizing force in the matter of the universe that does not need God’s attention, or functions apart from His will and qualities is of course a common belief system for those who do not believe in the God of the Bible…or do not believe in God at all (Atheists, New Age thinkers etc.).

            In accordance with the Judeo-Christian Bible, God created EVERYTHING as He intended. And He in fact holds all of this together from one moment to the next with His intent. This would have to include all energy, matter and the things we label as the forces that He uses bind them.

            This is in fact the ABSOLUTE Major Premise… if you have an affinity for God as described in the Bible. If you believe the Bible is truth, then other premises about the nature of the universe must be from here deduced (including those used by we chiropractors)…and cannot be incongruent with this one.

            Putting back in your single line of deduction:

            Ui does not demonstrate solicitude
            God is solicitous
            Therefore ui cannot be God.

            When viewing your supposition in the context of the preceding logic provided, we have two possible deductions.
            1. Your premise is false.There are no qualities in the matter of universe which exist or have their origin apart from God.
            2. God as depicted in the Old Testament does not exist.

            You pick!
            (Love ya)

          • JStraussDC 03/09/2012, 7:03 pm:

            How could you possibly think that I am becoming exasperated! I just wish you would respond to my points, in this case my premises about solicitude and God and their deduction. For the third time which the premises (1. ui has no slicitude or 2. God does) do you disagree with. No need to obfuscate your answer with a 100 word essay, just answer which one(s) and why. (eg. I don’t agree with BJ/Rw in the casr of #1 or I don’t agree with your intrepretation of the Bible (your theology) in the case of #2.

          • eric seiler 03/09/2012, 10:00 pm:

            Okay Joe,

            You say (pasted straight from your post):

            Ui does not demonstrate solicitude
            God demonstrates solicitude
            Ui is not God

            I agree with both premises…but not the deduction. You say God demonstrates solicitude, and this is true, but the statement does not exclude God from demonstrating other qualities. Your statement does not exclude God from also being un-solicitous…and as I have already demonstrated with examples of such in the OT, God in the OT can be quite un-solicitous (by strict definition of the word) when and with whom it is His will to be as such. Whether you accept my examples or not is up to you, however if you do not, then you should explain why the specific examples, in the strict sense of the word, are incorrect. The ball in this game has actually been in your court! I have explained my rationale for why your deductive exercise is apparently flawed…but you keep passing it back to me with “position statements” rather than explanations.

            More importantly, this argument is a lower-case concern when it comes to whether or not Ui can be God. Please permit me present a bit of deduction for you:

            1. Gen 1:1 (In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth)
            2. Col 1:17 ( He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.)

            Therefore – Deduction A.: God is the origin and sole creator all energy, mass and forces that bind and organize energy and matter in the universe. God maintains all energy and matter in existence.

            Universal Intelligence is described as having the attribute of organizing matter and keeping it in existence.

            Therefore given Deduction A., Universal Intelligence must be synonymous with God.

            What part(s) of this do you have a problem with?

          • JStraussDC 03/10/2012, 1:28 am:

            Eric, you write;
            “I agree with both premises…but not the deduction. You say God demonstrates solicitude, and this is true, but the statement does not exclude God from demonstrating other qualities. (emphasis mine) You continue:”Your statement does not exclude God from also being un-solicitous…and as I have already demonstrated….”
            The only quality that the premises exclude is one that is contradictory to them. Let’s keep on point here by turning this deduction around.

            If God can be solictous and un-solicitous (“caring” and “uncaring” as you maintain in the above statement) and
            God and ui are the same (as you have maintained since the beginning of our discussion)
            uf have solicitude (which contradicts what you just stated, as well as Principle #11.

          • eric seiler 03/10/2012, 2:04 am:


            Well done here! I was hasty with my reply. Your comments are correct to the extent that there is not a complete match on the solicitude front, and no matter how I try and rework the comparatives, I will come up correct only 50% of the time.

            Ui has no solicitude
            God can have no solicitude
            UI can be God.

            However… admittedly this is not satisfactory.

            What this does for me is point out a bit more weakness in the “languaging” of the 33 principles ( I have already stated that I have some other issues with this). However as I stated previously, I believe your “solicitude” didactic may be far subordinate to other comparatives that do point in the direction that ui must be synonymous with God.

            So again I present for the following for discussion:

            1. Gen 1:1 (In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth)
            2. Col 1:17 ( He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.)

            Therefore – Deduction A.: According to the Judeo-Christian Bible, God is the origin and sole creator all energy, mass and forces that bind and organize energy and matter in the universe. God maintains all energy and matter in existence.

            Universal Intelligence is described as having the attribute of organizing matter and keeping it in existence.

            Therefore given Deduction A., Universal Intelligence must be synonymous with God.

            What part(s) of this do you have a problem with?

  4. Paulo Henrique Sugimoto 03/07/2012, 11:04 pm:

    Organization can be present in different forms. In an atomic level we refer to it as universal intelligence, the basis of the existence of all things physical. In an organic level we refer to it as innate intelligence, the principle of organization through adaptation.

  5. David McGonagle 03/09/2012, 3:43 am:

    It concerns me, to put it mildly, that comments made by Eric Seiler are too common within our profession. Ui and ii are far to limited for God to be an equivalent entity. Joe Strauss has made that arguement simple and precise more than once. If the arguement of Eric WERE true, than chiropractic would be reduced to just another occult. The Catholic church, of which I am a devout member, has already put chiropractic in a category of “new age”. I have had to explain to my fellow parishioners why the Church’s view is incorrect due to misinterpretation. If Eric were correct in his interpretation, chiropractic would have ceased to exist long ago due to religious conviction of many in the profession. So much for a gift to humanity.

    • eric seiler 03/09/2012, 4:15 am:


      Suggesting that ui and ii are “limiting” God is only “limiting” if you consider the creation of and maintenance of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE a limited function. (?)

      Given that you suggest you are Catholic, I would presume there are no parallel universes or other dimensions allowable in your personal doctrine. So where is this limitation you are suggesting?

      And frankly, what I find more than a little bit concerning is how many people who believe in God don’t understand the difference between religion and spirituality. Nothing I suggest…or has been suggested by the founders of our profession foists a religion on anyone along with chiropractic. Only the admission that we live in a world created for us, in bodies created for us by a Creator who holds it all together for us. That is the foundation of chiropractic philosophy…like it or not. And none of it has anything to do with religion.

  6. Steve 03/12/2012, 5:52 pm:

    Hey Eric,
    I don’t usually jump in to a heated debate, especially when you’re making Joe work so hard, but I gotta tell you I am growing weary of your circular logic.
    In your last post (3-10-12) for instance, you start by admitting to false reasoning which leads to a weak conclusion. In the next paragraph you belittle the importance of the point that may show the flaws in your thinking.
    In paragraph 2 you complain about the language in which the 33 principles are given. Could there be anything more vague than the bible, so many versions such a diversity of interpretations. Do you take the bible literally or figuratively?
    Then in the third, you throw out 2 hand picked scriptures to establish similarity between god and ui and jump to the conclusion they are equals. Let me ask you, in your opinion does ui have all the same attributes as god, or is god more than intelligence?
    Do you see the circle, admit error, throw out diversion, repeat same illogical statement.
    I’m starting to think you have made your decision and no amount of logic will dissuade you from it. You are entitled to believe what you want but don’t insist it is logical, belief often is not. That’s why they call it faith.
    Chiropractic is based on logic, you can add faith to it if you wish.

    • eric seiler 03/13/2012, 2:57 am:


      Still waiting to hear from Joe. If you are weary of this, then the obvious solution for you would be to stop reading. I don’t recall insisting that you personally pay me any attention at all!

      This appears to be a forum for debate. I would hope it is not just a place for preaching to the choir. Joe dropped a big bomb with his position about ui and God…I’m sure with the full intent of attracting some attention. (He also probed Facebook with the same assertion). So now that he has some attention, and it happens to be in opposition to your personal conjecture…you’re weary? Well I’m not, and I am prepared to go the distance on this one if Dr. Strauss will re-engage. I would be most happy to address in detail all of your questions, but only after Dr. Strauss does me the courtesy of a reply, or informs me that he is no longer interested in this discussion. : )”

    • JStraussDC 03/13/2012, 4:53 pm:

      Steve, thanks for “jumping in”. I’m really not interested in working “so hard”. Next week I reach full retirement age. This blog is to increase our understanding of chiropractic and as long as the discussion serves that end, I will continue it. As long as it can be brought back to the chiropractic philosophy, I think it has value and provides an opportunity for all of us to learn. When the discussion becomes solely one of theology or no one is interested, I will end it or take it to a personal venue. Meanwhile, thanks again for your input.

  7. Claude Lessard 03/12/2012, 7:28 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:

    • 03/13/2012, 10:58 pm:

      We have established that universal intelligence exists because it does. Consequently we ACCEPT as FACT those aspects of universal intelligence that we note in determining its existence. One of the most important characteristics is that intelligence is an intangible and the ONLY way we can know of intelligence is to perceive it through that which manifests it — matter. We recognize the existence of intelligence by our reasoning and our MP (pri.1). We also deduced that intelligence was necessary to the existence of matter by the acceptance of the Major Premise of chiropractic and that there is an inseparable relationship between the two. Life is necessarily the union of intelligence and matter (pri.2) caused by FORCE (pri.10). We understand universal life is in all matter and innate life is in “living matter”. The objective of chiropractic (LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body) deals with life of the matter of the body. From this point forward we are using the word LIFE in association with the body. –

      Therefore we deduce:

      – Life is motion.
      – Motion is life.
      – Absence of motion is death.
      – Death is absence of motion.
      -Force (information) is necessary in matter to produce motion in “living things”.
      – Information in the human body is MENTAL IMPULSE which produces motion.
      – Matter of the body, WITHOUT information, is static substance.
      – There must be matter of the body to be moved by information to have motion.
      – ALL tissue cells of the body have motion from the information (mental impulses which are adapted universal forces into innate forces) created by the innate intelligence of the body.

      – A concussion of forces occurs. An external invasive force overcomes an internal resistive force of the matter of the body and IS the CAUSE of a vertebral subluxation.
      – A vertebral subluxation is a vertebra that has lost its juxtaposition with the one above or the one below or both, to an extent less than a luxation, occluding an opening, impinging a nerve and interfering with the FLOW of mental impulses from brain cell to tissue cell and
      – The nerve interference with the FLOW is: The character of the mental impulse which is information with intelligent direction, which in turn is an adapted universal force into an innate force, IS CHANGED BACK into a universal force which is unadapted and is information with no intelligent direction which is now, ONLY a nerve impulse.
      – This unadapted universal force, CAUSED by the vertebral subluxation, which is information with no intelligent direction is called dis-ease (pri.30).
      – Vertebral subluxation is the CAUSE of dis-ease (pri.31).
      – The CAUSE of dis-ease is the vertebral subluxation. Dis-ease is a nerve impulse which is an unadapted universal force which is iinformation with no intelligent direction (pri.31).
      – Dis-ease is CAUSED by interference with the transmission of innate forces (mental impulses which are information with intelligent direction) pri. 30.
      – The mission of innate intelligence is to maintain the material of the body of a living thing in active organization (pri.21).
      – In the absence of interference, and within the limitations of time and matter, the innate intelligence of the body can fulfill its mission.

      – Therefore the Objective Straight Chiropractor by LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body is participating in the fulfillment of the mission of innate intelligence.

      – It is the SACRED TRUST!
      – GUARD IT WELL!

Leave a Reply

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