Laws-Part 2

73

The law of gravity is in all matter. It continually gives to it one property and action (the attraction of bodies), thus mainatining it in existence in one location. (we don’t fly off the planet)

The law of gravity is not God.

It is a creation.

Who created it?  Apparently not of importance/relevance to science.

The law of organization (ui) is in all matter continually giving to it all its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence.

The law of organization (ui) is not God.

It is a creation.

Who created it? Apparently not of importance /relevance to chiropractic philosophy.

 The law of life (ii) is in all living matter continually gives to it all its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence (on the level of active organization.)

The law of life is not God in man.

It is a creation.

Who created it? Apparently not of importance/relevance to chiropractic philosophy.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 73 comments

  1. william hollensed 06/18/2012, 4:59 pm:

    Who created it matters to me. While it is important we know and define chiropractic correctly there is more to my life than chiropractic. And knowing I am created by a loving God is very important/relevant to me.

    • JStraussDC 06/18/2012, 7:28 pm:

      I appreciate that perspective also, Dr. Hollensed. My Creator is important to me also. Our philosophy demonstrates that chiropractic is not the answer to disease nor is it the answer to some of the most important questions in life like who am I, why am I here and most iomportant where am I going when my body no longer expresses innate intelligence. Too many chiropractors try to make chiropractic less than it is and some try to make it more than it is.

      • Claude 06/18/2012, 8:40 pm:

        Joseph,

        You are making a very good point. WHY do we digress from chiropractic philosophy . This blog, it is my understanding, is about going deeper into the philosophy and the 33 principles.

        Do you think, Joseph, that WHEN a PERSON chooses to accept the major premise that there are no further discussions regarding the major premise? I do. I think that it is a waste of time to argue the major premise. It does not need to be proven, pulled apart, argued, it just need to be ACCEPTED as is or not. The readers of this blog deserve to move on into the depth of the philosophy and NOT wallow within the major premise.

        After all, 32 principles were deducted from the MP and are deeply interconnected with each other. It is good enough for any chiropractor to understand the philosophy and to practice the objective of chiropractic without being STUCK in the major premise!!!

  2. Paulo Henrique Sugimoto 06/18/2012, 6:03 pm:

    excellent post!

  3. Richie Barone D.C. 06/18/2012, 6:22 pm:

    But it is of importance/relevance to me……..

  4. eric Seiler 06/18/2012, 7:31 pm:

    ui = the law of organization.
    Question – According to who?
    Answer – Joe Strauss
    Why? – because apparently this definition is quite different from the great bulk of the teachings by those who created our philosophy, and perhaps most importantly, different from what we find in the pages of Stephenson’s Text which contains the 33 principles you dudes in NTOSC are supposed to be so conversant in.
    Is ui a law? Not according to those who created and defined the term.
    ui , in the minds of those responsible for the expression, is the LAW GIVER.
    Anyone who has bothered to read Stephenson’s text knows this to be true. Consider all of the following:
    Stephenson’s Text p.1
    “The Science of Chiropractic holds that a Universal Intelligence
    CREATED and is maintaining everything in the universe.”
    Stephenson’s Text p. 17
    “It [ui] occupies all space and distance. It has existed always. It is
    older, wiser, greater, stronger and better than anything in the
    Universe. It created everything and must have been first and
    indefinitely superior in order to do it. It must have been and is
    VERY intelligent. Having these virtues it must have never made a
    mistake and therefore is always right. Being always right is always
    good. Being infinitely good is God. (See Webster for definition of
    God.)”
    And finally, for Claude and Steve who seem to be horrified of the possibility that ui is causal over matter:
    Stephenson’s p.68:
    “In general, Universal Intelligence is the CAUSE, and that is
    why most cycles begin naming steps with “Universal.”
    Don’t agree with Stephenson? Fine. But don’t misrepresent his work. There are people who believe that the Bible says God created the universe. There are people who believe God did not create the universe. Would it be fair and valid for the non-believers to say that the bible does not say God created the universe? Of course not. You don’t have to agree with Bible, but that gives you no right to misrepresent it… no more than you have the right to misrepresent Stephenson. The only righteous solution here is to create your own doctrine if you don’t agree.
    Funny how this all began over my desire to review #24 and my suspicion of retro-causality in this dynamic. But now I find we may never get there because ya’ll NTOSC-ors don’t mind having the cart ahead of the horse!

    • Claude 06/18/2012, 8:19 pm:

      Eric,

      There is NO need to go into CAUSE beyond the major premise. If you accept it as it is, then, you should have NO problems with any other deducted principles including #24. –

      – Chiropractic is NOT a doctrine. It is a philosophy, a science and an art. –

      – The 33 principles, in my opinion, are just fine the way they are. –

      – YOU, Eric, are the one WHO chooses to have issues with the principles. Therefore, do me a favor, re-write them in your own words and submit them for critique. I would be more than happy to read your work. You have such a brilliant educated mind! 😉

      • eric Seiler 06/19/2012, 12:09 am:

        Claude,
        You are right – there is no need to go into cause beyond the MP – because a cause is ALREADY identified in the MP. It is ui. ui is CAUSATIVE over matter. This is what Stephenson’s MP says and what he repeatedly iterates in his text. Read it for yourself. It’s called “The Chiropractic Textbook”. You’ll find the 33 principle you claim to have affinity for therein. Full of great stuff. Read it bro!
        Joe has decided to make the MP say something OTHER THAN what Stephenson intended because he obviously does not care for the causality bit. Wrong approach. Intellectually dishonest. Joe should make his own MP and coin his own expressions if he disagrees with Stephenson, BJ and DD. He is certainly entitled to do so. Why not just take the high road on this one Joe?

    • JStraussDC 06/19/2012, 3:59 am:

      Eric,
      Premise #1. Chiropractic is not the practice of medicine, the practice of religion or a doctrine of theology.
      Premise#2. Terminology relating to God, the Creator, or the personification of nature or natural laws is religious or theological.
      Therefore: Regardless of who says or writes it, it is not chiropractic philosophy. Fortunately, our forefathers did not incorporate anything into our principles that can be construed as medicine or religion. Unfortunately, in an effort to explain those principles in language of accommodation, terms the general public could understand, they resorted to, on occasions, theological or medical language.
      Today we have the opportunity to remove or explain terminology that would confuse the public and to dispel the misunderstanding that chiropractic is a pseudo-religious cult or part of the practice of medicine. At the same time we can increase the public understanding of the chiropractic our forefathers wanted people to know. Well-meaning people like you are standing in the way of that effort.

      • Claude Lessard 06/19/2012, 11:33 am:

        Eric,

        What Joseph posted is true. If you would take the LEAD in the HUGE effort to point to the public that chiropractic is separate and distinct from EVERYTHING ELSE in society and that it deals with correcting interference to innate forces ONLY, thereby restoring the integrity of their authentic expressions… –

        – !!!! I WOULD FOLLOW YOU !!!!

        😉

      • eric Seiler 06/19/2012, 12:48 pm:

        Joe,
        Chiropractic, as you say is not religion. Believing that we live in a created universe is not religion either. Believing that the universe may cease to exist without the input of a creative intelligence is also not a religion. These are the constructs of the MP. They are core metaphysical conclusions regarding “first principles” – ones that many religions are based upon, but the constructs themselves are not a religion.
        The MP is a statement of universal cause and effect with a creative entity (ui) placed at first cause. This was the intent of the founding fathers, and it is clearly written into their teachings and the early history of our profession. While the MP is not a religious statement, it has obvious theistic implications, and these filter downward into the the rest of the 33 principles – as intended.
        This was the will of our founders. It was not some haphazard accidental collision of terms with the occasional theological statement thrown in for the purpose of edifying the “general public” (hilarious!). Though perhaps not perfect, it was a painstakingly well-thought-out process of deduction.
        This Joe, is the simple truth of the matter. You cannot sanitize the 33 of their first-cause/effect bias by altering a definition here or there. You end up with a conflicted mess.
        I personally see traditional chiropractic philosophy as no impediment at all to the growth of our profession. If you do…then don’t teach it!…Because as soon as you start talking “honestly” about a Universal Intelligence holding matter in existence you open the door wide to all manner of theistic/spiritual discussions – the kinds that you don’t care for obviously. So start your discussions of NTOSC well south of the MP. Anchor your movement to the material world end of how we look at things. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with doing that. There is however any number of glaringly awful things about trying to hide the meaning of traditional chiropractic philosophy within its own terminology! Just as no one is forced to accept traditional Chiropractic philosophy, no one need alter it either. Love it…or leave it alone.

        • Claude Lessard 06/19/2012, 6:27 pm:

          Eric,

          Truth be told, Joseph is NOT hiding the meaning of traditional chiropractic philosophy. On the contrary, Joseph is revealing the meaning the major PREMISE for WHAT it is. The major premise is ONLY a PREMISE, no more, no less. It is my humble understanding of having read the green books and the blue books that allow me to KNOW beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever, that the major premise is our start point and stands on its own without any of OUR inputs. It is “a priori” statement and we move on from there. It needs to be accepted as IS…. or not… without any assumptions than the major premise itself. Until, YOU convince me otherwise, I assume and accept the veracity of ALL the words of the major premise as they are written. I am very comfortable with the major premise and at this point in my career, I feel exhilarated and completely elated to see the evolution of our understanding of this AMAZING chiropractic philosophy. –

          Again, I am pointing out the FACT that it is YOU, Eric, WHO choose to have problems with some of the principles of chiropractic. May I suggest that you read the immense work of Joseph B. Strauss on the commentaries of the green books (7 volumes). It my HOPE that it will clarify for YOU some of the conflicts YOU have so well mentioned on this blog. 😉

          • eric Seiler 06/19/2012, 7:06 pm:

            Claude,
            Joe is lucky to have you.
            Of course you have no problem with Joe’s version of the MP. I just prefer the original one by Stephenson and believe it’s meaning should be left intact. I doubt I’ll ever get you to see the truth in this, but…I try. Someone once said if you repeat a falsehood over and over for long enough, it starts to sound like the truth. Sorry if that seems harsh.
            Just please remember, as the Man in Black said to Inigo, his dueling adversary in The Princess Bride – “I hold you in the highest regard.”
            That goes for all of you.

  5. Claude Lessard 06/20/2012, 11:02 am:

    Eric,

    – A universal intelligence is in all matter and continually gives to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence. Do you ACCEPT this major premise? I do. –

    – The expression of this intelligence through matter is the chiropractic meaning of life. – Do you think this principle is SOUND reasoning? I do. –

    – Life is necessarily the union of intelligence and matter. – Do you think this principle is SOUND reasoning? I do. –

    – Life is a trunity having three necessary united factors, namely, intelligence, force and matter. – Do you ACCEPT this? – I do. –

    – In order to have 100% life, there must be 100% intelligence, 100% force and 100% matter. – Do you think this principle is SOUND reasoning? – I do. –

    – A “living thing” has an inborn intelligence has an inborn intelligence within its body, called innate intelligence. – Do you ACCEPT this principle? I do. –

    – Innate intelligence adapts forces and matter for the body as long as it can do so without breaking a universal law, or innate intelligence is limited by the limitations of matter. Do you ACCEPT this principle? i do. –

    – There can be interference with the transmission of innate forces. Do you think this is this sound reasoning? I do. –

    – Interference with the transmission in the body is always directly or inderectly due to subluxation in the spinal column. Do you ACCEPT this principle? I do. –

    – To locate, analyze and correct vertebral subluxations is the objective of chiropractic. Do you ACCEPT the objective of chiropractic? I do. –

    – To be philosophically SOUND, the practice of chiropractic is limited to its objective which is LACVS. Do you ACCEPT this statement? I do. –

    – Eric, I do appreciate YOU and ALL that you contribute to this blog. As I mentioned before, YOU have a brilliant educated mind. I receive WHAT YOU say and WHAT YOU did not say. It apparent that YOU love the philosophy, science and art of chiropractic and I love YOU for this. We are BROTHERS and SISTERS of this AMAZING chiropractic! –

    I await your answers. You’ve got mine. 😉

    • eric Seiler 06/20/2012, 12:05 pm:

      Claude,
      Yes…I accept all of that – provided we are clear on what it all actually means! I have no issues with the MP as written – which in truth, is a causality statement about the universe. ui (creator) is at cause – the universe is effect. This was the intent behind the language of those who created the MP. Though you say the MP need not address the issue of first cause…well sorry Claude…too late! It already does as written, and as intended! Chiropractic philosophy therefore, in its original form, carries this declaration of cause straight through!
      Joe, el al, would rather not have this be the case for reasons that seem valid to him, and so he labels ui as something other than what it it. If we were to just step back and view the act of doing such a thing in any other situation – would it be Kosher? Would it be intellectually honest?
      My answer is no.
      And it is out of a true affinity for the bulk of what NTOSC wishes to achieve that I have been a “thorn in your side” about this. How can chiropractors who have an accurate historical perspective on our philosophy be fully support your cause given this kind of “tampering”? (which is entirely unnecessary)

      • Claude 06/20/2012, 12:59 pm:

        Eric,

        You “accept all of that … provided … “. Your acceptance of the major premise is conditional. I accept the major premise unconditionally as it is. I do not need to go BEYOND it’s start point. 😉

        • eric seiler 06/20/2012, 2:05 pm:

          Ok Claude
          Do you accept Joe’s version (with ALTERED definition of ui)?
          Or do you accept Stephenson’s original version?
          They are NOT the same.
          So which is it?

          • Claude Lessard 06/20/2012, 6:04 pm:

            Eric,

            YOU, Joseph, DD, BJ, Reggie, Joseph or myself included, cannot define the metaphysical. It is logically impossible. Truth can NEVER expressed in words. Truth is sighted suddenly as a result of an attitude of openness, of WILLINGNESS to discover something NEW. –

            – After all most of WHAT we post on this blog are theories. No theory adequately covers reality. All we can point out to each other, is NOT the truth but the obstacles to the truth. Those we can describe. We cannot describe the truth. No one can. All we can do is give each other a description of our falsehoods, so that we can drop them. –

            – Therefore, I maintain, that it is NOT necessary to waste time trying to describe universal intelligence. Let us accept: “A universal intelligence is in all matter and continually gives to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence”. Shall we? –

            – AS we both accept the major premise as our start point, we can deduct principle #2 and down to 33. This way we will both be on the same page. In the same way that it is NOT necessary to raise the question of universal intelligence in our discussion of the major premise, and while YOU have raised it many times already, it is also NOT necessary to have it answered to understand chiropractic philosophy. –

            😉

        • eric Seiler 06/20/2012, 7:36 pm:

          Ok Claude…no sweat! You don’t have to answer my question if you don’t want to (do you ever answer questions?). It was a rhetorical one anyway, because i already know the answer. You accept Joe’s version of the MP because you believe that ui is a law, and that the MP is not a causality statement.
          Your approach to the MP therefore is no different than the following:
          Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
          Normal interpretation – An entity called God (the Creator) was causative over to the universe.
          “NTOSC-like” interpretation – A law of organization called God struck a co-operative agreement with the heavens and the earth and the three all play together equally to express the universe.
          Of course no one would think to change the meaning of Moses’ words in the Bible.
          Why is it okay to change the meaning of Stephenson’s words in Chiropractic Philosophy?
          I’m not in any way suggesting that the Stephenson’s text and the Bible are on the same plane, but in principle, my point is valid.

          • JStraussDC 06/20/2012, 8:47 pm:

            No Eric, because Stephenson’s text and the Bible are not “on the same plane”, your point is invalid. But it does demonstrate your problem. You really DOequate what BJ said, and his Moses (RW) wrote, with God and the Pentateuch. God has the perfect right to teach us chiropractic philosophy(if He wanted to…He doesn’t) but Palmer and Stephenson are not qualified to make theological assertions, even if they call it chiropractic.

    • eric seiler 06/20/2012, 9:56 pm:

      Hurrah Joe!!!
      I knew my last comment would draw you into the fray! Gen1:1 and the MP are indeed BOTH crafted by their authors as statements of first cause and I challenge you here and now to prove otherwise. The irrefutable evidence for this precedes the drafting of the MP and is found in the plane written language of DD. DD’s language and intent is then grafted into the MP and is further supported by the musings of BJ for decades thereafter. Why is it so hard for you to admit this simple bit of historical truth? My concern here is not that you think matters of first cause should be kept separate from chiropractic. That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. My problem is that you doggedly perpetuate the falsehood that this perspective was never there in the first place, by inserting your personal, homogenized, misrepresentation of ui.
      And if as you suggest, DD, BJ and RWS are not qualified to identify God as ui in the MP of the philosophy they created…then tell me Joe, how are you qualified to say they cannot?
      My “problem” is that I’m willing to let the founders of our profession have their own beliefs about where to put spiritual matters into the mix. I’ll take my problem over yours.

      • Claude Lessard 06/21/2012, 11:21 am:

        Eric,

        As I said before, you have a brilliant educated mind. YOUR very WORDS do tell WHO it is that YOU choose to BE and I quote:

        “My “problem” is that I’m willing to let the founders of our profession have their own beliefs about where to put spiritual matters into the mix.” –

        If I do NOT read this statement of yours correctly, please forgive me.

        – 1. YOU see personal beliefs a part of the principles of chiropractic. –

        – 2. YOU are WILLING to MIX spiritual matters into chiropractic. –

        – 3. YOU consider our founder to BE the “OWNER” of chiropractic, just as DD wanted at the beginning. –

        Can YOU not see, ERIC, how far back you deduction KEEPS YOU? This is called “FAULTY” reasoning. Let me explain: –

        – 1. Chiropractic BELONGS to ALL that there is! –

        – 2. Chiropractic is about FORCE and NOT spiritual matters! –

        – 3. Chiropractic is philosophy, science and art and NOT personal beliefs of ANYONE! –

        • eric Seiler 06/21/2012, 12:32 pm:

          Claude,
          I think you have some of what I’m getting at right, and some quite wrong. This is rather heady stuff that would be better served in a sit down discussion, as quickly jotted blog-bytes often fall short. But I will none-the-less address your list.

          1. Personal beliefs ARE a part of chiropractic whether we like it or not and NTOSC CONTRIBUTES to this fact. Joe’s DEFINITION of ui is his a personal belief – so the sword cuts both ways here Bro.

          2. The spiritual realm either exists… or it does not. I believe it exists and is inseparable from the physical realm. Therefore my “willingness” has nothing to do with it. It simply is. Our founders understood this and were therefore quite willing to allow this “truth” to sit atop their philosophy in the MP. Don’t care for that? That’s okay. Just don’t to try to suggest that this is not traditional chiropractic philosophy. And don’t change the meaning of their words to obscure the fact that it was.

          3. Here is where you really miss the mark with me. I do not consider the founders to be the owners. I do however believe that it is ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE to tamper with their constructs. If you don’t agree with them, then create your own concepts and YOUR OWN LEXICON to promote them. If you think chiropractic philosophy works better detached from its spiritual root…fine! Just create a philosophical lexicon OF YOUR OWN that works that way! But by using the traditional lexicon with an altered meaning, you create a conflict with those of us who have no problem with the original intent! Can you not see how doing this is wildly wrong?!

          • Claude 06/21/2012, 3:26 pm:

            Eric,

            Please, show where I have tampered with the constructs of our founders and where I don’t agree with the principles of chiropractic.

          • JStraussDC 06/21/2012, 9:06 pm:

            Eric, you write:
            1. “1. Personal beliefs ARE a part of chiropractic whether we like it or not and NTOSC CONTRIBUTES to this fact. Joe’s DEFINITION of ui is his a personal belief – so the sword cuts both ways here Bro.”
            Perhaps for some, they are part of the profession and that is why this profession is a mess. Some believe chiropractic is part of the practice of medicine, some that it is a religious endeavor and some everything in between. Frankly, we do not know what the Palmers and their followers believed because they changed their explanation and their ideas so often over a period of many years. I do know that they gave us some very good principles. I do know from BJs writings that he did not want chiropractic to be a religion (I’m not sure about DD). You are correct, he did say many of the things you attribute to him. Whether that was his personal belief, RW’s, poor communication, or an attempt to communicate a difficult concept, I’m not sure. Perhaps I am wrong but I start with the premise that chiropractic is not a theological/religious construct. (BJ rejected the idea when Shears suggested it) and I interprete the Major Premise in that light. That is not my opinion or belief but my interpretation of the MP. There is a difference and perhaps I interpret BJ incorrectly. If he did not intend for the MP to be a theological statement then my intepretation of the MP is correct and is necessary to end the confusion (see my previous comment). If he did intend for the MP to be a theological statement with all its implications then he was wrong and a new interpretation of the MP is absolutey needed…and that is an opinion.

        • eric seiler 06/21/2012, 4:54 pm:

          Claude,
          Look at it this way. There are those in our profession who want to dump what we know the term subluxation stands for. And they intend to achieve this by dumping the term itself – not changing its definition and pretending it means sometime else. Though these cats don’t understand chiropractic, at least they have enough integrity to let the expression mean what it has always meant, and simply adopt a new expression that better serves what they think chiropractic is. This is not what NTOSC has done with ui. ui means “Creator”. NTOSC has changed it to mean “law of organization”. This is not cool (tampering). Not only does this change the meaning of ui, but it also changes the very nature of the MP. It is as I have said before, an attempt to hide the original intent of the MP within its own language! Not cool at all.
          Again, if you do not believe that there should be any mention of first cause in chiropractic, then create your own LEXICON and your own MP. Joe said “If we make ui God we better scrap our major premise.” Well…ui means “Creator” and for may of us, Creator means God. So its your move. Maybe you in NTOSC need to start scrapping.

          • Claude Lessard 06/21/2012, 5:27 pm:

            Eric,

            YOU have not answered my question yet! 😉

        • eric Seiler 06/21/2012, 6:02 pm:

          Sorry Claude,
          Perhaps I should not say “you” have done this, but how about “guilty of crime by association!” You have been a staunch supporter of the “law of organization” definition, as well as a staunch resister of the causality that the properly interpreted MP imparts to the entire deductive chain. So while you may not be responsible for it (again I apologize) you do defend it.

      • JStraussDC 06/21/2012, 7:51 pm:

        Dear Eric,
        In your post you intimated, as you have in the past, that I have some nefarious or sinister motive for my position on the “cult” of chiropractic. For you and others in this discussion, let me explain my position and my reason for it.

        In 1969 my wife and I attended a well-known chiropractic seminar for the first time. I was in my second year of a struggling practice and not able to afford to attend the seminar. A chiropractor who was established in his practice and revered in the profession whom I had visited, and who has since become a good friend, offered to pay for us to attend the seminar and we were thrilled to accept his generous gift.

        As we listened to the principle speaker, we realized that he was teaching that the chiropractic adjustment would allow God to be expressed through the individual and make the recipient one with Him. This idea was repugnant to both my wife and me since, as born-again believers in Jesus Christ, we firmly believe that being reconciled to God can only occur through personal faith in Christ and His salvation work on the cross. As a new practitioner my desire was to understand this chiropractic philosophy but, as explained, it was conflicting with my personal belief. My wife was not reticent to approach the speaker after one of the sessions to get some clarification on what he meant by the “spirit” of man, which he seemed to be confusing with the Holy Spirit of God. According to Scripture, the Holy Spirit indwells every believer at the point of personal faith in Jesus Christ. Rather than clarify and make the necessary distinction, his answer was unsatisfactory, muddy and only caused us to have greater concern. We realized then that we had a major conflict that needed to be clarified if we were to continue in this profession! It was very disturbing.

        A short time after the seminar, two Christian women came into my office who were very upset. They had gone to a well-known chiropractor whom I knew to be a regular attendee of the seminar I had attended. Someone had told them I was a born-again Christian and they wondered how I could accept the chiropractic philosophy which they thought was cult-like, anti-Christian, and which embraced New Age thinking. I explained as best I could what I believed and what I believed the chiropractic adjustment was, but I began in earnest to investigate the teachings, beliefs, and claims of D.D. and B.J. The more I studied and read the Green Books and heard phrases like “The Bigness of the Fellow Within,” “uniting man the physical with man the spiritual,” “the subtle substance of the soul,” “the religious duty of a chiropractor,” the personification of innate and universal intelligence, and the implications of innate intelligence being God in man, the more I realized that there were some great discrepancies between my Christian faith and what I was learning from D.D., B.J. and others. Most began with the assumption that the Major Premise was referring to God. I had a problem if I was to continue to practice chiropractic as a Christian.

        Eric, I love chiropractic and believe that God has been using me in this profession to bring understanding and clarity. However, my relationship with God and being faithful to Him and His Word are far more important to me than chiropractic. Frankly, I don’t understand how an individual who is a Christian, having placed his/her faith alone in Christ alone in order to be reconciled to God, can read the writings of B.J. , starting with the Major Premise being God, and not find his explanation repugnant. I personally know of chiropractors who have rejected any form of straight chiropractic because they believe it contradicts their faith. I, on the other hand, was not satisfied to abandon chiropractic and I surely was not going to reject my Christian principles. I decided to embrace what I termed “non-therapeutic, objective straight chiropractic” because through it I could reconcile my Christian faith and my chiropractic philosophy which I held dear.

        Non-therapeutic, objective straight chiropractic:
        1. Adheres to what I consider the Big Idea of chiropractic- of correcting vertebral subluxations to enable the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed.
        2. Does not address the prevention or cause of medical conditions.
        3. Does not balk at making changes that stay within the overall intent of the Founder and Developer of chiropractic, while continuing to revere D.D., B.J. and their contributions.
        4. Does not mix theological or medical issues into the chiropractic philosophy, does not reject or demand the need for personal faith, and recognizes that personal faith is not part of chiropractic philosophy.
        5. Does not prevent me from sharing my personal faith in my office or elsewhere. I am free to share my beliefs about God, my personal faith, my political views, and why I believe the Phillies are so bad this year. Since I have defined and explained the philosophy and objective of chiropractic clearly, there is no confusion on the part of the public, no mixing. I am also free, if asked, to share Who I believe to be the Source of universal and innate intelligence, without making chiropractic a religion which bypasses the necessity of Christ’s work on the cross on my behalf, or offends someone of another belief. I have the desire, the right, and the privilege and the mandate to share my faith if I so choose, knowing that I have explained chiropractic properly and there is no confusion to where chiropractic begins and ends.

        I spoke just this week to a group of fine chiropractors in VA. One chiropractor shared that a patient asked the source of innate intelligence. He didn’t feel he was able to answer the question without entering the realm of theology. He asked how I would have answered the question. My answer to him was not the best answer, also because of my concern of moving outside the realm of chiropractic philosophy. As my wife and I discussed the question on the way home that evening, I realized that we should feel free to share Who we believe that Source/Cause to be. We should feel free to “change hats,” as it were, all the while making clear where chiropractic begins and ends. We must remain loyal to God and bring honor and glory to Him.

        I am sure there are others on the blog who could share equally sad stories of people who have rejected chiropractic because someone mixed their personal beliefs with the philosophy of chiropractic, whether that personal belief was Christianity, New Age, pantheism, or agnosticism or something else. I encourage them to share their stories with us. Even sadder is that there may be some who put all their faith in the chiropractic adjustment and what they believe chiropractic has to offer and ignore having a personal relationship with God because someone told them they could be reconciled to God though chiropractic…and they believed it. (This also includes the other end of the mixing spectrum, believing chiropractic is going to cure them.)

        Eric, you may not agree with my position and that is fine, but at least now I hope you understand what motivates it.

        • eric seiler 06/21/2012, 9:52 pm:

          Dear Joe,
          I never assumed your intent was “sinister”. I just find methods questionable. Your justifications are your own, and you are entitled to them. I won’t go into their validity beyond the fact that they are very reminiscent of the ones you hear from the “medipractors” who find their “scientific sensibilities” personally affronted by traditional chiropractic.
          I do think you will indeed find a strong theistic thread in the writings of DD, which are congruent with the construction of the MP by RWS and supported by BJ up until the time of his death. The MP is undeniably a statement of first cause over the universe. Your reasons for finding this unacceptable were the subject of multiple point/ counterpoint arguments we had in the past, and honestly, none of your reasoning held up to examination.
          However if you are convinced in your own mind that the MP cannot be a Creator/creation casualty statement, and you are the kingpin of NTOSC, then you should abandon the MP and all of the 33 that deductively convey the MP in order to maintain the integrity of your own belief system. Let the merit or lack therein of your paradigm stand with its own language rather than attempting to divulge it in the Lexicon of traditional chiropractic philosophy, which is at its very root, theistic.

        • Don 06/21/2012, 11:08 pm:

          Dr. Strauss,
          If I was in your position in 1969 I would have felt the same.
          It saddens me greatly to hear that…
          “some who put all their faith in the chiropractic adjustment and what they believe chiropractic has to offer and ignore having a personal relationship with God because someone told them they could be reconciled to God though chiropractic…and they believed it.”

          My personal belief is that there is only one way to be reconciled to God and no substitute. I have shared my belief in the office with a Practice member but made it very clear that it is my personal and not a professional/chiropractic understanding.

          I can see your reasoning for the making a clear distinction between religion and chiropractic.
          Thank you for sharing.

          • eric Seiler 06/22/2012, 12:42 pm:

            Don,
            If I were to say that I believe in a created universe that is held in existence from one moment to the next by a Creator – what religion am I?
            And if I believe the above statement, and that life is part of the universe, then I must believe that living things are a creation held in existence from one moment tot he next by a Creator as well. Does this deduction in any way shed further light on what religion I am?
            And if I believe there are mechanisms that the Creator uses (actively) to hold matter in existence, both living and non-living, does this point to any particular religion?
            And if I believe that these mechanisms must be fully operative in order for me to be fully alive (physical life) – what religion is that?
            And if I also believe that these mechanisms that are central to life can be breached in a way that is detrimental to life – what religion am I now?
            And if I also believe that mankind may take action to restore these mechanisms when breached – what religion is that?
            While you cannot deduce with certainty what religion I am from the preceding, you can deduce that I look at the universe and life from the perspective of Traditional Chiropractic Philosophy – which is NOT a religion.
            And incidentally, if I look at things this way, how is it in any way a conflict if I happen to be a Christian? What, if anything, does any of the preceding have to do with my spiritual salvation?

          • JStraussDC 06/22/2012, 2:56 pm:

            Just curious Eric, how do you handle an atheist? Deny them care, not explain chiropractic to them, force them to listen to your theological sermon, or…?

          • eric Seiler 06/22/2012, 9:12 pm:

            Joe,
            A person who believes in a created universe can sit down and share a meal with an atheist. They will have very different beliefs about what holds the matter of their meal together. They will also have very different beliefs about how that matter becomes incorporated into their bodies as living flesh. However neither of their belief systems are prerequisite for sharing the meal, nor are they prerequisite for what ultimately becomes of the meal once digested.They could even, if prompted to do so, have a discussion about how their viewpoints differed as they ate. And though they may disagree over the origin of matter and life, the meal would still be nourishing to them both, and the conversation could be quite cordial.
            Of course you would prefer that the conversation never happened. But that is simply your “hang up” and not mine!

          • eric Seiler 06/22/2012, 11:27 pm:

            Joe,
            Bye the way…that analogy was based on a real experience. I have a patient who is a retired particle physicist and professed atheist/pantheist. We have had multiple fascinating discussions of the nature of reality…which spilled over into a decision to go lunch and pick each others brains further. He understands my perspective and goes along quite well with the science of chiropractic. We only differ in where we expect the organizing force in nature comes from, but interestingly we have a lot in common. We are both intensely concerned with causality.

  6. Don 06/20/2012, 12:36 pm:

    To Drs. Seiler and Lessard,
    I agree with Dr. Hollensed, my God and Creator is most relevant to me as a person and His working through my life permeates every part of it. Does this extend into my practice of chiropractic…Definitely YES!! Does this mean it IS the practice of Chiropractic?…I would not venture to say it is…but Dr. Selier does make some thought provoking statements about the MP that I cannot refute or deny completely.

    As a new reader of this blog and the NTOSC perspective I find this discussion captivating. In my opinion, you BOTH have brilliant educated minds. Please do continue..I am still on the fence on this one. 🙂

    Signed,

    Presently undecided 😉

    • eric seiler 06/20/2012, 2:58 pm:

      Thank you Don.
      If you are on the fence about the actual and original intent behind the MP and how ui is essentially synonymous with “Creator”, then all you need do is scan across the Freshman and Sophomore Text of the Chiropractic Textbook by Stephenson – which is the the definitive work on this subject. You can view the text online in pdf by Google-ing it. I think you will find, as I have illustrated with my excerpts, that my position in this matter is accurate and irrefutable. No fence sitting needed here.
      I think where you or anyone else can definitely be on the fence is whether or not having a statement like this at the helm of chiropractic philosophy is “bad for the profession” as Joe would suggest, and therefore in need of brushing under the rug. And furthermore, what would the proper method of brushing it under the rug be? These are this things I have tried (with some level of frustration) to draw attention to. I personally have no issue with the original intent behind the MP, nor do I see it as a problem for our profession.

    • Claude 06/20/2012, 3:50 pm:

      Don,

      In the beginning, DD Palmer thought he had found the CURE for deafness. Then he changed his mind and thought he had found the CURE of many diseases. He also INCLUDED his PERSONAL beliefs as he wrote about chiropractic. –

      – BJ Palmer develop the philosophy further and thought he had found the WAY to get sick people well. He developed the science and the art with many inventions (Neurocalometer, neurocalograph, timpograph, encephaloneuromentipograph, lead shielded booths, spinograph, specific chiropractic, HIO,) and he changed his mind many times. BJ also INCLUDED his PERSONAL beliefs (and they differ from DD) as he wrote about chiropractic. –

      – We are ALL indebted to DD and BJ for have founded and developed chiropractic and without them, YOU and I would not be chiropractors today. –

      – As you can see the history of chiropractic is loaded with contradictions and transformations along it young journey thus far and will CONTINUE to evolved as NEW information come in to replace the OLD. With this in mind, the evolutionary process of our educated minds also grows in understanding as we let go of the old to make WAY to the NEW. –

      – With the emergence of the NEW science (like quantum physics), we have come to realize that physicists and cosmologists are wilLING to consider that we do NOT know much of anything at all about our universe and life itself. And they seem to be more comfortable than many chiropractors WHO choose to be wilFULL and fight the darkness instead of SEEING the light within the darkness. –

      – Thanks to Reggie, Joe Strauss, Thom Gelardi, and Sherman College, in the 1970s, we came to realize that under chiropractic care, sick people get well SOMETIMES, and sometimes they DON’T. –

      – From this observation and through logical deductive reasoning, it was enunciated that the body ALWAYS functions better without vertebral subluxation REGARDLESS of the presence of symptoms, or pain, or diseases of the body. –

      – Therefore, through deductive reasoning the objective of chiropractic was enunciated congruent with the major premise and the 32 principles of chiropractic: –

      – The objective of chiropractic is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD. –

      – Today, we SEE that there is NO need to include our personal beliefs into chiropractic philosophy. It stands on its own and we do not have to QUESTION or dissect the major premise or go beyond it. The major premise is our start point and the 32 deducted principles follow logically from SOUND reasoning. –

      – Chiropractic BELONGS to people regardless of their personal beliefs. –

      – Chiropractic can be incorporated into any life style of ALL people regardless of personal beliefs. –

      – I hope this clarifies WHAT was posted on this blog lately and helps WHO you will choose to BE as a chiropractor. Also, make sure to continue to read the green books and the blue books and listen to Reggie’s tapes. 😉

  7. Claude 06/22/2012, 2:57 pm:

    Eric,

    – WHEN it is you WHO chose to state: ” … I believe in a created universe that is held in existence from one moment to the next by a Creator “, YOU are stating a creed of a religion. YOU are correct in stating that I do NOT know which religion YOU are referring to. It is an unknown religion that is concealed within your personal belief system and chiropractic is NOT a religion. –

    – Chiropractic is philosophy, science and art.

  8. Don 06/23/2012, 1:17 am:

    Dr. Seiler,
    I have no problems with the statements you have made in the “what religion am I?” entry you recently posted. As usual you make a valid argument.

    Two questions for you (and any other chiropractor out there):
    1. What say you of the statement that… “some who put all their faith in the chiropractic adjustment and what they believe chiropractic has to offer and ignore having a personal relationship with God because someone told them they could be reconciled to God though chiropractic…and they believed it.”
    Do you support these claims?

    2. “As we listened to the principle speaker, we realized that he was teaching that the chiropractic adjustment would allow God to be expressed through the individual and make the recipient one with Him.” Do you support this man or woman’s interpretation of chiropractic? Please explain why or why not.

    Many thanks,

    • eric Seiler 06/23/2012, 10:24 am:

      Don,
      If Joe says these things happened I have no reason to believe they did not. Are these kinds of doctrinal “abuses” representative of TSC and reason enough to discard our theistic roots? In my opinion – absolutely not. The fact that some may get it wrong does not alter the reality of the matter, and the reality is – our traditional philosophy is anchored by the MP to a theistic concept of first cause.
      However, a chiropractic adjustment does no more to reconcile man with God than what an ER physician might achieve removing a bullet from a man’s back. Our spirit – the eternal aspect of our existence is a separate matter altogether. But there again, our spirit must inhabit a body, and that body does not exist or function, in my opinion, independent of the first cause. I believe Joe’s permutation of ui into a “law” rather than the “law giver” is an attempt to remove first cause from what drives life into organization – presumably as a means of keeping theism out of chiropractic philosophy. But in so doing, in my opinion, and as I have stated on multiple occasions in the past – this opens the door to the notion that matter is somehow “self-organizing” – and so this leaves his philosophy wide open to pantheism and atheism while keeping the door shut to the theistic concept of first cause that our founders had in mind.
      The only way in my opinion to solve this conundrum for NTOSC is to ditch the MP (causality statement) and all of the principles deduced from it, and begin the NTOSC dissertation on chiropractic at the physiological level.

      • JStraussDC 06/24/2012, 9:34 pm:

        Eric, these “doctrinal ‘abuses” are directly or indirectly the result of statements made by the Founder and/or Developer. Apparently, you do not read very many blogs and/or Facebook groups (how could you, you’re constantly on this blog harassing me and everyone else who espouses a NTOSC view. :)) or you would know how widespread this practice is. It is true we are trying to keep theism out of chiropractic philosophy but by viewing ui as a law and saying anything beyond that is not part of chiropractic, we also keep out atheism, pantheism, religions , cults and everything else. (I think that is a fair exchange.) Here is the point we’ve been trying to make Eric, there is nothing wrong with looking for, studying, and believing in first cause. Call it the Creator, but ui is a creation by the Creator, You can call First Cause God, Allah or anything else but don’t call it ui, that IS pantheism. . Call the creation universal law, natural law, or law of organization, a creation of First Cause but don’t call it First Cause. It’s rather ironic that our forefathers DD,BJ,RW made it confusing because the country’s Founders had it exactly right and perfectly clear when the said in one of the greatest documents created by the hand of men 236 years ago next week and 109 years before chiropractic. “When in the course of human events…..to which the Laws of Nature AND of Nature’s God entitle them.” (emphasis mine) All NTOSC is saying is that u/ii is a natural law which we call the law of organization/the law of life. To quote one of my greatest protagonists, before you, and a fine gentleman, not suggesting you are not (who I never thought I would be quoting), ‘Enuf said !

        • eric Seiler 06/25/2012, 1:06 am:

          Not quite enuf!
          Joe – If the MP says ui gives matter its properties and holds it in existence, then minus ui, matter has no properties and ceases to exist. And so we are essentially describing “that which creates matter”. Not only that, the MP says this is all the matter of the universe. And is this not a first cause quality reserved for God Himself? And if it is not, then you must imply that there can be something within matter itself that creates the universe – and is that not in fact pantheism?
          Is it impossible to conceive that the creative intelligence that gave rise to the universe (God) is not also actively involved in its ongoing manifestation from one moment to the next. And is this in fact not a tenet of Judeo-Christian theology?

          • JStraussDC 06/26/2012, 2:21 am:

            Eric, you write: ” If the MP says ui gives matter its properties and holds it in existence, then minus ui, matter has no properties and ceases to exist.” Agreeed And so we are essentially describing “that which creates matter” No, we are describing that which maintains matter and matter cannot be created or destroyed since “In the beginning God…. Not only that, the MP says this is all the matter of the universe. And is this not a first cause quality reserved for God Himself?No it is an effect of the FIRST CAUSE, consequentl the second. Principle #17 And if it is not, then you must imply that there can be something within matter itself that creates the universe – and is that not in fact pantheism?That is a non sequiter. Ui is in all matter. God exists above, apart from, outside the universe.
            Is it impossible to conceive that the creative intelligence that gave rise to the universe (God) is not also actively involved in its ongoing manifestation from one moment to the next.No it is not and He is actively involved by the laws that He has set into motion( Heb. 1:3) and by occasionally directly setting aside those laws, which theology calls a miracle. And is this in fact not a tenet of Judeo-Christian theology? The major tenet of our theology is that in eternity past before anything existed It was decreed (a law) by God everything that would occur taking into account both His sovereignty and man’s free will, called in theology the Doctrine of Divine Decrees.

        • eric Seiler 06/26/2012, 7:18 pm:

          Joe,
          After all of this most enjoyable haggling, I think I may have found the crucible of our disagreement in a single perspective that may be interesting to explore.
          To do this, let’s throw out ui as an expression for now, and instead use what we both think it represents – you, a law of organization, and me Creator/First Cause/God.
          The following is my perspective regarding the “matter” at hand:
          God (who always was and is) created the universe “ex nihilo” – out of nothing. (Incidentally, if you believe this, then your point that “matter can neither be created or destroyed” obviously only applies to you, me and our 8th grade physics teacher, and not God. If you don’t believe this then you are suggesting, as the Mormons do, that God and matter always existed, and that God merely organizes the matter).
          So I contend, as I believe the Bible tells us, that from nothing God brought the matter of universe into existence. According to the Bible and the science of cosmology to boot, this matter did not show up instantly in the form of the universe we currently observe, but rather there were stages through which the manifestations of matter progressed. In the Bible these progressive stages of organization are continuations of the first cause God set into motion. The point where I think our perspectives diverge is where God fits in after “the 6th day”. Does God to this day actively maintain his creation (the universe) in existence? Or does the ongoing organization of energy into the matter of living and non-living forms result from some other sustaining property that can function apart from God’s active participation/involvement? (presumably via your law of organization).
          I contend that the matter of the universe is actively held in existence by God from one moment to the next, by virtue of the same connection that He obviously had with matter in the first place when He first fashioned it – his will. Though we think of God as inhabiting a spiritual realm that is apart from the physical universe, He obviously needed to be connected in some way to the universe in order to fashion it! And it is my contention that this connection, though impossible to measure, still exists – and the universe still exists because of it.
          What support might exist for my perspective?
          From a Biblical perspective we Col 1:17, Heb 1:3, Eph 1:11 and Ps 95: 1-7 (there are probably others as well).
          From science, we have support for my perspective in the form of a “lack” of any evidence at all in the physical realm for what actually organizes energy into matter. Not only does science fail to address first cause, but it also fails to support with any physical evidence, or theoretical concept what it is that drives energy into organization as matter. Though intelligence is implied by the organization we see in the universe, it is nowhere to be found in the substance of the universe, and therefore it can be logically postulated (though perhaps not proven) that this intelligence comes into universe the same way it did with first cause – as the active will of God. Though immeasurable, there is an ongoing causative connection between God in the spiritual realm and matter in the physical. As such the substrate upon which we stand and the physiological processes that describe living matter are held in existence in space and time by the ongoing, direct will and attention of God. Just as you agree that God can choose to affect matter in the physical realm in the form of miracles, no less miraculous is the ongoing normal organization of energy into matter and matter into life. Everything is “real time” Divinity in action.
          If I understand you correctly, you believe that while God created the universe, his ongoing creative effort in not necessary because He left behind in the physical realm a creation called “law of organization” to do this for Him. I would ask you then – what evidence may you provide in support of your perspective. Could you please tell me:
          1. Is there any scriptural evidence that God, having once created the universe, then left behind a creation called the “law of organization” that would allow matter to remain in active organization apart from His active involvement?
          2. What aspects of science, either proven/measurable, or theoretical support existence of a “law” that gives to matter all of its properties and thus maintains it in existence?

          • Don 06/26/2012, 10:12 pm:

            Dr. Seiler,
            Of the scriptural evidence you provided I find Col 1:17 most supportive of your argument.

          • JStraussDC 06/27/2012, 1:32 am:

            Don, that’s your belief and Eric’s and even Claude’s and mine. But as Claude says that is personal belief. The context of that verse (Col.1:17) is talking specifically about the Second Person of the Trinity. Now, not only have we turned off all atheists, agnostics, pantheists and Jehovah Witnesses, we have now told every Jewish person that ui is Jesus Christ. Frankly, as a chiropractor, I’m not comfortable with bringing that into chiropractic and I’m not comfortable as a Christian leaving it out and denying Him as the Creator. So…I call ui a principle or law and leave chiropractic right there at the Major Premise and allow people to go further, as far as they want, in their personal beliefs….God, Jehovah, Allah or God the Son. Perhaps Claude is correct, I have allowed Eric to hijack a chiropractic blog and preach his personal beliefs (and BJ’s) as chiropractic. For that I take full responsibility and apologize to those who we have turned off. It may have been “enjoyable haggling” for Eric, but I for one am getting weary of going around in circles with no resolution in sight merely providing a vehicle for Eric to sharpen his debating skills.

          • Claude 06/26/2012, 11:24 pm:

            Joseph and Eric and Don,

            – I am completely befuddled. I see no part of your last few “personal beliefs” and comments and quotes of holy scriptures as having anything to do with chiropractic philosophy. –

            – WHY are you arguing about the “BEYOND” of the major premise. It is not needed to understand chiropractic philosophy and to practice its objective. That’s the GENIUS of the 33 principles. –

            – Once again:

            1- It is OBSERVED through the organization of the universe and through deductive reasoning that: “A universal intelligence is in all matter and continually gives to is all its properties and actions thus maintaining it in existence (Pri. 1, the major premise). –

            2- Further more, from deductive reasoning, we logically have 32 following principles. The 33 principles are the fundamentals of chiropractic philosophy, science and art. –

            3- That is WHAT the foundation of chiropractic stands on. The 33 principles are non-negotiable! –

            4. – WHO you choose to BE is the crux of the matter. –

            5. – It is I WHO chooses to BE accepting of the major premise as our start point and logically reason the 32 principles that follow. It is also I WHO chooses NOT to go beyond the major premise. And I have NO problems in my practice with NOT going beyond the major premise. Do YOU? –

            – Ultimately, it boils down to this question: WHO will YOU choose to BE? 😉

        • eric Seiler 06/27/2012, 12:45 pm:

          Joe,
          Agreed. There is little more I can contribute here, and for whatever the contribution was worth, I thank you for your graciousness. As i see it, the problem with any debate is not so much for the observers. They can choose to tune in, or turn off. The problem is for the debaters who must become more concerned with defense and “winning” than learning. So I will again bow our of this discussion (which YOU started by the way with your post on Facebook!!!).
          My final observation in this matter: For a man who apparently wishes to keep theology out of chiropractic…you sure do post quite a bit about it! Interesting?

          • Don 06/27/2012, 10:36 pm:

            Dr. Strauss, Claude and Seiler,
            I agree the discussion beyond the MP is not chiropractic and therefore should end a the MP and not extend beyond it.
            Dr. Strauss, if you feel for the sake of your future readers removing any of my posts would be best, you have my permission.
            As for what I have learned from you three I thank you.

  9. Don 06/23/2012, 12:44 pm:

    Dr. Seiler,
    I agree, some may get it wrong (in this case very wrong chiropractic does not unite God and man) and it does not alter the reality of the matter.

    Do our theistic roots allow us to delve into theology? religion?
    I’s still confused. Please share with me…
    “Our spirit – the eternal aspect of our existence is a separate matter altogether.”
    I believe this too.
    In your opinion, is it a personal or chiropractic principle?

    “But there again, our spirit must inhabit a body, and that body does not exist or function,”
    In your opinion, is it a personal or chiropractic principle?

    Lastly, when sharing chiropractic with people, how do you distinguish personal belief from chiropractic?

    • eric Seiler 06/23/2012, 2:12 pm:

      Don,
      I think if a TSC-tor is explaining the MP to a patient, the discussion need not go beyond the idea of a Creator and first cause. Therefore there is no need to discuss religion. if you desire to divulge your specific religious beliefs – that’s your call. But in my opinion, and that of our founders, chiropractic is not a specific or new kind of religion. As DD said – a chiropractor can have any religious creed and still be a principled chiropractor.
      This brings up a an interesting question that i’m surprised Joe did not bring up already, and that is – can a person who does not have a theistic view of reality be a chiropractor? The answer is – of course! They can just choose to be a full-on mixer/medipractor, or sign on with the NTOSC crowd!
      My belief that the spirit is fully extra-physical is not my own, nor is it my opinion, but rather a common tenet of western monotheism. Interestingly, this concept now has a degree of “scientific corroboration”. I would suggest you read “Evidence for the Afterlife”. This is not a religious book, but rather a sober scientific look at the science of the near death experience – which provides some stunning insights about spirit and matter.
      The idea that life and matter do not exist apart from first cause is not merely my opinion, but also that of DD, BJ, RWS and we might as well throw in some of the authors of verses in the Bible, as it is a fairly uniform belief in the Judeo-Christian world that universe exists because of our Creator’s ongoing, active attention..
      Interestingly, while such a position requires a degree of faith, those who take the opposing view (reductionists, atheists, pantheists, Thomists and perhaps those in NTOSC) also need a degree of faith as well, because to this day, science has still fallen massively short of explaining what organizes energy into matter – no “law of organization” yet measurable in matter alone.
      As far as your last question goes – you cannot separate personal belief from anything! – because as Claude says (repeatedly) “It is YOU who chooses to believe”.
      I can only suggest that you study whatever facts you can find, weigh out other people’s opinions, read the Green Books, and decide for yourself what makes sense and WHY.

  10. Don 06/23/2012, 2:59 pm:

    Dr. Seiler,
    I’ve heard that before. Atheists are not without faith. They still need faith that in their belief that there is no God.
    You pointed out DD said – a chiropractor can have any religious creed and still be a principled chiropractor….and a person who does not have a theistic view of reality can become a chiropractor.

    Could the atheist or pantheist sign on to be a TSC-tor?

    As for the last question…I would love to hear Dr. Lessard`s reaction to your response 😉

    • eric Seiler 06/23/2012, 3:18 pm:

      Don,
      In answer to your question (which I think i already did answer in a way in my last post) people opposed to a theistic worldview would most likely have an issue with the MP as written and intended, and therefore would be better served by sticking with the science and art end of chiropractic. They could be “straight” in the same sense that the NTOSC-tors consider themselves straight and limit their focus to LACVS. Please remember that I am not against different viewpoints in how to practice and promote chiropractic. I am only campaigning for clarity, while campaigning against of misrepresentation where TSC is concerned.

  11. Don 06/23/2012, 4:45 pm:

    Dr. Seiler,
    I am sorry if you answered the question already and I didn’t understand.
    I guess my difficulty is my understanding that chiropractic is a science, art and philosophy. My questions below do not apply if I am wrong here.
    An atheist practicing TSC without the philosophy as I see it wouldn’t be practicing TSC since the philosophy is missing.
    Just as the NTOSC without it’s philosophy isn’t NTOSC.
    Is it correct to still term what the atheist is doing TSC? Please explain.

    • eric Seiler 06/23/2012, 5:18 pm:

      Don,
      I believe that an atheist can certainly practice straight chiropractic (LACVS) without having any affinity for “traditional” chiropractic philosophy (one that views the MP as a first cause statement), just as those who ascribe to NTOSC can, and do. Joe is quite correct that chiropractic can be practiced based on its objective (LACVS) alone.
      In my opinion, “traditional” chiropractic philosophy seeks a fully integrated way of looking at life – which begins with its first cause and filters down into the physiology of the body. However there is nothing at all wrong with limiting this philosophy to mundane matters if that is the preferred of the practitioner. In this sense, I see NTOSC as a brand of chiropractic that has adopted a “limited” philosophy…but it is still chiropractic philosophy. TSC takes a broader approach to the subject which beings with a theistic major premise, and therefore will not appeal to everyone, however it may be of some value to note that 70% of the people in America have a theistic worldview.

    • eric Seiler 06/23/2012, 5:46 pm:

      Don,
      As a further clarification of my last point, when i say that a theistic philosophy may not appeal to everyone, a TSC-tor can still provide care to anyone. As I stated in an earlier post…I have atheist patients who know my perspective.

      • Don 06/23/2012, 5:55 pm:

        Dr. Seiler,
        Thank you. I have PM’s who are atheists as well.
        It does not pose to be a barrier in their care.
        I was just curious if they choose the path of chiropractic, could they choose TSC and practice it philosophy and all.

  12. Claude Lessard 06/23/2012, 5:20 pm:

    Don,

    – Chiropractic is NOT medicine –

    – Chiropractic is NOT theology –

    – Chiropractic is NOT jurisprudence –

    – Chiropractic is PHILOSOPHY –

    – Chiropractic is SCIENCE –

    – Chiropractic is ART –

    – Belief is NOT required to accept the major premise. –

    – The major premise (intelligence, matter, properties, actions, existence) is an EFFECT of a CAUSE that goes beyond chiropractic philosophy and this blog is about chiropractic philosophy. Chiropractic philosophy is NOT theology and Stephenson’s text made that very clear: ” The Student should not make the MISTAKE of believing that Chiropractic Philosophy is a sort of psychology, telepathy, occultism, or the classic philosophy of Plato and Socrates. It is not THEOLOGY. While it may mention these things in passing it deals with them scarcely at all. Chiropractic Philosophy pertains more to the workig principles of Chiropractic… ….Naturally, the statements of HOW Chiropractic deals with the things involved in i, or its tenets in regard to them, are PRINCIPLES”. (Introduction XXViii) –

    – The major premise is our start point. It is from the major premise that we reasonably deduct the 32 principles. –

    – Chiropractic is philosophy, science and art of LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. Nothing more than that. Nothing less than that. –

    – Personal beliefs have NOTHING to do with chiropractic. YOU or anyone else do NOT need to believe in chiropractic. Infants, toddlers, young children, mentally challenged individuals have their subluxation corrected regularly. Even horses, dogs and cats have their subluxations corrected regularly. –

    – It is you Don WHO have a to choose. Read the green books, blue books, and listen to Reggie’s tapes… then, wash your mind of all compromise and CHOOSE! 😉

  13. Don 06/23/2012, 5:52 pm:

    Dr. Seiler and Lessard,
    I guess belief can be separated from chiropractic philosophy and should. Dr. Seiler please explain why it shouldn’t or can’t?

    Also, I understand that this blog is for the discussion regarding the philosophy of chiropractic and what it is not.
    I also understand that Dr. Seiler has a different view of the philosophy than non-TSC-tors. Admittedly, I choose to ascribe the label TSC to his understanding and NTOSC to Dr. Lessard’s.
    That may be a misrepresentation. I don’t know. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    Dr. Lessard, would you agree with the idea that there are different “brands” of chiropractic art, science and philosophy?

    • Claude Lessard 06/24/2012, 4:02 am:

      Don,

      Different “brands” of chiropractic, art, science and philosophy? Can YOU elaborate further or give me some examples of WHAT it is that YOU mean?

      • Don 06/24/2012, 4:44 pm:

        Dr. Lessard,
        I was referring to the responses that Dr. Seiler submitted. He explained “I am not against different viewpoints in how to practice and promote chiropractic. I am only campaigning for clarity, while campaigning against of misrepresentation where TSC is concerned.” and “I see NTOSC as a brand of chiropractic”.
        I was curious to see if this thinking is shared by others.

        • Claude Lessard 06/25/2012, 2:07 am:

          Don,

          Let me make the response to your question VERY CLEAR.

          – Chiropractic is the philosophy of the law of life (innate). –

          – Chiropractic is the science of transmission of innate forces through the nerve system within vertebrates. –

          – Chiropractic is the art of LACVS. –

          There are no “brands” of chiropractic philosophy, science and art. There a “brands” of chiropractors. –

          – It is NEVER about the WHAT !!! –

          – It is ALWAYS about the WHO !!! –

          – 😉

          • eric Seiler 06/25/2012, 3:08 am:

            Claude,
            Is this what YOU believe?

  14. Claude Lessard 06/25/2012, 3:35 am:

    Eric,

    No. –

    – This is what I KNOW.

    • eric Seiler 06/25/2012, 12:49 pm:

      Claude,
      I believe you.

  15. Steve 06/27/2012, 2:27 pm:

    Thank you J, C ,and E for agreeing to disagree. I do not come here to for bible study. I do not care about your personal beliefs. I check this blog regularly to learn more about CHIROPRACTIC. I admire the men and women who developed our unique perspective but do not hold them out to be infallible. Our philosophy is a beautiful concept that stands on it’s own and withstands scrutiny. It is complete in and of itself. A priori (adv.) as far as one knows.
    You all are entitled to your beliefs and I bet there are blogs for that, so can we get back to CHIROPRACTIC PHILOSOPHY, please?

    • Tom 06/27/2012, 2:56 pm:

      Amen Steve, oops, I mean, RIGHT ON! 😉 Seriously, ty for saying that, I agree 100%!

      • JStraussDC 06/27/2012, 3:30 pm:

        Thanks, Tom, Steve and Claude. I was hoping we were clarifying the lines between chiropractic and faith/religion but perhaps it went too far. We always appreciate input from our readers. I have yet to delete a post from a reader. (I have rejected spams). I wonder whether any others have comments and whether anyone thought the thread(s) was helpful? I’m bound to have bad post and non-responsive comments from time to time. Today’s post is a quote from Reggie…can’t go wrong there!

  16. Claude 06/28/2012, 1:52 pm:

    Don,

    – There IS one internal controlling factor… the innate intelligence of the body which is ALWAYS 100%, the requisite amount, proportional to its organization (pri.22). Therefore, we reasonably deduce that the innate intelligence of the body is best suited to attend to ALL the needs of the functions of ALL the parts of the living body. –

    – WHEN all channels of communication are free between brain cell and tissue cell the result is EASE. This is a common denominator in ALL people alike regardless of creed, race or state of health. Therefore we logically conclude: Innate intelligence IS the LAW of life! –

    – Chiropractic is about life as it LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD. 😉

    • eric Seiler 06/28/2012, 6:08 pm:

      Hi Claude,
      I have a couple questions I would like you to answer, if you don’t mind.
      1. The 33 say ii is always 100%. What does that actually mean to you within the context of “internal control?”
      2. We agree that ii is what organizes matter into life. I think we would also agree that there are limits to which matter may be organized into life. I think you would say these limits are imposed upon ii by matter (limitations of mater). Specifically, how (though what mechanisms) is the Law of Life (what you call ii) limited by matter? : )

  17. Claude Lessard 06/29/2012, 2:00 am:

    Hi Eric, you asked: –

    – ‘What does that actually mean to you within the context of “internal control”? ‘ –

    – It means that the innate intelligence of the body constantly adapts some of the universal forces and matter in a constructive manner for use in the body, so that all parts of the body will have coordinated action for mutual benefit (pri.23). This will occur as long as there is no interference with the transmission of innate forces (pri.29). Organization implies a point of control. The grey matter of the brain is the “material stuff” from which the innate intelligence of the body does the “internal control”. Grey matter is not found only in the brain of the vertebrates, it is found EVERYWHERE within the cells of the living body which means that the “human brain” is not located only within the skull… it is found throughout the human body. The innate intelligence of the body has escaped the confined of the brain as was previously postulated by BJ and RWS. This is a NEW paradigm. So, we can reasonably deduce that 100% adaptation of universal elements for the living body, depends upon 100% control by innate intelligence. –

    – Specifically, how (through what mechanisms) is the Law of Life (what you call ii) limited by matter? 🙂

    – Innate intelligence adapts forces and matter for the living body as long as it can do so without breaking a universal law (pri.24), Innate intelligence cannot break a universal law. Universal laws are inviolable. If they could be broken, then it could be reasonably deduced that there would be a location or situation where they did not exist, which would lead us to further deduce that these universal laws would be no longer universal, thereby destroying our major premise. Examples were given in past blogs regarding limitations of matter like the giraffe of Africa in the arctic pole vs the polar bear of Alaska…). Also, there is limitation of time to consider. –

    – The law of life organizes matter into form and maintains it in that condition. To adapt continually is the only way to do this. WHEN matter is organized into life, there is need for adaptation. WHEN adaptation occurs, there is a need for an innate intelligence to adapt forces and matter for the living body within the limitations of the matter of that particular living body and time. –

  18. David Suskin 08/08/2014, 2:44 pm:

    I will speak less while I continue to learn – Thank you for this archived post. 😉

Leave a Reply

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