Innate Intelligence


Innate Intelligence is a part of, but apart from, universal intelligence. It is not a creation of universal intelligence. There is no hierachy. So how would you describe innate intelligence?

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 42 comments

  1. Steve 04/26/2013, 5:18 pm:

    Hey Joe,
    Do you remember the old math terms, set and subset?

    • Steve 04/26/2013, 5:22 pm:

      If Innate Intelligence can not violate Universal Laws and Innate Intelligence is limited by matter (under UI), doesn’t that make one (UI) superior.

      • Bryson 04/26/2013, 5:54 pm:

        Innate cannot violate Universal Laws but neither can Universal Intelligence. Each Intelligence fulfills a specific purpose, therefore one would not be superior to the other.

        • Steve 04/26/2013, 6:45 pm:

          Ah yes, but UI is limited only by itself, II must succumb. Or Ui can exist w/o II, not the other way around. Who’s top dog now?

  2. Claude Lessard 04/30/2013, 1:09 am:

    Steve and Bryson,

    Let us go deeper, together without condemnation, into the nature of limitations. In Stephenson’s page xxxii No. 24., is not the heading “The Limits of Adaptation”? –

    – Which part of the Triune has limitations?

    • Claude Lessard 04/30/2013, 11:07 am:

      … in other words, which part of the Triune is not “failing” to adapt?

  3. Steve 04/30/2013, 3:06 pm:

    Hey Claude,
    Within the I,F&M triune, it is said that matter is the limiting factor. Limited by the laws (manifestations) of UI. In article 24 however, it says Innate Intelligence is limited in it’s ability to adapt Force and Matter by the parameters of Universal law as well. It would seem that only Universal Intelligence is ubiquitous,constant, and unadaptable .

    • Claude Lessard 04/30/2013, 3:52 pm:


      How can intelligence which is 100% complete (pri.5,9 and 22) ever be limited? Is it not the physical matter that is limited (as you mentioned above) and not the metaphysical intelligence and force? If so, innate intelligence is NOT limited in its ability to adapt force and matter. –

      – When principle 24 states: … “or innate intelligence is limited BY the limitations of matter”, it is matter that is limited, NOT innate intelligence. Innate intelligence is 100% (pri.22), therefore adapts whatever amount of universal forces available (always 100% pri.9) and whatever matter is available (always less that 100% pri.24). –

      – Therefore, can we conclude, together without condemnation, that intelligence is ONE (universal intelligence, innate intelligence of the body, innate intelligence of the system, innate intelligence of the organ, innate intelligence of the cell)? That it’s all ONE and the same 100% intelligence (pri.5) creating (pri.8) and adapting (pri.23) 100% forces (pri.9) having the specific function of uniting intelligence and matter (pri.10) and adapting universal forces and matter for use in the body (pri.23) within the parameters of universal laws? –

      • Steve 04/30/2013, 5:00 pm:

        Hey Claude,
        That is not what it says. It says,”No. 24. The Limits of Adaptation.
        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.”
        Being 100% (P.22) is not the same as unlimited. Innate Intelligence of the cell, as you call it, is limited by the cell wall. II of the organ is limited by the organ capsule. II of a system is limited by the extent of the system. II of the body is limited by the skin. All limited according to their level of organization(P.22). II is 100% according to need,ie. a plant needs less II than I do. (some say that’s not true) Therefore it could be said that II is limited by the structure in which it resides, no? II is also limited by time.(P.6)
        Although your final statement is eloquent it all falls apart without the qualifying closer, “within the parameters of Universal Law. UI rules.

  4. Claude Lessard 04/30/2013, 6:04 pm:


    How can finite (matter) limit infinite (intelligence)? How can metaphysical limit physical? HOW does UI rule if there is no II to adapt its forces to keep a “living thing” in active organization? HOW does II adapt universal forces and matter without UI? –

    – Joseph’s initial post states: “Innate Intelligence is a part of, but apart from, universal intelligence. It is not a creation of universal intelligence. There is no hierarchy.” –

    – I maintain that intelligence is ONE with different functions for a specific purpose of specific matter. –

    – It is we WHO choose to label UI and II for the purpose of understanding the law of organization and the law of life. Pretty much the same as we label heart, liver, wrist, hand, ankle, foot, venous, arterial, etc… for the purpose of understanding the anatomy and physiology of the body,

    • Claude 04/30/2013, 7:29 pm:

      Correction: “How can metaphysical limit physical?” should read: HOW CAN PHYSICAL LIMITS METAPHYSICAL?

  5. Steve 04/30/2013, 10:06 pm:

    Hey Claude,
    I would think the finite limits the infinate by it’s capacity for expression. We can only understand metephysical Intelligence because we have a physical representation. We can not know of things we can not identify or recognise to exist. Intelligence could only be limitless or infinate if it continued to expand, but that is not how we understand it to be. If Intelligence is perfect it is unchanging, otherwise if there is more to come it was not complete. We indeed learn more about our universe every day but not because there are new intelligences being developed. Each new discovery is of something that was always there, like gravity, aeronotics or stemcell therapy. Intelligence never changed, only our comprehension of or our dominion over it has.
    It is the “part of, but apart from” section that stood out in my mind. Since II is a “a part of ” UI then it is less than UI. Smaller not by importance but merely by definition. “Apart from”, signifies a distinctive aspect. Not better or worse than, just an aspect that sets it apart from the rest. Such as, II is that part of UI that concerns only living things.
    Intelligence, if 100% is perfectly adequate not limitless. Limitless implies without constraint. You can’t have more than 100% of intelligence in any substance, by definition of our principles it is limited.
    One could also say UI is limited, as we know it, to manifestations in the physical realm. Being metaphysical, UI is unlikely to be concerned with other metaphysical concepts. Does UI organize or maintain love or respect (such as a student has for a teacher)?
    I wonder now if the “limitless” view does not fall back to the time when there was an equation of UI with god.
    Our Principles are both definitive and circumscriptive, in that, they are explicit. It is what we add to them that makes them different to each individual. As in the past when we discussed creation and it’s relation to the major premise.
    An aside question might be, What do you think is the percentage of UI that is also II? What is the ratio of living things to non-living things would be the tangible evidence to such percentage? I’m guessing, if your interpretation is that Intellicence is all one, the point is moot.

    • Claude Lessard 05/01/2013, 11:36 am:


      Intelligence is all ONE and there’s no doubt about it from the point of view of intelligence. It is from the point of view of matter, that it is we WHO have chosen to create a philosophical construct and made intelligence “two”. –

      – It is from the point of view of both intelligence and matter (which is the FACT of principle 10) that we get the BIG picture which is specific INFORMATION created from intelligence (8) that organizes matter in existence (pri.1) OR into a “living thing” (pri.21). –

      – It is like reality is “not totally one”, yet it is “not totally two”, either! Let us OBSERVE, together without condemnation, that ALL things, events, persons and institutions, reveal contradictions, create conflicts, and have their own interpretation as well. Is it not INFORMATION that “holds” things (living or non living) together (pri.10)? Doesn’t it seem that it is we WHO choose to split intelligence into “part of and part from” so WE can manage and pay a big price in regard to actual truth or understanding (what Joseph calls “dipsycho”)?

      – Look at principle #26. Where YOU see superiority?

  6. Steve 05/01/2013, 3:31 pm:

    Hey Claude,
    P.26 Comparison of Universal and Innate Forces.
    In order to carry on the universal cycle of life, Universal
    forces are destructive, and Innate forces constructive, as
    regards structural matter.
    It does not say the forces are equivalent, it only signifies their relationship to each other. Sooner or later Universal Forces always win(P.24). Everything that lives eventually dies and reverts back to basic elements. UI wins every time, not sometimes, not half the time, every time. UI is bigger, dominant, all inclusive….superior.
    I do not think information alone holds things together. Information is just intelligence, without force no action occurs(P. 15). It is intelligent force that binds molecules, builds systems and sparks life(P.10), is it not? It seems logical to have two types of intelligence producing two different products.
    Saying there is only one intelligence is like saying there is only one Chiropractic. Philosophically and strictly speaking that is true. However personally I would like to think OC is a part of but apart from the rest, and superior. Are you gonna tell me all Chiropractor views are equal?

    • Claude 05/01/2013, 4:55 pm:


      What is the definition of force?

      • Claude Lessard 05/01/2013, 5:27 pm:

        … better yet… When you say: “It is intelligent force “.. . WHAT is an intelligent force? What is a mental force? What the content of an “intelligent force”. What is it comprised of?

      • Steve 05/01/2013, 5:30 pm:

        Hey Claude,
        P.9. The amount of force created by intelligence is always 100%. P. 10. Force unites intelligence and matter. P. 12.The transmission of force can be interfered with. Intelligence cannot be interfered with because it is perfect. Force brings intelligence/information to the matter. Force is not information but it is the vehicle of transmission for information.

        • Claude Lessard 05/01/2013, 6:47 pm:


          WHAT is the nature of this vehicle of transmission for information?

  7. Steve 05/01/2013, 7:37 pm:

    Hey Claude,
    According to Stephenson in Vol.14 on p.28…When Innate assembles universal forces in the brain cell they are
    in the form of thoughts. In this non-specific state they are called
    foruns. They are, as yet, thought; absolutely abstract, but the most
    powerful creations in nature, notwithstanding. Being abstract, they
    have no connection with matter; no hold on it; in this “ghostly”
    state, cannot grip it. (page 80, V) Transformation is a process of so
    changing these foruns, that they become a form of energy which
    does affect matter: does have a grip on it.
    In Vol 20. p. 164..We take force in great volume and
    we call it electricity and reduce it into currents and watts, and then
    the Chiropractor adds the next deducible step—foruns—and then
    into what we don’t know.

    Vol. 5 p.80The Unit of Transformation is the bringing together of the
    immaterial into the material. As the immaterial takes no space nor has
    it size, this it has no difficulty in doing; receiving one unit of energy,
    acting upon it, passing it forward into its progressive channels is what
    makes its “transformation” from one elevation to another, one duality
    to another, one form to another.
    The Unit of Mental Impulse is one complete set of Units of energy
    that are gathered to perform one specific act at one certain place for a
    definite object in view. When that cycle is completed then another
    form is made so that each Unit of Mental Impulse is a separate
    combination of Units of Energy as they are made to meet the varying

    According to BJ and Stephenson, force is energy. Universal or Innate Force would be intelligent energy.

    • Claude 05/01/2013, 8:33 pm:


      “In Vol 20. p. 164..We take force in great volume and
      we call it electricity and reduce it into currents and watts, and then
      the Chiropractor adds the next deducible step—foruns—and then
      into what we don’t know.” –

      – Let us inquire, together without condemnation, into the part of the sentence that reads: “then into what we don’t know. ” Today we know WHAT was not known then. And you know that also. –

      – What do you call in today’s vernacular that which is intelligent energy? I’ll give you a clue: Crick and Penrose. 😉

    • Don 05/02/2013, 1:50 am:

      I just want to say thank you Dr. LESSARD and Steve for all the references!

  8. Steve 05/01/2013, 8:56 pm:

    Hey Claude,
    Sorry, never heard of C&P. What is smaller than a forun? A nanofor?

    • Claude 05/01/2013, 10:24 pm:


      Google Crick and Penrose and get back to us with today’s word describing intelligent energy of universal or innate force. 🙂

  9. Steve 05/02/2013, 1:10 am:

    Hey Claude,
    Sorry couldn’t find anything on energy, please be more specific.

    • Claude Lessard 05/02/2013, 11:41 am:


      Oops! I meant Crick and Watson. I got “mixed-up”. 😉

      • Claude Lessard 05/02/2013, 12:04 pm:


        To save some time, WHAT does “In order to CARRY ON the universal cycle of life” imply? In other words, as universal forces are deconstructive and innate forces are constructive… WHAT is the nature of this CARRY ON give rise to?

        • Claude 05/02/2013, 12:58 pm:


          Again to state the question differently (it’s not an easy one): –

          – WHAT is the nature of this “CARRY ON” and HOW is its activity maintained? In other words, “deconstructive and constructive” gives rise to WHAT as regard to matter?

          • Claude 05/02/2013, 1:08 pm:

            … ok bloggers, –

            – This is entirely NEW territory and I’m not messing around: to clarify the question: WHAT is it that precedes “deconstructive and constructive”?

      • Straight DC 05/03/2013, 8:32 pm:

        deoxyribonucleic acid

        • Claude Lessard 05/05/2013, 8:30 pm:


          Yes, it is true. Do YOU see WHAT i see? Deoxyribonucleic acid is part of the equation as it concerns itself with organic life. Crick and Watson OBSERVED that DNA is a specific transcribed code of biological instructions. This code is encrypted into a message called mRNA which triggers the biological manufacturing “factories” that build protein like structures (read structural matter).

          – As we inquire, together without condemnation, it is we WHO choose to OBSERVE that “cracking” the genetic code is simply the OBSERVING of principle 21 and 26 which is the maintaining of the material of the body of a “living thing” in active organization in order to carry on the universal cycle of life within the limitations of matter (pri.24) and time (pri.6). With a “living thing” (pri.20), the INSTRUCTIVE universal forces have been given further instruction by being adapted by the innate intelligence of the body (pri.23) and transformed into innate forces vested with NEW character which are constructive toward structural matter. In other words, this further instruction is the NEW innate CODE… the MENTAL IMPULSE. –

          – It is the existence of matter and the integrity of the active organization of “living things” that is the subject of attention given by intelligence through INSTRUCTION… which binds intelligence, together with organic and inorganic matter, maintaining it in existence (pri.1) or in existence and in active organization (pri1 &.21).

  10. Steve 05/03/2013, 1:01 pm:

    Hey Claude,
    The only response I come up with, after reading and rereading your questions is…intent. Intelligence precedes force and force precedes action. The goal of intelligence is to carry on???

    • Claude 05/03/2013, 3:15 pm:


      Intent is good. let us continue, together without condemnation, our inquiry. When your intent is to have a new practice member MOVE from no chiropractic care to, let’s say, come 3X/week to have her spine checked, HOW do you do that? In other words, WHAT do you say to that new practice member?

  11. Steve 05/03/2013, 3:42 pm:

    Sorry Claude,
    You lost me.
    I explain what a subluxation is, then I demonstrate where their subluxations are and offer to address those subluxations with chiropractic care….

    • Claude 05/03/2013, 4:24 pm:

      so, your intent is to MOVE your practice member to begin active care. It is you WHO choose to provide information about subluxation. Depending on HOW effective you are and how receptive she is, this practice member will or will not begin care, right? –

      – If that’s true, then you provided instructive information for her to deconstruct some pre-conceived ideas about her body, to construct the subluxation paradigm and MOVE her from no care to 3X/week to have her spine checked, right? –

      – If it’s true, your educated intelligence created instructive information forceful enough to MOVE her from no care to active care, right? –

      – WHERE does this modum operandi comes from?

  12. Steve 05/03/2013, 6:54 pm:

    Hey Claude,
    Yes, hopefully the information plus the force of my voice and conviction enabled her growth. My MO is from my desire to help people.

    • Claude 05/03/2013, 7:22 pm:


      The nature of the force of your voice was instructive enough to MOVE her to deconstruct some concepts and to construct other concepts like: Deconstructing that health is NOT about feelings, symptoms or pain and constructing that health is about all the parts of the body working properly right?

      • Claude 05/03/2013, 8:03 pm:

        … in other words, in order to have deconstruction and construction, there has to be INSTRUCTION about WHAT, HOW, WHY, WHERE, etc. to deconstruct and construct. The force is INSTRUCTIVE before it deconstruct or construct, right? –

        – The function of matter is to express force (pri.13) and that force maintains matter in existence (MP) or in existence with active organization (pri.21). Therefore matter expresses the instructions that intelligence gives to it.

        • Claude 05/03/2013, 9:01 pm:

          … and that force is the instruction given by intelligence in order to maintain matter in existence or in existence with active organization. That’s the function of intelligence to create instructive force that may be deconstructive and/or constructive depending on the instruction given. This maintains the universal cycle of life (pr.26). –

          – So, in order to maintain the universal cycle of life, universal intelligence creates instructive force that are deconstructive toward structural matter and innate intelligence adapts these universal forces given them FURTHER instruction to be constructive toward structural matter. –

          – The nature of FORCE is INSTRUCTIVE information. So, the chiropractic objective is truly about LACVS to FULLY express the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD.

          • Steve 05/03/2013, 9:27 pm:

            Hey Claude,
            “The nature of FORCE is INSTRUCTIVE information.” Had you said the nature of INTELLIGENT FORCE.. I would be right there with you. All forces are not the same.

  13. Claude 05/03/2013, 10:47 pm:


    All forces created by universal intelligence and innate intelligence are ALWAYS intelligent. How could it be otherwise?

    Where in the 33 principles do you see a universal non-intelligence or an innate non-intelligence. I have no problem using intelligent force. Do you mean a mental impulse with intelligent direction versus a nerve impulse without intelligent direction created by a subluxation?

    • Claude Lessard 05/04/2013, 12:08 pm:

      …. so, together without condemnation, we “see” that intelligence creates INSTRUCTIVE forces (pri.8) which unites (bind) intelligence and matter (pri.10) for the purpose of these INSTRUCTIVE forces to be expressed by matter (pri.13) and manifested by motion in matter (pri.14). These forces created by intelligence and expressed by matter can be deconstructive and/or constructive depending upon the INSTRUCTION (pri.26). INSTRUCTIVE forces created by intelligence maintain ALL matter in existence (pri.1) and maintain “living things” in active organization (pri.20 & 21) manifesting harmonious actions of all the parts of an organism in fulfilling their offices and purposes, which is the principle of coordination (32) within the limitations of matter (pri.24) and time (pri.6). –

      – Together without condemnation, we “see” one of the important characteristic of deductive reasoning which is the evidence of these principles being simply “re-organized”. –

      – Now comes the big part: Principle 15 confirms the ALL of the above by stating that “matter can have no motion without the application of INSTRUCTIVE force by intelligence” … even if human beings cannot perceive at this time. Hence chiropractic is based largely on rational logic also called: DEDUCTIVE REASONING. 🙂

      – Please, ALL of us, together without condemnation, let us observe the GENIUS of the 33 principles and “see” HOW powerfully they INSTRUCT us to: –


      • Claude Lessard 05/04/2013, 10:07 pm:

        …. and WHO can we choose to BE to CARRY ON THE CYCLE OF LIFE? It is we WHO can choose to BE practicing the ONLY the chiropractic objective… which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! 😉

Leave a Reply

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