Instinct-an impulse without reason.  However, the innate intelligence of the body has reasoning ability in the sense that it will “choose” to do what is best for the body and most conservative (in time and matter)… and then do it,  within the limitations of the matter with which it has to work. Sometimes it may be instinctive, at other times it would appear to go against instinct. Most of the time it is what is best for the body. But if instinct is programmed into the matter, into the genetic material (and I maintain that it is), then due to limitations of matter, it will sometimes be wrong. D.D. and B.J. ascribed everything to either innate or educated intelligence. Therefore they said that instinct was educated intelligence when it made a mistake and innate intelligence when it was right. (although earlier D.D. said that it was innate intelligence that had not yet learned. We know that is wrong.) They just did not yet fully understand genetics. Can the innate intelligence overcome limitations of matter?  Apparently often it can, depending upon the limitation, especially if the limitation does not involve a vital organ. Example: often when we eat something that our body does not want, it just passes it on through, assimilating anything that is of value. If it cannot do that, the stomach may regurgitate the contents.

Be Sociable, Share!

This article has 30 comments

  1. Steve 11/06/2013, 6:37 pm:

    BJ also said Educated mistakes came from the presence of Subluxations between the Innate and Educated Brains.
    You say,”They just did not yet fully understand genetics.”, but what you really mean is… They just did not yet fully understand Innate Intelligence. I wonder if any of us do. For example, you have said in the past that II is a group of laws, do laws reason as you suggest above?
    Then you ask, “Can the innate intelligence overcome limitations of matter?” When P. 24 clearly says, no it can not. In the past you have referred to that as a miracle, which is not within our philosophy.

    • Claude Lessard 11/06/2013, 11:00 pm:


      When I input my GPSS in my airplane to go around the Capital in Washington D.C., the airplane will follow a course and the GPSS will “select” the proper VOR and appropriate Vectors to deviate outside the forbidden area (ADIZ). The GPSS has to “choose” between several way points in order not to trespass and be intercepted by an F-16 (not recommended) and escorted to the closest airport for questioning by TSA officers. –

      – In this example, the GPSS is “reasoning” the best course in the sense of choosing the appropriate way points and vectors for the best desired result (not get shot down by an F-16). Yet, it is those many possibilities that are programmed within the software (law data processing) and a multitude of choices are at the disposal of the GPSS and the pilot. GPSS is a computer GPS coupled to an autopilot and is infinitely more accurate than the pilot. –

      – So, when Joseph talked about the law of active organization (innate intelligence) having to “reason”, it may help you to look at it in terms of a PERFECT software performing mega choices every moment keeping the “living” body at its optimum active organization expressed by active MOTION (pri.15). Computers do NOT have the ability to think, they have the ability to choose a myriad of possibilities very quickly according to the best result in processing the required data. The software is created by the PROGRAMMER’s intent which is limited by the limitation of the hardware of the computer and of the educated intelligence of the operator… in this case YOU! (pri.24) 😉

  2. Steve 11/06/2013, 11:49 pm:

    Hang on Claude, because of the way your GPSSS is programed it does not have a choice. Does it ever ask you if you want to fly over the NFZ? It also does not wonder what the crosswind is doing, it “self corrects” automatically as needed, because that is the way it was designed. Does II choose to mend a fracture or not mend a fracture? I think, as long as it is within it’s power and the LOM, II will always mend a fracture.
    Had Joe said the Innate Brain responds to need and makes value judgments for survival, I might have understood. But law does not reason, it is constantly 100%. Computers do not choose either, they do what they are programed to do, always the same response to the same stimulus, GIGO comes to mind. It may be syntax but choice and/or reason are not consistent with law.

    • JoeStrauss 11/07/2013, 1:16 pm:

      Steve, Claude’s analogy of the GPSS is a great analogy (wish I had thought of it.) If his GPSS is programmed to have a choice, and it is, otherwise it would always force him to fly over the NFZ and be worthless around D.C. My granddaughter, (a college student with limited finances) always inputs her GPS to take a no-toll route. My original post was saying that genetics is the programming of the matter and Principle #24 tells us the that the forces/expression of ii are limited by that principle. Perhaps we need a principle #24(A), called GIGO. The Canadian goose has been known to die trying to protect its eggs while the guppy will sometimes eat its young. While our developers did not understand GIGO they did give us a deductive principle (#24) that would cover it without even knowing it. Brilliant!

      • Steve 11/07/2013, 9:07 pm:

        I am afraid you have misunderstood my reference to GIGO. GIGO is a programers error, very common in program development, the “instructions” are wrong which leads to incorrect conclusions. P. 24 does not say the “Instructive information” is wrong, it says the matter is insufficient to carry out those instructions fully. IOW the program (II) was perfect but the computer (genetics) was made with inferior materials(LOM). P. 24 is more like the “Silk purse from a sows ear”. My point was that computers (gps) don’t think, the programer does.
        P. 23. The function of Innate Intelligence is to adapt universal forces and matter for use in the body, so that all parts of the body will have co-ordinated action for mutual benefit. Just because we don’t understand an expressed action (goose/guppy) does not make it a mistake. Human mothers , and fathers self sacrifice as well. Perhaps your recent post on teleological or purposeful behavior helps to explain these actions.

  3. Claude Lessard 11/07/2013, 3:05 am:


    You are correct! Law does NOT reason and I know that. LAW is constantly ACTING at 100% according to the matter with which it functions. As you know examples do break down and my point was that, when you tell you GPS to get to your destination with the shortest distance, it will calculate the route accordingly. Now it YOU choose to NOT go on a certain street, the GPS will prompt as “recalculating” and actually change the original route for a new one NOT selected by you… you only disregarded the original route. YOU do not even know HOW to get to your destination, that’s WHY you use the GPS! So, in a way, the GPS is programed for “selecting” or “choosing” the best route. It is only an example that breaks down ultimately since GPS is a product of limited educated intelligence which is imperfect. The law of existence (universal intelligence) and the law of life (innate intelligence), however, are perfect. Again you are absolutely correct. Law does not reason. It is good to stay on the STRAIGHT and NARROW. 😉

  4. Don 11/07/2013, 11:24 am:

    Can the innate intelligence overcome limitations of matter?

    I guess I always saw it as limitations CANNOT be overcome.

    After, looking up the definitions, (limitations = a limiting rule or circumstance; a restriction.)

    If the above is true, is something amiss here in my deduction? (I’m sure there is at least one 🙂 )

    Deductions 1 through 4
    1. II expresses through matter.
    2. Matter is always limited.
    3. Since matter is always limited, II is always limited to varying degrees by the matter it expresses through.
    4. II cannot overcome these limitations.

    • JoeStrauss 11/07/2013, 8:33 pm:

      Don, The ii of the body is sometimes able to circumvent some limitations. You can hold your breath (educatedly using your eb/matter to educatedly overcome an innate function. But in time the ii will either cause you to breathe or cause you to pass out and then breathe overcoming that eb/matter function. So at times the ii of the body can overcome the effect of the eb on the matter and hence overcome limitations of matter (deduction #4). Generally, you deductions (at least 1-3) are correct.

      • Steve 11/07/2013, 9:41 pm:

        P. 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.
        Would you say holding your breath, while under water, overrides II or is an example of it? Since when did EB set the Limitations Of Matter? Joe, I am confused. Yes EB can cause further limits of matter ( as in someone who chooses to drink a quart of whiskey a day) but II cannot overcome that . Unless you consider cirrhosis an II adaptation.
        I would agree II can overcome EB but both should be limmited by matter (equally?).

        • Claude Lessard 11/07/2013, 10:37 pm:


          Your confusion may come from the fact that you seem to have forgotten that the educated brain is matter and is limited in and of itself. Therefore, innate intelligence “will either cause you to breathe or cause you to pass out and then breathe overcoming that eb/matter function”. In this case, the limitation of matter is NOT sufficient to overcome the innate intelligence of the body. Let’s not forget that there are degrees of limitation of matter and that the law of active organization is perfect. You can bet your life that, if there is any way for the innate intelligence of the body to sustain life within the “living” thing, the innate intelligence of the body will ACT accordingly. –

          – Example: If I hold my breath, I will last about 55 seconds. An oyster diver of the islands will last a good 420 seconds before he passes out and breathes again.

          • Steve 11/08/2013, 12:45 am:

            Yes Claude, The EB is a product of matter, matter that is maintained by UI and organized by II, therefore limited. (not forgoten) So since we agree EB is limited by LOM , please explain how EB can limit matter(other than as in my example above)?
            Your example is a fine representation of II adaptation, conditioning. So did the diver’s EB lower his LOM or just make better use of the pre-established LOM as determined by UI?

        • JoeStrauss 11/08/2013, 7:49 pm:

          Steve, you cannot override ii anymore than you can override gravity. You can override the expression of the forces of ii just the same as the law of aeronautics overrides the expression of gravity in an airplane employing the law of aeronautics (not sitting on the ground) The EB can increase/improve the LoM, Example:put on a coat and increase your ability to not freeze.That is an example of good educated, your whisky example is one of bad educated, the more common example.

          • Steve 11/09/2013, 3:11 am:

            Does putting on a coat really increase LOM or just reduce thermal stress, and no I don’t think that’s the same thing? The matter or tissue has not changed by lessening exposure. Whiskey does not lower LOM, it exceeds it, no?Just as aerodynamics does nothing to gravitational expression for gravity is still always pulling the plane down with the same vigor, stop pushing air over the wing and you will see. Without gravity the aircraft would float off into space and it’s inhabitants would be floating within. So if gravity and it’s expression is unchanged by aerodynamics, how do we relate these two laws.
            Admittedly Educated Intelligence is not always solicitous toward Matter but I still don’t see how EI or EB can alter LOM.

          • JoeStrauss 11/09/2013, 4:11 pm:

            Steve “thermal stress” is an external invasive force (EIF) so while you are correct that they are not the same thing, the resultant effects are the same. The practice of medicine addresses reducing eif in order to increase health (antibiotics being the best example). While they both (medicine and chiropractic) may have the same result, “getting sick people well” only one does so by restoring health/life, the expression of intelligence through matter. The other does so by reducing an external ‘influencing factor” sufficiently to allow the ii of the body to be expressed more fully so that the individual can appear to express more health/life by “getting well”(reduction of symptoms). The former is the chiropractic objective, the latter the medical objective. That’s why using chiropractic adjustments to get sick people well is mixing objectives or as Jim Healey says “conservative mixing”.
            Not being a drinker, I am not sure what the physiological effects of whisky is. I am also not sure whether “decreasing the limitations of matter” is a good thing or a bad thing. You make that call!
            As for the airplane example, I would say that “expression” means empirical, in this case what we see. On the ground gravity and it expression is 9.8m/sec2 In the air gravity is still 9.8m/sec2 but its expression is 0.00 because of the law of aerodynamics which does not supersede the law of gravity but supersedes its expression. So I would disagree with your statement “gravity and it’s expression is unchanged by aerodynamics”. Gravity is not changed but its expression is. Getting back to our physiological example, a person who “gets well” with antibiotics “expresses” more health but without more expression of the forces of ii through the matter, the law of life (ii)is not more fully expressed. They may look, feel and appear to be expressing more health/life but they really are not (According to our definition of life/health). Appearances/empirical observations can be fooled and often are. That’s why medicine has archived such a level of success and why chiropractors desire to copy it.

      • Don 11/07/2013, 10:15 pm:

        Thank you for looking at my deductions.

        EB/matter can educatedly overcome an innate function.
        This is one example of limitations of matter but not all limitations are the result of EB, or are they?

        Reggie ha said that the properties of matter IS the limitation of matter.
        I interpret this to mean that you cannot make nerve tissue (assuming we have classified it correctly ;)) do something that the properties of nerve tissue cannot.
        Am I correct in my thinking about limitations of matter in this regard?
        Thanks again.

        Deductions 1 through 4
        1. II expresses through matter.
        2. Matter is always limited.
        3. Since matter is always limited, II is always limited to varying degrees by the matter it expresses through.
        4. II cannot overcome these limitations SOMETIMES.

        • Steve 11/08/2013, 12:49 am:

          Please reread P.24, It seems to be an absolute.

          • Don 11/08/2013, 8:27 am:

            Not sure if that was for me but I did it anyway. LOL!

            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.

            I don’t think I have a firm grasp on the limits of matter.
            As I understand it, (as always please correct me if I am wrong here..)
            limitations of matter are the properties of matter that are universal and applicable to every individual regardless of adaptive ability or state of adaptation.
            I like to think of it in the sens of the molecules that make up the matter. Oxygen molecules have certain properties that Magnesium does not. Innate has to adapt forces with those universal laws that are immutable in place and limiting it.
            Interesting thought I just had….what would happen to matter and its limitations if these universal laws/properties of matter were not in place for a day?
            Limitless ability of all matter and every molecule would have all properties of all other molecule. Just my speculation though. 🙂

        • JoeStrauss 11/08/2013, 7:53 pm:

          Don, I’m no sure whether we can put a sometimes/ often/occasional description on the ii of the body’s ability to overcome limitations of matter..

          • Don 11/09/2013, 5:49 pm:

            Fair enough.

          • Don 11/09/2013, 5:54 pm:

            How would you change my deductions 1 through 4 to make it logical?

        • JoeStrauss 11/10/2013, 5:56 pm:

          Don, I like your deductions. The only small change I might offer is the use of the word “living” before matter in deductions 1-3(a)

  5. Claude Lessard 11/08/2013, 12:08 pm:


    Educated brain IS an organ and IS matter and IS limited. Live IS an organ and IS matter and IS limited. An organ is ONLY an organ… matter is only matter. It is intelligence that is limited by limitation of matter. To prove it, just look at all the injuries sustained due to sports. Indeed, the thoughts (product of educated) involved, do promote injuries which in turn increase the limitation of matter. Like, Gomer would say: “Stupid is as stupid does”. 😉

    • Claude Lessard 11/08/2013, 12:08 pm:


      • Steve 11/08/2013, 3:06 pm:

        Sports injuries happen when LOM is exceeded. This does not explain EB affecting LOM. LOM is set or determined by UI is it not? Is that not what our P. 1 states?
        Hey, are you calling me a Gomer, I think you mean Forest Gump.

        • Claude Lessard 11/08/2013, 4:58 pm:


          Yeah. I meant Forrest Gump! –

          – Limitation of is intrinsic to matter. It is WITHIN the genetic code of the matter of the species. Genetic code is matter. Universal intelligence does NOT set or determine limitation of matter. Notice that the major premise states: A universal intelligence is IN all matter… Universal intelligence is our START POINT. There is a FIRST CAUSE beyond the major premise and it is NOT within the realm of chiropractic philosophy. –

          – Therefore, the question is: If vertebral subluxations further increase the limitation of the transmitting matter, doe the choice made by educated intelligence of playing football, for example, increase the possibilities of VS?

          • Steve 11/08/2013, 5:59 pm:

            Wait, what, “Universal intelligence does NOT set or determine limitation of matter.”????? How about “Gives to it all it’s properties and actions and thus maintains it in existence”? Isn’t “Limits” a property of matter?

  6. Claude Lessard 11/08/2013, 2:29 pm:


    You asked: “what would happen to matter and its limitations if these universal laws/properties of matter were not in place for a day?” –

    – From the major premise we can deduce that matter would not be maintained in existence by universal intelligence and would cease to exist.

    • Steve 11/08/2013, 3:22 pm:

      If we cancel P.1, we end up with Matter homeless, with no property and no hope of a relocation due to lack of organization. 😉

  7. Claude Lessard 11/08/2013, 6:42 pm:


    Universal intelligence does NOT create matter! When matter was created, it was created with limitation intrinsic within matter itself. Time is the same. Universal intelligence gives to all of matter properties and action thus maintaining it in existence. Universal intelligence creates instructive information in order to maintain matter in existence. Universal intelligence does NOT create matter. “A universal intelligence is in all matter…” implies the existence of matter with its genetic codes which includes the limitations of matter that is maintained in existence by the law of organization. Universal intelligence does NOT create the limits of matter and time. Universal intelligence simply maintains matter in existence. The limitation of matter is contained within matter itself which mean it is contained within the genetic code which varies from species to species, from matter to matter. It is extremely important to understand that in order to NOT personalize the law of organization (universal intelligence). Universal laws do NOT create anything.

  8. David Suskin 03/28/2015, 3:46 pm:

    Instinct in many cases(not all), may serve the survival of an organism.
    Yes, I understand p21, p23.
    Perhaps this is once again an intelligent design question.
    It sometimes seems that we suggest ii’s role in organized living matter,
    That SURVIVES.
    If instinct is a product of matter only, as a built into it function, aiding survival, EXISTENCE, then does ii have anything to do with it?
    Instinct serves an adaptive purpose, many times.
    It would seem that these questions I pods that involve the intelligent design of MATTER falls on deaf ears, perhaps suggesting that THIS QUESTION IS NOT A CHIROPRACTIC SUBJECT. or is it?
    I don’t want agreement. I want opinion and discussion.
    If the action of matter represents instinctively intelligent processes, does ii have involvement with that positive, existing, life enabling instinct, in terms of its creation?

Leave a Reply

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