Q&A #42 “things natural”

10

What did B.J. mean by the use of the term things natural” in his 1927 definition found in Stephenson’s Textbook?

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 10 comments

  1. Stamatis Tsamoutalidis 11/20/2013, 9:45 pm:

    I always thought “things natural” was used to distinguish it from religious or supernatural “things”.

  2. Claude Lessard 11/21/2013, 1:26 pm:

    It seems to me, that BJ did NOT want to impose limitations on HOW to LACVS to get the sick well. He was already in trouble with x-rays and NCM issues from the field chiropractors. BJ lost many followers based on that definition. –

    – Ironically, BJ felt that, the UCA definition of chiropractic, and the one of Dorland’s Dictionary were limiting its SCOPE. If you check the definition of Dorland’s Dictionary of 1927, you will find a definition of chiropractic that is incomplete since it did not mentioned philosophy, science and art. Yet, notice that Dorland’s mentioned “palpation of the spinal column to ascertain vertebral subluxations…” and THAT did NOT fit BJ’s move toward pattern analysis! Thus, the introduction of the term “things natural” within BJ’s definition of chiropractic. –

    – Today, there are broader and broader scopes of practice in many States. We’ve got a lot of cleaning up to do and that includes the definition of chiropractic.

  3. Steve 11/22/2013, 10:34 pm:

    Let us start at the end, namely with the words “things Natural.” The
    words “things Natural” are designedly used to exclude and eliminate
    any intervention of a supernatural or divine character. In other words,
    to exclude miracles in the strict sense of the word; to distinguish
    Chiropractic from religion or any healing of a miraculous kind. Vol.23, 1950 Pg 833
    Stamatis nailed it.

  4. Steven Sciame 11/22/2013, 10:37 pm:

    A.D.I.O.

    • JoeStrauss 11/23/2013, 12:45 pm:

      Steve, if “things natural” is epitomized by A.D.I.O. (and I agree that it is) why do you think so many people live their lives outside-in?

      • Steven Sciame 11/27/2013, 9:58 pm:

        Hi Joe!

        The prevailing O-I culture shaped the direction of the word’s definition and typical use, IMHO.

  5. Steve 11/27/2013, 10:45 pm:

    I have read they estimate half the world population should be left handed, with no explanation as to why it isn’t so. Same could be said here A-D and O-I are both halves of the same cycle, why not an even split of the populous views?

    • Claude Lessard 11/27/2013, 11:36 pm:

      Many things that chiropractors feel are “non-negotiables” (like “without the use of drugs and surgery”) today are at a major variance with what the 33 principles teach and emphasize. How can you read principles 13, 21, 23 and 29 and not know, for example, that the chiropractic objective is about the full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body? –

      – Wouldn’t you think the clear non-negotiable within the science of the 33 principles of chiropractic is LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body? Over the years, that’s not what the profession emphasized at all. That could have changed history. The profession was not interested in changing this world. It was more interested in fitting within this world and we ended up pretty much like everybody else in this world. –

      – The emergence of the chiropractic objective is necessarily, inclusive of every one regardless of creed, race, religion, culture, health status or financial ability to pay and not trapped inside any one class with its historical biases, accidents and limitations. Chiropractors WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective now recognize that the chiropractic profession, aligned most of its history with getting sick people well, had no freedom or ability to hear the clear teaching of the science of the 33 principles on the chiropractic objective which is: LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD!

      • JoeStrauss 11/28/2013, 3:40 pm:

        If you don’t negotiate the non negotiables, (LACVS for a full expression…) you never have to worry about negotiating the NOT negotiables (… the use of drugs and surgery). In other words if the former objective is a given, the latter, (nothing more, nothing less) is never even an issue. IMO when we began to negotiate the former, it left us open to considering and perhaps accepting the latter, not even a chiropractic issue. Thanks Claude, for making my Thanksgiving a Thinksgiving

    • JoeStrauss 11/28/2013, 4:17 pm:

      Perhaps because more people are concerned with the “I” (as in me, myself , and I) than with the “A” (as in God “above”). That’s why some refer to ADIO as divine viewpoint and O-I as human viewpoint. The most beautiful, perfect and smartest creature ever created said “I will be like the Most High”. There’s your sermon for the day, you are now free to go eat your turkey (unless of course you are a vegetarian, in which case you still have a perfect free will and can choose):)!

Leave a Reply

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