Are You a Participant or an Observer?


Do you take an active part in the practice of chiropractic or are you just standing there as a bystander, observing what is happening. I like to think of myself as a participant in the adjustment, in the correction of the vertebral subluxation. I realize that I am not a major participant. The location and the analysis of a vertebral subluxation requires active participation on my part and I try to be as good at it as I possibly can. That necessitates developing my technical skills to the best of my ability. I am also a participant in the correction of the vertebral subluxation. If I am honest I must admit that my participation on that level is a good deal less than my participation in the location and analysis. I locate (L) and analyze (A) but I really do not play a major role in the correction (C) of the vertebral subluxation (VS). The major role is played by the innate intelligence of the practice member’s body. I would like to think that my facilitation is a major contribution but I know that any external invasive force, even turning over in bed in one’s sleep can do it. My consolation is that no one else in the world (except another chiropractor) has that objective and is able to participate in that event. Doing that, I call myself an objective straight chiropractor. There are thousands of chiropractors that LACVS. However, for many of them, their objective is different, not the same as mine. Some of them have the intention, the objective, of relieving a person’s aches or pains. That is a worthwhile objective, but not one that everbody needs, only those with aches or pains. Do some people who come to see me desire to have their vertebral subluxations LAC. Yes. Is my intention to do that? Definitely, Do some come to see me with a medical condition (like aches or pains)? I am not an active participant in their objective. If it is to relieve their ache or pain, I am not a participant in that event or activity I am just an observer. There are other (traditional) chiropractors who LACVS to enable sick people to get well. They may claim that vertebral subluxation is a disease or that it is the cause of a disease and they think, by LACVS they are participating in that action, taking an active part in the person getting well.
In the wetlands of southern New Jersey there is a piece of land , owned by a gentleman, on which there is mud, a special kind of mud. Apparently its location is secret but the guy sells and ships his mud all over the U.S., to every professional baseball stadium where some of it is rubbed on baseballs before the game. It supposedly takes the gloss off the new ball and makes it better for use. Suppose this guy would travel over the Walt Whitman Bridge into South Philadelphia and catch a ballgame between the Phillies and the New York Mets. In the top of the ninth the Phillies are leading 1-0, with 2 outs, the bases loaded, and a 3-2 count, Jonathan Papelbon throws a perfect curve ball, strikes out the Met’s hitter and ends the game. Does the “mudmaker” in the stands consider himself a participant in the shutout? Does he tell all those around him that he helped win the game? Suppose the Met’s hitter had gotten a basehit, drove in two runs and the Phillies had lost the game? Would he take partial responsibility for the loss? Participants in a team sport can all take part of the credit (or blame) but the guy who sells the mud cannot. He is just an observer, a fan of the game. His participation ended long before the game even started. Our participation in getting sick people well ends after the force is introduced into the spine, before the adjustment takes place and they begin to get well. Everything else is done by the “team”; the innate intelligence and the matter of the body itself.
All over the country, that night, some of those balls with his mud on them were hit out of the park, some of them were swung at and missed and some were caught as routine fly balls to left field. But none of them were credited or blamed for the win or loss.
The whole Phillies team can take credit for the win over the Mets. Papelbon can perhaps take a little more credit, so can the catcher who called for that particular pitch. So can the right fielder who made a spectacular catch in the 4th inning to save a hit and prevent two runs from scoring. But the mud supplier cannot. At the game he is just an observer. He may revel in the Phillies’ victory (if he’s a Phillies fan). He may leave thinking that was an exciting, entertaining and well-played game (if he’s a Mets fan, yes there are probably Mets fans living in south Jersey.) But he cannot take the credit or the blame for the final outcome of the game.
I’m a participant in the correction of vertebral subluxation. I can take some of the credit for it. But when it comes to a person getting well from a disease or other medical condition, I cannot take the credit anymore than any Phillies or Mets fans who bought tickets can take credit for enabling the Phillies to pay the money to get Papelbon to come to Philadelphia. The money was paid to watch a baseball game, to be entertained, period. I contribute nothing more to the Phillies winning or nothing to them losing. In chiropractic we are not paid to get sick people well. If we were we should give refunds to those who do not get well. We are paid to deliver an educated external invasive force. Did my external invasive force contribute to a sick person getting well? Perhaps. But then so did the positive survival values accumulated over his/her lifetime as well as the genetic material of the person’s ancestors. Did the adjustment contribute more than their genetic factors, and the other positive survival values that they chose to contribute? I don’t know. In the end I know it was the innate intelligence of the person’s body that got them well. There are people who get well every day without an adjustment and people who don’t get well even with an adjustment. I’m a participant in the correction of the person’s vertebral subluxation, a minor player in that action. The correction of that subluxation may be part of the cause of that person getting well. The medical profession has said for years that it is not. I like to think that it is and I can rejoice with the practice member in them getting well from a disease. Just like the Phillies fans can leave the ballpark shouting “we won!” But that is an observer’s vicarious claim. We should, give and rightly so, the credit to the innate intelligence of the body not to chiropractic and not to the chiropractor. In fact when we receive praise and thanks , we usually say “don’t thank me, thank your body, give the credit to your body” That’s why we maintain that “only the body heals itself.” We are major participants in the location, analysis and minor participants in the correction of vertebral subluxation but after that we are no longer participants, just observers. That to me is a difference between an objective straight chiropractor and a traditional one.

Be Sociable, Share!

This article has 25 comments

  1. Steve 12/01/2014, 10:39 pm:

    You hit that one out of the park Joe.

    • Claude 12/02/2014, 12:32 am:

      Steve was on first, Don on second, David on third, Joseph at bat and I was on deck! Grand Slam!!! Game over! 🙂

  2. David Suskin 12/02/2014, 3:14 pm:

    This Special Mud. How special is it really? What makes it special? Why the big secret?
    How special are you Claude, are you Steve, are you Don, are you Joseph, am I?
    Is Chiropractic really that Special? Is the Chiropractor really that Special? Are the PM’s really that Special? Are people really that Special?
    Is special really that Special?
    Or is it really just One Big Game?

    • Steve 12/02/2014, 6:15 pm:

      I’m starting to think you’re “special” Davey

      • David Suskin 12/02/2014, 6:49 pm:

        Thanks Steve,
        You are special too and I’m not just sayin that.
        I guess that’s P27 plus perhaps, ONLY perhaps, a little heart & soul

      • Joe Strauss 12/02/2014, 11:01 pm:

        Steve, Re: David, do you mean as in “a special needs child”

    • Joe Strauss 12/02/2014, 11:19 pm:

      It’s special because he is the only one who has it to sell or so everybody thinks. I don’t know how special it can be when every pitcher rubs it when a new ball is tossed to him.
      We are all special. While our ii is the same , it is being expressed through different genetic material, different matter in every person in the world. That’s a chiropractic philosophical concept which motivated Seymour Fisher, D.C. to write an essay entitled “Chiropractic is individualistic, Medicine is a collectivistic philosophy” or something like that. Just had it on my desk yesterday and cannot find it today.

      • David Suskin 12/03/2014, 12:17 am:

        Identical twins.
        Same genetic material. Different matter, like 2 glasses of water from the same source, but identical water composition.
        Same ii, or so presumed (as it’s been said),
        Something doesn’t fit

        • Claude Lessard 12/03/2014, 2:45 am:


          You cannot step in the same river twice. It fits if It is you WHO choose! 😉

          • David Suskin 12/03/2014, 4:03 am:

            Does individualism stem from the ability to choose, a manifestation of the principles of the Authority which includes the triune (intelligence, force, matter), educated intelligence, with emphasis on the constant change and flux that comes from universal intelligence giving the properties and actions to e/matter maintaining all matter in an ever changing existence within time within the realm of cause and effect?
            What do you mean? 😉

        • Joe Strauss 12/03/2014, 2:23 pm:

          David, apparently identical twins are different, “difference” is more than just genetics otherwise the parents would not be able to tell them apart (even if its because they dress them differently). They don’t even need genetic testing, just as, while two glasses of water are the same in composition their “container” is different and as long as they are in separate and distinct containers, they are different. Siamese, conjoined twins, have one innate intelligence , separate them and they have two.

          • David Suskin 12/03/2014, 2:38 pm:

            You make things so simple and I make things so difficult.
            To much judgement in that statement I think.
            You say:
            ‘ apparently identical twins are different’
            Yes apparently so. So there must be something else?
            Kind of like the Triune in living matter >> Since there is constructive and active organization, there must be something else besides UI. That would imply II.
            Siamese twins – One Innate… hmmmmmmm
            but 2 brains, 2 nervous systems?? Just shared organs (other) (sometimes). Why couldn’t that situation be 2 innates living side by side. Haven’t you seen Siamese twins argue amongst themselves 😉
            Seriously, how do you deduce that, as an absolute?
            Not critical.
            I get your point about >> difference between all living matter, even if genetics are the same.
            Question: How do you survive with Baseball season over? 😉

          • Joe Strauss 12/03/2014, 7:15 pm:

            David, so while genetics does affect personality, conjoined twins must have something in addition to their genetics that makes up their essence and personality. The older I get the more my interests narrow. Baseball is one of those things that has lost some of its attraction. I don’t even attaché Phillies baseball cards to the spokes on my bicycle anymore.

          • David Suskin 12/03/2014, 7:45 pm:

            Baseball cards on the spokes! You are a funny guy. A found memory at that. Do they still makes clothes pins anymore? Funny man.
            Interests fading… If I am to take you seriously, the ole been there done that kind of thing. It can be quite ebby and flowy from year to year, even month to month, day to day…

            Anyway, with regards to you stating:
            ‘conjoined twins must have something in addition to their genetics that makes up their essence and personality.’

            Are we talking about matter here, or adapted matter (different from person to person).
            I tend to think that ii being the same in everyone, yet COMPLETELY SELFISH in task has that element of universality and individuality looked into that property. When it combines with universal matter (varied from person to person), even if genetics are the same, that plus the unique adaptations, plus what Claude speaks about (UI joined to Matter effecting the velocity, etc. of the atomic structures, IN FLUX, PLUS educated intelligence, plus consciousness-awareness-the SOUL, something we do NOT have to entertain or speak as part of the 33 p’s, WEll, Individuality can’t help but be a viable option in all, even though we tend on many levels to act like sheepish robots as the LOM take hold.
            Creativity, expressiveness, thought and human love and caring, and personal dignity, discovering the WHO, using ones ability to make Choices, Good Choices, under the Authority of Ethics, is All part of the equation, why memories of baseball cards rat tat tating on bicycle tire spokes makes grown men between the ages of 45-100 perhaps, smile.
            Maybe Claude IS right. It’s all about the WHO, and that is the gravy and the sauce we were talking about the other day.

          • Steve 12/03/2014, 9:40 pm:

            Well this is doubly interesting, conjoined bodies with one innate intelligence. BJ wrote of the Blazak twins (conjoined). One would experience indigestion the other not, one had diphtheria the other did not. I can understand them having different subluxations as they were independent to the mid-dorsals. With two brains and spinal cords they adapted individually, why not two innates working in harmony for the good of the unit?
            Joe, I know you don’t see the innate brain in the skull, but there are two distinct nerve systems that adapt the two separately?

          • Joe Strauss 12/04/2014, 2:07 am:

            Steve, you mean four “distinct nerve systems”. You and I both have two distinct nerve systems, sympathetic and parasympathetic. I have no problem with a conjoined person having 2 brains, two nerve systems, 2 hearts,4 kidneys and one innate intelligence being expressed through he whole shootin’ match. A person can have a sinus infection and their lungs can be clear even though they only have one innate intelligence. The lungs and the sinuses “adapted individually”.

      • David Suskin 12/03/2014, 9:15 am:

        Joe, Claude,
        Are you talking about congruency when you say WHO?
        Is your focus on the uniqueness of WHO?
        All matter even similar matter along with the adaptations of innate intelligence that have that must result in active organization MUST be unique within a given time and cause and effect?
        Chiropractic effects the transformation of the WHAT and the WHO of a person?
        Am I only stepping into the river once and expecting a different result?

        • Claude 12/03/2014, 3:21 pm:


          EVERYTHING is in FLUX! EVERYTHING!!! That’s WHY you won’t understand the “Fool on the hill”… he never gives an answer… do you know WHY?

          • David Suskin 12/03/2014, 4:06 pm:

            The answer is your own answer, not someone elses.
            We’re all fools to each other.
            The answer is no answer.
            The more questions, the more answers, the more answers, the more questions.
            If you’re not on the hill, then YOU’RE a fool. Make a Choice to go on the hill.
            The answer is everything and nothing.
            You can’t touch the metaphysical, just it’s footprint.
            See the sun going down
            And the eyes in your head
            See the world spinning around – Organization
            Everything is a Pointer to the Truth, not the Truth itself
            You’re own experience will speak the truth, not in words, but in
            momentary awareness.
            As soon as you understand it, you don’t
            WHY Claude? Now come on Claudo – Speak You’re Mind!
            WHO are you? WHO, WHO — WHO WHO?

  3. David Suskin 12/02/2014, 4:35 pm:

    The Observer of the Major Premise
    “The Fool On The Hill” (PM)

    Day after day, alone on the hill
    The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still
    But nobody wants to know him
    They can see that he’s just a fool
    And he never gives an answer

    But the fool on the hill
    Sees the sun going down
    And the eyes in his head
    See the world spinning around

    Well on the way, head in a cloud
    The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
    But nobody ever hears him
    Or the sound he appears to make
    And he never seems to notice

    But the fool on the hill
    Sees the sun going down
    And the eyes in his head
    See the world spinning around

    And nobody seems to like him
    They can tell what he wants to do
    And he never shows his feelings

    But the fool on the hill
    Sees the sun going down
    And the eyes in his head
    See the world spinning around

    He never listens to them
    He knows that they’re the fools
    They don’t like him

    The fool on the hill
    Sees the sun going down
    And the eyes in his head
    See the world spinning around

    • Claude 12/02/2014, 9:50 pm:

      Hey “Davey”,

      Could you sign that one like Paul? 😉

  4. David Suskin 12/02/2014, 11:01 pm:

    Ya know,
    You guys are great! 🙂

  5. Claude 12/03/2014, 5:38 pm:


    That’s the QUESTION! 😉

    • David Suskin 12/03/2014, 6:34 pm:

      Do you have an answer? yes/no
      Is the answer to complex? yes/no
      Is the question unanswerable? yes/no
      Am I beating a dead horse with an activator? yes/no
      Who is I AM? yes/no
      Who is on first? yes/no
      Stop yes/no 🙂

      • Claude 12/03/2014, 8:27 pm:


        As you said it is a question for me to answer to myself. 😉

Leave a Reply

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