Q&A# 74


What is the difference between taking the philosophy exactly as DD and BJ presented it or taking what they  gave us and refining and expanding upon it? How do we insure that in doing the latter we are not changing their original intent?

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 9 comments

  1. Ronen Mendi 07/12/2016, 2:22 am:

    DD and BJ gave us the foundation. Whatever we do, we always expend w our personal tweak on it. Even if we try not to change, there is our innate input thst is different w any adjustment we give.

    • Joe Strauss 07/13/2016, 12:59 pm:

      Ronen, I’m not sure that DD ever grasped what chiropractic was all about. (That will not make his acolytes happy) I think BJ did but by “mixing” “chiropractic gets sick people well” with his 33 principles, he confused the issue. Perhaps it was in deference to the old man’s concept. After all, how often do we do that? There are dozens of approaches to Christianity, very few teach what Jesus taught. When was the last time You sacrificed a lamb? (I assume you are Jewish, being an Israeli. I’m not judging those approaches any more than I judge someone’s approach to chiropractic. OSC is just reforming BJ’s true objective.

      There is no “innate input” from the chiropractor, except that without an innate intelligence the chiropractor could not thrust. Dead chiropractors do not adjust. Dead practice members do not receive an adjustment.

      • Claude Lessard 07/14/2016, 2:58 pm:

        It took years of evolutionary process of our educated intelligence to grasp and clarify the chiropractic objective. The morass of confusion was due to the limitations of our e/mater and the limitations of time. Would DD, BJ and RWS be alive today, they would lead objective chiropractic. In the early years of chiropractic (which we were NOT a part of), it was easy to “mix” things up, specially when the strong egos necessary to carry on that Big Job, came across adversities from, BOTH, outside-in and inside-out. The chiropractic objective IS the reformation of BJ’s true objective indeed. The chiropractic objective is the rational and logical conclusion of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science! Those 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science were “discovered” by DD, BJ and RWS. The chiropractic objective was “discovered” and concluded from the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science by COTB.

        • David Suskin 07/14/2016, 7:04 pm:

          You say that:
          ‘The morass of confusion was due to the limitations of our e/mater and the limitations of time.’
          Would not the opposite then be true. That there would be NO confusion if there were no limitations of e/matter or time. As I think I understand the word confusion, A 100% full expression of ii is No guarantee to a correct choice. Confusion would seem to take place as part of our intended design, where we validate the breath and veracity of the principles we discover through intuition, trial and error. Confusion is merely a symptom of being wrong. How else would we note the Truth, when found?
          Unless, without the limitations of matter or time, ii would display in a 100% full expression of innate forces, which would translate to consciousness as 100% Correct. I’m not sure you or I can make that case, unless?

          • Claude Lessard 07/14/2016, 8:44 pm:

            Confusion is due to principle #24 ALWAYS!!! VS further increases the limitations of e/matter. Therefore for those WHO choose to practice the chropractic objective, there is nothing “wrong” except VS. 😉

  2. David Suskin 07/14/2016, 10:06 pm:

    Per the chiropractic lexicon, confusion opposes coordination?
    Per the chiropractic objective, everything makes sense, even that which does not?

    • Claude Lessard 07/14/2016, 10:53 pm:


      The interference with TRANSMISSION of innate FORCES is between brain cell (e/matter) and tissue cell (e/matter). The interference is within e/matter ALWAYS. The limitation of e/matter is NOT wrong or right. It is a principle of chiropractic’s basic science… and VS further increases the limitation of e/matter. We went through this many times in past blogs over the last few years.

  3. David Suskin 07/14/2016, 11:48 pm:

    You have to remind me that we’re getting older!
    Well thank you very much. Nothing wrong. Nothing wrong 🙂

  4. David Suskin 07/15/2016, 2:02 am:

    Which bares (is) the greater Wrong?
    Disease or Dis-ease?

Leave a Reply

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