Hegelian logic teaches that if something is true then the opposite is, in fact, not true. This logic, applied to the human organism, says that if we can know what is abnormal then we can know what is normal. It is upon this thinking that the practice of medicine is based. The M.D. is able to determine that a bodily function is abnormal. For example, when the blood pressure reaches a certain point, a CVA may occur, or other physiological functions take place that may lead to death. From this the physician concludes that at a certain point the blood pressure is considered to be abnormal. Hegelian logic teaches that for every thesis there is an antithesis. If there is a level that is abnormal, then there must be a level that is normal. That is logical. However, the physician makes his error in concluding that if he is able to ascertain what is abnormal, then he is also able to determine what is normal. Here is where the logic breaks down and for a very simple reason. You cannot use the same reasoning for the thesis and the antithesis. If certain signs and symptoms are indicative of abnormality it does not follow that the absence of those signs and symptoms are indicative of a state of normalcy. The signs and symptoms of an abnormal state can be set down, memorized, and determined by diagnostic evaluation. The signs and symptoms of a normal state are not known. This type of logic says "if it is not black, it is white" when in fact there are numerous other shades in the spectrum between black and white. The problem in the medical realm then very clearly is attempting to ascertain a normal state using the same criteria with which an abnormal state is ascertained. Example 1: X is present, it is known to be abnormal, therefore lack of X indicates a state of normalcy. Example 2: Y is present. It is not known to be an indication of the abnormal, therefore Y is an indication of a state of normalcy. You cannot use the same criteria for normal and abnormal. Being normal is a continually changing adapting activity. Its signs or symptoms, whatever they might be, are not the opposite of the signs and symptoms of abnormality. Hegelian logic has its place and is valuable in certain philosophical discussion. In other situations it cannot be applied. John Calvin incorrectly applied Hegelian logic in coming to certain conclusions about predestination. Similarly those that utilize diagnostic methods, whether they call themselves chiropractors or medical doctors, base their thinking on the incorrect application of Hegelian logic. From this thinking they have based the entire practice of diagnosis.
VERTEBRAL SUBLUXATION COMPLEX
Is anybody else out there getting sick of hearing the above term? Somehow the straight movement has been lulled into accepting this term into our vocabulary. I have nothing against expanding our vocabulary, in fact, most of us could do well to increase our vocabulary. There is also nothing wrong with increasing our chiropractic vocabulary. However, two things must be kept in mind. First, it should not be done to describe an already existing concept or term in chiropractic. Redundancy in terminology only leads to confusion and heaven knows this profession already has enough confusion. Second, it should not be done to describe a medical entity. Chiropractic does not address itself to medical entities. It is not that we do not recognize their existence or perhaps their need to be addressed. It is just that they are not in the purview of the chiropractor. Vertebral subluxation is that to which chiropractors address themselves (of course speaking in idealistic terms). Vertebral subluxation is all that chiropractors address themselves to. Therefore I must conclude that vertebral subluxation complex is identical to vertebral subluxation. If so, why the need for the term? We have been very comfortable with "vertebral subluxation" for many years. If Vertebral Subluxation Complex (VSC) is describing something else, then, very simply, it is not chiropractic. From what I have read I have gotten the impression that VSC is attempting to describe the patho-physiological changes in the spine and surrounding structures that are thought to result from the presence of a vertebral subluxation over a brief or extended period of time. Whether these changes do occur or whether they are partially or totally the result of an osseous insult to the nervous system at the vertebral level is irrelevant. That is not the practice of chiropractic. It is the practice of medicine. I am sure that the individuals who are promulgating VSC upon the profession are sincere in their efforts. But then those who are attempting to sneak us in the back door of medicine or drag us in the front door are also sincere. Sincerity is not a virtue. More damage has been done to our profession by sincere people than by unscrupulous ones. Vertebral Subluxation Complex sounds impressive. Addressing ourselves to it may make us feel more important. It sounds scientific and being able to explain the various stages, components, and effects that are included in it may make us more acceptable to the medical community. But if it does, it is because we are beginning to talk in terms and about conditions that they can relate to and that, friends, is the greatest danger. When we deal with terms and conditions that the medical community can understand and relate to, we are becoming them.
MENTAL IMPULSES AND NERVE IMPULSES
Occasionally we use the terms "mental impulse" and "nerve impulse" interchangeably. While it probably does no harm when we are explaining chiropractic to patients, nevertheless we should strive for proper use of our technical vocabulary. There are some basic philosophical differences. A mental impulse is a metaphysical thing. It is an innate force traveling over the specialized tissue of the nervous system (at least in the human organism). It is the expressed wish of the innate intelligence of the body. It is always perfect, in every respect. The nerve impulse, on the other hand, is a physical thing. It brings about action at its point of destination but that action is not necessarily the desire of the innate intelligence. Supplying an electrical charge to a frog's leg can cause the muscles to contract, resulting in movement. You have created a nerve impulse. It has resulted in action but not in adaptative activity (especially if the frog is dead). There is an interesting concept that we deduce from this. The mental impulse is a nerve impulse that the innate intelligence is using for constructive purposes. We have said that mental impulses are innate forces. Therefore, the nerve impulses, if not an innate force, can only be one other thing a universal force. The ramifications of that deduction are great. As a universal force it has the potential destructive capabilities of any universal force. The subluxation causes an innate force (mental impulse) to become a universal force (nerve impulse). So instead of the rock on the garden hose concept of interference that was a simplistic explanation of subluxation we have something more. Using the garden hose analogy: instead of a soft, fine spray of water coming out of the hose which will water the newly seeded lawn, we have the forceful quality of a violent stream which can wash away the seed. The water is the same. The intelligent manner in which the water is directed will make the difference. I don't allow my five-year-old to water my newly seeded ground because she does not have the ability to direct the water in a soft, fine spray. In the body, the subluxation creates a universal force (nerve impulse) out of an innate force (mental impulse) which was previously a universal force that the innate intelligence of the body had changed into an innate force. Confusing? Here it is in a diagram form:
The tissue cell is receiving a universal force in the form of a nerve impulse. The cell's (tissue or organs) innate intelligence, functioning apart from the innate intelligence of the body(due to the subluxation) must adapt that universal force and change it into an innate force within the cell (tissue or organ). But that innate force is only "worthwhile" as far as the individual cell is concerned because the cell is functioning on its own. This is why a cell can continue to exist and live in the body without the control of the innate intelligence of the body. Its cellular intelligence keeps it alive, within limitations of the cell's matter. If limitations are too great, it will die. Being alive it still performs functions. Those functions, like the jumping of the frog's leg, are not under the direction of the innate intelligence of the body. The cell's function is detrimental to the over-all well being of the body. The innate intelligence may have to work to compensate for this hyper- or hypo-function. If the cells are too great a detriment to the organism, then the body will endeavor to destroy them. This, of course, is a last resort measure of the innate intelligence. It is always hopeful the nerve interference can be removed and the cell can be "brought back to the fold." If enough cells are functioning out of control and the body's innate intelligence is limited in its ability to compensate then a diagnosable disease is present. The cells that are living for themselves, relying on the cellular intelligence to adapt universal forces, die very easily. Cells that are under the control of the body's wisdom have the benefit of the entire body. The impulses are mental (intelligently directed) making them of the proper quantity and quality. The "outcast" cells have to fend for themselves.
This philosophical concept offers an explanation for the fact that cells do not always die when deprived of mental impulses due to a vertebral subluxation. It offers an explanation of why hyperfunction occurs. It gives an explanation for the "all or none" principle of nerve transmission and explains the function of a atrophic impulse. Most importantly, it reminds us of the importance of correcting vertebral subluxation.
ORGANIZATION
Philosophically, we often ascribe to universal intelligence or universal forces a negative connotation, especially when compared to the constructive action of innate intelligence. We observe that innate intelligence builds universal matter (steak and mashed potatoes) into innate matter (living human tissue). We also observe that universal forces which are the manifestation of universal intelligence tend to be "destructive toward structural matter." Hence the somewhat negative connotation. Here is the dilemma. How can universal intelligence be destructive and yet good. We use the concept of anabolism/catabolism as an analogy. We also attempt to explain it from the aspect of the nitrogen cycle. It is necessary for the perpetuation of planet earth. Both of these explanations are valid and help clarify the problem. However, there is another explanation that may even make clearer the principle of universal intelligence. Universal intelligence is a law or principle of organization that manifests itself in all matter (Principle Number 1, the Major Premise) unlike innate intelligence which is a law or principle that manifests itself through a unique type of matter (living). From this we are able to conclude that universal intelligence organizes matter on the atomic level because all matter, living and non living, is made up of atoms. Here is the concept: universal intelligence is concerned with organization. One characteristic of good organization is stability. Whether it's the local women's club or the human body, stability denotes organization and organization bespeaks intelligence. The innate intelligence of the body maintains a stable internal temperature despite the outside temperature fluctuations. Because matter is most stable at its atomic level, universal intelligence tends to reduce all matter to its most organized, most stable level. That is not destructive, although we perceive it that way. It is, in fact, an indication of greater organization and superior intelligent action. What does that have to do with the practice of chiropractic? Nothing really, it's just interesting to talk about.
Actually, though, it does have some significance to us. There is scientific discussion as to whether the universe tends toward disorder. From a chiropractic, philosophical standpoint, we conclude that it is moving toward a greater degree of order by matter being reduced to its most orderly state--the atomic level. The scientist views this process in its partially completed state and says there is disorder. That is the same as me walking into the house while my wife is cleaning and rearranging the furniture. It appears at that moment as total disorder but, when the job is completed, the living room will be arranged in a much more orderly and functional manner. The scientist that does not have a background in chiropractic philosophical understanding comes to a wrong conclusion. So the concept is, after all, significant. That is just another example of how philosophy impinges upon and gives meaning to confusing or apparently inexplicable aspects of science.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
My desire is to correct subluxations. I do this for no other reason than because they are a detriment to the well-being of the human organism. I do this not out of dedication to a person or belief system. I do it because reason dictates it. I guide my professional life by a set of standards I call principles. I will not abandon those principles. I will not change to join the majority, the mainstream, or those who adhere to what is commonly called "accepted thought." Quite frankly, those groups have never impressed me as being very principled, as living by the strength of their convictions, or as being very often right. I cannot be bought off with money, whether it be high fees or the promise of insurance dollars. It is not that I am opposed to making money in chiropractic. I enjoy acquiring money. But not at the cost of compromising my integrity or my ideals. Everybody has something upon which they will not put a price. For me it is the principles with which I govern my life. If I have to practice without those principles in order to be rich, I would rather be poor. I will not conform to the medical model that some in the profession are trying to force upon me. If others desire to practice in that manner, that is their prerogative. I will not. It conflicts with my philosophy. Threats, legal action, or broadened state laws will not change me. I may break but I will not bend. No, you heard correctly, I will not bend. My philosophy is uncommon. Those that oppose my manner of practice may succeed in making illegal the way I practice. I will fight them every step of the way. I will not bend, compromise, or accede to that which is in conflict with my principles. In the end they may win. If and when that time comes I will close my doors and accept the situation with the same integrity and dignity I now conduct myself. There are many ways to earn a living. I can be broken but I will not bend. As dear and precious as practicing chiropractic is to me, the thought of practicing without principle would never be a consideration. I could not do it. I am a straight chiropractor.
