It is my opinion that the 33 Principles are perhaps the most scrutinized writings in Chiropractic history. However, they have stood the test of time and are as true today as they when they were first formulated by Dr. B.J. Palmer and written down in 1927 by Dr. R.W. Stephenson in "The Chiropractic Textbook".
However, I think there is one problem with them. Principle #30 (The Causes of Dis-ease) states on page xxxiii, "Interference with the transmission of Innate forces causes incoordination of (emphasis mine) dis-ease."
Later in the Senior Text portion of the book, each of the 33 Principles are discussed in great detail. On page 301, Article 364, it states that the definition of the Cause of Dis-ease is, "Interference with the transmission of Innate forces causes incoordination or (empahsis mine) dis-ease.
It is my opinion that this is the correct definition of Principle #30 and one typo that has gone unnoticed throughout chiropractic history. In fact, it was Dr. Rob Sinnott that first brought my attention to this matter and it makes total sense to me. Interference with Innate forces causes either incoordination or dis-ease.
The first definition brings about the question of cause and effect. Do you need to have dis-ease to cause incoordination. Are they mutually exclusive as the word "or" would indicate or is there a possessive relationship as "of" would indicate?
To me the correct wording should be "or" and I think about all the websites, posters, books, and other Chiropractic material that have carried on this typo for 82 years. I don't know about you, but I am making the correction in my Stephenson's Text Book today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow, it's surprising how we get on "auto-pilot" when we read and that the change of a single letter can actually change the entire meaning of a principle.
ReplyDeleteWell, what if both are right? Since the subluxation can be argued to be both a good and bad thing (a compensation for stress that is and manifestation of that), then couldn't you argue that you could have an interference of dis-ease, thus causing the millions of different ways it's expressed?
Wow... that is a REALLY astute observation. Good stuff!
ReplyDeleteThe language of the 1927 text is sometimes stilted and this may be an example of that. Perhaps they are both saying the same thing from a slightly different perspective. If there is interference with the transmission of mental impulses there is incoordination of function which is by definition dis-ease hence the "incoordination of disease", in the context of Principle 30. The later reference then just clarifies the definition by saying "incoordination or dis-ease" as if to say, "incoordination or, in other words, dis-ease".
ReplyDeletea—used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation b—used as a function word to indicate the cause, motive, or reason
ReplyDeleteThese are two of the definitions listed on merriam.com for the word "of"
Depending on the language of the time, it may not have been a typo. I don't know. Dan Lyons has a collection of old dictionaries. He may have one dated around 1927 that may clarify it. I can see by these two definitions above that it could actually work.