Power vs. Force

January 29, 2014 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Spinewave Bulletin 

power-vs-forcePower vs. Force, by David R. Hawkins, MD, PhD.

“On examination, we’ll see that power arises from meaning. It has to do with motive, and it has to do with principle. Power is always associated with that which supports the significance of life itself. It appeals to that part of human nature that we call noble – in contrast to force, which appeals to that which we call crass. Power appeals to what uplifts, dignifies, and enobles. Force must always be justified, whereas power requires no justification. Force is associated with the partial, power with the whole.

If we analyze the nature of force, it becomes readily apparent why it must always succumb to power; this is in accordance with one of the basic laws of physics. Because force automatically creates counterforce, its effect is limited by definition. We could say that force is a movement – it goes from here to there (or tries to) against opposition. Power, on the other hand, is still. It’s like a standing field that doesn’t move. Gravity itself, for instance, doesn’t move against anything. Its power moves all objects within its field, but the gravity field itself does not move.

Force always moves against something, whereas power doesn’t move against anything at all. Force is incomplete and therefore it has to be fed energy constantly. Power is total and complete in itself and requires nothing from outside. It makes no demands; it has no needs. Because force has an insatiable appetite, it constantly consumes. Power, in contrast, energizes, gives forth, supplies, and supports. Power gives life and energy – force takes these away. We notice that power is associated with compassion and makes us feel positively about ourselves. Force is associated with judgment and makes us feel poorly about ourselves.

Force always creates counterforce; its effect is to polarize rather than unify. Polarization always implies conflict; its cost, therefore, is always high. Because force incites polarization, it inevitably produces a win/lose dichotomy; and because somebody always loses, enemies are created. Constantly faced with enemies, force requires constant defence. Defensiveness is invariably costly, whether in the marketplace, politics, or international affairs.

In looking for the source of power, we’ve noted that it’s associated with meaning, and this meaning has to do with the significance of life itself. Force is concrete, literal, and arguable. It requires proof and support. The sources of power, however, are inarguable and aren’t subject to proof. The self-evident isn’t arguable. That health is more important than disease, that honour is preferable to dishonour, that faith and trust are preferable to doubt and cynicism, that the constructive is preferable to the destructive – all are self-evident statements not subjects to proof. Ultimately, the only thing we can say about a source of power that it just “is”.

Every civilization is characterised by native principles. If the principles of a civilization are noble, it succeeds; if they’re selfish, it falls. As a term, principles may sound abstract, but the consequences of principle are quite concrete. If we examine principles, we’ll see that they reside in an invisible realm within consciousness itself. Although we can point out examples of honesty in the world, honesty itself as an organising principle central to civilization does not independently exist anywhere in the external world. True power, then, emanates from consciousness itself; what we see is a visible manifestation of the invisible.”

Reference: Hawkins, D. R. Power vs. force: the hidden determinants of human behavior. USA. Veritas Publishing. 1995.


Resolution of life-long clumsiness in a 9-year old boy over 6 weeks.

mr clumsy clumsiness chiropracticProprioception is the ability of your brain to sense the relative position of your body parts in space, and the ability to move your body accurately without having to look at what you are doing. Without accurate proprioception you would not be able to drive a car as you would need to constantly look at what your arms and legs were doing. When proprioceptive function is impaired, for instance not knowing precisely where your leg is when your eyes are closed, you are more likely to be clumsy and accident prone.

Seemingly without effort, we adjust our movements to continuously changing environments. After initiation of a goal-directed movement, the motor command from the brain is under constant control of sensory feedback loops. The main sensory signals contributing to movement control are vision and proprioception. The posterior parietal cortex (rear part of the brain) plays a prominent role in processing sensory information for movement control. A recent study has shown that there is an area in this part of the brain which processes proprioceptive information only when coordinating your body1. This means that if the parietal cortex is not wired right, and you close your eyes, the clumsiness will be evident (see video below).

Chiropractic care assists brain function in many ways, one of which is proprioceptive function, and this improves the accuracy of the internal brain map so your brain knows exactly what is going on all the time. This process of accurately wiring the brain is especially important during childhood as the brain matures through to age twenty ■ Read more

Evidence based medicine is broken

January 13, 2014 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Research, Spinewave Bulletin 

evidence based medicine researchEvidence based medicine (EBM) wrong footed the drug industry for a while in the 1990s. We could fend off the army of pharmaceutical representatives because often their promotional material was devoid of evidence. But the drug industry came to realise that EBM was an opportunity rather than a threat.

Research, especially when published in a prestigious journal, was worth more than thousands of sales representatives. Today EBM is a loaded gun at clinicians’ heads. “You better do as the evidence says,” it hisses, leaving no room for discretion or judgment. EBM is now the problem, fueling overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

You see, without so called “evidence” there is no seat at the guideline table. This is the fundamental “commissioning bias,” the elephant in the room, because the drug industry controls and funds most research. So the drug industry and EBM have set about legitimising illegitimate diagnoses and then widening drug indications, and now doctors can prescribe a pill for every ill. The billion prescriptions a year in England in 2012, up 66% in one decade, do not reflect a true increased burden of illness nor an ageing population, just polypharmacy supposedly based on evidence. The drug industry’s corporate mission is to make us all sick however well we feel. As for EBM screening programmes, these are the combine harvester of wellbeing, producing bails of overdiagnosis and misery.

Corruption in clinical research is sponsored by billion dollar marketing razzmatazz and promotion passed off as postgraduate education. By contrast, the disorganised protesters have but placards and a couple of felt tip pens to promote their message, and no one wants to listen to tiresome naysayers anyway.

How many people care that the research pond is polluted, with fraud, sham diagnosis, short term data, poor regulation, surrogate ends, questionnaires that can’t be validated, and statistically significant but clinically irrelevant outcomes? Medical experts who should be providing oversight are on the take. Even the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Cochrane Collaboration do not exclude authors with conflicts of interest, who therefore have predetermined agendas. The current incarnation of EBM is corrupted, let down by academics and regulators alike.

What do we do? We must first recognise that we have a problem. Research should focus on what we don’t know. We should study the natural history of disease, research non-drug based interventions, question diagnostic criteria, tighten the definition of competing interests, and research the actual long term benefits of drugs while promoting intellectual scepticism. If we don’t tackle the flaws of EBM there will be a disaster, but I fear it will take a disaster before anyone will listen.

Reference: Des Spence, GP, Glasgow. British Medical Journal. BMJ 2014;348:g22

  • Symptoms (72)
  • Most Recent Symptoms

  • Archives

  • Search

  • Case of the Month

    Reviews of complex cases are frequently researched and updated in this category. Alternatively use the search bar above.

    Video Audio Ebooks
  • SpineWave Bulletin

    Sign up to receive our newsletter: a cutting edge knowledge update including case studies, research, videos, blog, and Dr Neil's periodic existential outrospection.
  • Contact

    09 522 0025
    Suite 1, 102 Remuera Road, Auckland
    Click here for practice hours
  • Social Media