Inner Dialogue Kinesiology
The history of Kinesiology
Kinesiology has a come a long way since the serendipitous observation, in the late sixties, of unilateral rhomboid dysfunction and the discovery of a lymphatic reflex that corrected the integrity of the muscle group.
Dr. George Goodheart DC who was the observer and the pioneer, developed with other Chiropractic clinicians the root foundation out of which came most of the current branches of kinesiology.
Two distinct branches developed:
[a] a clinical physical medicine model
[b] a psycho-therapeutic model.
These two then further developed side branches into the many procedures that are used today.
Clinical Kinesiology and hand modes
Clinical kinesiology [CK], originally researched by Dr. Alan Beardall DC came out of and was developed parallel to Applied Kinesiology. This new work introduced the use of hand modes. These holographic postural hand positions were found to talk directly to the homunculus of the sensory cortex. In some strange and as yet unidentified way the neocortex was able to read the symbol language embedded in the mudra. Human observation, clinical acumen, verbal questioning gave associative meaning to the mudras. Muscle change gave both the observer and the client, feedback as to neuronal tolerance or disturbance. Change was seen to be mediated through the neurological system and perhaps the acupuncture system to cause a local, segmented or global aberrant flurry of neuronal noise, which then altered the reflex arc at the local muscle level. The surprising observation being made that a weak muscle could change to strength, a strong one to apparent weakness.
By using mudras, and interpreting their language one could be directed to specific areas in the physical, emotional or chemical systems. The body was seen by Alan Beardall DC the founder and developer of CK, to communicate in a non verbal way back to the practitioner, guiding them to the most practical, efficient and precise level of therapeutic correction. He coined the phrase that the body was a biocomputer; and in much of his pioneering work, he utilized the terminology of the computer world.
The expansion of the original model
As kinesiology gained acceptance, and was market driven to be used as a tool for those who were not trained as primary care physicians, the use of the ‘muscle test’ gained ground. This spread was through the pioneering efforts of the likes of John Thie DC who bravely took Applied Kinesiology into the lay world and modified it as Touch for Health. John Diamond, Paul Dennison and in England, Brian Butler all contributed with variations on the theme.
Soon the verbal challenge became the norm, and ‘specific corrections’ were introduced as a modality to make changes. The AK module of the TL – therapy localization – and the observation that a human could also respond with muscle change when challenged with a verbal rather than with physical or chemical challenge developed the models that are now more familiar to the lay public. The question-response, challenge-response and correction-response modalities became the focus. The clinical emphasis was removed and the empirical model adopted.
The power of thought
With the use of both ‘straight’ kinesiology and with the addition of hand modes came the danger of infallibility, and the power of knowledge. Hand modes do allow for unparalleled accuracy when the body is truly responsive, and clear of the unseen dynamics that make even mudras inaccurate. The power of knowledge is operator prejudice. This is the force of thought, and the force of intent. An instinctual human life force that operates when we are sure of our knowledge. This is an example of one of the many Life Forces that exist. When we employ ideas and take others into our arena, the hidden agenda is that we use the model at hand to elicit information. Like the eagle that clutches onto salmon, and is drowned as it doesn’t know how to let go of a too heavy a catch. The eagle has no further vertical consciousness save survival mediated action. Clutching onto our own models we too, can see what we want to find, and what we have sought. However, if not careful, we may also drown in a sea of misunderstanding.
The reductionist model that there is a Life Force that penetrates everything is emphasized both in quantum terms, and religious ideology. However, from the One are the many. There other forces that manifest because of the Creator, and could be termed secondary Life forces; and are of far less majesty, but all have similar action upon us. Thus we may start to wonder what life forces are present when we engage a person in conversation. Which force, emanating from which level, is actually engaging the muscle dynamic. Is it yours or theirs? Is there collusion? The premise of how we place this model together is based on an inner understanding, and a consequent intellectual model to explain in part the unknowable.
In any ontological process, one must know the criteria of function, cause and effect, and state of being. Hand modes allow for this dynamic but they have their failings. TL’s which locate a yang display on the yin or surface aspect of the body are quite reliable but again merely display aberrance. Verbal challenge addresses many level of consciousness, and aspects of the self, and thus the muscle test may at best be flawed; for unless we know who we are talking to, then we know not from where the response has been made. Using mind maps – reflexes points – that have been mapped out from user experience and observation allows us to fall into the model the “map IS the territory”. Knowing the resources and aspects of the Self can at least give us a marker as to the dynamic and the servant / resource that is being accessed or which is running the show.
Introducing a new paradigm based upon known neurological principles allows us to use muscle testing at the verbal-response level much more accurately. For this to occur, we must introduce certain criteria based upon known principles.