De Nova Stella

Prior to 1572, the Aristotelian view of a perfect and unchanging heaven was accepted science for two thousand years. Unlike the turbulent terrestrial and meteorological events of the sublunary sphere, which contained Earth, the stars were fixed. Earlier in the century, Copernicus placed the sun in the center and Kepler described the ellipses of orbiting planets. It was an amateur Danish astronomer named Tycho Brahe who reported something that would further revolutionize the way that humans were to understand the cosmos. The appearance of a “new star” in 1572 disrupted the classical and religious view that the heavens (the sky beyond the moon and planets) were immutable. By using parallax, he was able to use measurements from different observatories to determine that the position of the new star did not change relative to other stars, which meant its distance must be well beyond the moon and not within the turbulence of the Earth’s currents.

Parallax can be used to measure the position or relative distance of objects from the observer. While its use in astrometry is obvious, I think it also provides an excellent metaphor for perspective. If 2 people are looking at the same thing and the distance between them is small, what they are looking at will appear similar. If 2 people are looking at the same thing and the distance between them is large, what they are looking at will appear to have to a different background and they will be observing a potentially different side of the same thing.

If we are talking about objects in (outer) space, the mathematics should resolve the perceived differences. But what if we are talking about the perception of events closer to home? The relative distance between people can be influenced by everything from age to ideology, gender to geography, and education to economy. It is essential to recognize that no one of us has access to or could even see the Big Picture. As scientific advances have and will continue to disrupt what we know about our place in the universe, it is my hope that we can together temper the light of new stars to illuminate the path forward.

House of Light

The human spine is often referred to as a column. Ideally, its appearance from back to front will form a straight line. From an architectural and orthopedic perspective, this linear appearance represents an efficient and balanced relationship to gravity, allowing the head to be stabilized over the foundation of the spine, which is the center of the sacrum.

Viewed from the side, however, the spine has curves. These curves are initially formed in early life as babies learn to crawl and then stand upright. The young spine is maximally responsive to new patterns as it navigates weight-bearing movement in a gravitational world. In mature spines, chiropractic x-ray analysis can measure the angles between the skull and the upper neck and the lower spine with the pelvis. These angles characterize adaptive capacity and structural integrity in the axial skeleton.

All of that being said, I would like to clarify that the spine is not actually a column. I recently climbed the Cape May lighthouse at the southern tip of New Jersey. I carried Violet 194 of the 199 cast iron stairs to the top, spiraling up and down through a pillar of red brick. A lighthouse is a column. It is eminently stable. It is designed to stand tall - indefinitely - and to only stand tall. By contrast, how would you tie a shoe if the 24 movable segments of your spine were organized as a rod? How would a high jumper arc over the bar or a gymnast do a cartwheel? How would a columnar spine handle any amount of horizontal force (e.g. tackles, car accidents)? How supportive is a column when it is parallel to the ground?

Unlike a column, the spine suspends and is suspended. There are complex relationships of connective tissue and curvature. Its shape reflects its function, which is to provide the dynamic support that creates the frame in which all of the other organs can live. The spine can and must be stable yet flexible, straight yet curved, operating as one yet comprised of many.

A paradox is something that invites us out of our usual way of thinking. Just as climbing to the top of a lighthouse offers a new perspective, considering the spine as a paradox can perhaps shine a light on one of the most central aspects of our being.

In Your Head

There are 22 bones in the skull that comprise the face and the cranium. They are connected through joints called sutures and are assumed to this day by many to be fused and rigid. For functional and neurological reasons, as well as 12 years of study and practice in this area, I believe that the bones and articulations of the head change position. When they do so in a way that produces excess or abnormal pressure on the brain or sense organs, the integrity of the central nervous system is impacted and the body’s ability to process information is diminished. This could be for any number reasons, but some of the most common are birth, falls, and dental/orthodontic work.

80% of the central nervous system resides in the head. While most chiropractors most of the time focus on the relationship between the spine and the nervous system, I find that relieving cranial pressure and restoring balance through the structures of the skull makes a big difference in improving how the body can regulate movement, sensation, and cognition. Headaches and TMJ issues are common symptoms that often reflect increased tension on the skull. Beyond the discomfort of these conditions (which are trying to get your attention) is the effect this functional strain has on blood flow and the circuits of information being relayed through and within the brain.