Emotion or Reason?

Use this forum to have philosophical discussions about aesthetics and art. What is art? What is beauty? What makes art good? You can also use this forum to discuss philosophy in the arts, namely to discuss the philosophical points in any particular movie, TV show, book or story.
User avatar
PhilipOSopher
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: August 17th, 2014, 11:48 am

Emotion or Reason?

Post by PhilipOSopher »

Within my drama classes, I was intrigued to come across the practitioner Antonin Artaud's ideas on theatre. According to his theory, a production should be centred around shared emotional experience between the actors and spectators and should aim to access primal emotions through delving into the subconscious. In order to access the subconscious, according to Artaud theatre cannot be rational - it must use a juxtaposition of images and symbols to do this rather than logical dialogue for example (look up his play 'Jet of Blood' - many see it as disturbing nonsense but you'll see what I mean). But what I think we should consider first is which part of the human mind's makeup should we address within not just theatre but also in the arts as a whole? Which is a more effective means in which to get across the message of a piece of art? And are there any reasons to suggest whether one is better than the other? Humans are no doubt both emotional and rational beings to some extent - but which side should art seek to address?
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by Misty »

Human mind makeup is limited by population size. Human teachers, artists,etc.,and the students, impart and acquire differently. Many more ways than the two you have stated. Emotional and non emotional, rational and irrational all send messages so art should seek to address all sides.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
Granth
Posts: 2084
Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by Granth »

Every side, but not necessarily within one piece or in one perspective of a piece. In other words, art should be viewed as we view ourselves and each other. We are pieces and aspects of the one.
User avatar
Theophane
Posts: 2349
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:03 am
Favorite Philosopher: C.S. Lewis
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by Theophane »

Both! They're better together than they are apart. When they're synthesized, emotion and reason merge and become a third thing: wisdom.
User avatar
Ami
Posts: 260
Joined: February 14th, 2013, 11:04 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Autie Miller
Contact:

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by Ami »

PhilipOSopher wrote:Humans are no doubt both emotional and rational beings to some extent - but which side should art seek to address?
Neither. These are the same system. Thought and emotion form a system called "egoic consciousness". There is another way of existing and that is sometimes called "true self". True self is where creativity comes out of. It is the area of the spiritual, of love, compassion, and so on. There is no shortage of neurotic art: it makes up most of the canon. Rational versus emotional is a non-question: they form an integrated reactive mechanism; the other rarer kind of art aims at bypassing that cultural and conditioned kind of art and touching the divine.
Fun enjoyable days.
Image
User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj »

PhilipOSopher wrote: Which is a more effective means in which to get across the message of a piece of art? And are there any reasons to suggest whether one is better than the other? Humans are no doubt both emotional and rational beings to some extent - but which side should art seek to address?
I can see what you're getting at, the divide. I think of artwork made totally of language on one end of the dichotomy (a novel?), and maybe one of Marina Abramovic's performance tableaus on the other. Or a giant Anselm Keifer painting which just hits you in the gut.

It's interesting that "Jet of Blood" is generally considered unstagable, so it only really exists on the page and in our imaginations. Artaud gave birth to modern theater, in some ways gave his life for it?

To answer the question, in my opinion an artwork can work both ways and in any mixture inbetween, an artist a lot to work with.

Unlanguaged artworks of pure form and color can be sabotaged by language, and often are.

-- Updated October 14th, 2014, 8:07 am to add the following --
3uGH7D4MLj wrote:
PhilipOSopher wrote: Which is a more effective means in which to get across the message of a piece of art? And are there any reasons to suggest whether one is better than the other? Humans are no doubt both emotional and rational beings to some extent - but which side should art seek to address?
I can see what you're getting at, the divide. I think of artwork made totally of language on one end of the dichotomy (a novel?), and maybe one of Marina Abramovic's performance tableaus on the other. Or a giant Anselm Keifer painting which just hits you in the gut.

It's interesting that "Jet of Blood" is generally considered unstagable, so it only really exists on the page and in our imaginations. Artaud gave birth to modern theater, in some ways gave his life for it?

To answer the question, in my opinion an artwork can work both ways and in any mixture inbetween, an artist has a lot to work with.

Unlanguaged artworks of pure form and color can be sabotaged by language, and often are.
fair to say
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by Hereandnow »

3uGH7D4MLj:
Unlanguaged artworks of pure form and color can be sabotaged by language, and often are.
That's interesting to me: because when something registers at a level beneath (or above?) language, presumably, it begs for critical discussion. Calling it "unlanguaged" raises the question, in what way? Then talk, theory, assimilation. This is what we do: We take what is out there and bring it to heel.

But don't get me wrong, I have long thought that language masks the world. All of our endless talk about what we do and where we'll go, and Oh, there's that party tonight and so forth and so on... To make the conversation move to a deeper level is a dangerous business; it can drive you mad to break up foundation of language upon which the world quite literally rests. Questions insinuate into the spaces between confidence and doubt and grow into a pathology. Artaud can drive you nuts. Pinter, too, though he does it through language. The Birthday Party, for example, uses language to get to that vicious core (in all of us?) that simply will not be assimilated.

Ahhh, nothing thicker than a knife's edge separates the savage from the dinner party guest.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by Sy Borg »

To paraphrase Einstein: Emotion without reason is blind. Reason without emotion is lame.

Each of us has our leanings - perhaps more emotional or intellectual - and that is reflected in our artistic tastes. Personally I can only take so much "Gestalt therapy" in drama before my ham-o-meter goes into the red zone.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj »

Greta wrote:To paraphrase Einstein: Emotion without reason is blind. Reason without emotion is lame.

Each of us has our leanings - perhaps more emotional or intellectual - and that is reflected in our artistic tastes. Personally I can only take so much "Gestalt therapy" in drama before my ham-o-meter goes into the red zone.
Greta, what about Samuel Becket's little plays?

I think I know what you mean, how much emoting can one stand? But isn't that just because it's a bad play? or player?

-- Updated May 27th, 2015, 12:43 pm to add the following --
Hereandnow wrote:3uGH7D4MLj:
Unlanguaged artworks of pure form and color can be sabotaged by language, and often are.
That's interesting to me: because when something registers at a level beneath (or above?) language, presumably, it begs for critical discussion. Calling it "unlanguaged" raises the question, in what way? Then talk, theory, assimilation. This is what we do: We take what is out there and bring it to heel.
Like a dog.

Yes, take the Kiefer painting, you can talk about it all day, you can write a book about it, but you won't capture the essence of the experience of seeing it.

I have a beef about our culture treating language as if it is reality. Nooo! Language is a crude coding system useful for communication, but it doesn't come close to expressing experience. So kids should be told, here's a Rothko, you can't explain it. You must experience it, reality is way bigger than language, develop your color perception vocabulary.

Words may help but if we could only teach experience appreciation. Why are you sitting in that concert hall? are you feeling something? are you changing? don't bother trying to put it into words. Use your feeling vocabulary, or try to develop one. See words for what they are.

I always have to say that I love words, that words are wonderful and can succeed fabulously, but still. The world is not words.
fair to say
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by Hereandnow »

3uGH7D4MLj
Words may help but if we could only teach experience appreciation. Why are you sitting in that concert hall? are you feeling something? are you changing? don't bother trying to put it into words. Use your feeling vocabulary, or try to develop one. See words for what they are.

I always have to say that I love words, that words are wonderful and can succeed fabulously, but still. The world is not words.

Interesting again. My take is probably even more toward the irrational: The world is not language and language is purely pragmatic, hence the reason why it fails to encompass what is real: language is wholly Other than the world. Language cannot "mirror" the world either because pragmatics (and I include Wittgenstein--arguably--, Rorty and the classical pragmatists) does not represent, copy or correspond; it only anticipates (in utility or use). The question for me is, when this dynamic system of problem solving meets the world, powerful, overwhelming in depth, quality and magnitude (so say I), where is the self? It's not so much the world being thought of as language, it is the self, the reduction of the self to language and pragmatics, that so offends Real encounter. Am I only language? No. then I and my world are utterly transcendent (to the understanding).

But this is where an true aesthete/aesthetician (theorist) stands, on the threshold of a pragmatic self and unspeakable reality. Terribly profound, if you're an aesthete and not just an intellectual.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by Sy Borg »

3uGH7D4MLj wrote:
Greta wrote:To paraphrase Einstein: Emotion without reason is blind. Reason without emotion is lame.

Each of us has our leanings - perhaps more emotional or intellectual - and that is reflected in our artistic tastes. Personally I can only take so much "Gestalt therapy" in drama before my ham-o-meter goes into the red zone.
Greta, what about Samuel Becket's little plays?

I think I know what you mean, how much emoting can one stand? But isn't that just because it's a bad play? or player?
Tragically, I nothing about Samuel Beckett, other than he was a writer.

I got bored with post-apes pining after each other and obsessing over the swapping of bodily fluids etc in my teens. I feel like telling them that there's more to life than finding a partner and that, even when you find someone compatible, if they would be happier with someone else, then if you really cared about them you'd let them go with your blessings. Doesn't make for compelling fiction, does it?

"Honey, I've given this a lot of thought and I'm afraid I love another. I'm sorry.".

"Well, that is disappointing. Okay then, I don't own you and would like you to be happy. Be well and stay in touch".

"Thanks for being so understanding. I'm sure you'll find someone better than me soon. "

"Maybe. It's a lottery. I think I might relax a while before dating again".

The End :)
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
Lagayscienza
Posts: 1792
Joined: February 8th, 2015, 3:27 am
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche
Location: Antipodes

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by Lagayscienza »

Very sensible approach. I wish I could have back all the time I've squandered in life looking for sex, falling in love, falling out of love... Such a waste! Reason has become more valuable to me these days than emotion.

BTW, Greta, I can recommend Samuel Becket. I think his short stories are among the best ever written. Have a look at the one called "The End". It's incredibly ugly and wonderfully beautiful at the same time. Also, his play,"Waiting For Godot" is very tragic/funny/absurd and well worth seeing if you ever get the chance.
La Gaya Scienza
User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj »

Hereandnow wrote:Interesting again. My take is probably even more toward the irrational: The world is not language and language is purely pragmatic, hence the reason why it fails to encompass what is real: language is wholly Other than the world. Language cannot "mirror" the world either because pragmatics (and I include Wittgenstein--arguably--, Rorty and the classical pragmatists) does not represent, copy or correspond; it only anticipates (in utility or use). The question for me is, when this dynamic system of problem solving meets the world, powerful, overwhelming in depth, quality and magnitude (so say I), where is the self? It's not so much the world being thought of as language, it is the self, the reduction of the self to language and pragmatics, that so offends Real encounter. Am I only language? No. then I and my world are utterly transcendent (to the understanding).

But this is where an true aesthete/aesthetician (theorist) stands, on the threshold of a pragmatic self and unspeakable reality. Terribly profound, if you're an aesthete and not just an intellectual.
Ha! Unspeakable reality. Nice.

This morning, out waking in the woods I saw a wild Geranium in bloom, and I take a look, and automatically think, "deeply lobed leaf," cataloging an identifying characteristic that may come in handy someday. It's fine, it's good, but why stop there? Why not take the flower for what it is, without name-calling, without language, physically, like a bee.

Deeply lobed leaf, not there's something important. You can read that in books. And, there may be a subtle alliterative enjoyment to the phrase, so language sucks you in. But you can know the flower without language.

Is language the chattering monkey mind that the Zen meditators try to conquer?

-- Updated May 29th, 2015, 7:39 am to add the following --
Greta wrote:Tragically, I nothing about Samuel Beckett, other than he was a writer.

I got bored with post-apes pining after each other and obsessing over the swapping of bodily fluids etc in my teens. I feel like telling them that there's more to life than finding a partner and that, even when you find someone compatible, if they would be happier with someone else, then if you really cared about them you'd let them go with your blessings. Doesn't make for compelling fiction, does it?

"Honey, I've given this a lot of thought and I'm afraid I love another. I'm sorry.".

"Well, that is disappointing. Okay then, I don't own you and would like you to be happy. Be well and stay in touch".

"Thanks for being so understanding. I'm sure you'll find someone better than me soon. "

"Maybe. It's a lottery. I think I might relax a while before dating again".

The End :)
Thanks for the emotional little short story Greta, these forums get so dull. :)

You are throwing out 90% of what powers our culture, oh the babies, oh the bathwater! The humanity! Can you tone it down a bit, I'm getting misty. The strongest reading is the one which opens the most paths of understanding. But don't ask me why that popped out exactly then.

I remember watching an interview with an old-time jazz blues musician, can't remember who but he said, talking about the boy-meets-girl business, "it makes the world go round." Made me rethink.

-- Updated May 29th, 2015, 7:49 am to add the following --
PhilipOSopher wrote:Within my drama classes, I was intrigued to come across the practitioner Antonin Artaud's ideas on theatre. According to his theory, a production should be centred around shared emotional experience between the actors and spectators and should aim to access primal emotions through delving into the subconscious. In order to access the subconscious, according to Artaud theatre cannot be rational - it must use a juxtaposition of images and symbols to do this rather than logical dialogue for example (look up his play 'Jet of Blood' - many see it as disturbing nonsense but you'll see what I mean). But what I think we should consider first is which part of the human mind's makeup should we address within not just theatre but also in the arts as a whole? Which is a more effective means in which to get across the message of a piece of art? And are there any reasons to suggest whether one is better than the other? Humans are no doubt both emotional and rational beings to some extent - but which side should art seek to address?
Artaud is a special case. One has to make allowances for mad geniuses. His theater in Paris was named for Alfred Jarry, a precursor and also mad genius. You probably know Peter Brook's book The Open Space, it's a good bridge between Artaud and reality. Also look into Susan Sontag's Artaud writings.

-- Updated May 29th, 2015, 7:57 am to add the following --

One more thing, the Eden story again, the writer sets up what will follow by giving Adam language. He's the namer in chief. It's his only job, God has him name all the animals. One more perceptive identifier of humanity!

-- Updated May 30th, 2015, 6:58 am to add the following --
Hereandnow wrote:Interesting again. My take is probably even more toward the irrational: The world is not language and language is purely pragmatic, hence the reason why it fails to encompass what is real: language is wholly Other than the world. Language cannot "mirror" the world either because pragmatics (and I include Wittgenstein--arguably--, Rorty and the classical pragmatists) does not represent, copy or correspond; it only anticipates (in utility or use). The question for me is, when this dynamic system of problem solving meets the world, powerful, overwhelming in depth, quality and magnitude (so say I), where is the self? It's not so much the world being thought of as language, it is the self, the reduction of the self to language and pragmatics, that so offends Real encounter. Am I only language? No. then I and my world are utterly transcendent (to the understanding).

But this is where an true aesthete/aesthetician (theorist) stands, on the threshold of a pragmatic self and unspeakable reality. Terribly profound, if you're an aesthete and not just an intellectual.
This comment is pretty amazing, thanks.

I know a bit of Rorty, like him quite a bit, less about Wittgenstein. Can you comment on what you say here about pragmatics and anticipation?

Also thanks for bringing in the self. I like the way you breezily refer to Real encounter. where does this vocabulary come from?

And can you clarify the bit about the self being transcendent to the understanding?
fair to say
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13782
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by Belinda »

3uGH7D4MLj wrote:
This morning, out waking in the woods I saw a wild Geranium in bloom, and I take a look, and automatically think, "deeply lobed leaf," cataloging an identifying characteristic that may come in handy someday. It's fine, it's good, but why stop there? Why not take the flower for what it is, without name-calling, without language, physically, like a bee.

Deeply lobed leaf, not there's something important. You can read that in books. And, there may be a subtle alliterative enjoyment to the phrase, so language sucks you in. But you can know the flower without language.

Is language the chattering monkey mind that the Zen meditators try to conquer?
I understand the question but

Love is relationship , and relationships are socially constructed. There are some people who have never learned to care for wild flowers. Wild flowers were not part of their human culture. I care for wild geraniums and I encourage cranesbill on my gravel drive wherever it wants to grow. I wondered why it's called 'cranesbill' and I found out that it was noticed that the back part of the flower is peaked like a crane's bill. Now you have reminded me that its leaves are deeply lobed, and I like the flower all the more for those associations. There is no life without culture. Even a feral child learns the culture of the animal that rears him.

The picture in an art gallery which has no meaning but is all abstract form absorbs some meaning from its selection for an art gallery . The newborn baby is not tabula rasa, as it has heard its mother's voice in the womb.
Socialist
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Emotion or Reason?

Post by Hereandnow »

This comment is pretty amazing, thanks.

I know a bit of Rorty, like him quite a bit, less about Wittgenstein. Can you comment on what you say here about pragmatics and anticipation?

Also thanks for bringing in the self. I like the way you breezily refer to Real encounter. where does this vocabulary come from?

And can you clarify the bit about the self being transcendent to the understanding?
Take too long for a post. Sartre and his radical contingency is a good place to look. See his novel Nausea. Then there is the mystery of ethics and aesthetics. Wittgenstein wrote a short essay On Ethics, which is here: http://www.geocities.jp/mickindex/wittg ... et_en.html

Short and very revealing: Value is the "stuff" of ethics. What is value? A very different question from others; it's not grounded empirically, but comes from somewhere else.this is not a matter of judgment in taste, as the classical work in aesthetics goes. Rather, it is an ontological question: What IS it? Not the pain, but the value of the pain, the "badness" of it. Words can't say it and it can't be counted among the facts. It's not a fact, the goodness of this love I feel, the horror of knowing I'll have my tongue cut out. This drives me mad with curiosity.

Wittgenstein says ethical statements are absurd or impossible, like talking about the Being itself: nonsense. But he means that you can't talk about it; it is unspeakable, for ethical statements are absolutes: You should not beat a fellow human, and even if you can justify doing it, still, it is wrong, somehow, to hurt, maim, abuse, etc., no matter what.) I can justify torturing a person (if I don't do it, someone else will do it to ten people!) but notwithstanding, it still inexplicably possesses the element of "wrongness". Wrongness stands apart form the world, all those horrors and delights that we are thrown into. Value is transcendental, like Being qua Being, unspeakable; and yet, it IS the world. Our language sits as a superstructure, a pragmatic superstructure upon the real. we grow so accustomed to thinking and speaking this becomes, so to speak, reified by familiarity. Artaud and others want to shock us into seeing through the veil of ordinary language that has come to rule over us, pacifying , placating, mesmerizing; and we obey. Check out Guy Debord and the Situationists, his Society of the Spectacle is very provocative. Ironically, debord thinks we are alienated from something that lies underneath (and I VERY much agree) but he ends up drinking himself to death.

Pragmatists think that the attempt to "know" the world in the traditional sense is impossible (like Wittgenstein) and that knowing is all about grasping what works. these intuitions we have about the cognitive apprehension of a thing may feel like Truth (there is a cup on the table) but it really cumulative consummation(see Dewey, Experience and Nature) of a history of pragmatic encounters.

But knowing is not experiencing! Not Being here. We are and are in the midst of absolute transcendence.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy in the Arts”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021