Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Vodoman
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: August 29th, 2017, 6:25 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Vodoman »

Yes the real identity of the I is of coarse nothing. Or should I say the identity of the observer is nothing the exact same nothing that existed before the big bang caused something. The big bang is an illusion caused by the real you the observer who is nothing because nothing causes everything. The observer i is the unchanging something constant in the system of change which is illusion. Hope that makes the situation clear.ha
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Atreyu »

"I" is always an unknown quantity and only really exists either as an abstraction or as a reference to all the functions emanating from the physical body.

The closest we can come to pinning down what "I" really is, is to say that it is awareness. Something is aware, whatever that "something" really is, and whatever the object of awareness really is.

So we don't really know what or who we are, or what anything really is. But we do know that awareness exists, and that we are a part of it....
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by RJG »

Atreyu wrote:"I" is always an unknown quantity and only really exists either as an abstraction or as a reference to all the functions emanating from the physical body.

The closest we can come to pinning down what "I" really is, is to say that it is awareness. Something is aware, whatever that "something" really is, and whatever the object of awareness really is.
Well said Atreyu.

Though I wouldn't limit this to just "awareness", (which I interpret as "sensory experiences"), but instead to ALL experiences (including thoughts and feelings).

Atreyu wrote:But we do know that awareness exists, and that we are a part of it....
Or... experiencing exists, and we are the some-'thing' that experiences these experiences.

Therefore: "I" = the "Experiencer" (...of bodily experiences).
Last edited by RJG on September 17th, 2017, 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen »

Reasonable thinking from both Atreyu and RJG. Cf. Wittgenstein's 'metaphysical subject'.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Atreyu »

RJG wrote:Though I wouldn't limit this to just "awareness", (which I interpret as "sensory experiences"), but instead to ALL experiences (including thoughts and feelings).
Our thoughts and feelings are also a part of our awareness. Awareness is a very general term, and applies not just to our sensory experiences (the images of things we see all around us), but also to our subjective thoughts and feelings which apparently are going on inside us (as opposed to the things we perceive with our sense, which appear to be outside of ourselves).

We are aware of trees, rocks, and frogs, but we are also aware of our own thoughts and feelings. Whether it is said to be existing within or outside of ourselves, awareness is the matrix from which all things spring.
RJG wrote:
Atreyu wrote:But we do know that awareness exists, and that we are a part of it....
Or... experiencing exists, and we are the some-'thing' that experiences these experiences.

Therefore: "I" = the "Experiencer" (...of bodily experiences).
Yes, of course, but that in no way helps us to hone in on our question. That's just a fancy way of restating the original question. The whole point is to discover exactly what the "I" or "Experiencer" really is, at least as much as that is possible. Switching the word "I" with "Experiencer" resolves absolutely nothing and leaves us running in a vicious circle from which there is no escape...
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by RJG »

Atreyu wrote:Our thoughts and feelings are also a part of our awareness. Awareness is a very general term, and applies not just to our sensory experiences (the images of things we see all around us), but also to our subjective thoughts and feelings which apparently are going on inside us (as opposed to the things we perceive with our sense, which appear to be outside of ourselves).

We are aware of trees, rocks, and frogs, but we are also aware of our own thoughts and feelings. Whether it is said to be existing within or outside of ourselves, awareness is the matrix from which all things spring.
It appears that your understanding of “awareness” is the same as my understanding of “experiencing”. So then, from your view, what differentiates “awareness” from “experiencing”? …or are these words interchangeable?

Atreyu wrote:
RJG wrote:Or... experiencing exists, and we are the some-'thing' that experiences these experiences. Therefore: "I" = the "Experiencer" (...of bodily experiences).
The whole point is to discover exactly what the "I" or "Experiencer" really is…
The “I” or “Experiencer” is the ‘thing’ that experiences. And in our case, the ‘thing’ that experiences is the body/brain. This is the ‘substrate’ upon which all of our bodily reactions (experiences) occur. The body/brain is therefore the “Experiencer” of our experiences. ...true?
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Atreyu »

RJG wrote: It appears that your understanding of “awareness” is the same as my understanding of “experiencing”. So then, from your view, what differentiates “awareness” from “experiencing”? …or are these words interchangeable?
Almost, perhaps. Awareness makes experience possible. To keep it simple, I'd basically agree that they are interchangeable, at least in most contexts.
RJG wrote: The “I” or “Experiencer” is the ‘thing’ that experiences. And in our case, the ‘thing’ that experiences is the body/brain. This is the ‘substrate’ upon which all of our bodily reactions (experiences) occur. The body/brain is therefore the “Experiencer” of our experiences. ...true?
No, this is quite wrong. We do not ordinarily think of ourselves as a "thing". A "thing" might not have any awareness. A rock is a "thing". "I" implies awareness. It implies a Mind/Psyche. We cannot reduce ourselves to a mere object.

The body/brain is simply another thing which the unknown "I" perceives and cognizes. You cannot reduce the Experiencer to that which is being experienced. Some-thing is perceiving the body/brain, asserting that it exists, and then asserting that that thing is Itself.

We're trying to isolate what it is that is perceiving/cognizing Itself in the first place. We're not trying to merely find the best label or image or idea with which we can represent ourselves. The real "I" is intangible, hence the discussion in the first place. It cannot be something tangible, because the "world of the tangible" is merely the particular way in which the Experiencer represents the world and Itself, to Itself...
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen »

-1-:
I have a body. My body is not me; it is my body, so I own it, therefore it is not me, much like a book of matches I own is not me, and much like a car I own is not me.

Similarly, I have a mind and I have a spirit. They are not me; they are mine.

So who is I?

I can't exist without a mind, body and spirit, yet I am separate from them.

What makes up ME, without the addition of mind, spirit and body?

That is my quest. To find that out.
This is my humble opinion: 'I' can denote an individual with this body and these memories, but it can also denote subjectivity in general. And because subjectivity cannot be eliminated from the structure os reality, "I am" means essentially the same as "being is". They are both tautologies, expressing one and the same self-evidence.

So we should note the difference between 'I' as an individual and 'I' as the experiencer.
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1389
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Present awareness »

-1- wrote:I have a body. My body is not me; it is my body, so I own it, therefore it is not me, much like a book of matches I own is not me, and much like a car I own is not me.

Similarly, I have a mind and I have a spirit. They are not me; they are mine.

So who is I?

I can't exist without a mind, body and spirit, yet I am separate from them.

What makes up ME, without the addition of mind, spirit and body?

That is my quest. To find that out.
Ownership is an illusion. It is a bubble that is easily popped by the simple act of dying. “I”, is an artificial construct, based on past memories and attachments to ideas, feelings and things you may identify with. Where was this “I”, one hundred years ago, 1000 or 1million years ago? It’s just a temporary illusion which will disappear almost as quickly as it arises in the short span of a human life.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Ranvier »

How can a concept, a memory, an idea, "feeling", chemical process or illusion identify with "itself"? What is the self that identifies with "it"? Especially since "it" doesn't really exist?
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1389
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Present awareness »

The “hard question of consciousness” has never been solved. We all know what consciousness “is” because we experience “it” directly, but all attempts to define it seem to fall short. We are conscious of our thoughts, feelings, memories etc. , which in turn, helps us to create a self image or an “I” to identify with. Without consciousness, there is no “I”, so the answer to the question “who is I”, must lie within consciousness.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.
User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 338
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by SimpleGuy »

There is even for psychology just a composite of different mechanisms existent. The I forms from the ego, the superego, the it and the preconscious feelings after freuds short sketch of psychoanalysis. The existence of an i itself is an illusion of the communication of these different components. So the I is simply an illusion of the ego and the supergo of your own psychology.
User avatar
PlatoJose
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: September 24th, 2017, 6:14 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by PlatoJose »

I think what you said states the central problem of our existence as well as it could possibly state it.

The answer as I see it comes from Benjamin Perlin's A Nature Reflected: Philosophical Notes for My Children (on Amazon Kindle).

Descartes doesn't secure all he wants but he follows Augustine in securing his own existence. Augustine's following here is in fact huge. Even at the prima facie level, Descartes' own existence was never in doubt. One has to know she herself is; not after she finds that she thinks but as a present self-reflection. Think 'thinking, I exist for myself'. (Descartes muddlingly assents to the non-inferential nature of his self disc cover ee.)
One always thinks, more or less. The self is, as Sartre says, the "absolute truth of consciousness attaining itself" and it needs no extra attention to be indubitable. Whatever one doubts she cannot rid her doubting self of herself. She knows she's there if she is and ex hypothesi she is. Some claim agnosticism or skepticism about their own existence; they are disingenuous or have something else in mind, perhaps some bit of language. They are not misidentified.
One might counter by distinguishing the phenomenon of conception from what there is:
Whatever conception I form of the world minus myself I find myself conceiving-so what? The disputed subject of a particular conception is the point, not a particular mode of conception. So might a pizza monster be conceived with certainty.

'Conceived by who?' is the sticking point. One does not see herself with her eyes. She's one of a kind of. At no two times does the flux leave one's body the same, yet the same changing self possesses the continuum abbreviated as "my body". A judge says, "Lock him up and throw away the key" of somebody whose body is other than the body that murdered, and it stands to reason.
Magpies have inductive reason. They think, 'Looking at the sun hurt the first few times, so I have every reason to not do it again.' But one sees herself as a deducer; as a deduction even, as her body in motion is a movement. If she tries to tell herself, 'You're only justified in believing what the senses evidence, despite this supposed other self with no scent, feel, or voice,' it's vetoed: 'Scarce reason to think so, coming from a quark.' (The disavowal of reason makes Buddhism strictly illogical.) No quantum mechanical algorithm could predict what it's like to see a "3". No air moved by a falling tree has ever been a sound, no lightening strike a pain in the neck.
Aesthetic appraisal goes all the way down, from sensation to reason. It is objectively true that the ending of the film Watchmen is better than that of the comic, with its hammy squid. Someone might prefer the latter and need not be wrong for doing so (how does she use the preference?), but if she denies my claim she is incorrect. There is at the same time no matter of fact as to whether pepperoni pizza is better than cheese. (With lower art, including most video games and television (Breaking Bad has been a game changer), the case is the same, the engagement relatively shallow.)
Philosophers have struggled with the strained relations between subjective preference and non-arbitrary aesthetic value. The bold and dazzling Scotsman David Hume (1711-1776) perceives them within a broad science of human nature. Here is a philosopher's philosopher, expressing himself in wonderful English; cognates of "utility" are commonplace in moral philosophy because of him. Preferring the life of a “Scholar and Philosopher” to law, he never held a teaching post. He loved Cicero, who influenced his philosophy of art, if you can call it that; as in Wittgenstein, morality and aesthetics are different shades of an expansive composition.
An objective look at the plain facts is to be the method; human nature (conceived in terms of sense perception and the union of its cognitive leftovers), subject and instrument. Hume would consider my metaphysics no less than unintelligible, the product of presumptuous invention and imagination rather than experience, and imagination is confined to "very narrow limits” indeed. (Hume draws no sharp distinction between it and ratiocination.)
Hume can be strikingly original. Consider again the problem some have with inductive reasoning. 'The eight ball has always moved when the cue ball has hit it, so it will next time too.' When there's nothing holding the eight ball in place and conditions are otherwise ideal, does the collision necessarily cause a rebound? If not, how could the inference ('so the eight ball will move next time too') be justified? For Aristotle, it is knowledge of causes that is scientific: science explains by deducing a necessary cause-effect sequence from first principles toward the particular. But, as Hume points out, logically the eight ball might not be budged. He denies the understanding determines an inference from 'It's always been moved' to 'It will be moved'. To assert the latter as a necessary consequent of the former is upon analysis to posit a regular coincidence of the two kinds of events (the collision and the eight ball's movement), which is a habituation leaving the speaker with no doubts.
Hume notes that judgments of taste are even more multifarious than they appear. That they are distinct from matters of fact, such as the fact that Watchmen is 186 minutes long, is just common sense. In the face of this, Hume asserts an aesthetic standard: over time, a rare and diverse class of experienced film critics who see the ending of Watchmen have feelings of beauty. These non-referential feelings are the beauties; if they could talk they'd say, "Oh, yeah-that's right, just like this." Cultivated by the understanding (if only in a potential sense) yet instinctual, the feelings solidify an endorsement of which they're part and parcel, actors viewed through the lenses of an imaginative interplay.
Hume is insightful regarding the phenomenon of sympathy, which plays an important role in his thought beyond the present analysis. The refined critics' pronouncement is not purely blue-blooded, for they are democratic representatives, unbiased in their frames of reference. They legislate publicly: I follow the rules of the pronouncement when I feel beauty watching the Watchmen; someone else breaks them when she doesn't. Everyone endorses the critics' delicacies and Hume frames their seals of approval in terms of universality and commonality-overgenerous terms, as is perhaps becoming clear. His psychology doesn't have room for the standard.
Descartes’ belief that one immediately perceives mental ideas rather than physical objects was universally accepted by the major philosophers of the time in some form or other. Take the realist bent. I see a film projected on the screen. Physics describes bodies up there that lack the yellow and the red; they don't go boom or taste like butter. They are the noumena, and whether construed as colliding atoms or chunks of infinitely divisible extension, they only possess size, shape, and other 'primary' qualities. These resemble the ideas they cause but inhabit a categorically different world from that of experience: color, sound, and the like, the meat and potatoes of the world of appearances, are relegated to the mind. Their enclave is the immediate screen. Behind it is Rosebud, the bone flung overhead outside the cave.
Hume's definitely not a realist in this sense. His theory of ideas implies all thought content derives from impressions. The furthest a sensible investigation into the aesthetics of Watchmen will go is some original impression of yellow. Psychology has unearthed a little of the human power for self-deception since the eighteenth century but one is inclined to agree with Hume (and disagree with Goodman): there's something irrefutable about an impression of sensation. A sensation of pleasure I had at the time is another such impression. What caused the pleasure or the impression of yellow nobody could say. (I remember the feel of mom's hand in mine during the movie.)
The felt beauty (endorsement) of the ending is a secondary impression, ultimately in response to such originals. For while beauty is not cognitively based, it is cognitive. The original impression of yellow is simple: it has no components into which it may be analyzed, as opposed to the composite impression of the entire shot from which a viewer might distinguish it. To every simple impression corresponds a simple idea and vice versa. Experience readily confirms this "first principle" (of the science of human nature, so not in the old sense); try to so much as come up with a counterexample.
The reasoned and compilable simple ideas derive from the simple impressions. They're knockoffs, typically less vital. Of course, I don't infer the ending of Watchmen is beautiful and thereby endorse it. Rather, imaginative associations of ideas improve the potential for a spontaneous impression: the felt beauty (endorsement). Feebler than the impression of yellow or pleasure, it is classed alongside emotion, yet one of a kind. (I remember mom's hand in mine; I can't wait to watch another movie with her.)
Hume makes this point with subtle and beautiful argumentation. One's experience of a preview of Watchmen involves a complex association of impressions and thoughts: the projected light overhead and enjoyment of applause contribute to the thought of seeing the movie when it comes out and experiencing similar pleasures. Of course, the preview might not match the movie, perhaps including scenes not actually featured; there is some correlative expectation. More to the point, it is the consistency between the self-sacrifice characters have shown in previously experienced movies and actually experienced selflessness, along with reflection upon tight patterns involving such behavior and feelings of admiration, that refines the capacity for the felt beauty (endorsement). Uniformity anchors the perspectives from which the rare critics might naturally have similar feelings and moreover boosts the potential for higher-order correlations between elite felt beauties and similar artistic forms.
Hume wants Platonism and he wants nothing to do with such a flight of fancy:
• Beauty is an original and simple impression of the mind, with a derivative idea that cannot be constructed.
• Beauty is the experience of a secondary sentiment that determines an object is beautiful.

• The interposition of ideas isn't tied to the felt beauty (endorsement); taste (the capacity for such beauty) is naturally spontaneous.
• In a deflated causal sense (that of constant conjunction), the felt beauty (endorsement) is effected by thoughts of beauty (and so is linked to the original impression of yellow).

• While Hume's developed theory is clear that judgments of taste (many of which are "absurd and ridiculous") are neither absolutely true nor false, they sometimes seem to be conceived as relatively truth-apt: 'I feel beauty when I see the film version.'
• Sometimes it seems Hume would understand the judgment in question like 'Yay, movie ending,' so that the endorsement is simply a feeling (original impression).

Sound understanding is essential to the master's operations yet inessential to the master. In an early treatise, Hume says, "Beauty is such an order and constitution of parts as is fitted to give a pleasure and satisfaction to the soul." He sounds less like this over time but the distinct impression of beauty as formal design lingers.
An empiricist response is that while Hume theoretically rejects a stable self and objectively external artistic beauty, our linguistic behavior when we appraise art is referential. To focus on this language-game and test how actionably normative practices cohere with the rules, he has to work within their context, as opposed to some supposed external vantage point.
But it is difficult to see how any focus or testing might have a hand. Hume's theory of variable and interrupted impressions and thoughts is presented as an alternative to Augustine's simplest self-discovery: one sees a set of transient dots in the mirror that leave a trace of connecting lines to the imagination. The principles underlying the mind's understated tendency to introduce one thought by another and thus order them (whenever I hugged you before you were soft, so you will be this time) are to cause the illusion of the self. But even if feeling is to have motive force where reason does not, the rules of the standard of feeling entangled with the imaginative habituation are to take on an Aristotelian function. The experienced film critic will practice her art virtuously, saying, "Since this is a Scorsese movie I'm about to watch, it won't be fake." ('I won't have a fake-feeling.') Hume says, "With the same excellence of faculties which contributes to the improvement of reason" such a critic will discover those "certain qualities in objects, which are fitted by nature to produce those particular feelings." He tries to toss these qualities in the midst of "the disorder in which they are presented" but he could easily have called them "essential".
A skeptic ahead of his time, Hume argued the reason is inherently contradictory. No wonder beauty is not to be a real property of things: beyond the self, any supposedly stable object turns out to be a fictive product of feeling and imagination. One is to get around with the best cognitive makeup Daddy Empiricism can afford.
Artificial reasoning is impossible. (There is a bad terminological habit here: a grocery list is artificial intelligence.) A machine might resemble a person though, and in that sense be rational. Given the formation of quantum 'concepts' by nanotechnology, a recursive program might be a virtual self-reflector. You really inhabit such a world.
A piano falling from the clouds and onto a pedestrian is a random act of senseless violence. There's no morality to it. The body won't let itself suffocate if it can find breath but no body ever authored a loving sigh. One's body affects her; she affects her body. How? Well, how does one plus one plus one equal three? There is no how. It just does. 'How?' was anyway 'get lost' in disguise: sufficiently retracting a chain of 'how's would seem to do away with a self to be bothered with.
When one acts, the first bodily event is physically uncaused. ("First" has a loose meaning here; the initial moment of a time span is an ideal.) Natural non-determinism is the sign of one as a first mover, and what she first moves is her self, effecting simultaneous brain activity, a moved arm, a pulled lever, a changed world.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Atreyu »

SimpleGuy wrote:There is even for psychology just a composite of different mechanisms existent. The I forms from the ego, the superego, the it and the preconscious feelings after freuds short sketch of psychoanalysis. The existence of an i itself is an illusion of the communication of these different components. So the I is simply an illusion of the ego and the supergo of your own psychology.
Well, the "I" that we imagine ourselves to be is simply illusion. But this does not mean that there is not really some-thing which is experiencing things. In fact, simple logic says there must be. Some-thing is doing the observing, analyzing, thinking, feeling, and recognizing, and whatever this some-thing is, it cannot be the same thing as that which it is analyzing, thinking about, feeling, or recognizing...
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen »

Who is I?

There are many I's in the universe, and I am one of them.

If the only I's in the universe were I's of rats, would it mean that I would not be in the universe? That I would not exist?

No. I would be one of those rats.

And a universe without I's is inconceivable.

But what is the relation between the I that I am and the I's that I am not, i.e. the other I's in the universe?
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

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