The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Atla »

Paradigmer wrote: February 19th, 2022, 7:01 am
Atla wrote: February 19th, 2022, 6:34 am
Paradigmer wrote: February 19th, 2022, 5:58 am Nonetheless, we do not necessary need to be omniscience to correctly understand the actualities of the cosmos.
How do you know that everything moving and the Earth spinning, or a nested vortical hypersphere-structured subliminally paradoxical cosmos, aren't just the next illusions? Maybe we limited humans are infinitely far away from the actualities.

When I apply Occam's razor I really see no reason to assume this paradoxical nature to the cosmos. The idea seems sufficient that our limited brains/minds, shaped by evolution, simply use efficient simplifications, approximations.
If you are contended with the day to day pragmatism, then "simply use efficient simplifications, approximations" would suffice.

The very reason to assume this paradoxical nature of the cosmos is because the science delusions of theoretical physics with the intrinsically flawed scientific method is definitely staggering.

And humanity could be better off by understanding the natural negations of the cosmos as illustrated in the UVS case studies.
Sure, scientific methodology can be flawed, and the mainstream scientific interpretations of the world can sometimes be totally flawed.

But when it comes to the movement of the Sun for example, I'm really only saying that, why postulate a cosmos-wide paradoxical functioning, when I have reason to believe that this paradoxical functioning is really only taking place within the human brain/mind?
True philosophy points to the Moon
Paradigmer
Posts: 91
Joined: March 22nd, 2016, 12:59 am

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Paradigmer »

Atla wrote: February 19th, 2022, 9:30 am
Paradigmer wrote: February 19th, 2022, 7:01 am
Atla wrote: February 19th, 2022, 6:34 am
Paradigmer wrote: February 19th, 2022, 5:58 am Nonetheless, we do not necessary need to be omniscience to correctly understand the actualities of the cosmos.
How do you know that everything moving and the Earth spinning, or a nested vortical hypersphere-structured subliminally paradoxical cosmos, aren't just the next illusions? Maybe we limited humans are infinitely far away from the actualities.

When I apply Occam's razor I really see no reason to assume this paradoxical nature to the cosmos. The idea seems sufficient that our limited brains/minds, shaped by evolution, simply use efficient simplifications, approximations.
If you are contended with the day to day pragmatism, then "simply use efficient simplifications, approximations" would suffice.

The very reason to assume this paradoxical nature of the cosmos is because the science delusions of theoretical physics with the intrinsically flawed scientific method is definitely staggering.

And humanity could be better off by understanding the natural negations of the cosmos as illustrated in the UVS case studies.
Sure, scientific methodology can be flawed, and the mainstream scientific interpretations of the world can sometimes be totally flawed.

But when it comes to the movement of the Sun for example, I'm really only saying that, why postulate a cosmos-wide paradoxical functioning, when I have reason to believe that this paradoxical functioning is really only taking place within the human brain/mind?
The underlying process with the vortical motions transferred from the nested vortical hypersphere of the cosmos, inversely forms the varieties of physical objects in a typical obfuscated manner. Intrinsically, with the vortically manifested negations of the cosmos, the process thus imbues the paradoxical effect of the cosmos in the objective reality.

The above is the closing statement of the UVS worldview.

The following links are the abstracts that elaborate on the two fundamental aspects of the UVS worldview.

- The cosmological model of UVS

- The structure of the observable universe

This is why the UVS treatise postulate a "cosmos-wide paradoxical functioning", which its effects are naturally causing the cognitive paradoxes that take place within the human brain/mind in all possible forms of observational delusions.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Paradigmer wrote: February 16th, 2022, 8:18 pm ...
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 17th, 2022, 11:39 am
  • You are standing in front of me, facing me. You see an image of me that includes my face.
  • Now you move around behind me, but still facing me. Now you see an image that includes the back of my head, but not my face.
As a result of your second observation, are you going to assert the 'illusion' that I am, or have become, face-less? 🤔

A different perspective reveals a different view. Our experience of life, if nothing else, confirms that this is normal, expected, real and actual, and not an illusion.
You continue with your assertion of paradox, but you didn't answer the above question.

Do you assert that, in the above example, there is a paradoxical illusion of facelessness?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Paradigmer
Posts: 91
Joined: March 22nd, 2016, 12:59 am

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Paradigmer »

Pattern-chaser wrote: February 21st, 2022, 10:01 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 17th, 2022, 11:39 am
  • You are standing in front of me, facing me. You see an image of me that includes my face.
  • Now you move around behind me, but still facing me. Now you see an image that includes the back of my head, but not my face.
As a result of your second observation, are you going to assert the 'illusion' that I am, or have become, face-less? 🤔

A different perspective reveals a different view. Our experience of life, if nothing else, confirms that this is normal, expected, real and actual, and not an illusion.
You continue with your assertion of paradox, but you didn't answer the above question.
Your question was answered, but apparently you did not pick that up.
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 21st, 2022, 10:01 am Do you assert that, in the above example, there is a paradoxical illusion of facelessness?
No. I do not assert that. And your example is non sequitur as mentioned earlier.

The way you argue shows you lacked the cognizant to understand the crux of what was being proposed in the OP. This is also partly my bad for not being able to express better with my limitations for the presentation.

Howsoever, you need to look deeper to understand the distinct differences between the examples.

I would have conceded if I could agree with your argument at all. Sorry.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Paradigmer wrote: February 21st, 2022, 10:22 pm The way you argue shows you lacked the cognizant to understand the crux of what was being proposed in the OP.
Oh it does, does it? 🙄 Your OP offers several descriptions of ordinary things that conform easily with our experience of life, and the expectations we have developed from that experience. You characterise anything that might be confusing, if thought of in the wrong way, as illusory or delusional. You assert the existence of these illusions without ever demonstrating that they are illusory, or even mistaken.

The "cosmos" is often confusing, but I don't think our confusion accounts for the things that you describe. You seem to have invented illusions and delusions so that you can either complain about them or 'expose' them; I don't know which. 🙄
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Paradigmer
Posts: 91
Joined: March 22nd, 2016, 12:59 am

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Paradigmer »

Pattern-chaser wrote: February 22nd, 2022, 12:04 pm
Paradigmer wrote: February 21st, 2022, 10:22 pm The way you argue shows you lacked the cognizant to understand the crux of what was being proposed in the OP.
Oh it does, does it? 🙄 Your OP offers several descriptions of ordinary things that conform easily with our experience of life, and the expectations we have developed from that experience. You characterise anything that might be confusing, if thought of in the wrong way, as illusory or delusional. You assert the existence of these illusions without ever demonstrating that they are illusory, or even mistaken.

The "cosmos" is often confusing, but I don't think our confusion accounts for the things that you describe. You seem to have invented illusions and delusions so that you can either complain about them or 'expose' them; I don't know which. 🙄
"Although the Sun appears to "rise" from the horizon, it is actually the Earth's motion that causes the Sun to appear. The illusion of a moving Sun results from Earth observers being in a rotating reference frame; this apparent motion is so convincing that many cultures had mythologies and religions built around the geocentric model, which prevailed until astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus formulated his heliocentric model in the 16th century." - Snip from the Wiki topic on "Sunrise"

Your argument has no ground at all.

Go edit that Wiki topic to convince the world the "rise" is not illusory so everyone could agree with you.
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Thomyum2 »

Paradigmer wrote: February 22nd, 2022, 10:21 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 22nd, 2022, 12:04 pm
Paradigmer wrote: February 21st, 2022, 10:22 pm The way you argue shows you lacked the cognizant to understand the crux of what was being proposed in the OP.
Oh it does, does it? 🙄 Your OP offers several descriptions of ordinary things that conform easily with our experience of life, and the expectations we have developed from that experience. You characterise anything that might be confusing, if thought of in the wrong way, as illusory or delusional. You assert the existence of these illusions without ever demonstrating that they are illusory, or even mistaken.

The "cosmos" is often confusing, but I don't think our confusion accounts for the things that you describe. You seem to have invented illusions and delusions so that you can either complain about them or 'expose' them; I don't know which. 🙄
"Although the Sun appears to "rise" from the horizon, it is actually the Earth's motion that causes the Sun to appear. The illusion of a moving Sun results from Earth observers being in a rotating reference frame; this apparent motion is so convincing that many cultures had mythologies and religions built around the geocentric model, which prevailed until astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus formulated his heliocentric model in the 16th century." - Snip from the Wiki topic on "Sunrise"

Your argument has no ground at all.

Go edit that Wiki topic to convince the world the "rise" is not illusory so everyone could agree with you.
Paradigmer, your response constitutes to an argumentum ad populum. Pattern-chaser's points are valid. I find the parable of the blind men and an elephant to be a very useful analogy here (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant). That one of the blind men describes the elephant as like a thick snake is not an illusion - it's a valid perception, but just based on a limited perspective. Illusions (and delusions) are only such in relation to other points of view or other available information. The Wikipedia article you cite here I think makes this very clear in saying that the illusion results from Earth observers being in a rotating reference frame. That the sun 'rises' is not intrinsically an illusion, it's an illusion in the context of a particular model uses a specific reference frame to explain and understand the relative motion of objects in the solar system.

I might try to offer some clarification in the language here, which is where I believe the problems are coming from. I've been following this discussion, and I think the problem your statements are causing is that you're using the words 'delusion' and 'paradoxical' in a very idiosyncratic way, which in my estimation is creating a category error in your arguments. Just as 'illusion' refers to incorrect perception, 'delusion' normally refers to incorrect belief. So just as an illusion exists in relationship to specific understanding of the perceived object, delusions are only beliefs that are outliers to a common or more widely accepted sets of beliefs or understandings. Illusions and beliefs aren't absolute - they only exist in relationship to a specific reference frame. The objects of the universe, or the observations thereof, don't create illusions or delusions - those result from the failure of the individual to account for all available information from within the larger community. So the blind men in the parable are experiencing illusions or suffering from delusions only when they hold to their own limited perception or belief about the elephant and fail to take into account those of the others. The elephant itself doesn't cause an illusion or delusion.

Similarly, the term 'paradoxical' is a word that describes the outcome of a process of reasoning. So as I see it, it's a category error to make a statement as you have, such as 'the paradoxical effect of the universe' or 'the paradoxical nature of reality'. Reality or the universe or the objects therein are not intrinsically paradoxical, and indeed it's not really meaningful to apply this descriptive term to physical and material things. Paradoxes are the result of cognition and reasoning - they come from the nature of the premises made and logical statements derived from those premises, they aren't an effect caused by the objects we perceive.

I've reviewed some of your links and confess that I am not able follow the background of your argument and don't have the time or skill to be able to really give it a thorough examination. So I can't speak to the merits of your full theory beyond what you've described here on the forum. But I'd just suggest that the usual use of some of the wording is what is I think is leading to some confusion here. To which I'd add before closing, that another term you've used here - that of an 'observable universe' - is also perhaps an oxymoron. Objects in the universe are observable, but the universe is not. The universe can only be observed by itself, from within itself - it has no 'reference frame'. This in itself is a paradox, and I think that any attempts to derive 'objective' truths or make absolute declarations about the 'objective' nature of the universe or cosmos will always and necessarily result in a paradox.

I'll close with a favorite quote by Umberto Eco from his essay in the collection Serendipities where he describes this very eloquently:
But can one describe, as if seeing it from above, something within which we are contained, of which we are part, and from which we cannot exit? Can there be a descriptive geometry of the universe when there is no space outside it on which to project it? Can we talk about the beginning of the universe, when a temporal notion such as "beginning" must refer to the parameter of a clock, while the universe must be the clock of itself and cannot be referred to anything that is external to it?...Can we postulate the universe and then study with empirical instruments this postulate as if it were an object? Can a singular object exist (surely the most singular of all) that has as its characteristic that of being only a law?
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Atla »

'Observable universe' is an important and commonly used expression though, it just refers to the region of the universe we are able to observe.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Thomyum2 »

Atla wrote: February 23rd, 2022, 2:00 pm 'Observable universe' is an important and commonly used expression though, it just refers to the region of the universe we are able to observe.
Yes, that's correct, it is used in that sense and that's probably that the most common usage of the phrase. But just consider for a moment how you've defined it here: 'the region of the universe we are able to observe.' The statement itself carries within it a premise that there is in fact a 'universe' of which what we observe is but a part - that what we observe is a 'region' of something else. But that which can't be observed thereby also can't be confirmed to exist. The concept of a 'universe' that exists outside of and beyond the realm of observation is by definition hypothetical. It's a component of our mental models only - an idea that's a working and perhaps useful hypothesis - but not a reality in and of itself.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Atla »

Thomyum2 wrote: February 23rd, 2022, 3:31 pm
Atla wrote: February 23rd, 2022, 2:00 pm 'Observable universe' is an important and commonly used expression though, it just refers to the region of the universe we are able to observe.
Yes, that's correct, it is used in that sense and that's probably that the most common usage of the phrase. But just consider for a moment how you've defined it here: 'the region of the universe we are able to observe.' The statement itself carries within it a premise that there is in fact a 'universe' of which what we observe is but a part - that what we observe is a 'region' of something else. But that which can't be observed thereby also can't be confirmed to exist. The concept of a 'universe' that exists outside of and beyond the realm of observation is by definition hypothetical. It's a component of our mental models only - an idea that's a working and perhaps useful hypothesis - but not a reality in and of itself.
It's probably a reality in and of itself, so we just usually assume that it is.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Vita
Posts: 35
Joined: February 24th, 2022, 1:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: Dostoevsky
Location: Absent

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Vita »

Paradigmer wrote: February 13th, 2022, 9:07 pm
Paradoxically, the Sun does not rise in the east like it seems to be, it is not stationary like it had been believed to be so with the putative laws of physics that assert heliocentrism, and it is also not the center of the Solar System like it was being thought as with the current conventional wisdom; nothing could be further from the truth than these false facts that were established in all the delusions about the Sun.
I agree with Pattern-Chaser that the sun’s rising is not an illusion. Whether or not the sun actually rises is beside the point. Either way the sun will rise relative to our eyes, therefore it rises in any sense of the word. Please do not say that this is against science because any child can prove that if you stare at the sky 8) you will see the sun going upward right before your eyes.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Thomyum2 wrote: February 23rd, 2022, 1:45 pm Paradigmer, your response constitutes to an argumentum ad populum. Pattern-chaser's points are valid. I find the parable of the blind men and an elephant to be a very useful analogy here. That one of the blind men describes the elephant as like a thick snake is not an illusion - it's a valid perception, but just based on a limited perspective. Illusions (and delusions) are only such in relation to other points of view or other available information. The Wikipedia article you cite here I think makes this very clear in saying that the illusion results from Earth observers being in a rotating reference frame. That the sun 'rises' is not intrinsically an illusion, it's an illusion in the context of a particular model uses a specific reference frame to explain and understand the relative motion of objects in the solar system.
Perspectives can be strange things. They can be figurative, or even metaphysical perspectives, but here we are considering the simplest case - literal perspectives, almost completely defined by the chosen origin of a 3D (or 4D) Cartesian graphical system, and by the co-ordinates of our chosen observation point (and that point's movement relative to the origin, which is 'stationary' by definition). The origin of our graphs is what we're varying here, and then we're considering the differing perspectives that result from these variations.

If we place the origin and our observation point in my garden, we clearly see the Sun rising and setting in the traditional manner, and this is not an illusion. The next step is to move the origin to the centre of our Earth, from which we gain another, different, perspective. After that, we can move the origin to the centre of the Sun, and then again to the 'centre' of the galaxy (if a moving structure like a galaxy even has a meaningful centre), and maybe even to the centre of the universe, if that centre can be defined meaningfully.

Our point of observation also shifts around. The final perspective, based on the centre of the universe, requires a typical thought-experiment 'God's-eye-view' from a point outside the universe (!!!) which cannot (as far as we know) be reached. It's a theoretical-only observation point. This is a shame, because the progression we are following leads towards absolute, as opposed to relative, motion. Absolute motion is attractive because of the way it simplifies everything, by providing the ultimate physical reference point, by which all motion might be 'converted' from relative to absolute. So motion remains relative, as we really knew already, and so we must do without the certainty and precision of absolute motion. That's life! 😉

Another thing about perspectives is that, while they can be contradictory, they can be, and often are, complementary. There is no reason to adopt a perspective as the One-and-Only perspective. For example, the perspective from my garden is useful, and wholly compatible with a heliocentric view, which is also useful, and not an illusion. And so on.

In my career as a software designer, I discovered the value of perspectives, and concluded that there are almost no perspectives that are without value, although some are more useful, and therefore more valuable, than others. It took me decades to reach that realisation, but once I had, my designs improved accordingly. More, and wider, perspectives are almost always of value, IME.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Paradigmer
Posts: 91
Joined: March 22nd, 2016, 12:59 am

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Paradigmer »

Pattern-chaser wrote: February 22nd, 2022, 12:04 pm The "cosmos" is often confusing, but I don't think our confusion accounts for the things that you describe. You seem to have invented illusions and delusions so that you can either complain about them or 'expose' them; I don't know which. 🙄
No, I did not invent illusions or delusions for the general descriptions in the OP.

An example that could relate to contrast the suggested relative motion illusion of a rising Sun, is the observation on Earth in which an aircraft flew toward a stationary observer. When viewing the motion of the plane from outside the Earth, it could be verified the plane indeed was moving toward the observer as was in the localized perception of the observer; there is no illusion for the apparently observed motion of the aircraft in this case.

Whereas for the rising Sun observation, it is the Earth rotating moving the observer towards the Sun in a manner that renders the sunrise perception as a relative motion illusion. The Earth appears stationary to the observer while the Sun appears as moving towards the observer to gradually moves over his head, and this is regardless of the observer is aware of heliocentrism or not. The apparent motion of the Sun as observed on Earth is definitely a cognitive paradox on the actuality for the motion of the Sun as observed in sunrise.

By the dictionary definition in your previous post, it univocally qualifies as an illusion of relative motion when refers to the actuality of the Sun’s motion, which contradicts with the apparent motion of the Sun that is being observed as sunrise.

One could call the misleading observation of the Sun is in motion as a misinterpretation with the awareness of heliocentrism, but it merely is a semantic issue with another way to account for the relative motion illusion of sunrise as apparently observed.

There are values in the observation of a morning Sun such as it indicates the start of another day, but this is another matter; the beginning of the day as marked by sunrise is of course not an illusion to the earth-dwelling observers and has pragmatic value since time immemorial.

We could very well be “brain in a vat” like how you put it, but you seem to have confused "real" with "reality" in this thread for the premise of your arguments. Objective reality could very well be illusory, but the crux of the OP is on the actualities of the world we all are perceiving as the objective reality.

The OP is not discussing on what is absolutely real in the universe, it is concerning the objective reality of the cosmos by addressing the actualities in the observable universe with the Cosmos it postulates.

In this sense, the elucidated actualities in the objective reality with the resolved cognitive paradoxes in the UVS worldview could be the absolute realities perceivable in the observable universe, this is even so without the vantage point of looking from the outside of the universe for what is real.

BTW, you seem to also have confused “precision” as “accurate”; these are very distinctively different attributes when accounting for the actuality of any celestial object motion.

Even the heliocentric perception is not an accurate view on the actuality of the Sun’s motion in the objective reality regardless of how precise it could quantitatively account for the sunrise phenomenon from its vantage point; the mainstream heliocentric model is an incomplete view and therefore its assertions are not the actualities of the Solar System as claimed. And the external vantage perception for perceiving the Solar System in the galactic reference frame still would not cut the heliocentric model as being accurate, despite it would still be quantitatively precise for being the valid descriptions of the observations. IMO, Rene Descartes has a more accurate view for the actuality of the Solar System as postulated with his cosmological model.

This is my review on the mainstream heliocentric model: "The cognitive paradox fallacy in Copernican heliocentrism"

The propositions of the OP are not simply the relative perceptions of different vantage points like how you put it, but rather the underlying cosmic mechanism that is modulating the actual motions of all the celestial objects in the objective reality of the cosmos, is subliminally rendering all possible forms of cognitive paradox with its negations of the apparent observations of natural phenomena in the observable universe.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Paradigmer wrote: February 25th, 2022, 6:59 am Whereas for the rising Sun observation, it is the Earth rotating moving the observer towards the Sun in a manner that renders the sunrise perception as a relative motion illusion.
There is no 'illusion'. The perspective obtained by setting our (graphical) origin to my garden, or yours, is as valid and 'correct' as any other. The universe has no origin, in this graphical sense; we can place it wherever we choose. And our choice is based purely on convenience. The perspective from my garden, and your preferred heliocentric - or galacto-centric, or whatever - perspective, are both as valid and correct as each other. The mathematics works fine, and so do the laws of physics. The translation from one origin to another is simply about adding offsets to the x, y and z co-ordinates, and a rotational translation too, if we're considering relative motion. The mathematics is there, and presents no problem to any competent mathematician.

If one's interest in the universe is astronomical, then your preferred perspective is more useful and intuitive. But almost no-one even thinks about this when living their lives, except astronomers. We select perspectives according to usefulness and convenience, nothing more. And there is no contradiction, and no illusion. Just a difference of perspective.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Raymond
Posts: 317
Joined: January 23rd, 2022, 6:47 pm

Re: The paradoxical effect of the cosmos

Post by Raymond »

AgentSmith wrote: February 14th, 2022, 8:02 am Ok, so sunrise/sunset is an illusion.

What actually happens is the earth spins on its axis.

Now, what if, just what if, the earth's rotation (too) is an illusion?

The earth does not spin, what's really goin on is _____ (fill in the blanks).
Actually, you're close to the truth here, if not at the truth. All motion in general relativity is relative. So is rotational motion. The Sun, the universe, everything can be said to rotate around the Earth. If you rotate around your axis you can just as well state that the world is rotating around you. Sounds, no is, counterintuitive. The stars seem to rotate at higher than light speed. But think about it deeper...
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

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