Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

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
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Felix »

Tamminen said: A complex or composite subject would have properties, but the metaphysical subject is just the reference point of consciousness of the world.
No, not a "reference point," awareness transcends both the objective and the subjective. If you can disassociate (to use a clinical term) your consciousness from it's physical affects, That which is aware from the objects of awareness, even if only momentarily, the property of consciousness remains: That which is conscious, timeless in the stream of time. It's not a reference point, but rather That which references.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Tamminen »

Felix wrote: August 3rd, 2019, 3:54 pm
Tamminen said: A complex or composite subject would have properties, but the metaphysical subject is just the reference point of consciousness of the world.
No, not a "reference point," awareness transcends both the objective and the subjective. If you can disassociate (to use a clinical term) your consciousness from it's physical affects, That which is aware from the objects of awareness, even if only momentarily, the property of consciousness remains: That which is conscious, timeless in the stream of time. It's not a reference point, but rather That which references.
The term 'reference point' is perhaps not so good, I just meant that all being whatsoever always refers to the subject as its ontological precondition. The subject transcends consciousness, because consciousness varies but the subject is the eternal present, the experiencer of all experiences. Therefore I call it the transcendental subject. Have you a different opinion about this?
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Felix »

Tamminen: The subject transcends consciousness, because consciousness varies but the subject is the eternal present, the experiencer of all experiences. Therefore I call it the transcendental subject. Have you a different opinion about this?
Well, I wouldn't say the transcendental subject or Self transcends Consciousness, because consciousness is it's nature. But it does transcend awareness - temporal awareness. This comes and goes but Consciousness seems to be eternal. I would not say it is the "the experiencer of all experiences" because I consider experience to be a derivative of temporal awareness.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Hereandnow »

Felix
because I consider experience to be a derivative of temporal awareness.
You are very close the middle of the fray. If Heidegger is right, and temporal awareness exempts any possibility of encountering the world, oneself as present, and so we are therefore in time to even imagine what anything really is, and so we are confined to interpretation, the taking up of something "as" something else (a symbol in language, a symbolic gesture, any "stand-in-place-of symbol--Derrida said symbols do not stand for things, they stand IN for things, the difference lying with division between thing and symbol being far more radical, as I read it-- when trying to understand the world even at the level of basic questions) which carries the meaning via the recollection. this means we are stuck in an arc of interpretation and never make sense of the given, the present which would be something that is absolute. There can be no absolutes when experience itself is always an interpretation through culture and language that issues from one's past (personal, historical) and "makes" the future. Parmenides is out, Heraclitus is in.
BUT, Tamminen says there is something notwithstanding that is abiding. I think he's right, but my arguments are off the beaten path. Suffice it to say that if all utterances, thoughts are at best interpretations, then this pronouncement/thought, too, is interpretative. As such, it is held to no higher standard confirmation, for if all is interpretation, then it is one interpretation subsuming another. This places the matter squarely in Levinas' hands. All things that are within world are equally metaphysical. It is the spurious temptation to say things, and in the saying itself there is the self fulfilling prophesy that all can be said which is meaningful, and we are tempted by this because it is usually right, when you want to buy a house or choose a college major. It is because we live so deeply in language' pragmatic world (human dasein) that we forget there even IS something else.
BigBango
Posts: 343
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by BigBango »

Hereandnow wrote: August 3rd, 2019, 7:30 pm
Felix
because I consider experience to be a derivative of temporal awareness.
You are very close the middle of the fray. If Heidegger is right, and temporal awareness exempts any possibility of encountering the world, oneself as present, and so we are therefore in time to even imagine what anything really is, and so we are confined to interpretation, the taking up of something "as" something else (a symbol in language, a symbolic gesture, any "stand-in-place-of symbol--Derrida said symbols do not stand for things, they stand IN for things, the difference lying with division between thing and symbol being far more radical, as I read it-- when trying to understand the world even at the level of basic questions) which carries the meaning via the recollection. this means we are stuck in an arc of interpretation and never make sense of the given, the present which would be something that is absolute. There can be no absolutes when experience itself is always an interpretation through culture and language that issues from one's past (personal, historical) and "makes" the future. Parmenides is out, Heraclitus is in.
BUT, Tamminen says there is something notwithstanding that is abiding. I think he's right, but my arguments are off the beaten path. Suffice it to say that if all utterances, thoughts are at best interpretations, then this pronouncement/thought, too, is interpretative. As such, it is held to no higher standard confirmation, for if all is interpretation, then it is one interpretation subsuming another. This places the matter squarely in Levinas' hands. All things that are within world are equally metaphysical. It is the spurious temptation to say things, and in the saying itself there is the self fulfilling prophesy that all can be said which is meaningful, and we are tempted by this because it is usually right, when you want to buy a house or choose a college major. It is because we live so deeply in language' pragmatic world (human dasein) that we forget there even IS something else.
I am wondering if my metaphysics can illuminate the very erudite conversations that are transpiring in this forum.

When a world collapses and Big Bangs there are three components. The galactic centers become visible matter, the living ecosystems are what we call dark matter and the leftover mass just becomes part of the nature of space or dark energy.

When those living ecosystems instantiate themselves in the "goldilocks" planets of their collapsed world then we have "our" consciousness simply as an artifact of the consciousness of all worlds of all living ecosystems that preceded us. The difference between these hierarchical levels of consciousness are the "material objects" that they have any casual efficacy over. Each level of consciousness or awareness has its level of objectiveness that it can have any power over. "Experience itself is always an interpretation through culture and language" because consciousness is always about the "objects" that is in its realm of causal relevance.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Consul »

BigBango wrote: August 1st, 2019, 1:13 amYou are right Consul. There is no "flowing" that does not involve "things". That is, as Tamminen claims, the ontological connection between subject and object.
By "subjectless processes" Rescher doesn't only mean processes lacking conscious objects/substances as substrata but ones lacking any (conscious or nonconscious) objects/substances as substrata.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Hereandnow »

BigBango
I am wondering if my metaphysics can illuminate the very erudite conversations that are transpiring in this forum.

When a world collapses and Big Bangs there are three components. The galactic centers become visible matter, the living ecosystems are what we call dark matter and the leftover mass just becomes part of the nature of space or dark energy.

When those living ecosystems instantiate themselves in the "goldilocks" planets of their collapsed world then we have "our" consciousness simply as an artifact of the consciousness of all worlds of all living ecosystems that preceded us. The difference between these hierarchical levels of consciousness are the "material objects" that they have any casual efficacy over. Each level of consciousness or awareness has its level of objectiveness that it can have any power over. "Experience itself is always an interpretation through culture and language" because consciousness is always about the "objects" that is in its realm of causal relevance.
A galactic center of world? Do you mean a universe? Dark matter is a living ecosystem?
Anyway, it's not exactly metaphysics, is it? 'Big bang" is an empirical concept. As are goldilocks planets, galactic centers, dark energy. Consciousness comes up, "as an artifact of consciousness of all worlds that preceded us." I must admit, I am mystified by this? What do you mean? And how is that you conflate culture and language with causality?
BigBango
Posts: 343
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by BigBango »

Hereandnow wrote: August 4th, 2019, 12:33 pm
BigBango
I am wondering if my metaphysics can illuminate the very erudite conversations that are transpiring in this forum.

When a world collapses and Big Bangs there are three components. The galactic centers become visible matter, the living ecosystems are what we call dark matter and the leftover mass just becomes part of the nature of space or dark energy.

When those living ecosystems instantiate themselves in the "goldilocks" planets of their collapsed world then we have "our" consciousness simply as an artifact of the consciousness of all worlds of all living ecosystems that preceded us. The difference between these hierarchical levels of consciousness are the "material objects" that they have any casual efficacy over. Each level of consciousness or awareness has its level of objectiveness that it can have any power over. "Experience itself is always an interpretation through culture and language" because consciousness is always about the "objects" that is in its realm of causal relevance.
A galactic center of world? Do you mean a universe? Dark matter is a living ecosystem?
Anyway, it's not exactly metaphysics, is it? 'Big bang" is an empirical concept. As are goldilocks planets, galactic centers, dark energy. Consciousness comes up, "as an artifact of consciousness of all worlds that preceded us." I must admit, I am mystified by this? What do you mean? And how is that you conflate culture and language with causality?
Hereandnow, I apologize for confusing you and leading you to believe that I am conflating culture and language with causality, I am not. The ambiguities that my thesis, as stated, come from an honest attempt on my part to enhance your and Tamminem's assertions with a deeper metaphysical understanding. An understanding that avoids what I judge to be your premature slide into a simply epistemological account of our world/universe. I am not a materialist of any strip. I am a dual aspect, physical/mental, theorist that is here to caution you to not just skip over metaphysical details that science could explore. Let us not rush to God, spirit, transcendence, imminent transcendence or Buddhist' thinking that may be true but fails to uncover the metaphysically discoverable steps that get us there.

I use the term "world" to be descriptive of any segment of the entire universe that encompasses its own set of rules that have little or no connection to other worlds. I am proposing a metaphysics that is similar to Penrose's understanding. That is, a world that vertically evolves into another fractal world that preserves its form rather than the completely isolated parallel worlds of quantum mechanics.

The "world" before the Big Crunch, BB was like the world we know, a world of galaxies that collapsed into three parts. Part one was the smashing together of all the galaxies black hole centers, which turned into a mixture of "singularities" and plasma. Part two were the ecosystems that used their advanced technology to escape the focal point of the Big Crunch BB and we now understand to be Dark Matter. Part three was the non living objects that were not obliterated by the BC/BB and became the flotsam or dark energy of the new world that was born.

The world we are now familiar with is not clearly understood except for the "visible mass" which is science's sweetheart and the dark matter which all we know about is that it is the other 90 percent of the mass of our world and dark energy which constitutes the nature of "space".

Our metaphysical task is now to explicate the relationship between the "consciousness" of the world that collapsed and how it is now embedded in our "goldilocks" planets. This is a metaphysical task even though it does not encompass a full accounting of the nature of "consciousness/subject" in the primordial universe. I leave that to you and Tamminen and your excellent accounting of it as a necessarily epistemologically ontic enterprise.

Just do not skip the metaphysical details as in the devil is in those details.
BigBango
Posts: 343
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by BigBango »

Hereandnow wrote: And how is that you conflate culture and language with causality?
That is a more difficult question. It is not something I have given a lot of thought to until your very recent explication of H, W and K. Culture and its language is necessarily an artifact or attribute of the "subjects" incarnation in a particular level of the world. The language of that culture is the subject's only way to characterize the nature of objects at that level of existence. Without that characterization, in language, the subject cannot marshal the energy of his inner subjectivity to accomplish any of his newly acquired attachments to the world as only he can intend. The acquisition of "language" by the subject is an engagement with his level of the world that supervenes the attachments of his soul. So "language" is what enables the subject to evolve as a "causal" player in his new world.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Belindi »

May I suggest that the following in connection with culture, language, and causality?

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

The hypothesis of linguistic relativity, part of relativism, also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism is a principle claiming that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition, and thus people's perceptions are relative to their spoken language. During World War II this claimed principle was used to advance nationalistic views by Nazi Germany, claiming their intellectual superiority over others[1], but has been reexamined by scholars since the late 1980's and on, aiming to avoid the context of racism, nationalism, or a hierarchy of intellectual capabilities which had previously surrounded the theory.[2]

The principle is often defined in one of two versions: the strong hypothesis, which was held by some of the early linguists before WWII[3], and the weak hypothesis, mostly held by some of the modern linguists[3]

The strong version says that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories.
The weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.
The principle had been accepted and then abandoned by linguists during the early 20th century following the changing perceptions of social acceptance for the other especially after World War II.[3] The origin of formulated arguments against the acceptance of linguistic relativity are attributed to Noam Chomsky.[3]
BigBango
Posts: 343
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by BigBango »

Belindi wrote: August 5th, 2019, 4:46 am May I suggest that the following in connection with culture, language, and causality?

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

The hypothesis of linguistic relativity, part of relativism, also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism is a principle claiming that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition, and thus people's perceptions are relative to their spoken language. During World War II this claimed principle was used to advance nationalistic views by Nazi Germany, claiming their intellectual superiority over others[1], but has been reexamined by scholars since the late 1980's and on, aiming to avoid the context of racism, nationalism, or a hierarchy of intellectual capabilities which had previously surrounded the theory.[2]

The principle is often defined in one of two versions: the strong hypothesis, which was held by some of the early linguists before WWII[3], and the weak hypothesis, mostly held by some of the modern linguists[3]

The strong version says that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories.
The weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.
The principle had been accepted and then abandoned by linguists during the early 20th century following the changing perceptions of social acceptance for the other especially after World War II.[3] The origin of formulated arguments against the acceptance of linguistic relativity are attributed to Noam Chomsky.[3]
Thanks Belindi for a very relevant post about linguistics. In addition to your references I might add Umberto Eco, "Kant and the Platypus". In his Essay he makes it very clear that what we see in the world is dependent on the categories we have for seeing things. South American natives saw incoming Spanish ships as clouds because they had no experience with such big ships with sails. We see things through templates that are either genetically given or learned through experience.

Of course all these issues are very relevant to our Presidents way of characterizing immigrants, blacks or simply brown people as "others".

In my posts I have not been addressing those issues that mistakenly categorize cultural groups as all of a kind.

I am trying to address a deeper metaphysical distinction between the "language" assimilated as appropriate in one level of the world to what may be appropriate to a deeper world.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Belindi »

Big Bango wrote:
I am trying to address a deeper metaphysical distinction between the "language" assimilated as appropriate in one level of the world to what may be appropriate to a deeper world.
I

My thinking about ontology is stuck at the concept of theories of existence. These are theories about the notion of ontic substance(s). Is there some other ontological frame of reference?
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Consul »

Belindi wrote: August 6th, 2019, 8:34 amMy thinking about ontology is stuck at the concept of theories of existence. These are theories about the notion of ontic substance(s). Is there some other ontological frame of reference?
Ontology—conceived as what Christian Wolff calls "general metaphysics", what Edmund Husserl calls "formal ontology", and what Donald Williams calls "analytic ontology"—is categoriology or category theory (there's also a different, mathematical category theory).

<Substance> is only one ontological category among others. Moreover, there are alternatives to the traditional substance ontology (according to which <substance> is a fundamental and irreducible category) such as process ontology and trope ontology.

"Ontology is concerned above all with the categorial structure of reality – the division of reality into fundamental types of entity and their ontological relations with one another."

(Lowe, E. J. Forms of Thought: A Study in Philosophical Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. p. 51)

"Ontology is the most general science or study of Being, Existence, or Reality. An informal use of the term signifies what, in general terms, a philosopher considers the world to contain. Thus it is said that Descartes proposed a dualist ontology, or that there were no gods in d’Holbach’s ontology. But in its more formal meaning, ontology is the aspect of metaphysics aiming to characterize Reality by identifying all its essential categories and setting forth the relations among them."

(Campbell, Keith. "Ontology." In Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 7, 2nd ed., edited by Donald M. Borchert, 21-27. Detroit: Thomson Gale/Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. pp. 21-2)

"Ontology asks and tries to answer two related questions. What are the categories of the world? And what are the laws that govern these categories? In chemistry, for comparison, we search for the chemical elements and the laws of chemistry; in physics, for elementary particles and their laws. Categories are for ontology what these basic building blocks of the universe are for the natural sciences. But ontology is not a science among sciences. Its scope is vastly larger than that of any science. And its point of view is totally different from that of the sciences."

(Grossmann, Reinhardt. The Existence of the World: An Introduction to Ontology. New York: Routledge, 1992. p. 1)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Consul »

Consul wrote: August 6th, 2019, 9:42 am"Ontology asks and tries to answer two related questions. What are the categories of the world? And what are the laws that govern these categories? In chemistry, for comparison, we search for the chemical elements and the laws of chemistry; in physics, for elementary particles and their laws. Categories are for ontology what these basic building blocks of the universe are for the natural sciences. But ontology is not a science among sciences. Its scope is vastly larger than that of any science. And its point of view is totally different from that of the sciences."
(Grossmann, Reinhardt. The Existence of the World: An Introduction to Ontology. New York: Routledge, 1992. p. 1)
Well, his final statement is misleading. Of course, ontology is not itself an empirical science; but theories in empirical science and their ontological commitments and implications need to be taken into consideration by ontologists, because an ontological category scheme must be plausible in the light of our scientific knowledge of the (nature and structure of the) world.

"Ontological theses are assayed not by measuring them directly against reality, but by considering their relative power. One thesis bests another when it proves more adept at making sense of our experiences of the universe in light of our most promising scientific theories."

(Heil, John. The Universe As We Find It. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 97)

"Ontology sets out an even more abstract model of how the world is than theoretical physics, a model that has placeholders for scientific results and excluders for tempting confusions. Ontology and theoretical science can help one another along, we hope, with minimal harm."

(Martin, C. B. The Mind in Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 42)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Hereandnow »

Belindi
The strong version says that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories.
The weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.
The devil would be in the details, wouldn't it. It hangs on the distinction between 'determine' and 'influence'.
Perhaps the way to go is to look to method, and not definition. Here is an idea:

One should not discard the idea of "actuality", which is just as puzzling, one might argue, but is at least not cluttered with theory, philosophical or otherwise. Consider: you are there, doing "the usual" of some form, using your computer, drinking tea, whatever, and something goes wrong; say, the cursor is not responsive. You stop what you are doing, look for the cause and the solution, and so forth. This, I would propose, is a very important event in human understanding, for you were there, in a working conceptual scheme, and then it all had to stop for review and what was assumed is called into question: conditions for what is a fact of the world, what IS the case, are now in abeyance, and their suspension brings forth a corrective. I would argue that this kind of thing that happens all the time is the essence of human freedom. Forget, I contend, all of the arguments about metaphysical free will, a kind of absolute freedom that transcends the principle of efficient cause. Rather, acts are free when conditions for actualizing no longer dictate, or, hold one bound to "the usual". For a moment, when the cursor failure first arises and there has not yet kicked in the subroutines that apply, one is free of the flux of events. It is in the space of transition, the "doubt" that undoes the fixation that binds consciousness; this is freedom.

Of course, if you're still reading, you will wonder what freedom has to do with ontology. You will note that all of those definitions laid out by Consul make no reference to actuality. They talk about theses and structures of reality. Not that they are so wrong, in fact you can argue that there is no getting around describing any idea whatever in terms of other ideas: you want to know what ontology is, look in a dictionary or encyclopedia. Same with 'actuality'. Heidegger thought along these lines.

But if ontology is theory, some wordy string of ideas, where does this leave actuality? When the matter before you breaks down, the cursor doesn't work, it is the question that puts ideas to the test. The question can lead to solution, and it is obviously pragmatically significant, but, in truly unsettled matters, ones that do not have readily available answers, like those about the foundational meaning of all that is, inquiry gets "lost" in the interposition, between the inquirer and the inquired, between the idea and the ideatum, of silence. This silence is actuality, or, the disclosure of actuality, that is, it is what remains before one when interpretative circuits are closed and there is nothing that steps in, for language cannot fill the void, for when it does it puts you on a path, and what is sought is not a path. Language may be essential for any kind of disclosure at all, and it is clear that it is, and it may always already stand there, in the waiting behind even the least hampered apprehensions of the world, but this is does not mean that that an encounter with actuality is defined conceptually. Actuality is a very different part of awareness, but it is occluded by talk, endless talk, streaming forth.

Ontology is the wordy business of leading, the method I spoke of, the inquirer to a place where the words run out. It will not be spoken; it can be spoken about, however. Definitions are preonological, or better, all ontology is best understood as preontological, or preactual, or pragmatically leading, as it is, in whatever form, a process that takes one to a liberation from the language strictures that bind the understanding.
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