How do you define God and Self?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Hereandnow »

fooloso4:
Why is it important that we value? What is the value of valuing?
That is, I recall, from Wittgenstein. What is the value of value? is a question that goes to a second order of valuation, first order questions being obvious, belonging the contingency of our world. Second order ethics is metaethical: it is the aboutness of value. I have a migraine, which is bad; but is this badness itself bad? There is,by my thinking, only one answer to this question: It is a given that is bad unconditionally, an absolute. See t he argument I made earlier. I think you rather dismissed its essence, which is that value retains it nature regardless of circumstance.

Anyway, then dismiss the word, 'value'. After all, words, and the pragmatic construction that they are part of, obfuscate foundational issues by making claims that belong to everydayness relevant. Better: one should put a Bunsen burner under their forearm for five seconds; or a minute. This what is at issue, its presence, there, in the possibilities if our existence. One can examine this as one might examine reason and judgment. What does its presence tell us? I tells us that this is a moral universe; after all, those possibilities issue not from our institutions or any other context of contingency. They issue from what cannot be said.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Fooloso4 »

HAN:
That is, I recall, from Wittgenstein.


I don’t know. I was responding to your question:
Why is esteeming important?
My answer was that this is the same question as why valuing is important. We do not create valuing or decide not to value. Even if we become indifferent, that is still an evaluative judgment - this is not worthy of value. Valuing, esteeming, is there from the beginning, it is tied to our needs and desires, to what pleases us and causes us pain.
I have a migraine, which is bad; but is this badness itself bad? There is,by my thinking, only one answer to this question: It is a given that is bad unconditionally, an absolute.
I don’t understand the question about the badness of what is bad. Is there such a thing as a “badness” that is not bad? Are you asking if it is bad that it is bad? If the answer is no, then why would we say it is bad? If the answer is yes, then why add the qualification that it is bad? I do not see anything unconditional or absolute about it. It is, rather, a biological or physiological response. A medical procedure may cause pain, which is bad, but this does not mean that performing the procedure is bad if it can restore me to good health. My migraine can range in severity. It might not be so bad or might be really bad.
See the argument I made earlier. I think you rather dismissed its essence, which is that value retains it nature regardless of circumstance.
I just do not agree. I cannot think of a case where I would choose to have a migraine, no case in which I would say that it is good that I have a migraine, but this tells me nothing of the “nature” of value, only that I do not value the pain of migraine, or, that it has a negative value. I might, however, wish someone suffer or think it appropriate given the suffering they have caused. In that case, I might say that it good that they have a migraine - "serves him right".
What does its presence tell us? I tells us that this is a moral universe
Does it? Your experiment tells me not to do the experiment because it will cause pain and possibly harm, but that is something I already knew. The fact that I would not hold someone else’s arm to the flame tell me nothing about a moral universe. It does, however, point to something about us. We are social animals who care about and are sympathetic to others. The universe is inhospitable and indifferent to us. We can survive in only a limited environment and even in that environment there are innumerable things that can cause us harm. Moral distinctions are human distinctions, the lines are continually being drawn and redrawn.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Atreyu »

Since I view the Universe as a gigantic conscious entity, I would define "God" as being the Universe.

The only difference between "God" and "the universe" is that in the former we assume consciousness, while in the latter we do not.

"God" implies a conscious entity, but "the universe" merely implies a bunch of "stuff"....
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Tamminen »

Atreyu wrote: February 26th, 2018, 8:53 pm Since I view the Universe as a gigantic conscious entity, I would define "God" as being the Universe.

The only difference between "God" and "the universe" is that in the former we assume consciousness, while in the latter we do not.

"God" implies a conscious entity, but "the universe" merely implies a bunch of "stuff"....
The universe is conscious because we are in the universe. By 'we' I mean all the individual subjects in the universe. The universe is essentially our universe. When we speak of the universe we have already presupposed the speaker, and even if we say that the being of the universe is independent of our being we have already presupposed our being. So there is no way of speaking meaningfully of the universe in itself. As we try to speak of it, we find that we are speaking of the universe we are in. We cannot eliminate ouselves from the picture. And there is no justification for positing something we cannot speak of in principle. What cannot be spoken of cannot be posited. However, this is exactly what materialism does. Therefore it is logically inconsistent.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Hereandnow »

fooloso4:
Why is esteeming important?
My answer was that this is the same question as why valuing is important. We do not create valuing or decide not to value. Even if we become indifferent, that is still an evaluative judgment - this is not worthy of value. Valuing, esteeming, is there from the beginning, it is tied to our needs and desires, to what pleases us and causes us pain.
The question was supposed direct attention to the value of esteeming: within esteeming, or anything we do or experience, there is within the analysis,value. All valuing is different in context and themes, just as all reasoning is different to each occasion, but that does not prevent us from identifying as common feature.
I don’t understand the question about the badness of what is bad. Is there such a thing as a “badness” that is not bad? Are you asking if it is bad that it is bad? If the answer is no, then why would we say it is bad? If the answer is yes, then why add the qualification that it is bad? I do not see anything unconditional or absolute about it. It is, rather, a biological or physiological response. A medical procedure may cause pain, which is bad, but this does not mean that performing the procedure is bad if it can restore me to good health. My migraine can range in severity. It might not be so bad or might be really bad.
Bad thinks are obvious,this toothache is bad because it hurts; though we know the pain is good because it tells us to attend to a problem, taken as such, as pain as such, it is simply bad because it hurts, and pain is inherently bad. Nothing inherently bad about a dull knife, though. Hence the argument: you cannot reduce,let's say, pain to contingency. Why? Nothing could be more clear than this. It is bad regardless of how it is placed in a setting, any setting. If something is not contingently bad, yet endures in what it is, it is absolute.
See the argument I made earlier. I think you rather dismissed its essence, which is that value retains it nature regardless of circumstance.
I just do not agree. I cannot think of a case where I would choose to have a migraine, no case in which I would say that it is good that I have a migraine, but this tells me nothing of the “nature” of value, only that I do not value the pain of migraine, or, that it has a negative value. I might, however, wish someone suffer or think it appropriate given the suffering they have caused. In that case, I might say that it good that they have a migraine - "serves him right".
Not sure how this goes. First, served him right? I cannot make sense out of this ethically. Sure, you might say it, but are you suggesting this kind of response would somehow be a defensible idea, pain serving someone right, that is? Second, of course, if you had a choice to have a migraine you could choose to have it in some bizarre hedonic calculation of, say, a child's suffering vs your own. But that is really not the point. The point is that the value inherent in an act is inherently good or bad, not contingently good or bad. Ethical god and bad works like this.
What does its presence tell us? I tells us that this is a moral universe
Does it? Your experiment tells me not to do the experiment because it will cause pain and possibly harm, but that is something I already knew. The fact that I would not hold someone else’s arm to the flame tell me nothing about a moral universe. It does, however, point to something about us. We are social animals who care about and are sympathetic to others. The universe is inhospitable and indifferent to us. We can survive in only a limited environment and even in that environment there are innumerable things that can cause us harm. Moral distinctions are human distinctions, the lines are continually being drawn and redrawn.
But the matter here goes to another level of scrutiny. Here, we look only to pain as such, not the way it presents itself in circumstances. In circumstances we discover value as a feature that needs to be looked at as we might look at a cog in a machine. This is phenomenology, to analyze the structure of experience and disclose its parts. Value is there and it is very different from others structural parts. It is indicative of something within human dasein that is absolute.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Fooloso4 »

HAN:
The question was supposed direct attention to the value of esteeming: within esteeming, or anything we do or experience, there is within the analysis,value.
To esteem is to value, so of course within the analysis of value is value.
… we know the pain is good because it tells us to attend to a problem ...

It is bad regardless of how it is placed in a setting, any setting.
Didn’t you just put it in a setting in which it is good?
First, served him right? I cannot make sense out of this ethically. Sure, you might say it, but are you suggesting this kind of response would somehow be a defensible idea, pain serving someone right, that is?
I think that it is a defensible position to say that those who deliberately cause suffering deserve to suffer.
The point is that the value inherent in an act is inherently good or bad, not contingently good or bad. Ethical god and bad works like this.
As in the example of a medical procedure, the pain that is caused is ethically permissible if it leads to an improvement in health or alleviates further pain that is more persistent or severe. I do not think that ethics can ignore circumstances and consequences. It, like value, is contingent.
Here, we look only to pain as such, not the way it presents itself in circumstances.
Suppose I see someone getting stuck by a needle and I can see that it hurts. Did the person sticking the other person do something bad? I would say that we cannot judge the action simply on whether it causes pain. It depends on the circumstances, for example, on whether the needle contained something beneficial.

If pain is inherently bad, then is it good or bad to take the life of someone in pain if it can’t be alleviated with medication? Does it matter whether it is voluntary or involuntary euthanasia? Physician assisted suicide? Terminal sedation? Does the severity of the pain make a difference? Whether it is acute or chronic?
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Hereandnow »

fooloso4:
I think that it is a defensible position to say that those who deliberately cause suffering deserve to suffer.
Well, this is another issue, but then, I don't see how this term 'desert' stands up very well at all. What can this mean? For desert goes to fault, and fault goes to an act that would go beyond the drives and motivations that would determine it. How is it that anyone deserves what they get in life? I for one cannot see it.
To esteem is to value, so of course within the analysis of value is value.
All esteeming is valuing, but not all value is esteeming.Value is a broad term encompassing an aspect of experience as such which denotes what lies on the experiencing side of the mmm's and ugh's, more or less pronounced, that characterize our daily affairs.
Didn’t you just put it in a setting in which it is good?
Step away from settings, just as if you were to examine the rational structure of judgment, the specific settings in which judgment reveals its nature would be dismissed to attend to what is resent in all. Here, it is value, not reason.
As in the example of a medical procedure, the pain that is caused is ethically permissible if it leads to an improvement in health or alleviates further pain that is more persistent or severe. I do not think that ethics can ignore circumstances and consequences. It, like value, is contingent.
Granted, things get dicey when conditions are variable. But what does not get dicey is the pain itself. This is unchanging. Put a needle in my arm to deliver an antibiotic, and the fact that this will do me good does not at all diminish the pain that is there, the nature of which does not yield to the circumstance.
Suppose I see someone getting stuck by a needle and I can see that it hurts. Did the person sticking the other person do something bad? I would say that we cannot judge the action simply on whether it causes pain. It depends on the circumstances, for example, on whether the needle contained something beneficial.

If pain is inherently bad, then is it good or bad to take the life of someone in pain if it can’t be alleviated with medication? Does it matter whether it is voluntary or involuntary euthanasia? Physician assisted suicide? Terminal sedation? Does the severity of the pain make a difference? Whether it is acute or chronic?
No, the matter at hand is not about what to do. It is entirely about being clear as to the nature of pain, not unlike if you were to place a color under scrutiny: there is little to say other than orange as-a-color is orange, different from red and the rest. Pain is pain, and ITS nature is its badness. To question this is impossible: it would imply that something could be both a pain and good, which is a contradiction.

Obviously, if you fit the pain into a body of contingency, you can make it relatively good. But again, this misses the point altogether.

Just light the match and apply it to your finger. This sensation and only this is at issue.

I suspect you are so resistant to acknowledging pain as an absolute, you are abdicating fair judgment on this. Elsewhere you are clear and responsible.
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Tamminen »

Hereandnow wrote: February 27th, 2018, 11:13 pm Pain is pain, and ITS nature is its badness.
I am just wondering why pain should necessarily be connected to badness. Pain is pain and we know what it means. Is happiness good? I can agree that when a dog feels pain it is bad, but what should I think of Hitler being very happy when he thought about killing all Jews? Is it not enough to say he was happy? Am I missing something here?
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Hereandnow »

Tamminen
I am just wondering why pain should necessarily be connected to badness. Pain is pain and we know what it means. Is happiness good? I can agree that when a dog feels pain it is bad, but what should I think of Hitler being very happy when he thought about killing all Jews? Is it not enough to say he was happy? Am I missing something here?
A far better question is, what is the basis for the willingness to take ethical/valuative badness and goodness, and place these among their counterparts of contingency? Clearly, shifting circumstances mean shifting meaning assignments applicable, their is nothing that changes about the concrete valuative content. This has to be taken seriously: it means something, and I am saying it grounds human affairs in an absolute, though I am not venturing to say how that would be described. I don't do metaphysics, at least not the way Christians and others do it. I just observe the world.

Valuative good is good, happiness is valuatively good no matter if it's Hitler's or an innocent child's, just as reason is reason, orange is orange, no matter how these are taken up in the world.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Fooloso4 »

I suspect you are so resistant to acknowledging pain as an absolute, you are abdicating fair judgment on this. Elsewhere you are clear and responsible.
I am resistant to acknowledging anything as an absolute. I do not see this as being irresponsible. It does not lead me to intentionally inflict pain on others or on myself. Far from an abdication of fair judgment, it is an acknowledgement of judgment. The intentional infliction of pain is wrong because I judge it to be wrong not because of an absolute.

I do not deny the existence of pain. What I deny is that it is something other than the subjective experience of a biological organism that is sufficiently well developed to feel pain. If there were no such organisms there would be no pain.

I do not think we can be mistaken about being in pain, although we may be mistaken about whether someone else is in pain. Someone might be in pain without showing signs of pain, or may show signs of pain without being in pain. An injury that ordinarily will cause pain may not under certain circumstances such as the heat of battle or sport. Some describe an attack of gout, for example, as extremely painful but others as not severe.
… orange is orange …
There is no orange that is not the color of some object. The object will appear orange in some light but not other. A paint chip will appear to be orange in comparison to another chip, but without the comparison may not appear to be orange. This is a common experience when choosing paint colors, but not to someone who is color blind. An animal may be able to make more or less distinctions is shades of orange or not see it as distinguished from other colors at all.
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Tamminen »

Fooloso4 wrote: February 28th, 2018, 1:35 pm The intentional infliction of pain is wrong because I judge it to be wrong not because of an absolute.
But then again: why do I judge it to be wrong and not acceptable? Because it is wrong. To judge it to be acceptable is to ignore our immediate knowledge of this, or somehow fail to see it, perhaps because of psychopathy, or to find reasons to make exceptions. So I am beginning to understand what Hereandnow means. This has something to do with the question of the absolute nature of human rights.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Tamminen:
But then again: why do I judge it to be wrong and not acceptable? Because it is wrong.
I think it is because, as I said above, we are social animals who care about and are sympathetic to others. I think very young children and to some degree other social animals understand this. Neonatal babies react to the stress and cries of others. It is biological empathy, not something they are told or the result of some built in rules of conduct.
This has something to do with the question of the absolute nature of human rights.
What does a young child or puppy know of the absolute nature of human rights? I do not inflict pain on non-human animals because it has something to do with the absolute nature of human rights.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Fooloso4 »

The claim that I know it is wrong does not explain why I should care that it is wrong. I think it is the other way around: it is because we care that we judge it to be wrong to hurt others. It is not because there is some absolute prohibition that keeps me from inflicting pain, but rather, it is because I care about others and relate to their pain that I do not hurt them. I don’t care that it is wrong because it is wrong but because I care about the person or animal I am wronging by hurting them. I am empathetic to their pain.
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Tamminen »

Fooloso4 wrote: February 28th, 2018, 6:55 pm The claim that I know it is wrong does not explain why I should care that it is wrong. I think it is the other way around: it is because we care that we judge it to be wrong to hurt others. It is not because there is some absolute prohibition that keeps me from inflicting pain, but rather, it is because I care about others and relate to their pain that I do not hurt them. I don’t care that it is wrong because it is wrong but because I care about the person or animal I am wronging by hurting them. I am empathetic to their pain.
Pain is essentially something we avoid, pleasure and happiness something we want to have. Therefore pain is bad, pleasure and happiness good. So these ethical properties must be already inherent in those phenomena. I think this is what Hereandnow wanted to say. Also such things as sado-masochism must be analyzed from these premises.

I only wanted to say something about the justification of human rights.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: How do you define God and Self?

Post by Hereandnow »

fooloso4:
I suspect you are so resistant to acknowledging pain as an absolute, you are abdicating fair judgment on this. Elsewhere you are clear and responsible.

I am resistant to acknowledging anything as an absolute. I do not see this as being irresponsible. It does not lead me to intentionally inflict pain on others or on myself. Far from an abdication of fair judgment, it is an acknowledgement of judgment. The intentional infliction of pain is wrong because I judge it to be wrong not because of an absolute.
Well, I grant you that the word 'absolute' is not something that can be clearly said, but I do think it is a meaningful term nonetheless.

But this: you say the infliction of pain is wrong because you judge it to be wrong, and I think you are saying since there are no absolutes, this leaves the matter up to culture and defacto ethical systems to decide, and this puts the matter squarely in the hands of contingency, for cultures and its systems are not absolutes. On this, I will admit that analyses often reveal what common sense cannot see, but here, saying we live in an interpretative environment that does not admit absolutes does not the defeat the obvious solid "fact" of excruciating pain being inherently bad, bad in any possible universe. Our words may fail to grasp the nature of the badness of this, and the word 'bad' in the valuative sense certainly fails to bring forth all that may be it's "ultimate" context, whatever that is, but its being bad is simply beyond question, for what we mean by this is no more than the what the experience delivers, which is why the claim of absoluteness holds up.
I do not deny the existence of pain. What I deny is that it is something other than the subjective experience of a biological organism that is sufficiently well developed to feel pain. If there were no such organisms there would be no pain.

I do not think we can be mistaken about being in pain, although we may be mistaken about whether someone else is in pain. Someone might be in pain without showing signs of pain, or may show signs of pain without being in pain. An injury that ordinarily will cause pain may not under certain circumstances such as the heat of battle or sport. Some describe an attack of gout, for example, as extremely painful but others as not severe.
But the possibility of being mistaken is the hallmark of contingency, and if something cannot be doubted, this is metaphysical certainty. As to others, true the sign of an inner state is doubtable, but the state if confirmed is not. The matter then goes to conditions of confirmation, which is another issue.
There is no orange that is not the color of some object. The object will appear orange in some light but not other. A paint chip will appear to be orange in comparison to another chip, but without the comparison may not appear to be orange. This is a common experience when choosing paint colors, but not to someone who is color blind. An animal may be able to make more or less distinctions is shades of orange or not see it as distinguished from other colors at all.
Granted. But when it is orange it is orange. The issue is not about variations in reports about physical objects' colors; it is about the phenomenon. My pain may be worse than yours given the same stimulus, but this does not change my pain being what it is at all. However, it does put ambiguity into the way we can talk about pain.
The claim that I know it is wrong does not explain why I should care that it is wrong.
This is because you place the caring within social institutions, and then caring gets complicated by competing interests. Here, one needs to put such things aside and allow moral reasoning to begin with the assumption that pain is bad as such. Given this assumption, which I hold to be absolutely unassailable, then we move on carefully to more complex systems of judgment. This assumption is part of the bedrock of ethics ( and I do not mean to imply that ethics does not work without it--I don't make a pragmatic claim, though there may be one in there somewhere, but rather an ontological one: the pain IS bad, and the question that haunts humanity has to do with value-in-Being. It is: why are we born to suffer and die?

This not a culture/language problem.
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