Customer Reviews

Sun of gOd: Discover the Self-Organizing Consciousness That Underlies Everything

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

"People might look at you strangely if you tell them you believe that the Sun thinks and that it truly is a celestial being..."

So begins Son of gOd, a journey with author Gregory Sams into the mysteries of the universe, from microbes and molecules to galaxies and Universal Mind. One might think, from the opening line, that this book was another new age spin on an old theme, and that we were being encouraged to jump on the bandwagon and hail Sun as our divine essence of the month. Not at all; although the marketing for this book gives that spin.

Although Sams makes a point of reminding us of the provocative paradigms of our solar origins and our solar-based existence, his view of Sun as "intelligent" or conscious of itself and its place in the Universe is no less radical than the idea that Earth is an organizing, interdependent living system. His point is that to omit Sun from our consideration as having and being part of a conscious universe is a strange omission and one that he intends to illuminate. And he does, with engaging depth and reverence.

Sun of gOd, however, is epic in scope and subject, diving into such unruly subjects as creative intelligence from a `bottoms up" perspective, free will, notions of divinity, the four elements, electro-magnetism, the intelligence of light and photons, God, feedback, gods, microbes; in short the self-organizing force that seems to be apparent everywhere. Sun of gOd is wise, persuasively reasoned, and thoughtfully written--not light reading, but rich, provocative, and worth savoring, like a fine meal. By the time we finish, Sams has served up a feast, moving fluidly between the micro and the macro, exploring self-organizing principles within the cosmos with resounding logic and common sense, and making great contributions to the global shift in consciousness.

Coined as a "cultural pioneer and bootstrap philosopher" (his life is as unusual and intriguing as this book) author Gregory Sams summarizes Sun of gOd by saying:

"If we cannot even understand our own process of intelligence, how can we be expected to understand how trillions and trillions of drifting hydrogen and helium atoms in a pre-stellar cloud managed to engineer their own amazing feat of star formation? But they did it, as we and a bright Universe are able to witness. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge other vehicles of intelligence that are beyond our comprehension, and not just the incomprehensible version that we personally experience and accept.

...This universe is, I would suggest, assembling and utilizing the vibration and intelligence of its myriad individual components and synthesizing them into a unified universal intelligence--a single mind. Whatever the nature of such a Universal Being at the beginning of time, it is now infinitely more substantial, evolved, enlightened and enlightening than the infant universe. And we are all playing a part in that cosmic evolution--every star-studded galaxy, each planet, person, butterfly, microbe and molecule of Us that has the honor to exist--to be. Enjoy, appreciate, care."

Review by Julie Clayton

As a monotheistic animist raised in both my traditional Native American traditions and as a Roman Catholic who finds little to no conflict in those two paths, I applaud Gregory Sams' work on this subject, reminding people of the place of the Sun in the foundations of world religious thought, and that the Sun is a Being in its own right, as the Ojibwa say, "an other-than-human person." Look at all the ancient and modern depictions of the Sun with eyes and a smiling face. Others also are looking at reviving the ancient worldview of the animist in new ways, notably Graham Harvey in his book Animism: Respecting the Living World.

Sams is not an academic scholar, but a man searching, recognizing and wrestling with an ancient and forgotten truth...that the Sun is alive, that it has sentience, and is the generator/center of life in our solar system. In trying to find common ground with the mainstream folks who were not brought up in an animist tradition, but are generally JudeoChristian and/or scientific materialists/secularists, he constructs the book as a developing dialogue with self. He considers the implications and looks at religion and history to figure out how the sun lost its age-old status as lifegiver and solar spirit/deity. Sams adds into the mix his thoughts about how science also might work with this idea of the Sun as a Being. Sadly however, in this he is doomed to failure, as the thoroughly immaterial spirit/soul is not liable to study by science, which is thoroughly empirical/materialist. It's apples and hammers :-)

Certainly recognizing that recognition of the Sun's role and being as a sentient being is also reflected in the JudeoChristian/ancient Near Eastern idea of the Shining Host of spirits/intelligences/angels/stars arrayed around the Throne of the Most High, YHWH, and joining that with the animist idea that everything is alive, and that life would not be without the light and warmth of the Sun, that is not worship. Just because there is a recognition of spirits ("gods") greater than man does not mean we "worship" them. Do you worship your mother for cooking the meal that sustains you, even though she did not create the food the meal was made from? No, you thank, appreciate, respect, and love her. Catholicism differentiates between "Worship" of God and "veneration" of the saints for example.

Animism is not a religion, but a system of thought, that all things are alive and are part of a web of relationship. There really should be no grounds for dissonance between animism and Christianity. The real problem is that in our society, materialism and Christianity have somehow become strange bedfellows.

Now, certainly dogmatic materialism will have dissonance with this idea, given that materialists even have trouble granting the concept of souls to animals or trees, and even human beings in some extremist views. How can scientists see the Sun as a spirit when many scientists do not really believe in the existence of ghosts/spirits... or God Himself, except as an abstraction or a electrochemical "ghost in the machine"? Animism might be more acceptable to scientists if they remember that we are adapted irrevocably as social beings, and that we are hardwired genetically to create social relationships. We see this as children talking to stuffed animals and even the Sun; only gradually are we weaned away from this innate approach to Creation, as we are told to "put away childish things." Indigenous people continue to interact socially with everything in nature, as the Lakota say, "all my relatives."

Sams ends his book with eight "afterwords" -principles- which evolved out of his ruminations.

1. Intelligent evolution
2. The importance of the small --seemingly "insignificant" bacteria
3. Water too is living
4. Centrality/transformative nature of fire
5. Importance of food and health
6. The perception and enjoyment of beauty is not limited to humans
7. The question of human exceptionalism/centrality on earth
8. Humanity's curiosity and innate search for meaning

I particularly like Sams' use of quotes in his journey through thinking out his argument. For example he notes Einstein saying: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

As a child in Sunday School (a Georgia Southern Baptist church, no less), I learned the words "omniscient" and "omnipresent." I was taught that the spirit of God dwells within us, underlying and pervading the entire creation. Even as a young child, I understood this to mean that a part of God is inside everything in the creation, not just white Southern Baptists as many I encountered fiercely maintained.

Later, when I read that we are made in the image of God, I took that to mean that we each hold a spark of God's light; that God's light shines on all of us; that we are illuminated (both literally and figuratively) by that light. As an adult studying world religions, trying to discover the essence--the truth--they held in common, I came to understand that "God" is consciousness--the omniscient, omnipresent consciousness that pervades the universe--more huge and more wise, more all-encompassing, than any part of the creation is able to know. But the parts are all part of the consciousness some call God and, so, are partially conscious (partially God, if you will) themselves. In short, I believe that everything in the universe is conscious to a degree.

Therefore, the views expressed in "Sun of gOd: Discover the Self-Organizing Consciousness That Underlies Everything" are not alien to me. In fact, they express my understanding and beliefs quite well. The pantheists, I believe, were much closer to and understood more about the majesty of creation than today's religious dogmatists who anthropomorphize God as some Big Daddy Up in the Sky who's going to beat up anybody and everybody who disagrees with them.

Whatever your religious perspective, get this book and read it with a willingness to shift the frame of your thinking a little. Even if you don't subscribe to much of what the author presents, I think you will be surprised at the insights that will spring forth into your consciousness.

The central thesis of this book - -that the sun and other heavenly bodies have a form of intelligence -- seemed outrageous to me at first. But, based on Chaos Theory, Sams makes a good case for the idea that the universe is self-organizing and that everything in the universe is infused with consciousness. This is not a new idea. Essentially, it is an attempt to fuse modern science and ancient pantheism. "Consciousness," Sams writes, "is not the building block of creation, it is the architect." God is not, in Sams words, a "geezer in the sky," but rather, the consciousness within the entire universe. (Also not a new idea. It can be found, for example, in certain forms of Jewish and Sufi mysticism, as well as many Eastern religions.)

I did not always agree with Sams' conclusions, but I found the presentation to be interesting. Essentially, he is attempting to re-examine the materialistic approach of modern science and bring us back to seeing the various objects and species in nature as living beings that deserve respect. He wants to see society evolve into an ecological rather than an exploitative relationship to nature. The book is, in many ways, a reaction against the current wanton destruction of our planet. It is more of a personal search than a scientific treatise, and it is clear that the author cares about the future of the world.

However, his thesis is marred by his constant need to ridicule modern religions. At the beginning of the chapter "Organized Religion," Sams states that it is really unnecessary to read the chapter in order to understand the book and "should it bore you or upset you" (his words), it can be skipped. Unfortunately, this proved to be the case -- not because I was bored or upset, but because the chapter added nothing to his thesis about the consciousness of the sun. It was merely a rant that could be summed up in one sentence: Organized religion is your enemy.

But is it really? Mr. Sams dwells a great deal on the negative aspects of organized religion - persecutions, inquisitions, outdated dogmas, church politics and such -- but does not seem to have more than a superficial understanding of the content of the religions he condemns. In the end of the book he refers to borrowing "an old guidebook" to the world's major religions and if this was his only source, it was clearly outdated. With my own religion -- Judaism -- he says the "definitive book" is the Talmud (Wrong. It's the Torah. The Talmud is a commentary) and does not know that Moses preached monotheism before Zarathustra. He makes no mention of kabbalah, Hasidism, other forms of Jewish mysticism. Ditto for Christian mysticism or Islamic Sufism. And although Sams claims the chapter is "unbiased," he has only negative quotes about Christianity and Islam (none from Judaism except in the Golden Rule list), and only positive quotes from Eastern religions. Unbiased? Hardly. His basic message seems to be: The Golden Rule is great, all the rest is hogwash.

Mr Sams hatred of "organized religion" (and by this he means primarily Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) causes him to miss some very important possible proof-texts that might have supported his thesis. Contrary to what Sams believes, the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament") do not forbid believing that non-human beings have consciousness. It forbids WORSHIPPING them as gods -- a very different thing from acknowledging that they have consciousness. I talk to my dogs and cats as fellow conscious beings, but I do not worship them.

Sams apparently missed the fact that the biblical Psalms are filled with references to living, conscious beings in nature. Psalm 148 speaks of all creation praising God, including "Praise God, sun and moon; praise God, all you stars of light." True, most people today read this as poetry -- but one could also argue that, in order for these things in nature to praise their Creator, they must have some sort of awareness, even if it is not the same as human consciousness. Rebbe Nachman of Breslov (Hasidic Master, died 1810) told his disciples to pray in the forest or fields because the trees and grasses were singing songs to God and would join in the prayers. Everything in nature, according to Hasidic thought, is singing its praises to God. (See for example Outpouring of the Soul Rabbi Nachman's Path in Meditation)

So, the Jewish stance lies BETWEEN the two extremes: These things are not gods to be worshipped, but neither are they dead matter. Ironically, Sams' idea of God is very close to the authentic Jewish one -- a non-corporeal universal consciousness that Sams describes on page 22 as "the greater gOd [his spelling] who fashioned this universe our of clouds of thin gas -- a gOd to the galaxies and stars themselves..." Which brings us back to Genesis, where God creates the sun, moon, and stars to "rule" over the day and night. Or to the expression "God of gods" that occurs in Jewish Scriptures -- a God who is God to all the other "gods" in the universe. (A Supreme Being who is NOT the Zeus-in-the-sky on the ceiling of the Cistine chapel. The "angry Jehovah" is not the Jewish concept of God, either. Both of those are medieval Christian constructs.)

Sams does not, however, believe that God has any personal involvement with individual humans or with our planet. He bases this on the size of the universe being so vast. But once again, he misses out on the Jewish viewpoint, which speaks of God as "khai-ha-olamim" - the One who give life to the Worlds -- plural. Genesis tells the story of our world, but it does not preclude God being involved in other worlds (a point I discuss in my own book, Jewish Themes in Star Trek.) He is also wrong in saying Jews believe in a male God. God is "male" in Hebrew Scriptures because every Hebrew noun is GRAMATICALLY male or female -- there is no neuter "it" in Hebrew. However, no Jewish theologian today would claim that God is biologically male and, in modern English translations done by Jews, gender-neutral language is often used.

Sams also makes no reference to an extremely important Jewish observance honoring the sun: Birkhat HaChamah, the Blessing of the Sun. This once-in-a-generation day comes every 28 years and is traditionally regarded as the Birthday of the Sun. It was most recently observed in 2009 -- the same year Sams book was published. Too bad he missed it. Try again in 2037.

In the Catholic tradition we have the "Canticle of Brother Son and Sister Moon" by St. Francis of Assisi in the 12th century -- which refers to sun, moon, fire, water, air, wind -- even death -- as animate brothers and sisters. St. Francis actually preached a sermon to "sister birds" and the flock stayed to listen. Or what about the Protestant hymn "This is my Father's World" in which "all nature sings and round me rings the music of the spheres." Surely Sams could have quoted these or other POSITIVE Jewish and Christian sources to support his thesis about consciousness in nature -- if he had not been so blinded about "organized religion."

Sams does acknowledge -- albeit in a mere footnote - -that it was the SECULARIZED philosopher, Rene Descartes, whose 17th-century writings have convinced much of the modern world that animals and other beings have no souls or consciousness. Descartes regarded all of nature except humans as mere machines, having no awareness at all -- and was severely censured by the Church for disparaging God's creation in this way. Roberta Kalechefsky devoted an entire chapter to Descartes negative influence in her book Vegetarian Judaism: A Guide for Everyone which might have made a good place to refer the reader -- if Sams had known about it. ("Son of gOd" has no bibliography -- an unfortunate omission. How hard is it to make a list of the books he consulted for further reference?)

In the chapter on animism, Sams argues that this was the "first religion" and the most pure form for humanity. Maybe. But I highly doubt that early humans lived in the perfect harmony he describes - -unless he is talking about the Garden of Eden. In the real world outside the Garden, people might have believed in numerous deities and spirits within natural forces, but they also lived in fear of them -- sometimes to the point of offering human sacrifices to the sun in their own form of organized religion. This may be why Sams never goes into any details about the sun-worshipping cults of the past, because to do so would be to admit that ancient pagans, too, had violent religious traditions. They were not necessarily the gentle Wiccans of today. (He does, however, mention the monotheistic sun worship of Pharoah Akhnaten (1400 BC) and suggests it may have influenced Moses. Well, maybe. On the other hand, Joseph, son of Jacob, was in the court of Egypt BEFORE the birth of Akhnaten, so it could be the idea originally came from the Jews.)

Animism did not always lead to harmony, either. The causes of disease, for example, were unknown until Pasteur discovered bacteria in the 1800s. Ditto for the various micro-organisms that could turn wine into vinegar or sour the milk -- for which witches and Jews were often blamed and burned at the stake. DNA was not discovered until the mid-1960s -- in my own lifetime. Before that, many forms of mental illness were attributed to demons -- with attempts to brutally exorcise them. The "explanations" that Sams so disparages have given us the very understanding that enables us to now see nature as something benevolent and not so threatening as in the past. We may have lost the awe and wonder of watching the "storm god" throw lightning bolts, but we can now also predict when a tornado might arrive and thereby save lives.

I don't think Sams really wants to go back to Stone Age pantheism. What he proposes is merging science and pantheism into a form of Intelligent Design, where the Universe itself is the Designer. In that area, he has presented some interesting scientific and spiritual hypotheses. Ignore the rants, and it's not a bad read.

The cover has the tag line, "The Sun is smarter than we think." I think that he is probably right, and in fact that's why I selected this book. Alas, "Sun of gOd" did not prove the point.

Mr. Sams is self-taught and it shows up in his glib generalizations.

If Mr. Sams had confined himself to proving that the Sun has intelligence, it may have been a better book. Instead he falls into the trap of first discounting those who would not agree with him. These miscreants fall into two groups: mainstream religions and mainstream science.

In his Afterwords, he confides that he took a "crash course" in world religions in preparation for writing the book. Oops. Mr. Sams, please read Common Heart: An Experience of Interreligious Dialogue as part of your world-religion crash course.

One of the strengths of "Sun of gOd" is the series of quotes throughout the chapters. If you have actually studied religion rather than just crammed for the tests, only read the quotes in the religion chapter. If you are Muslim, skip it all together because the Koran quotes are rather mean-spirited and are not balanced out later.

Likewise the science chapters are weak. That Mr. Sams is autodidactic becomes blatant. Again, go with the quotes and move on. He writes "... the Sun is exactly 400 times the diameter of the moon and is also 400 times as faraway from Earth as the moon. It is this proportion that makes the full moon appear to be the same size as the Sun in the sky, and because of this, when the moon slips exactly across the Sun's face, it perfectly eclipses it." Fine, except that the moon is slowly pulling away from the earth and soon will not perfectly eclipse the Sun.

His understanding of genetics and evolution is hazy, hence irritating. Throughout the book he asks rhetorical questions that I kept answering with contrary evidence. We must not be watching the same shows on the Science and History Channels.

In the Afterwords, he credits all the people that helped proofread his manuscript. And yet none of them caught a simple error in the Notes section. In Note 13 he correctly states that subtracting 273 from degrees Kelvin gives you degrees Centigrade. Then in the example he adds 273 instead of subtracting. Okay, not a big deal, except that it shows he does not quite grasp his subject matter.

His strength seems to be Chaos Theory. And that is what he uses for his basic point that the Sun is a self-aware intelligent being. But given his lack of rigor in the previous chapters, how much can we trust what he tells us here? Is this really a viable argument or more fuzzy thinking? Commentary from actual physicists who have studied Chaos Theory and Solar Science would probably be enlightening.

Other than the chapters on Chaos Theory, I could have written most of the book in the summer of '69, when I was taking Modern Physics during the week and psychedelics on weekends. We're all One, man.

I found this to be an interesting read overall although I lost some interest during the first third of the book or so that covers some historical and religious ground that relates, sometimes loosely, to the central theme of a conscious universe because I've read similar ideas before. However, for someone new to ideas that fall outside of mainstream religion, it's probably a helpful introduction.

Yes, as some previous reviewers noted, the author has criticized the failings of organized religion but he also criticizes the failings of dogmatic science so it seems to me that he's fair in presenting accurate criticism of both sides of the philosophical fence. I started getting more interested in the book when the focus turned towards recent scientific research.

Overall, I found this to be an engaging speculative piece that reminds me of the teachings I've found in eastern philosophy except that the dogma and mythology have been removed. I also appreciate the fact that these ideas are not being presented from the viewpoint of someone committed to a particular religious viewpoint but rather from the viewpoint of a free thinker who has the ability to consider the possibility of something that is clearly outside of the norm.

Before I get to the heart of my review I want to say that the author and I have very different views on religion and history. He does seem to demonstrate an ignorance of Christianity in particular (especially Catholic mysticism, of which he seems entirely unaware) and many, many readers will be offended, or at least bothered, by his views on this. But he explicitly states that he was not raised in a religious family and so approaches the Christian ideas "as an alien visiting Earth for the first time" as he puts it. Even given that and his seemingly particular animosity towards Catholicism (he is English and a certain degree of cultural "anti-popery" may be at play as well) I believe these views should be overlooked by anyone who feels as though they may be offended. That is not something I say very often mind you. He also explicitly states that he does not mean to offend anyone and I, having read the book, actually believe him. So if this is a concern for you please do not let it stop you from buying this book as you would be denying yourself so much information and so many fascinating ideas, all of which could greatly enhance your understanding of the Holy Spirit.

The American Beat author William Burroughs once said that "There should be more art in science and more science in art". In a way this is what the book is about, if you take art to mean spirituality or religion or to put it in other words, the transcendental elements in life. The author argues that the more we learn about science, in particular quantum physics and chaos theory, the more clearly it is that there is in fact intelligence in all of it. The more deeper we get into the "mechanics" of the universe the more improbable is the idea that nature and life are merely fortunate accidents. This is, of course, as we all know the idea that has almost universally dominated the field of science for many years, reaching its zenith in the modern age, where to believe in "intelligent design" is tantamount to declaring that the Earth is flat while chewing tobacco with your arm around your cousin-bride. The author demontrates that to believe in "intelligent design", or, to be more precise, universal intelligence is not only rational but probable.

By giving examples of truly awesome scientific phenomena, describing each in a very accessible way, Sams makes a very strong case (admittedly unprovable although just as unprovable as the contrary position) for there being an innate intelligence in all matter. Likely of a hierarchical nature (i.e. a grain of sand is obviously more simple than a cat or a man), intelligence can be found in literally everything in the universe, up to and including the Sun, which, as another reviewer pointed out, is not so much what the book is about specifically but more an example used to hook you into the general thesis.

His ideas have much in common with many Eastern religions, notably Hinduism, and also Pre-Christian native European religions, native South American religions, etc. In this sense he is a Traditionalist, almost like Julius Evola. However, as I mentioned above I think that Sams is not so well-rounded a thinker as to completely grasp the ideas he presents and all of the logical extensions; ideas which when extended into the fields of history and politics are essentially very conservative despite his self-identification as a "hippie". Nonetheless, he makes a very convincing argument for his beliefs, none of which he claims are original. They are in fact ancient. And to me, the more ancient a belief the more likely it is to be true if it is still floating about thousands of years later in the minds of men, even if only a select few.

The beauty of this book is the way in which he describes his beliefs, the evidence he presents to justify them, the simplicity of his writing, the passion with which he writes and his general intellectual oppenness. He clearly sees things that most modern men do not. That is a rare and priceless gift. He may not be a genius but he is sage whose message is more important now than ever. I thank God that he has written this book and that I came across it. I have already purchased multiple copies to be given out to dear friends and family. I would urge every single person who reads this review to buy this book no matter what their religion, lack of religion or even lack of interest in religion. I would also urge anyone of any political orientation to read it, especially leftists as they are the source of many of the problems he exposes (even though I believe the author would suggest just the opposite!). In fact, one finds far more of this type of thinking in "far-right" literature than in any other political literature, and I am not referring to phony psuedo-right wing Amercan Republicanism. This may well be one of the most important books in recent years. It has the capacity for real change and I dearly hope that it finds its way into the hands of many, many people around the world, both laymen and scholars, poets and physicists, blue collar and white collar and everyone in between, above and below.

In a world where blind scientism and slavish creationism have been deadlocked for a long time due to their decidedly limited and un-creative approach to Universal Life, Gregory Sams offers a rare opportunity to emancipate ourselves away from these stale battle lines.
This is a very liberating book that enlists the brilliant discoveries of true Science to assist us in intuiting the breathtaking mysteries of Spirit.
It shows a way to find our true place in a miraculous and alive universe, with our experience unfettered by prescribed interpretations from either science or religion.
Gregory Sams often shares moments of his creative process, he writes with great clarity, generosity and insight, inspiring us to shine our light that much brighter!
Cornelis Swarttouw

"Sun of gOd" is pretty much standard quality when it comes to religious and philosophical texts these days. Lots of statements, an attempt to logically flow from one point to another but ultimately not persuasive enough to convince anyone who isn't inclined to believe the same thing.

Author Gregory Sams claims to dislike both organized religion and science, though he spends far more time attempting to show the foolishness of science than of religion. In both cases he makes a lot of statements of fact which I know he did not discover or study himself and yet there are only 25 "notes" or citations for the entire book; there isn't even a bibliography. This means to put it bluntly that he has stolen many ideas and that I cannot tolerate so I automatically deducted two stars from the review rating. If he'd had no citations he would have gotten one star. Not citing your sources is either simply laziness or at it's worst theft, I'm going to assume he just didn't realize how much he needs to cite but that does not excuse his publisher from their duty.

Aside from a lack of proper citations, he frankly over simplifies many historical, religious, and scientific ideas in an attempt to bend them to support his own beliefs. Again this is a common enough situation in philosophy and religion today but I'm still going it out when it happens so the person reading this review can make a better decision about whether or not to buy.

The book also has an unnecessary and awkward series of eight "Afterwords" that honestly needed to be woven into the general argument. As they stand they seem unconnected and therefore lack any of the proof a reader might feel is in this book.

This is not a book about sun worship or about replacing religion nor as I had hoped is it really a book about reconnecting to all of creation in an attempt to improve humanity's choices. Instead it felt rambling and full of unproven assumptions the same thing that Sams complains about for religion and science. The result is that there is not discovery of "conscious" everywhere merely the assumption that such exists and thus only assurance for those who want to believe. For this reason, I have to deduct another star from the rating.

Hello Friends:

This book is a good read. Always interesting and well researched and full of fascinating ideas. If you are INTERESTED in GOD; buy the book and read it. The man who wrote is no crazy; he has a successful business. However he is not a trained THEOLOGIAN but really, does that matter as we discuss the most important question of human life?

Where did we come from? Why are we here, where are we going?

Maybe the author does not have answers to these questions; but he has impressions, visions, ideas. All worth reading and contemplating.

I rate this book a WOW! on my scale. Meaning it made me think! I hope it does that same for you!

In my opinion, you will be pleased that you read this book and spent the money.