I think Eating Alive is a great book, deserves rereading and makes a great gift (*****). His second Book, the Magnum Opus "Secrets" cannot be read. Only naturopaths should buy this book (for the wonderful bibliography).

The book is full of meaningless banter between childlike Liver Elves. This book is a farce (* for bibliography only). The introduction of Docque brings about a two page explanation of the fact that he isn't a medical doctor but a ship cook.

On the other hand, my girlfriend read Secrets and enjoyed herself. But I made no sense the book, despite a sincere desire to pull something out of it.

I would recommend reading Eating Alive first. I learned a great deal from John Matsen's first book and know that it made Secrets to Great Health much more valuable and readable to me. John gets a little silly but assigning personalities to the different organs and processes within us made it so easy to understand and remember why our bodies do as they do (or don't). I've radically changed how I eat, drastically reduced coffee (now it's a treat)and eliminated a lot of foods I used to think were so innocent. I've experienced better health, more energy and finally am able to put all the bits and pieces about nutrition and physiology I've learned over a lifetime into perspective. I've reread this book a few times (no small feat - it's huge)and found friends are appreciating it as much as I do. Well worth the investment of purchase and time. I highly recommend this author - by the way Mysterious Causes of Illness is the same book as Eating Alive just a different publisher. Mysterious Causes of Illness is a little less expensive!

Matsen's second book was equally astonishing as his first book, Eating Alive, if not more so. In it, he delves far deeper then his first book into the intricacies of how the body works and what we can do to heal nearly anything that's not a major pathology. He goes about this by introducing us to 9 fictional characters who he calls the 9 liver dwarves, that represent different elements of ourselves. Each one guides us through a different part of ourselves; Burpy specializes us on digestion, Bloaty specializes on the portal vein, Gaspy guides us on our hearts, spacey guides us on our brains, Achy guides us on our immune systems, Itchy guides us on our kidneys, Bitchy guides us on our liver enzymes, Sluggy guides us on our mitochondria and Docque shows finishes up on what we can do to help ourselves out.

In terms of major pathologies, it's unclear how much even the best naturopath can deal with this, but he has given some hints that you can atleast partially ameliorate the problem. He recommends that anyone with a serious pathology see a registered naturopath instead of merely self administering remedies for themselves, however. His book is great, but I seriously recommend reading his first book before reading his second; I think that his first book provides a lot of basic concepts that his second book seems more to build on then anything else. Well, here's to hoping his methods will become the modus operandi of all good health practioners of the future.

If anyone would like to contact me concerning this book or Matsen's last one, my email address is shade2x@writeme.com

The quote in the "title" line of this review comes from page 70 of American Philosopher John Dewey's "A Common Faith," Yale University Press 1934. In this short work Dewey seeks to call humanity away from the many variations of dogmatic "supernaturalism" and instead towards "the idea of the common brotherhood of all men," since, "we are ... all in the same boat traversing the same turbulent ocean." Dewey argues that we, as humans, must turn the page on the organized religions of old. In its place, we ought to adopt a new "creed" of science, experience, and ever expanding knowledge that possesses the courage and honesty to reject implausible, impossible, or simply outmoded explanations of reality, the universe, and the proper roles we humans must play in it.

Dewey's suggestion rests on a distinction made in the opening portion of the essay between "a religion" and "the religious." "A religion" is easy enough for one to grasp. "The religious," on the other hand, isn't quite so simple. "The religious," for Dewey, is the "intimate connection of imagination with ideal elements in experience," namely, "the mysterious totality of being the imagination calls the universe." "The religious" binds all humanity because it "is the matrix within which our ideal aspirations are born and bread." Dewey concludes: "Such a faith has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind. It remains to make it explicit and militant."

Although I share almost all of Dewey's views (and would argue that they are entirely encapsulated within the modern "religious" movement of Unitarian Universalism), and was quite pleased to read the useful bits of wisdom contained in the essay, my stingy rating reflects Dewey's own words: the issue could have certainly been more definitely stated. The abovementioned bits are relatively few and very far between throughout the piece, so much so that "traversing the same turbulent ocean" begins to sound easier than slogging trough even this very short work. This criticism is of course somewhat unfair, given that Dewey was only one of many thinkers who wrote in the vague and tedious style of his time. Yet, the kernels of wisdom peppered throughout the essay may be worth the time of the more patient reader, so, if you're intrigued, have at it - you'll only spend a couple dollars and a handful of hours digesting "A Common Faith."

In this book John Dewey presents a compelling argument for a union of religious and social ideals, and for consistency in both idea and action. Although the book is brief, the rhetoric is dense and the thesis is thought-provoking. This volume is an excellent example of Dewey's social and political thought. It should be read and considered not only by social scientists, but also by Christians who wish to intelligently grow their own faith.

This book can be read only by academic philosophers. Unfortunately it is not an exposition for the general public of the important and relevant ideas of Dewey. It is a book filled by "isms"; it assumes that the reader already knows not only Dewey's philosophy but also that he is an expert on most other philosophers also. Really quite unreadable. Here are a few typical sentences from the book: "Dewey is challenging both Venn's account of experience as divisible into perception and conception and the analytic-synthetic distinction presupposed in both empirical logic after Hume and the transcendental logic of neo-Kantians and objective idealists." Or: "For, once it is accepted that the true subject-matter of Dewey's metaphysics is experience itself, which allows Dewey's project to be assimilated to Kant's in the Critique of Pure Reason, it becomes almost impossible not to agree with Santayana's accusation that Dewey is half-hearted in his naturalism". Or: "Generic traits are expressed as the terms of the conclusions drawn, in propositions that have projectibility, but in practice they have both extensional and intentional meaning: the are the temporal and existential evidence of valid inference." I think that philosophical books written in a language that only other philosophers understand are meaningless. Philosophy has meaning only as far as it is relevant to peoples' lives. This book only demonstrates how barren philosophy can become when it creates its own artificial code of communication, in a way that is completely detached from the need for understanding of people in general. I am sure that Dewey's ideas can be discussed quite clearly in a more accessible language, focusing more on the ideas themselves and less on the discord between philosophers.

This is rigorous, tightly argued book that explores pragmatism (especially Dewey and the relation of his thought to that of C.S. Peirce), the relation between a pragmatic theory of experience and a pragmatic theory or logic of inquiry, and the meaning of intelligence. An earlier reviewer is right to point out that this is a book that assumes substantial knowledge of pragmatism. If you have not read big chunks of Peirce, James, and Dewey, and if you do not know your way around philosophy a bit, this book will be too advanced. It is not, for all that, barren or irrelevant. Indeed, the practical implications of this book--at least for persons with sufficient background to grasp them--are large and important. Sleeper's account of pragmatism and its conception of philosophy is challenging and effectively argued. Persons who have been getting their pragmatism through the works of thinkers like Rorty or Putnam or Cavell or McDowell would do well to redirect themselves to, and through this book. After reading this book, it is not hard to see why experts in the field--for instance scholars associated with the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy--consider it a classic. This re-issue will insure that new readers have access to it. An absolutely key book in the contemporary study and forward direction of pragmatism

I am a education major at Macon State college. John Dewey's book is simply a summary of three talks Dewey gave to parnets and students at the University of Chicago Laboratory school in 1896. The book covers topics that are often very diverse and shares conflicting political and philosophic positions in education. I found this book hard to read and very wordy. I did not enjoy the read at all.

I liked the book overall. The content was excellent, and the educational ideas which Mr. Dewey expressed, are terrific. To me, the style of the writing was the problem. The book was written in 1899, and the wordy, pedantic style was common at that time. The main ideas in the book are hands-on education, and students' learning by doing. The first three chapters were taken from a lecture by Mr. Dewey that he delivered three years after he opened his University Elementary School in Chicago. The fourth chapter began by telling some of the financial information about the school. The average cost per student was $120. Mr. Dewey thought that advances in education were not keeping pace with advancements in society. He found it interesting that fourth graders in Moline, Illinois, did not realize that the Mississippi River in their geography books, had anything to do with the stream of water that flowed by their homes. This is a fairly small book, but I recommend The School and Society, if you can find the time to read it several times.

Apple presents a short and interesting discussion of the problems in our educational system in this book. Two things were noticeably lacking - alternative suggestions and statistics, both of which help any discussion of policy. His chapter on how an obstinate school board made normal folks into conservatives is very handy, showing how people become fervently right-wing when they are categorized as such by their opponents. Apple, unfortunately fails to notice the moral of his own story, and spends plenty of time criticizing social conservatives. I guess he doesn't realize many of us would agree with him if he didn't force us away with his polemical assault on us.

I would rate this book at 2 1/2 to 3 stars. The subject matter is interesting in that it covers a period of our history that has long thrilled Americans. The author knows her subject matter very well. My main problem with the book was that it bordered on revisionist. I got the feeling while reading it that the author believed that everyone Dewey prosecuted was innocent and was railroaded by a fixed system. She never comes right out and says it. I feel that if she really believed it should she just say it and not beat around the bush. Still, all in all I would recommend it. It gives you a a good flavor of organized crime and New York City in the 1930s.

John Dewey and the Lessons of Art by Philip W. Jackson:
Jackson argues that Dewey may never really have enjoyed art for arts sake but dealt with art as something to explore how his philosophical principles should be applied to it. Among the interesting themes in this book concern the laboratory school's growth out of Dewey's goal to increase the attraction of education to more students. Most young people wanted to get to making and doing and work and did not have the interest in more abstract learning. The laboratory school was an attempt to get students to "make and do" but focus on abstract learning doing it. Jackson examines the dilemma this causes in that teachers tend to do less abstract learning and overall learning declines as a result, and that Dewey tried to work with this dilemma but didn't quite get the message out. It sounds a lot like the issues educators face today. If you keep the students interested will they be learning what they need to? Art is one way to make and do in the class room but does it achieve what classical education about art does?

First off, that's a 3.5, not a 3, but whatever. Perhaps I am just not one for reading philosophy, or as I like to think, many philosophers simply do not understand how to write in a clear fasion. At the bottom of it, Dewey's ideas for ethics in education are as vital now as they were when he wrote it back 1909, but perhaps if he could have made his points in some way more coherent (at a little over 50 pages, this still feels bloated, I imagine it could be clearly stated in about 10 pages), the entire US educational system would have been where it is now by the 20's--and that truly would have been something revolutionary. Dewey goes so far as essentially voicing his own primitive theory of constructivism, along with revolutionary concepts such as 'those who do the doing do the learning'--namely that teaching should be more student oriented and should first and foremost engage the student. There even seems to be a bit of the 'content versus process' debate here, and yet I think there must be more modern writers who have stated this with greater clarity. For people who enjoy reading terse philosophical monologues (and this certainly is still quite readable--I've seen much worse), then certainly pick up this book both for its historical value and a relatively interesting exploration of the ethics in teaching. If your a busy grad student like me though, this may not seem like it is worth the frustration--especially when you can open up almost any teaching journal and see the same ideas. Sure, they didn't say if first, but I don't fall asleep reading it.

This is the first Kate Morgan title I have read and I liked it. Although it does not rank in the top ten of my favorite mysteries, it moved along smoothly and kept my interest. It's a shame most of her other titles are out of print. I read this on an eight hour flight to Hawaii and it certainly made the time pass quickly. I shared it with a fellow passenger and she seemed to be entertained by it.

I did feel that the protagonist, librarian Dewey James, could have used more depth. It seems like Morgan just missed the boat by inches of following the greats such as Paretsky and Grafton. Too bad because as a librarian who is also a lover of mysteries, I certainly would have jumped on the band wagon.It was enjoyable, however, and should be put on a list for fun summer reading.

As a child, this was one of my favorite books. I loved the idea of running away if I was spanked for being naughty, as Marie Louise does in this book. Marie Louise, a mongoose, visits several other species of mothers in her search for a new mother. After consulting the mysterious star-spangled Witch Toad (my favorite character) she discovers that her own mother is running away, too. They decide to return to their thatched hut in the sugar cane field together. This ending appealed to me in a variety of ways. Marie Louise discovers that her own mother is the best, after all. When I was six, it was hard to believe that at times, but "Runaway Marie Louise" helped me realize that your parents will still love you even when you're naughty. Maybe I should have read this book as a teenager, too. Marie Louise's mother says, "It would be lonely with no one to love and care for." That applies to everyone. We all desire solitude, but after a time crave loving companionship, and someone to "make a fluffy, puffy omelet" for us.