This 2024 conversation is brought to you by the Apocatastasis Institute for the Humanities (APOC); note: Michael Benner is an entrepreneur and not directly affiliated with APOC nor speaks for APOC.
https://rumble.com/v4ipndl-fearless-intelligence-a-conversation-with-michael-benner-198.html
Lots to think about in this conversation, and I'll say more after I digest it's contents further. I also am a member of APOC. For the last year, I have brought The Fearology Institute into APOC as an adjunct learning site. I encourage you to look up what it offers, and especially as an alternative education site for alternative teens and young college students.
Comments
As I have listened to 1/2 of this long interview with Mr. Benner, it arises that a pertinent question re: episemology and ontology within his philosophy of fear and its management, 'Does he believe he is absolutely correct in his very confident finalized-sounding assertion that in his words "All fear is fear of the unknown"?' Emphatically, he virtually erases the (mis-)information that's out there in the world that argues (differently from him) that fear is a response to danger and threat thereof. [1]
Now, if he truly stands in absolute truth on fear and its definition, as the one truth, then how is that consistent with his view that "diversity" is everything and so required for healthy systems and intelligent systems? [2]
Notes
1. Though, he asserts so strongly his view and definition of fear in this talk (and I suspect also in his book "Fearless Intelligence"), he did say at one point to the host: "Fear has nothing to do with danger" ... then, paused, and he came back with a less vociferous claim and softening that "necessarily, it may but it doesn't have to"... so, is he talking in absolute truths or relative truths, or mixing and matching them when ever he wants, at whim, or has he really worked out a philosophy (i.e., ontology and epistemology) of fear based on absolute truth(s) over relative truths? Or, is everything he is saying about fear, merely a relative truth? This is a curious point of contention and exploration that would be required before I would be convinced of what he is saying about "Fearless Intelligence".
2. He might reply, as he says earlier, he is utilizing a "two-truth doctrine" and he did acknowledge both/and re: absolute and relative truths, and yet he is fervent in this interview there are "absolutes" (truths, values). Unfortunately, so far, he hasn't told us in the interview that he thinks his view of fear is one of those absolutes. If he does in fact think that (for that is how he sounds), then, there would be a whole web of arguments to foster in charging that he is ignoring too much diversity in views and philosophies about fear and fearlessness.