Blog

When I look over a few prior blogs on this site that I have posted, there's the notion that we need a new philosophy of fearism to call out and analyze (as well as resolve) the unique human-fear relationship; which, I often call the Fear Problem. One doesn't want to necessarily be completely negative and cynical about the universal and pervasive role of fear in human existence, but some might not like that I tend to problematize fear ('fear') in that tone. It's a reasonable criticism of my bias. Desh Subba, however, founder of the philosophy of fearism [1], a Nepalese philosopher, novelist, poet, is not quite so negative sounding.

When Subba and Fisher join, there is a new dialogue and perhaps a more 'balanced' tone towards fear. That is our hope as co-authors in our new book [2] and ongoing collaboration. It creates a unique problem for me as I have to continually think through what do I agree with in Subba's work and what do I disagree with, and when is it appropriate to describe either in a piece of writing. So far, my emphasis is on sorting through, and it is not easy, what exactly Subba and I agree on to make this new E-W version of a philosophy of fearism. Currently, we are co-authoring an article on our work to be submitting to a magazine [3]. I want to use this blog to sort through my thinking about a similarity (agreement) Subba and I have in our work, and it revolves around a very powerful notion which Subba (2014) and (2016) [4] has called "dephilosophy" as one of the major (not only) components of applying a philosophy of fearism to other philosophies throughout history. Further, interesting, and somewhat complexifying, Subba (2016) wrote, "Fearism is a dephilosophy" (p. 8). Which means, many things, and I will only touch upon a few here. 

What dephilosophy means for Subba, is a "deconstruction" [5] and "reconstruction" to follow--as a primary methodological approach in a philosophy of fearism (or fearism, for short). Fearism in Subba's mind (and I am becoming more convinced) is a new philosophy of the 21st century, unlike no other philosophy in world history before it. Now, that alone, raises questions as to why this new philosophy (term) arose, almost by emergent random expression, in 1999 in one of Subba's novels [6]. Obviously, Subba had been thinking about the nature and role of fear in human existence for a long time before "fearism" popped up. Like myself, Subba is incredibly serious and dedicated to better our knowledge about fear and its management. I've not met another human being with his conviction and clarity on the topic of fear and unfortunately for the West, it is going to take time and many English translation of his writing in Nepalese (his mother tongue) to absorb the profundity of his work. I feel still an amateur interpreter of Subba's fearism. 

To focus on his fearism as dephilosophy, is to focus on a unique trend within the philosophy of fearism. To state it as simply as I can figure it out, it goes something like this: 

A case can be made, using a philosophy of fearism and its fearist perspective on human life, that all other philosophies that have evolved talk about important topics but they usually only refer to fear as important (if they do) and do so inadequately in relation to empirically how central fear is in shaping human existence. Thus, one of the tasks of fearism as dephilosophy is to deconstruct all the other philosophies and point out to where they focus on certain aspects of human existence and societies, e.g., Marxism and its focus on "class struggle"-- such a philosophy can be deconstructed to show that what Marx was really talking about underneath "class struggle" (classism) as so important is something more important (and left mostly invisible)--that is, "fear struggle" (fearism). [7]

Although I had not come across Subba's work until late in 2014, I had been doing some similar fearanalysis work (as I call it) on all kinds of philosophers, and thinkers in general who wrote about fear, or were writing about some other major concept like "sex" (or sexism) but were not acknowledging that fear was much more important than they were recognizing--or, as in the case with "sex" they were not writing near enough about how sexism is really underpinned by fearism and when they wrote about sexuality, I kept thinking they could easily be writing about fearuality. By 2000 or so, I was seeing fearism as the underpinning of classism, sexism, racism, etc. I wanted the theorists and philosophers writing about the various 'isms' that impact humans to talk about the fear underneath them all. So, in that sense, I too was utilizing a dephilosophy approach, although much less systematic than Subba. 

To keep this depiction of dephilosophy short in this blog, I think that is enough to give readers a sense of where Subba and I are coming from, and one of the major aspects of the work behind fearism as a critique (i.e., as a methodological practice of deconstruction and reconstruction). We believe that fearism can really help humanity free itself from  excessive fear and suffering. This we completely agree with each other on.

I trust, if you are interested further to join us in this project, you'll get in touch with us. Reading our books and articles is a good way for you to gain a better background before you engage us more seriously.  [fearism@gmail.com  and r.michaelfisher52@gmail.com]

End Notes

1. Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Australia: Xlibris.

2. Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first east-west dialogue. Australia: Xlibris. 

3. We have been invited to submit a short piece to the semi-academic (more popular) Philosophy Now magazine. 

4. Subba, D. (2016). Towards philosophy of fearism. Unpublished paper. Trans. Rajendra Subba.

5. Subba (2016) wrote, "Thoughts of deconstruction came into being in the western literature [e.g., Jacques Derrida]" (p. 8). There is no doubt that one can only appreciate the historical sensibility of why fearism arose in consciousness in an Eastern critical thinker (and burgeoning philosopher) like Subba, if one understands that Subba has first and foremost been an accomplished literary figure in Nepal (and beyond). Derrida's deconstruction methodology (if one wants to call it that), is quite unique overall in the history of philosophy, and it is often referred to as a postmodern philosophy--and/or it has greatly impacted postmodern philosophy--and, it's roots are in Derrida's passion to introduce the philosophy of deconstructionism into literary analysis, and literary criticism and theories. It took much longer before the field of philosophy took up Derrida's work and eventually gave it some merit, albeit, it also has received great criticism and dismissal in the field of philosophy. I say this, to add the context by which a philosophy of fearism as dephilosophy is also going to take a long-time to get acceptance anywhere (especially in the West). Fact is, fearism has taken off a lot more in the East (N.E. India to be precise) in literary criticism (see Subba, 2016, and Fisher and Subba, 2016).  

6. It also appeared in my own unpublished work in 1997, as far as I can tell but I never pursued the term until much later. Subba, however, wrote it down and got excited about it as it was highlighted of interest by one or more reviewers of his novel draft in 1999. He is therefore, officially the founder of the term because he developed it systematically and has written the most extensive philosophical text on it (Subba, 2014). 

7. Currently, Subba is working on a dephilosophy of Marxism and plans to work on "dephilosophy of philosophies through [a] fearist perspective" for a long time. His first article  on dephilosophy [in Nepalese] was published on May 4, 2013 in Nagarik Dainik in Nepal (quotes from Subba, 2016, p. 9).

I just found this new book review of Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue (2016) posted on amazon books by Emmett Coyne, a Catholic priest who is the first person I know to have bought a copy of my book and read it through (note: he is also author of a fascinating book The Theology of Fear): 

By Emmett A. Coyne on February 29, 2016

FEAR is universally pervasive, not only geographically, but it penetrates all levels of human consciousness, unconsciousness, and endeavors. As has been noted, and many would accede the point, fear seems to be rooted in our DNA. DNA is certainly a modern category that seeks to identify the locus of what might be innate to humans. But, to say something is rooted in our DNA seems like it is a capitulation to a fatalistic acceptance of the ways things are. If our view, however, of the human person is dynamic, and not static, then fear need not be the bogey man in our human psyche that holds us prisoner.

 This work, The Philosophy of Fearism, seeks to bring to human consciousness how fear might be brought up from the basement to the living room., from the dark to the light, from an airless, stagnant place to fresh air space. When in the light it can lose some of its power to control, and cause us to wonder how we might better manage fear so that we are less the victim, more the agent.

 This work is a milestone in an east/west conscious consideration of fears many facets. By examining it together we can perhaps become more the subject than the object of fear. The West’s colonialization of ideas can create a blowback. We can be negatively impacted by our isolated analysis. An east/west dialogue allows us to consider how others perceive fear. This is a vital plus as it provokes us to think, reflect beyond the confines of our particular box, to view in a new light.

The authors provide us with a ‘new’ vocabulary relative to fear, all of which allows us to be less victimized by fear, to view fear as a force that can be managed. Until recently, fear has been like sex, omnipresent, but which too often the impulse seems to keep us dangling. Sex education has tamed the balky beast. If sex education has allowed persons to manage it for a more holistic life, ought not fear education which these author are promoting, integrate fear in the pantheon of our being? This work will cause one to have new thoughts, considerations about fear, and how its DNA need not necessarily be a negative, unmanageable beast. Again, knowledge liberates.

It has been an intense 10 mo. working on this new book Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue (2016, just published by Xlibris International). I have written a few prior times on this blog site about the book, and I just posted a photo and short write up as well. The following is going to be something more raw and fresh as I have been writing today about the 'birth' of this book, and how I see it is significant. I know everyone who encounters the book will make up their own mind about its significance. I hope you write me if you want to tell me and others what you think. This blog can be a location to document those conversations. 

So, the writing about the book here is from my journal, writing unedited, and spontaneous for the most part: 

On the simplest concrete level one merely sees an image of a book cover, Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue, and if they don't take time to dwell with it and better yet read it, they are going to likely be missing so much. It's a shame that will happen, inevitably, as I have known it to be the case with my other prior book, published 6 yrs ago (The World's Fearlessness Teachings). I wish I could be there to encourage everyone to dwell with this new book and see beyond the surfaces of words and images, and imagine deeper. It is troublesome I know for most to do so. Philosophy and fearism together as words, concepts, is a strange mix but then there is the purpose of the book, perhaps even stranger. 

The book is intended to outline (epistemologically) the necessity for a new kind of philosophy (practical and social) that human history has not seen before, and in that light it is so incredibly radical. For me, a lifer-kind-of accomplishment. I am most curious what it will do for the reader, layperson, academic, philosopher but that is all unknown at this point, other than the few folks who reviewed the ms before publication. It is going to be an odd book for me in that I am interpreting Desh Subba's work a lot (Philosophy of Fearism, 2014) and he comes from another culture and part of the world (the East, Nepal, and living in Hong Kong)... he's a poet, novelist, writes in Nepalese... and all these factors, now, bring his work as a philosopher of that 'strange' part of the world into my life and writing and thinking... philosophizing... and this book is the outcome of all that, including my original work on a philosophy of fearlessness. But, now I return to think about the reader of this book. I realize now, which I didn't realize before when writing it, that this book is not so much for the individual. It is for the World Soul, the collective-social-communal aspect of our psychic-soul reality. It is hard to say that. I didn't write that in the book itself. But it is there. 

Fear has never been treated at the center of a philosophy before, not anywhere near the extent as in this new book. It marks a new awareness and calling in the World Soul of which is mostly unconscious. It is important in that the time has arrived, as Subba and I have written for decades, to make fear this important. We are needing a new philosophy that recognizes this, and develops these ideas we present. We are in (as Subba says) an Extreme Fear Age historically, and collectively. That tells me of the 'pressure' that is building in the World Soul dimension. Feartalk is "ego-talk" and Fearlessnesstalk is "soul-talk"-- this book is all about the latter, and it is articulated, unbeknownst to most everyone, that it is crafted from a Fear Management System-7 (i.e., Integral). I also made sure this was the case in the gaze I brought to The World's Fearlessness Teachings book in 2010, and most everything I have written on the topic since 1989. But, most people will look to see what the book offers individually, and yet, that would mis-interpret the scale and register of the purpose of this book --for the World Soul. 

How could writing a book for the World Soul, make a difference globally, as we are on the cusp (as Subba says) of a Fearless Age? These and many more questions are lurking in the new book, even if we don't bring them to the surface for discussion. I guess, that's what I am most curious about in the next months and years ahead as this 'soul child' of a book enters into the world and energizes the World Soul-- and, in that, the soul of which everyone cannot tap from their individuality to their collective meshworking... gravity, history, geography, and all the psychophysical and emotional and philosophical threads are there--and like a web of eternal time and space, perhaps, I believe (or am only guessing)--this book will hold a weight in that net--across time and cultures, universally... and ... and... and... 

Words run out at this point... the World Soul does not operate on the Symbolic Code (the phallic lens)... and, now, it is all poetry, art, aesthetics... at least, for me and for those who may dwell with just the 'strange' combination and emphasis which this book brings forth now in human history (herstory)... 

Trigger Warning: the following is not what you will usually be exposed to in the dosage (or paradigm) of what is called "counterterrorism"

The following map/guide is the skeletal outline for a Series of Articles (blogs) and an eventual booklet to be published soon. I'll start these on this site and eventually expand them. The map/guide and series is an attempt to take a fearist perspective on the current rise of terror(ism) and its effects. The map/guide and the title of this blog may catch your attention. You may think of a spectrum of ways to manage terror(ism), as I have utilized for a long time the spectrum of consciousness model of the philosopher Ken Wilber. As well, I have added my own research on fear management systems along that spectrum, of which the current map/guide (below) is an example of how it can be utilized. The title "Map/Guide for the Terrorist Fighter" is left ambiguous with many meanings, depending on how one wants to 'read' this. There is a long philosophical rationale (based on a philosophy of fearism by Fisher & Subba and a resultant identified new fearist perspective) for why any intervention into the "problem of terror(ism)" requires an essential moral imperative to serve both the "terrorist" (so-called--and, often called freedom fighter, depending on who's perspective does the labeling) and serve those harmed by those values, beliefs and actions of the "terrorist"--the former would be called the "victim" of such acts--at least, initially. 

You may notice I am being very conscious and particular in how I frame the entire discourse that proceeds around anything we might call "terrorism"-- and it is in this cautious and exploratory modality I and Subba suspect we'll find much better analysis and solutions than what is offered today in what could be called an old-fashioned Modernist perspective (i.e., Victimist, Survivalist, Thrivalist). You can see where I have located the Fearist perspective on the spectrum. Again, there are numerous philosophical arguments and theoretical positions to be taken to articulate all of what you see in this map/guide. But that will have to wait its time to unfold. I am interested to put out this 'new' spectrum approach and let people begin to digest it. I look forward to our further dialogues and explorative co-inquiries on all this. We truly need something much better than what is offered today anywhere--around the world. The philosophy of fearism has great potential to disrupt and re-form our entire way of understanding terrorism--and, of course, the new book Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue (soon to be published) will give lots more background. 

Here are a couple excepts from the Foreword(s) in Desh Subba and my new book Philosophy of Fearism: A First E-W Dialogue (forthcoming, Xlibris): 

             You are about to eavesdrop on a most important dialogue. Poetic, provocative and exciting, this engagement with “fearism” might also be, well, frightening. One thing that emerges from this radical conversation between the two most eminent fearologists in the world is that each of us must make vital choices that determine if and how we might escape the growing dangers that relate to our inability to manage fear effectively. And making such choices can be a scary proposition for many.

            What makes this text so valuable is not just the authors’ freewheeling, challenging thoughts that stem from years of contemplating their subject, but the fact that it is being discussed at all. Although people in most cultures know about the importance of courage, few have had the opportunity to learn how to employ it consistently and effectively. Dr. Fisher and Desh Subba offer reflections from two very different cultural orientations that can lead to our becoming “connoisseurs of fear,” (a phrase I once borrowed from the courageous author, Sam Keen (1999), for a chapter title in my 1998 book, Primal Awareness.) This book thus offers a unique break from the status-quo avoidance that surrounds the topic of fear, if one can muster the courage to tackle the subject. 

Four Arrows (Dr. Don Trent Jacobs)- Professor, School of Educational Leadership & Change, Fielding Graduate School, Sequim, WA

           In late 2014, Mr. Subba called me and informed me about Dr. R. Michael Fisher's (2014) Technical Paper 51. I became curious and read it. Really, it was amazing. My dreams  had come true, it was there. That paper was the first internationally supported document of Fearism, and fortunately very similar thought was now available coming from the West. I made many copies and distributed them among writers. Subba also sent copies to  N.E. India. Now, with the publishing of Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue, there is a very important blueprint for global fearism, built on friendship, philosophical exchange, and open-minded thinking about the Philosophy of Fearism as it moves through a new door to the wide world. This latest work is an excellent foundation for authors, scholars, students and philosophical lovers. I wish the book and its authors all the best. 

Dr. Tanka Prasad Neupane, Professor, and Chairman, Fearism Study Center, Dharan, Nepal

If you have browsed the photos I have put up, and go right to the beginning you'll see the book cover of Philosophy of Fearism and a photo of Desh Subba the Nepali writer who wrote the book, as he was photographed at Hong Kong University giving a talk on his book. Desh and I are sort of colleagues, online, and have not yet met or even skyped. We read each others' text and we mirror what each other is thinking and writing about so passionately. 

I won't go into "our" story about beginning a philosophy of fearism on this planet. Some of that story is in Desh's 2014 book Philosophy of Fearism and a few interviews are online, but more to say that the "best" collaboration (collection) of our thoughts on a philosophy of fearism are well underway in a new book we co-wrote (and I am doing the final formatting on). The title is: Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue. Hopefully, it will come out in 3-4 months from now or around X-mas time... we'll see. I mention the 'story' part of our collaboration because it is part of what leads me to confess in this blog my "embarrassing" feelings and thoughts now and then. 

First, what is most embarrassing is my coming to terms (after 26 yrs.) that I am reaching my goal as a (to be) recognized international expert on a philosophy of fear and fearlessness. Yes, my original goal was shaping up to be a founder of a philosophy of fearlessness, because that felt right and was an interesting philosophy and combination of words. But after engaging in inter-textual dialogue, and an integral dialectical (if not trialectical) dance with Mr. Subba, things started to change, and I was not alone, not the Westerner any more leading only--and something happened where in our new co-written book I am joining forces to be the 'other' founder of a philosophy of fearism. I am submitting to (defaulting to) by no force, but by privilege of having met Subba's work and commitment--a philosophy of fearism over a philosophy of fearlessness. Even though, in our new book I explain how this happened and also that I am keeping my own unique stream of thought and philosophy (i.e., fearlessness) under the one roof of fearism. 

It is important that "two became one," as we share in this new co-written book, a dialogue is profoundly influential in one's thinking, and life, and this is surely the case with us, or at least, I'll speak for myself here. I'm a bit surprised, and slightly embarrassed by it because of my close identification (as a teacher) of the philosophy of fearlessness and that's what all my friends, colleagues and students have known me as. It is a bit like changing a name. I know how hard it is, slightly embarrassing, for example when I changed from "Robert" to "Michael" in the late 1990s. 

But the other embarrassing thing is to put myself out there as a founder of a brand new philosophy (and "better" philosophy for understanding fear) on the planet and to then reflect on the problematic of that assertion when I am not a qualified philosopher (not professionally, not academically)--and, I'm even rather poorly educated in "philosophy" and the humanities period. It's embarrassing to say I have never completed a post-secondary philosophy course ever. I took a couple in undergrad and "flunked" or "quit" before it was too late to embarrass myself as how I was a lousy philosopher, by academic standards--at least, that was the case in the late 1970s, but sure, I am quite a different being today. 

Desh also is not a trained philosopher. We are more artists... as our new book will describe. So, I'll leave that confession, and end this blog with a fresh piece of rough writing from my journaling today that's related to the above and adds a really cool thought which I think could be a foundational "descriptor" (in part) of what this new philosophy of fearism (beyond existentialism, or any other "ism" philosophy to date) is at core: 

PHILOSOPHY OF FEARISM- fear is actually the predominant motivator of human behavior, individually and collectively--and, it has overwhelming been disregarded as such in any current philosophy available on the planet. It is this disregard that is 'killing us' fast and slowly. But, in the end, each will have to decide what relationship they want to a philosophy of fearism (should they be so exposed). It is the very existence (emergence today) of a philosophy of fearism that is the better relationship to investigate, beyond the habitual and common practice of evaluating our relationship to the nature and role of fear (for e.g.), or beyond investigating our fear(s) and even fear itself. The latter two forms of inquiry are, according to the philosophy of fearism (Subbaian, and Fisherian), inadequate, if not misdirected in their focus and project. Accounting for one's relationship to a philosophy of fearism ought to take precedent to the former approaches. To do so, will in part, bring more clarity, more freedom from fear, and a liberational praxis that will prevent any toxifying ideology of fearism from taking over a philosophy of fearism.  -RMF

[note: this descriptor is ripe for being cast out onto a Wikipedia entry if anyone is interested]

p.s. thanks to Al and Laura Santos for their house (Calgary, AB) and printer and supplies, and quiet time, for the month of April, 2015 when I wrote the bulk of material for this new book

I recently came across an abstract from a fellow presenting at the 2014 Jean Gebser conference. I was intrigued with its focus on the role of fear in cultural evolution (and consciousness itself). Although the abstract only gives a cursory view of the presumably Gebserian perspective presented on fear, it lays out some strong claims that I think we all ought to examine critically. Gebser, in short, is highly regarded as an important philosopher-theorist by many integral thinkers of today, especially Ken Wilber has honored and cited his work. So, here is the abstract which may bring up dialogue among us, notably, there is no discussion of fearlessness with fear in a dialectical sense. 

Excerpted from http://www.gebser.org/conference/

THE UNKNOWN, FEAR, AND THE UNCANNY

Rick Muller, PhD (2014)

Fear initiates human action. Humans at their core attempt to avoid fear by creating a world of comfort, safety and familiarity. That is why responses to fear, the unexpected and the unknown, are so overwhelming. Research suggests the residual effect of fear lasts longer than that of pleasure among humans. Is this a fundamental biologically encoded reaction? If so it initiates modern humans to move experiences and objects from the mental category of the unknown/feared into the mental category of the known. Doing so creates familiarity, safety, protection and the illusion of control. The historical artifacts of this process include rituals, taboos, social and familial structures, belief, dogmas, religion, law and science. All are reactions; all are protections from the ever-present inherent sense of fear, the unknown, the invisible and the ineffable.

To understand modernity or what [Jean] Gebser refers to as the mental rational requires one to have a greater sense of how the archaic/magic contributes to humanity’s response to fear. This paper suggests that fear is an initiating factor and an underlying foundation for human choice; one that affects the structuring of community, society, religion, values and ethics. One modern effort to covertly undermine the residual certainty of Gebser’s mental rational, of the Enlightenment, of Romanticism, of the Industrial and Scientific revolutions comes from within the mental rational itself. The uncanny, while predominantly mental and psychological in nature, continues to bore out of the core of modernity creating a space for the archaic, magic and mythic attributes to flourish within a fading western mental rational construction of the human world.

The ongoing disintegration of certainty frees the inherent fears from their protective structures to irrupt into individual human consciousness and everyday life. Fear, the unknown, the fear of the unknown and in modernity the fear of the perceived known continues to rattle the foundations of belief, creation, personal and collective behavior. Western anxiety is born of the social and cultural byproducts that were meant to protect humanity from fear. But do these protections and structures actually protect; if so, from what? What occurs when the protective membrane disintegrates, dissipates, becomes transparent? Death?


Rick Muller, Ph.D., is affiliate professor at Regis University’s (Denver, CO) Rueckert-Hartman College of Health Professions where he teaches accounting, finance and economics for the master’s degree in nursing program. His most recent publications include using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® and Ignatian Pedagogy Model for Improved Learning in Jesuit Higher Education, May 2014]; Hitting the Financial Knowledge Target in Nursing Management, October 2013 and he provided editorial assistance for an article about the current issues confronting Venezuela (April 2014) in Winds and Waves, the magazine for the Institute of Cultural Affairs International.

*******

"Fear initiates human action. Humans at their core attempt to avoid fear by creating a world of comfort, safety and familiarity."

The prior blog I posted echoes these kind of claims, as the above quote, (typical of Desh Subba's philosophy of fearism; see my prior blogs), and sets the stage for human culture's use/management of "fear" to continue to motivate us--but in what way does it motivate us? When is it healthy? When is it pathological? How would we know the difference? The latter, is the more important question.

I am not saying fear does not motivate us. I have been writing about the down-side to this, particularly because we tend to (primarily) focus on fear and not fearlessness in history, development and cultural evolutions. If "fear is an initiating factor" and foundation for human choice, as Muller suggests (and Gebser must likely imply), we still have the problem unaddressed in this abstract as to what are we talking about when we use "fear" and is it as complete and integral enough of an understanding (and does it have a deconstruction-reconstruction critique built-in) to be useful to the 21st century and where cultural evolution seems to be going (or where it is perhaps enmeshed in a pathology that will take us all out)... just a few quick thoughts... Someone really needs to study Gebser's work and see what he directly has said about the role of fear and how that supports or doesn't a Subbaian philosophy of fearism.