MAO ZEDONG, DESH SUBBA AND SVIKAROKTI
A week ago, one friend of min
e asked me to keep my views regarding these two statements.
“Politcal power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” -Mao Zedong
“Gun is to produce fear. No power to generate fear, that gun is like a flower, no use.” –Desh Subba
Here is what I explained him and to be honest, this is neither the expression of objection nor hostility or any discord but sincere discussion for to increase the dimension of the thought.
“Politcal power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” -Mao Zedong
I don’t say it’s wrong because it was proved to be correct at that phase of time. He ruled for what he had said. But it doesn’t mean right either as now situation is different then what it was. We grow advance than yesterday. So denfinitely, today we can make use of different many factors like motivating the people for their willing involvement for general interest, ideology, relationship, ruling system, education, economy, discipline, civilization and culture etc to generate political power. Ofcourse, gun can grow political power but its not the ultimate and end source. So, absolutely depending upon only on guns cannot be considered better way today. Truth is that potitical power which has aries from the barrel of the gun, though has got winning stories but do not have the successful and mass appreciated history. Political power that comes from the berral of the gun can not give peace and prosperity to the people because it cannot understand the real need and feeling of the general lives. Nevertheless, aforesaid statement has a kind of perenial power which can never be obsolescence.
While “Gun is to produce fear. No power to generate fear, that gun is like a flower, no use.” –Desh Subba
I don’t say this statement is wrong either. I agree both of these great personalities but latter statement said by Desh has more critique aspect then what Mao said above.
“Gun is to produce fear.” It is incompletely correct. Reason behind is that gun is not only to produce fear but has other purpose too. Perhaps, guns are/were used and can be used in inducement of power, but it is also useful to overcome the rule imposing by fear and to set free. We have history of people’s revolution where guns being used for freedom, liberty, establishing peace and prosperity. In advance country many general people keep personal gun not for producing fear. Our parents/grand parents used to and still have guns even those remote villages. Did they keep it for fear? My friend here in USA has different many kinds of guns. He has license to possess it. When I asked – why did you keep these guns? He replied me that he keeps it for hubby, for self security, for not to produce fear, instead to remove fear and it does.
“…that gun is like a flower, no use.” Here is another case. Its true, generally we consider things to be useless when it doesn’t function what it intent to do. But when we look this sentence from another angle, it arises the questions, -If the gun doesn’t produce fear, how can it be like flower that has no use? Does flower has no use? I don’t think it is justifiable to say flower doesn’t produce fear. There are instance that people fear flowers. We fear gun because we know it has bullets. Sure, we do not fear if it doesn’t have bullets. But still it doesn’t mean that it becomes useless. If it cannot produce fear, it can be tool to entertain or else. Similarly, if you happen to discover that flower is fitted with a kind of bomb and given to you, then what does it produce?
In-fact, it is simple; fear is there if you doubt, if you have uncertainty, If you have suspicion, if you have alternatives, if someone/something is higher than you, if you know something/someone is against your favour irrespective of what, which, where, when, who and how. You fear because you have doubt that it might be problem, it may kick you. On the other hand you fear because you know it will kick you. Actually, fear is the state of feeling with potential mental pain at given state that gives unpleasant emotion , but good point is that you can have full control over it. Fear or not to fear is with you(how? I’ll explain this in my latter post). It’s neither the gun nor the fear that regulates the life. The motive force that controls conduct and direct life is the accepted alertness by the brain towards the immediate danger/risk; it’s the idea, experience and thought that comes to our mind from the environment that he/she has influence of. In fact if you fear you are the failure.
While, let me change the context little. With regard to this fear, many of my fens, followers and friends have asked me, – is there any way to get rid of fear? While, yes. According to my research there is only one such condition in which ‘FEAR’ will be no more ‘FEAR’, instead it will be fair process of life. It will become discipline, respect, obey, sacrifice, love, peace, research, invention and discoveries. For this one and only the way is to have strong feeling of acceptance. One has to follow the theory of ‘ACCEPTANCE’. Let’s take some examples. You fear God; still you pray. You fear your parents and elders, still you respect because you accept them precisely. You have accepted that they love you, protect you, create you. Here you fear to be more rational. Here the fear doesn’t become real fear. It becomes respect, prayer and system to obey. Where is fear then? No anymore fear. Another case, – Why people become suicide bomber when there is no doubt that they will be killed too? They should have feel fear but why not? Because they have accepted their believe that they are doing some great job for the sake of society, for the sake of God. Here fear becomes sacrifices. On the same way, you fear from risk, hunger, enemy etc. so we have witnessed change from the stone weapon to today’s atomic power. But for sure, if there was no acceptance of idea, no acceptance of existence, and no acceptance of lives then there would not be these changes. Here, acceptances convert fear into invention and discoveries. Where is fear then? It’s real, we have seen man playing with Lions, snakes and with other dangerous animals too. How could it be possible? Fear is accepted completely by which they are able to share acceptance to one another. When there is acceptance, fear comes to end instead love, peace, innovation, understanding starts. Don’t you believe ? Try it once.
-Denzome
Svikarokti Promulgator
https://denzomerai.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/mao-zedong-desh-subba-and-svikarokti/
Comments
I am always glad to see "fear" brought out into the public, historical, political, cultural discourse and not only in the privatized sphere of psychology of fear. Thanks Denzome for writing this piece (at least, that appears to be you are the author, not Desh Subba). It is good you took some of Desh Subba's comments, and incorporated some of philosophy of fearism as you understand it, and have read Desh Subba's work, etc. This is a good topic.
That said, I am supportive of all people expressing their views of fear and how to best manage it and how we best ought to educate ourselves on this. I am an advocate of critical consciousness and education, so that we do not adopt only one easy, habitual, or common sense alone perspective--especially, on the topic of "fear" and fearism, etc. So, I will say, I found one quote from Denzome's writing, which sounds very much like Subba's thinking/theory on fear, which I find acceptable only in partiality, and it is one that I believe can lead us askew and too-narrow in our thinking about fear and how to best handle it. Let me quote, from Denzome's piece: "Actually, fear is the state of feeling with potential mental pain at given state that gives unpleasant emotion , but good point is that you can have full control over it. Fear or not to fear is with you."
I won't say more, but to both support this claim in part, indeed I agree with this position of agency as primal importance in any relationship with fear (or 'fear' as I make it more complex in my theorizing on the culturally-modified 'fear' and fearism-t (toxic version)--yet, as a critical integralist theorist and what I bring to philosophy of fearism is somewhat, in part, of a critique of overly assessing the power of agency (i.e., a cognitive-behavioral psychology) to undermine the Fear Problem. I think if anyone reads the book Desh and I co-wrote, "Philosophy of fearism: A First East-West Dialogue" (2016)--there is a challenge within that work to a reductionism of understanding and analysis and solutions; therefore, "Fear or not to fear is with you" (Denzome) is reductionist to only one small portion of reality, from a critical integral perspective and the way I approach a philosophy of fearism. To this remark, in context, and with respect to all views on the matter, it may be useful to read what Desh and I have co-written as one of the more up-dated explications of philosophy of fearism, or at least, it is a book that raises more complex issues than Desh's original 2014 text, especially in terms of epistemology (how we know we know, is an important philosophical place of rendering reality and Reality)--and, as well, Desh and I have some differences, mentioned in our book of which we identified as Door-1 Philosophy of Fearism (more Desh's approach), and Door-2 Philosophy of Fearism (more Michael's approach). It is sure an interesting exploration we all are on. I am so grateful to Desh and his fans and others who are interested in various ways. You bring great richness to a conversation I have not been able to have myself with people (outside, primarily, the Western world).