Philosophy of Fearism in African Nation

Pradip Menyangbo 

[This article, which I have translated into English is published in one of the main newspapers of Nepal Kantipur Daily (02/13/18) in Nepalese language. Translated with the permission of the author/reporter] [Assistant translations by Surya Prakash Pangdhak Limbu; also edited by R. Michael Fisher] 

News

February 13, 2018 

Western intellectuals have accepted the…Bhayabad (Nepalese word for Philosophy of Fearism) or Philosophy of Fearism produced by Desh Subba, who has been living in Yuen Long in Hong Kong for two decades. Philosophers and writers from Canada and different African countries are collaborating together with Mr. Subba in order to further re-interpret and redefine the Fearism writings that have won dozens of international awards, including in the USA.  

While the intellectual world is interested in discussing fear(ism), high officials of the police and military departments of some African countries are facing violence and civil war. They recently have expressed their concern about the practical use of the philosophy of fearism to manage the fear of society in practical life. Police and military have shown good interest to formulate policy for fear management by practicing Mr. Subba’s philosophy through maintaining peace and security in society, family, and whole country, by freeing any kind of terror also coming from natural disasters, and setting the fear management agenda as the main purpose of their countries. 

Furgeli Sherpa, a facilitator of fear management, said that seven nations’s senior police officers from different African countries had drawn the conclusion in a workshop held in Mukjar, a city in Sudan, that growing fear in their country could be managed according to Fearism. Sherpa is working in the UN peace keeping force, Sudan. He is from an Armed Police Force of Nepal. 

Sherpa said 27 police and military officers from Tunisia, Tanzania, Rwanda, Zambia, Malawi, Namibia and Jordan had responded that Fearism is practical philosophy to manage different types of fears in family and society. Their goal is to improve ways to manage fear and control crime, civil war, murder, violence and they require philosophy in order to be utilized from the ground all the way up to the policy formulation levels. Fearism recognizes that “life is conducted, directed, controlled and operated by fear,” as Subba’s book sub-title suggests. 

Fearism was conceptualized and coined in 1999 by Mr. Subba, who has been living in Hong Kong with his family for two decades. Philosophy of Fearism has come on the world stage of thought as the latest philosophy, which has been awarded after acceptance of western authors and philosophers. It is the first time in Africa to be utilized. The philosophy has become attractive to many universities from Hong Kong, Sikkim, Northeast India, Bangladesh, USA and Europe, where Subba has lectured. 

Armed police force of Nepal reaches into Sudan, Sherpa said, "They have drawn the conclusion that the philosophy that has been founded by a Nepalese (Subba), can help those African countries facing violence and civil war to better manage fear.” Facilitator of the program in Sudan, Sherpa added’ “Every work done by the police and the army of any country, is to make citizens free from fear and terror and give them protection and peace. The philosophy guides to how to make citizens free from fear and establish calmness in society.” 

He said African police personnel and the army self-approved of the philosophy as a positive fear which could be used as a means of increasing courage, motivation and will. Sherpa reported, after his introductory workshop, that Tanzania police officer Sheila Msami, said, “Fearism will be able to help to manage fear generated by terrorism and civil war.” He added that Msami responded Fearism as relevant to the peace, security and development of the nation.Mr. Subba expressed his gladness that police and army personnel of some African countries had taken his Philosophy of Fearism as the means to develop their countries with establishing fearless peace. He added, “Up until now, the philosophy has become an interesting subject for philosophical studying and some scholars, but I felt good that it is entering Africa, as police and army have also started to realize Fearism potential.” 

****

The recent dialogue (on the FMning) on initial ideas surrounding Fearcriminalysis brought forward thinking about the relationship of law and crime and safety and security enforcement, etc., with politics, and especially with thinking about democracy and the future, as things are getting tense around the world and liberal republics (and democracy) are showing signs of breakdown and being over-taken, more or less, by forces of fundamentalism of one kind or another, often with their own forms of terror(ism) and fear(ism)-t (i.e., toxic variety). 

Barbara sent me an interesting article recently in the N.Y. Times (01/2718) which I want to quote some excerpts for educational purposes here [1] on thinking about governance, politics, law and I think they very much run along parallel to concerns that ought to be taken up in a new subdomain I am labeling Fearpoliticology [2], with concurrent parallel themes in fearcriminalysis. This article is by two Harvard University professors of government. 

Levitsky & Ziblatt (2018) wrote, 

"The problems we face [in America] run deeper than Trump [and his particular autocratic leadership style].... We should not take democracy for granted. There is nothing intrinsic in American culture that immunizes us against its breakdown. Even our brilliantly designed Constitution cannot by itself, guarantee democracy's survival. If it could, then the Republic would not have collapsed into civil war 74 years after its birth. 

To function well, democratic constitutions must be reinforced by two basic norms, or unwritten rules. The first is mutual tolerance [i.e., basic social trust], according to which politicians accept their opponents as legitimate. When mutual tolerance exists, we recognize that our partisan rivals are loyal citizens who love our country just as we do. 

The second norm is forebearance, self-restraint in the exercise of power [and concomitantly, fear]. Forebearance is the act of not exercising a legal right [to win and dominate]. In politics, it means not deplying one's institutional perogatives to the hilt [maximum], even if it is legal to do so. [i.e., what has been called "constitutional hardball" by some legal scholars]

History suggests... that democratic norms are vulnerable to polaraization [via legalism in extremis--i.e., constitutional hardball]. Some polariation is healthy, even necessary, for democracy. But extreme polarization [i.e., enemy-making] can kill it. When societies divide into partisan camps with profound different worldviews, and when those differences are viewed as existential [if not religious] and irreconcilable, political rivalry can devolve into partisan hatred [i.e., extreme fear]. Parties come to view each other not as legitimate rivals but as dangerous enemies. Losing ceases to be an accepted part of the political process and instead becomes [seen as] catastrophe [if not as terrorism or anti-democracy and thus forebearance is abandonded].

If we believe our opponents are dangerous [e.g., fearsome], should we not use any means necessary to stop them? This is how democracy died in Chile [S. cone in 1970s-80s in Latin America] [where, social political life turned into a "death spiral" [3].... [today] our parties are more polarized than at any time during the last century. [according to a Pew Survey]49% of Republicans and 55% of Democrats 'say the other party makes them afraid!' 

This is not a traditional liberal-conservative divide [i.e., it is a Fear Wars, and a type of ideological cleansing campaign]. People don't fear and loathe one another over taxes or health care. As political scientists have shown, the roots of today's polaraization [and growing fear-based governance and rancid conflict, violence] are racial and cultural.

... the norms [informal sociality] that once protected our institutions are coming unmoored....Democracy remains at risk--president Trump or not president Trump." 

 ****

 I have long thought about this, and when Trump got elected, it was a clear sign to me of where a burgeoning (e.g., post-9/11) culture of fear will end up, if it keeps control and manipulates the fears of the people. There is an important role for fearpoliticology and fearcriminalysis in helping to better analyze this reality so more people are aware of the dynamics and how to contradict them, transform them to more creative and transformative growth. We have our work cut out for us. 

Notes: 

1. From Levitsky, S., and Ziblatt, D. (2018). How wobbly is our democracy. New York Times, 01/2718. 

2. Although, I have not fixed a definition or meaning on this term, it obviously has a lot to do with political life and governance overall, and it has to do with what many have called the "politics of affect" (and/or "politics of fear"), and it has a lot to do with fearmongering and enemy-making, and conflict and its managementin its many forms in political life. As I will shape a definition or meaning down the road, fearpoliticology is definitely going to involve my own DCFV theory (i.e., Domination-Conflict-Fear-Violence) which I unraveled and somewhat developed in grad school in the late 1990s.

3. It is not insignificant that the very first coining of the term "culture of fear" came from this time and from interdisciplinary researchers working in the aftermath of these horrors, as they came to configure a new understanding of the major role of fear in these political dynamics and dictatorships. 

Since 2014 I organise philosophical meetings (in Dutch) regularly. Both moderated debates and philosophical walks. My aim with these activities is, in the first place, to encourage people to exchange their ideas with others in a philosophical way, seen from their own life experiences.
I have no academic background. Just passionate about philosophy. Practical Philosophy in particular.

In November last year I gave a lecture about Fear.

I started with the question: “Why philosophize about a theme like Fear?”
Fear and anxiety are both basically natural emotional reactions on life situations. They can have both, positive and negative effects on our daily lives, and I think we should approach them with curiosity and openness.
In view of current events, the theme of fear is not only a topic that philosophers think about. Anthropologists, psychologists, neurologists and other disciplines also investigate the phenomenon of fear/anxiety. In addition to the academic world there are, among others, politicians, media, managers and the like who are also concerned with fear. Consciously or unconsciously, motivated by the fact that they themselves are afraid, or because they want to take advantage of using the effects of the social/societal effect of fear.

According to many authors, we are in the "Century of Fear". We are confronted with it daily, our own (existential) fear, social fear... despite the fact that the world, and not least the Western World, today is safer than it has ever been in known history. Fear does not just happen to us, it is also used, or misused, to influence us. Reason enough to learn to understand the phenomenon of fear/anxiety and to learn how to deal with it. The omnipresence, rightly or wrongly, of fear makes this, I think, necessary. We also do this with other social phenomena ... eg. mobility and traffic is such a topic about which a constant social debate is taking place, primarily because it affects all of us ... so why not have a debate about fear.

Further on I talked about the evolutionary origin of fear. About fear that comes mainly from our perception. From the way we imagine reality. And especially how we deal with it.
About fear as an emotion, I referred to psychologist and neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett, who explores in her book "How emotions are made" the important question whether rational thinking influences our emotions. Even when fear concerns an intentional object, that does not always mean that it is a real object. An example of what is meant by this: many of us will have been afraid as a child there was a monster under our bed. I myself included. I remember several times, after gathering all my courage, I went to look under my bed to make sure no monster was there. The monster was exactly the object of which I imagined that it really existed, and it was hiding under beds.

Furthermore I also referred to the Jewish-German philosopher Ernst Cassirer. He typified man as an animal symbolicum, a being that defies meaning. We people can be afraid of most things. Our fear has a much greater range than what any other animal can feel, precisely because we are an animal symbolicum.

Another aspect of fear is the fear of the unknown. As Elias Canetti put it in his book "Mass and power": "there is nothing that a person fears more than to be affected by something unknown”. One wants to be able to see what comes out of things for oneself, to identify oneself or at least to place things in their context. In our current context, I referred to the fear of refugees coming to our regions. Or fear of an unknown faith like Islam. Such a fear of the unknown is therefore not objectless. The object of this fear is undetermined here. But at least it remains a fear of something. It is a fear that something uncomfortable or frightening could happen.

A number of emotions are supposed to tell us something about a reality. Fear is such an emotion. It is then regarded as an instrument of perception, the way we experience things. However, all these instruments can function both adequately and inadequately. To explain this further, I went back to what psychologist and neuroscientist Lisa Feldmann Barrett says about this in her book "How emotions are made". Her research shows that emotions are formed by constructions made from different parts of our brains. Our reaction eg. something that arouses fear is not determined by the event itself but by what we make of it ourselves. Things that we experience during our lives, experiences from the past play a major role in this. We may all remember a situation that evoked an anxiety reaction and, if we thought about it later, we realized that an earlier situation was actually the reason for that fear. Eg. someone whose child was once bitten by a dog, who now becomes very anxious whenever a dog comes close.

Further on I used the following passage from Lars Svendsens book "A Philosophy of Fear":
“The fact that we are not affected by a particular accident is no guarantee that we will maintain a correct attitude”. Fear tells us very little about the object of that fear. The fact that a person or a society does certain things to protect themselves against a danger says little about the nature of that danger. Our fear probably says more about us than about what we fear. That we are afraid of something does not mean we have to fear it. But because something is feared, the authorities have a tendency to introduce measures that often affect our freedom - and that without any more security as a result. The fact that someone is afraid of a risk is not in itself sufficient reason for the authorities to reduce that risk. If the risk is unimportant, the authorities should limit themselves to inform that person exactly. Similarly, the authorities should intervene if there is a serious risk, even if the majority of the population is completely unconcerned about it.

There will always be fear but the object changes. In the post-war years, until 1989, the threat of communism came. That was replaced by the threat of environmental degradation, and in recent years terrorism has consistently reached the main lines of the news. The object of fear is changing, but it would be an illusion to believe that we could live in a world without fear. However, we must realize that our fear is not an objective reflection of reality, and there are strong interests that govern the direction of our fear. Fear is one of the most important power factors that exists, and he who can regulate the direction in society acquires considerable power over that society. Perhaps we can say, together with the philosopher Giorgio Agamben, that today we are living in a permanent state of emergency, where the reference to serious dangers works almost like a trump card - and that card surpasses our democratic rights.”

At the end of my lecture I told how during my search for various sources and different insights about the phenomenon "Fear" I came across the book "Philosophy of Fearism, A First East-West Dialogue.” of R. Michael Fisher and Desh Subba. And via this book found out about the Fearlessness Movement. I am particularly interested in how we can "promote" fearlessness with correct arguments to a world, in order to create a society that is much less or no longer controlled by fear. This is particularly important when we talk about the fear that leads us to make wrong decisions in our personal lives and socially, fear being the worst counselor according to me. This idea suits me well in my search for what is needed to have a good life.

I’m here, at the Fearlessness Movement ning, eager to learn. To learn more about the insights on Fear, Fearlessness, Fearology. I will go on, inviting people to discuss, exchange ideas about these topics.

Thanks.

Hugo Janssens

 Dialogue on Fearcriminalysis (Part 1): R. Michael Fisher, B. Maria Kumar and Desh Subba

 I am intrigued by the long standing traditional ethic in law, be it judges or police officers that they are to do their duty “without fear or prejudice.” Easier said than done.  -R. Michael Fisher

 Editorial Preamble:

I (R. Michael Fisher) took on the initiative to start this sub-field of Fearcriminalysis because of the recent email communications of Desh Subba (founder of philosophy of fearism) with B. Maria Kumar. See our bios at the end of this dialogue. I thank both of my colleagues for their important work and life experiences and how they have so easily and sincerely taken-on this dialogue series I envision on Fearcriminalysis, as we explore together the first roots of what this sub-field may entail.

Recently, I wrote on a FMning blog “What I have learned over my 45 years of teaching, more or less, professionally, with then getting three post-secondary degrees in Education as a field, is that it is good to continually reflect not only on our thinking and content, but on how we design curricula, how we imagine the nature of the human being, and how we actually teach in diverse conditions and to whom.” The analogy with “teaching” (and learning) that I was speaking about seems very appropriate when it comes to the field of governance, law, criminology, etc., of which Fearcriminalysis is focused on. I am intrigued by the long standing traditional ethic in law, be it judges or police officers that they are to do their duty “without fear or prejudice.” Easier said than done.

Like Subba and Kumar, I am interested in how we design organizations and governance, create laws (facilitate authority- power structures), make rules, regulations, policies and practices of enforcing them. Our imaginary in designing for such work are often passed on from past generations, protocols, institutional traditions, cultural and religious habits and often without a lot of critical thinking and examination of the deeper (and invisible) assumptions behind such ‘norms,’ ‘beliefs’ and practices of governance and law. And, concomitantly, our assumptions behind those who ‘break’ the law. Thus, our focus of conversation involves the political but focuses on criminological aspects in the largest sense where fear is important to account for.

Regarding tradition, although we each respect it in its best offerings, just because something was and is done this way or that, certainly doesn’t mean by necessity it is the “best” way. We all love inquiry and change. But then we have to define what best and better are, and in what context are such qualitative and/or quantitative assessments made. I’ll never forget the trial of the late Mahatma Gandhi in the British courts of India during colonization, where he more or less said to the judge and jury, “You may be following your laws, but I am following justice.” And, on that difference, Gandhi was charged and imprisoned, a similar story to the late Nelson Mandala in S. Africa.

There are always hidden biases, for nothing is value-neutral when it comes to how to best organize and manage societies. I am interested in the issue of fear-based laws, rules, etc., and what would fearlessness-based laws, rules, etc. look like in contrast and would they work better? I would like to address in this series of dialogues the notion of a Fearlessness Paradigm for law. Tagore seemed to point to the possibility of a new society, after my own heart, when he wrote, ”where the mind is without fear....into that heaven of freedom, my Father! let my country awake.” [thanks Maria, for sharing this relevant quote]

It is evident in the dialogue below the three of us quickly move into discussions of human nature, the human condition and the human potential, at least implicitly. Our own “politics” may also come through somewhat in these discussions. There is every intent in the dialogue to be non-dogmatic, non-coercive and at least listen to each others’ views respectfully, even if at times we may not all agree. The articulating worldviews, philosophies, values and methodologies that come from how we see relationships in society are important to analyze as well as the pragmatic details of governance, for e.g., policing and security, of which Kumar especially has a long track-record of highly accomplished professional competency that he brings to the table of the discussion on the nature and role of fear related to governance in India. It is also obvious that the disciplines we draw on in the discussion, although mostly about governance and law, one can see we dip into anthropology, sociology, social psychology and criminal psychology, flowing back and forth as the conversation develops. As Editor of this dialogue it was challenging also at times to interpret our words, our linguistic meanings by email, as we come from different cultures and parts of the world, with various degrees of background in English language use and writing. Each of us can Comment on this dialogue on the FMning as well to enhance and/or clarify points made.

Clearly, the world is in a lot of crises these days. Political tensions and nuclear war has never been so high a probability since many decades. The global Fear Problem is self-evident. How countries, cities, and people in general get along and/or don’t get along is crucial to the outcomes of how we are best going to solve ecological, social and political problems. Conflict is inevitable in such diverse landscapes and mindscapes of differing cultural backgrounds, and even “Culture Wars,” and so Fearcriminalysis seems ready to emerge to help out. I tend to agree with the contemplative Thomas Merton that “At the root of all war is fear” not unlike Subba’s (2014) claim, “War, murder, terror, etc. are produced by fear. Anger, conspiracy, suspicion, and hatred are produced by the fear…” (p. 11). That is, fear which is not understood or managed very well. From my research, no full attention has been given to “fear” systematically in relation to governance and law, even though fear is mentioned and seen as a factor (e.g., “fear of crime,” or “freedom from fear” in the UN Declaration of Human Rights). Centralizing analysis, through what Subba (2014) called a “fearist perspective” (lens), as the philosophy of fearism and fearology suggest, can be very valuable. This is totally new and exciting exploratory territory.

I personally, cannot think of a more important topic than these critical issues of governance and what democracies may look like that better serve the people (of all kinds). I also cannot think of a more controversial topic. In my experience in the past, be it with government leaders, bureaucrats, police, or military, or teachers and/or parents and citizens-- everyone has very strong opinions on the “best” ways to govern and keep law and social and moral order. But we need more than “opinions” to rule a society and be healthy, sane and sustainable in all ways that are moral and just. Governance and its institutionalization, on the macro-scale, is much like being parents raising children at home, or schooling them—there are a lot of “hot” contentious views in this domain. We are talking about Authority and Power every moment we talk about governance and law(s). And at the same time, we are talking about Fear related to Authority and Power and issues of freedom or non-freedom. Big stuff. So, without further comment, let’s proceed and let you the reader experience and interpret what is going on in the dialogue(s) and how we may shape Fearcriminalysis. We hope you will Comment on this blog, and/or send us personal emails as well (see bio.’s and contact info. at the end of this Dialogue).

The Dialogue:

[Ed.: For readers of this dialogue, and to remind each of us (Subba, Kumar and Fisher), I have copied [1] my recent correspondence with you both re: Fearcriminalysis (the name I coined), just to get us started, and after that it is anything goes, as an emergent creative exchange.]

Fisher: In regard to your background Maria, which I know little about re: policing and your writing and publishing, I did want to share with you that I have thought for some time that the Fearlessness Movement or whatever we call it has to bring a new radical paradigm to inform new research, thinking and applications re: fearology, fearanalysis, and feariatry, also terms Desh has used to all sorts of domains of society today.

What has not been talked so much about in Subba’s and my work is that we need to bring the study of fear and fearism in closer relations to the entire world of law, criminology, safety and security, i.e., social order--so, that we can take new and better directions in the future of governance and in how we manage societies and the plagues of phenomena like the growing "fear of crime," “fear of policing,” "terrorism." etc. There's a larger conversation I'd be glad to engage with you and Subba, if you are interested in being part of another sub-discipline of philosophy of fearism that directly relates to the above, perhaps we call it Fearcriminalysis? This would be the next specialty study for the 21st century, so that we truly can begin to turn around the growing toxic "culture of fear" that is invading all aspects of life for virtually everyone. 

"I watch people running towards the objective of happiness be that achieved individually or in groups. Unfortunately, this aim is undermined somewhat by the ‘Free World,’ which is changing to more value on competitive aims and financial gain."  - Desh Subba

Kumar: I appreciate your kind gesture in sending information about your brain child, i.e., Fearlessness Movement and references to your books, blog, tech papers etc. Desh and I are also recently corresponding and exchanging books. It will take some time to study this material to familiarise myself with both your research and teaching projects, which are quite important.

As regards to your observations on prospective expansion of fearism into the realm of crime, law, public safety and order, etc. I would like to say that it is a brilliant idea to pursue and if you and Desh Subba could guide me, I will certainly put in my efforts to work on Fearcriminalysis with you both. Having been in India’s police service as a career for the last 32 years, I have had first hand experiences about how people fear not only crime and criminals but also policing and police and other crime fighters; which is itself intriguingly a paradoxical reality.

Fisher: This is wonderful news Maria to be able to develop the sub-fields of fearism having a practitioner like yourself working alongside the philosophizing and theorizing that Desh and I have done. I note from your recent correspondence you also appear to love writing, poetry and you quote famous philosophers and mystics. That was sweet music to my ears.

We’d equally like to find a psychiatrist to work with to develop Feariatry. So, I’m curious how Desh you respond to Maria coming to this work on Fearcriminalysis at this time and what you see happening in this area of law, safety and security, etc.? I know for an example, you have a professional side career, beyond being a philosopher, writer and poet—you are a security guard in Hong Kong.

Subba: I am honored Maria has been offering to help us out. He has a prestigious reputation. Yes, I am. Somewhat like policing, our job is to provide a sense of security through watch and secure. I have since being a child closely watched the activities of people. Aristotle once mentioned that the aim of humans ought to be happiness. And happiness is not only an emotion, it involves activities. Those activities must be unique. I watch people running towards the objective of happiness be that achieved individually or in groups. Unfortunately, this aim is undermined somewhat by the ‘Free World,’ which is changing to more value on competitive aims and financial gain. I observe this kind of world creates more fear for them and less happiness the harder they strive. Between being human and finding happiness they need to cross many barriers. Every barrier is full of fear. It is not easy to reach the top of happiness.

Fisher: It has long struck me as I observe people in competitive modern societies that they seem not to be conscious of the contradiction between the high value put on competitiveness, usually a win-lose scenario and how it undermines human happiness because the latter is undermined by feeling more insecure, i.e., fearful. In a sense, it is logical that “feeling safe” is not going to be secured under highly competitive societal structures and processes of winners and losers. After my own education in such a North American society and being a school teacher and curriculum designer and social critic, it is more than obvious children generally are not very happy in these systems—mostly, they are very frightened and motivated by fear nearly chronically, and I think in postmodern society this has got worse. Insecurity is the dis-ease of choice, so it seems ironically in a society constantly seeking “safety and security” in order to avoid risk; a paradox many sociologists have seen, e.g., in labeling the West’s “risk society” [2].

Subba:  I used to watch activities of the rich man to the poor man. Most of rich couldn't sleep at night.  They wake up and drive their car early in the morning, even at 2am, 3 am., Because they are burning inside and try to cool it. Sometimes they used to take lot of medicine. I am first witness of their hide and seek activities. They used to leave medicine and 4 or 5 mobiles in guard room. These mobiles used to call entertainment girls. They keep all these in the guard room and keep away from the reach of their wives. Sometimes I watch office staff. They come early 3 or 4 o’clock to work. Their office time is 9 am. They have been given some task by manager. They must complete assignment work within tight time frames. Otherwise they lose commission, promotion and remuneration. They are always running behind so called “happiness.” It makes them hard, fast and better workers but that is where things fall short.

The rich man fears losses:  losing name and fame. To maintain it he suffers from anxiety, stress, fear, depression. Similarly, employee fears losing their job, income and family and social status. It gives overload, burden, restless etc. Slowly these activities change into sickness physically and mentally. Family life is more strained.

For these people, rich and/or poor, to meet their demand, they engage in lying, smuggling, stealing, and blackmailing. Sometimes it changes into family and social violence. These are crimes. The source of the crime maybe differs, but to solve crime we need to follow the surface symptoms of behaviors to the deeper root causes. Directly of indirectly, some parts of fear must be examined there. If we treat the root, some crime can be cured.

Kumar:  Let me at the outset congratulate you all on your unfailing enthusiasm and dedicated yeoman service for the cause of fearism. Truly, with Mr. Oshinakachi Akuma Kalu, I believe you have hit the nail on the head when you wrote [Desh’s book subtitle]: ”life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear.”

As we all know, Rabindranath Tagore, the first Asian to win the Nobel Prize in Literature (1913), became synonymous with his emphatic lines when he wrote, ”where the mind is without fear....into that heaven of freedom, my Father! let my country awake.” Unless fear is undone, freedom has no meaning for existence, rather existence has no meaning. It is here in this existential context of political life, that whether it is the American Declaration of Independence, or any other democratically-based national constitutional provisions and laws, there ought to be fearlessness alongside the inalienable rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, fraternity, justice and equality.

As I see it, knowing about handling or managing of fear well, as a philosophy of fearism promotes, is more potent than the feeling of being safe.

Fisher: Indeed, Kumar that is a powerful statement from someone in policing. I think the recent “safety” and “risk” discourses, especially in the West are excessive, if not neurotic and fear-based themselves. In general, I find, people care more about lowering risk, and striving for safety and security, than being moral citizens. In one philosophy conference I presented in my graduate years, I entitled the talk “Better Safe Than Moral.” This was a horrible state of affairs we had entered as societies. People seeking low risk and safety all the time easily become so dependent on someone, like authoritative “forces” or “law” or “policy” to protect their safety but rarely then do they take responsibility anymore for their own actions, and the very fact that risk is part of life if one wants to be a creative developing and maturing person. Worse, dictatorships more or less begin within this matrix of fearfulness of citizens who cower under all authorities and thus give over to them to rule with the iron fist. I see a lot of this happening in Western so-called “advanced” societies like in Europe and the USA today. Not a good sign of the future.

Kumar: True Dr.Fisher! Most of the people tend to care more about lowering risk than being moral citizens.

Fisher: Maria, is this human behavior even in India where you live and work? Do you think this tendency is part of human nature? Or, is it part of the human condition(ing)? Explain your views.

Kumar: I think that it hardly has anything to with India or any other country but strongly indicates that it is part of human nature in general. In a way, ‘lowering risk’ and ‘striving to be moral’ are equally important in the sense that they are complementary to each other. One alone can not bring in desired good because these two strategies need to be attended to in terms of prioritisation as well as simultaneity. Because, ‘risk management’ (i.e., lowering risk) is a short-term goal, usually because of its urgency. For example, a thirsty deer is about to drink water at a river but on sighting a lion in the vicinity, it immediately sprints away without touching water, in its bid to escape its life from the imminent danger. So is the case with anyone, who feels threatened and tries to minimise or avoid risk. If secure for the time being, then one has to the option to strive to be moralistic and ethical as a long-term goal.

Fisher: Sounds like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory explaining developmental and motivational priorities. In this sense, “true fear,” as Gavin de Becker, international security expert, would label it as the “gift of fear” [3] acts just as it is designed by evolution as good Defense Intelligence to reduce immanent and/or potential threat. So far no problem, our instincts as Nature’s gifts are working the system for best outcomes—not necessarily guarantees of safety but a likely best probability of least harm.

Kumar: But caution is warranted while handling a threat and lowering risk in the sense that it should not result in the creation of more or bigger risks, since I am reminded of Friedrich Nietzsche’s warning, “whoever fights monster should see to it that in the process, he should not become a monster.” As Michael is rightly apprehensive, Nietzsche’s apt quote serves as a red alert if the citizens cower under all authority and vest unbridled powers in the dictatorship to rule with an iron fist.

...civilisations also went on regulating the conduct of subjects/citizens through formal laws. Then what happens if regulations, enforcement and controls become more intense? Too much of regulation through laws and rules proves to be more harmful than helpful. If any aspect of human behaviour is controlled by unlimited creation and application of rules in the name of crime prevention, safety or maintenance of peace and order, what will happen to society as a whole? "  -B. Maria Kumar

Fisher: Then the social contract and basic trust, the republic and its principles, all take a dive and democracy itself is threatened or collapses. Terror(ism) is released, more or less. The classic is fighting “the enemy” who is “evil” over there as having weapons they could use against us, and so, pre-emptively, let’s strike them with our bigger weapon first. For example, the spiraling nuclear warheads phenomena—that is Fear Wars, fits this, and shows how easily, when perceptions and worries lead to decisions that are chronically fear-based, we end up with bigger risks—e.g., US and N. Korea for one, and maybe the same for India and Pakistan, and many gang wars, etc. War itself seems to fall into this wrong thinking as Nietzsche was getting at. In other words, It’s sort of bad policing all around. I also think your deer and lion example is only partly successful as explanation when we apply prioritisation principles to a chronically worrying sub-set of humans, that is, who are neurotically fear-based people living in culture—living under oppressive conditions [4]. Human nature is now operative, more or less, as  the human condition—the latter, a Defense Intelligence undermined and compromised by what de Becker calls “false fear.” Now risk assessment, in a postmodern “risk society,” often is exaggerated to default on the ‘worst scenario’ when there is no real evidence for it. This is the opposite of Tagore’s ideal, because the mind is filled with fear and worry and a big brain that can project that fear into the future (unlike a deer). A more complex explanation and theory is required here. Anyways, Maria could we get back to your views about the haves and the have-nots that Desh spoke about earlier.

Kumar: Let me start with an observation of four categories I have observed and named. I’ll distinguish two generic types of peoples’ patterns distinguished within the haves and have-nots. Some of such people are have-nots whose primary aim is to survive. I call them “literal survivors.” These struggling literal survivors can be of two sub-types. The first sub-type may struggle morally, ethically and lawfully to secure their most basic needs like food/water and sex—that is, the instinctual goals of existence-food for self-survival and sex for familial, tribal and/or survival of the species. Say for example that someone of this sub-type having no means of livelihood shows initiative to take-up manual work as a farmhand and marries a girl as per normal legal procedures. Let us call such people “socially approved literal survivors.”

The second sub-type of have-nots are those who struggle for existence by ‘hook or crook’ without little if any concern for upholding social standards of morals, ethics or laws; say for example that a man is starving and resorts to robbing a passer-by and/or raping a lonely vulnerable girl as instinctual acting-out. We may term them as “socially disapproved literal survivors.”

Fisher: I think this second sub-type nicely fits, for the most part, what criminologists and psychologists would label “deviants,” and Subba might call “corrupt people” [5] of which I tend to prefer to name and theorize generically as “rebels.” The issue of one’s relationship to Authority/Power becomes a major factor in outcomes of these actors and their interactions. A point, perhaps, later we can return in regard to the relationship and role fear plays in these authority-power-control and ‘game’ dynamics in governance and law.

Kumar: Okay, regarding the haves, on the other hand, as the more well-to-do people, I see two sub-types under the generic label “lateral survivors.” They don’t need to struggle for food and sex. They just want to survive their current affluent status (i.e., status quo), meaning that they don’t want to go down below the current standards of living.

Subba: They fear falling and failing. It is fear accompanied often by guilt and shame, if not terror deep down.

Kumar: Yes, it’s this fear that tends to dominate their motivations. They have to keep up the present sophistication and norms. During the course of their efforts to maintain this sameness in status, some people follow morals, ethics, and laws to do so. This sub-type we may refer to as “socially approved lateral survivors.” Similar in motivations, but strategically in contrast to the first, are those who don’t adhere to standard rules, morals and laws, these are the “socially disapproved lateral survivors.”

The socially disapproved literal survivors and the socially disapproved lateral survivors are well aware of the unsavory consequences like penalties, and legal sentences, etc. for their illegal and immoral activities; hence they continually try to lower the risks and uncertainties involved in achieving their objectives. These people feel threatened by the ‘long arm’ of the law and by lawful defenders and are more fearful of Authority.

Fisher: Are you saying the haves/laterals are more fear-based in general than the have-nots/literals? If so, that seems counterintuitive at first glance, doesn’t it? I think Desh might agree with you, as he has argued in his philosophy of fearism that people living more simple lives, e.g., traditional villagers without formal education, without high tech, and living closer to Nature and outside of big cities, etc., are generally less fearful and less fear-driven than modern urban dwellers living more complex and “well-educated” lives.

Kumar: No, I think the opposite; the socially approved survivors, whether literal or lateral, are less fearful; and less fearful in the sense that they are concerned only about natural hazards or sudden change in policy etc.. like a cargo truck washed away by unexpected floods or their share-values fell due to new pricing regulations.

Subba: I have, as Michael says, hypothesized that the better well-off generally are the more fearful compared to the less well-off. In my book Subba (2014), “After the fulfilment of all these stages [in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs], they live their lives happily. But they are more aware of some things than the common people [at less advanced stages]….they have a lot of stress in regard to the[ir] security of property, necessity, and increment of investment. They always have the fear of downfall from the[ir] present position. If they have a little loss in their business, they feel as if they are completely hopeless. That is why they are hard-working; they work day and night at the cost of their health” (p. 288). [6]

Fisher: Desh, in your 2014 book you give attention to this hypothesis in your views on rural simple-traditional lifestyles vs. urban modern life-styles [7], as well you wrote about a model--“Pyramid of Renowned Person” Figure No. 71, and bluntly say, “According to this pyramid, most famous people have the highest fear and ordinary people have the lowest fear. Since ordinary people have the least fear, they have the freedom to walk wherever they want and also they don’t fear to walk wherever they like and eat whatever they like…” (p. 233). I think your security guard experience may have informed this view? Perhaps also your study of Marxism and class? Desh, where did this hypothesis, re: haves and have-nots, start in your thinking? And, I’d like to hear more what Maria thinks of it. 

Subba:  You know Michael, I have less theoretical basis and bookish knowledge for this view. I mostly do practical study. What I mentioned above can seen by everybody. When people rise in hierarchy needs, more and more, they fear more and keep more bodyguards, keep CCTV, bullet proof cars. Without checking proper security, they never dare to travel, walk freely. It is right, when people have nothing, that person has less enemies, jealousy, kidnapper, torturer, and harm. A coolie, labourer, daily wage worker normally has less fear and fears less heath and diet problems.

Fisher: It’s interesting that, at least in North America, the sociologist Barry Glassner, famous for his book on the “culture of fear” studied also the great worry and fear over what people eat these days because of a sense of always something is going to cause some health problem [8]. They listen to the news way too much and read too much about warning reports and often they have contradictory results. It leaves the informed consumer confused often. I don’t think people on bare survival on the street worry much at all about the same neurotic details of diet and health choices. I don’t suspect they listen to the mainstream media news two or three times a day or read newspapers often as daily diet. Though, in extreme cases they may fear starving to death or freezing at nights. But generally the street comm-unities take care of each other because they are all vulnerable together. In competitive and well-to-do communities people are more isolated, although they do have extra money to insulate themselves from disease and death too. It’s complex to generalize but I do think you have a good point Desh. I don’t know if it has ever been systematically researched. I wonder how it may be something relevant to our topic of law, social order and policing? It is relevant to Kumar’s model of literal survivors and how they are perceived as deviants—maybe, they are less fearful people (more fearless?) and in that sense “healthier” than the richer? Maybe if this is true, we would see them differently when we are in the middle and upper classes? I wonder. Maybe we could learn something from them about fear management?

Kumar: Yes Michael. What I opine is that riches, fame, name, power and status may bring in fear at times as shown in Subba’s model of Pyramid of Renowned Person but it may not be generalized because there are many great people in history who walked around freely. We know that the Danish king used to bicycle alone on the streets. Mahatma Gandhi was always amidst masses but he was not afraid of being killed, though as irony has it, he was shot dead by the assailant at a prayer meeting. Despite being great, one’s security can be compromised, as some people are “too bold” in terms of spiritual strength-- being loving, caring and humble. Mother Teresa of Kolkata was one example. On the other hand, the down-trodden poor like untouchables of ancient Kerala in India fear to come near to a Brahmin, so they maintain a distance of 10-20 steps or so, lest the upper castes become impure. And the untouchables may even incur legal penalties.

Fisher: This kind of code of law is based mostly around mythological-based fears that have infiltrated the culture, even if somewhat irrational, even if they may have once had meaning in earlier times--or even if they are unjustice we might say, there’s real pressures and fears as you say, regardless of reason and rationality and life in a modern world. I suppose such primal magical and mythical fears are “laws” (or taboos) that have their own logic developmentally and they can be recalcitrant to change and adaptation over time. Fear (i.e., taboos) are powerful shapers of social life and law(s). They are also the basis of a good deal of prejudice unfortunately, and they spread a culture of fear as well, even in non-industrialized countries. No small problem, from an ethical and fearist’s perspective. It is difficult for me as a modern Westerner to get my head around how an untouchable caste put upon a person is treated like this via criminalization for such an ‘innocent’ event like walking to close to another person (i.e., the upper-caste) in public space—where is freedom in that? I think Mahatma Gandhi, espousing a philosophy of fearlessness and liberation for all, was on a mission to change these traditional ways. No wonder he was assassinated, for he was not only challenging the British Rule but also India’s Religious Traditional Rule—which, I would guess he saw both as unnecessarily fear-inducing—and, ultimately creating unnecessary fragmenting and polarizing against the establishing of a just sense of modern liberty, governance, law, security and social/moral order—that is, of a true (ethical and spiritual) community and democracy.

Kumar: Indeed. This ‘forced fear’ seems to have been ingrained and conditioned in the minds of lower castes in such a manner that it led Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Constitution of modern India to say: ”so long as you do not achieve social liberty, whatever freedom provided by the law, is of no avail to you.” I also suppose that it may perhaps depend upon the person’s state of mind as to feel fearsome or fearful, depending upon various factors. Relevant here is Steve Biko’s eye-opener observation, “the most potent weapon in the hands of oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”

Subba: I discussed in my Philosophy of Fearism (2014) book the “Fear Weapon” of which is the worst configuration of fear in history (pp. 235-38). I write about law and criminals and how people fear to violate rules and laws. They fear going to prison. This is essential to society, but it can be abused. However, we have to recognize what fearism reveals over history, and that is that fear is one of the most powerful weapons to use to maintain law and order from tribes to grand nations and even over the world. It makes people more disciplined so they can function in groups and that’s a good thing generally.  

Kumar: As also pointed out by Subba earlier in this dialogue, well-to-do people do nurse fear about their wealth that it might be taken away or about how it could be secured/preserved. Same way, poor people also suffer due to fear of uncertainty about how the future holds for them in terms of socioeconomic well-being. It was also clearly visible in ancient India that the people of lower castes were more fearful than upper castes because of societal sanction accorded in the texts of some scriptures. In the 19th century of Europe also, Karl Marx felt that the upper classes were more powerful whereas the lower classes were more fearful. It is in this connection that he yelled his battle cry, ‘workers of the world! unite.... you have nothing to lose but chains.’ Metaphorically speaking, these chains he referred to were nothing but the shackles of fear. With apologies to my revision of Karl Marx, one way of looking at things could be: “history of all hitherto existing society is the history of fear maneuvers....the fearsome have always exploited the fearful; but the point however is to change it for pan-fearlessness.”

Subba: A new formation of history itself, based on a fearism perspective and philosophy. I am writing about Marx and dephilosophy soon to be published.

Fisher: I so agree that the fearsome (elites, for e.g., and/or street gangs and other leaders) of history have tended to run the course of a logic of moral order upon the basic principle (written or not) that: Right is Might! However, that will not sustain sane or healthy existence in societies. Why? Because the “might” is part of the mechanism of terror(ism)/fear(ism) in its most toxic forms. I have, like Kumar suggested, thought that history (the human condition) is one of repeated (traumatic) Fear Wars. By definition: someone somewhere is out to see how they can make (force) someone else to become more afraid than themselves—and, that, supposedly (for the short run) produces superiority, power-over, domination, and rule. These Fear Wars are killing us all and destroying the planetary ecology that sustains life. We need alternatives, time is running short re: our cascading multiple crises. We need to critique everything we do as to when excessive fear is being induced for control in one form or another to dominate. This gets critical for police officers and military. A big topic. Suffice it to say, a new kind of education is required, and fear and its management has to be part of it. That’s why I am so delighted to have Maria as part of this dialogue. I am also heartened by recent teaching at the UN bringing fearism to police and peace keepers across several countries [9]. And so, I suggest, armed and unarmed, rich and poor, black and white, secular or religious, all can, if they allow it, get caught up in this addiction to fear-power-might. The game of control and who can give freedom and who can take it away. This patterned dynamic is so dangerous when it motivates “righteousness” (i.e., rules and laws) which motivates reactions and even revolutions.

Subba: As much as I see Kumar’s point of the complexity and situation variances. I still believe for poor and workers, their life is one of more satisfactory when it comes to fear. They have big hope of having daily food and finding a place to sleep. Street sleeper, beggar life is far better than rich in sense of fear. This picture we can see everywhere. It does not mean that I fully support we all live a life-style like of those persons; I support them, their space of hope. They have many spaces of hope. In comparing to their life, the rich person’s scope of hope is limited. Size of fear is less in poor whereas full fear is in the life of renowned person. When they have more fear, certainly they have more fear-related anxiety, depression, mental sickness, stress etc. Thank you for giving me chance to put my view. I think our dialogue will be fruitful to interested readers.

Kumar: Michael’s concerns are genuine in the sense that the so called authoritative ‘righteousness’ in the guise of laws and rules may foster the deadly combination of fear-power-might. After all, crime is a product of law, rule, regulation or procedure. As long as law does not talk about pass-port or visa, everyone used to roam freely across the international borders in the past. Now the pass-port Acts, visa rules, deportation and extradition procedures, etc. restrict individuals’ freedoms and define ‘non-adherence’ or any violation as crime. And then enters the police and other enforcement agencies, as the strong arm of the government to prevent/detect or investigate crime and to enforce law.

It is not illogical to say that people get such police that they deserve. If people are violent, police also have to resort to more of their coercive powers. The more intense the enforcement, the more fearful or aggressive the people are. If people are law-abiding, police rarely have to intrude into people’s privacy or conduct investigations as peace prevails in the society. When necessitated, police are required to use force as little as sufficient enough to bring back normalcy.

When laws were not enacted, there were also problems such as the reign of brutality of anarchy and fearsome chaos, the prevalence of unwritten practice of ‘might is right’ - whoever is strong, they arbitrarily dictate, etc. That kind of disorderly situation in the Babylon of 18th century BC forced King Hammurabi to formulate a code of conduct or laws that set the standards of orderly behaviour and justice. By this enactment, the hitherto prevailing unbridled freedoms of the mighty that led to fear, disorder and violence were regulated so as to facilitate order, peace and fearless interpersonal harmony.

Fisher: Maria, it is good to be reminded of some of this history of law. In future dialogues, however,  I want to critically examine any so-called “fearless interpersonal harmony” as idea(l) under law, and what the actual real(ity) may have been.

Kumar: Subsequent civilisations also went on regulating the conduct of subjects/citizens through formal laws. Then what happens if regulations, enforcement and controls become more intense? Too much of regulation through laws and rules proves to be more harmful than helpful. If any aspect of human behaviour is controlled by unlimited creation and application of rules in the name of crime prevention, safety or maintenance of peace and order, what will happen to society as a whole? Same situation as aptly assessed by Michael will occur in terms of reactions and revolutions as history witnessed exactly 36 centuries after Hammurabi’s code that the 18th century AD’s French Revolution took place when the dictatorial monarch imposed too many of laws, rules etc. in the name of “liberty” while collecting too much tax, curtailing basic freedoms and denying food to people.

Lastly, as Michael said, we are inclined to design governance, create laws, make rules, regulations, policies and practices of enforcing them. I too feel that it is here in this context that a balanced approach is required to be devised so as to ensure that the governance intervenes least in the affairs of people except in the matters of life, liberty, equality, justice and the like; facilitates an environment free from fear and inconvenience while safeguarding the rights and interests of people and at the same time preserves and enlarges the freedoms of all individuals through appropriate moral and legal framework.

Fisher: Okay, lots to think about, for our next dialogue. Thank you both for a stimulating start on issues of fearcriminalysis. It has all got me thinking about at some point there may have to be a distinction drawn with a sub-field also related I’m coining fearpoliticology as more general than fearcriminalysis.

Notes:

1. I have made slight modifications in uses of correspondence (as personal communications, Jan. 31- Feb. 1, 2018) for clarity, accuracy, English language use, and prompting purposes; but have attempted not to change the content and intent of the messages from my dialogue partners here.
2. See, for e.g., Ulrich Beck’s work. Beck, U. (2003). An interview [by J. Yates] with Ulrich Beck on fear and risk society. The Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Culture, 5, 96- Also, Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Also Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. [Trans. Mark Ritter]. London, UK: Sage. This concept “risk society” overlaps with “culture of fear” (e.g., see Frank Furedi, Barry Glassner).
3. De Becker, G. (1997). The gift of fear: Survival signals that protect us from violence. NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell.
4. This is where I introduce ‘fear’ (with ‘ marks) to distinguish the topic and phenomena (i.e., fear) that I see dominating today in most societies, a morphing culturally modified ‘fear’—especially in the West where I live, in a culture of fear (e.g., see Fisher, 2010). Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world’s fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
5. See Subba (2014), p. 322-23.
6. Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Australia: Xlibris.
7. Fisher, R. M., & Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris, pp. 57, 89. In part, Subba’s views have been validated in a recent research study and article, where Subba (2014) is cited in supporting evidence. See Farzana, S. U., & Mannan, A. V. (2017). Vernacular settlement vs. fractal geometry: A comparative study addressing popular density and space quality in rural Bangladesh. AIUB: Journal of Science & Engineering, 16(3), 1-8.
8. Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things. NY: Basic Books. See also Glassner, B. (2007). The Gospel of Food: Why we should stop worrying and enjoy what we eat. NY: HarperPerennial.
9. Specifically, I am referring to the workshop on fear management and fearism by a colleague of Desh Subba’s, his name is Furgeli Sherpa from Nepal, currently working with the UN Peace Keeping services as a police officer himself in Sudan; go to https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/fearism-in-united-nation-workshop-room-mukjar-sudan

****

B. Maria Kumar (b.mariakumar@gmail.com)

Born on 5th April 1958, B. Maria Kumar studied biology at pre-graduation level, chemistry in graduation and business management and philosophy in post-graduation at Vijayawada, Guntur and Hyderabad (India) respectively. Joined Indian Police Service in 1985, he served in central India holding various positions in law enforcement and is presently working as Director General at Bhopal. Interested in literature, he wrote in his mother tongue Telugu and also in English. Some of his published titles are:

 Mahimalesa Satakam (Telugu), Sanjivayya Satakam (Telugu), Vannela Dorasni (Telugu), Nenu (Telugu), Anandangaa Vundaalante (Telugu), Generation Z (Telugu), Voh Venus aur mein (Hindi translation), Poems d’Romance (Telugu), To Be Or Not to Be Happy (English), The Teapot Book of Love and Romantic Poems (English), Policing by Common Sense (English), Application of Psychological Principles in Maintenance of Law and Order (English), Be Selfish But Good (English), Kuch kadam aur khushi ki oar (Hindi translation), Psi Phenomenon of Nestorism (English)

Some works were translated into Russian language. Besides, he wrote articles in journals of national and international repute. Reviews of his works appeared in various newspapers. The following titles of honour were bestowed on him as a mark of recognition for his contribution to literature: Sahitya Sree, Vidya Vachaspati, Acharya, Bharat Bhasha Bhushan. He was also decorated with the following medals by the President of India in recognition of his services to police profession. Indian Police Medal, President’s Police Medal. Other distinctions won are: Singhast Medal ( Government of the state of Madhya Pradesh), EOD Medal (US Administration). He currently lives in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India with his wife Vijayalakshmi. He has one son and one daughter.

 Link to books available online:

https://www.amazon.in/Books-B-Maria-Kumar/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A976389031%2Cp_27%3AB.%20Maria%20Kumar

 Desh Subba  (fearism@gmail.com)

Is a philosopher, poet, writer, and founder of the Fearism Study Center (Nepal) and leading expert on the philosophy of fearism.

http://fearism.blogspot.hk/

Pseudonym: Desh Subba, Full Name: Limbu Desh Bahadur, Address: 215, Yuk Ping House, Long Ping Estate, Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong.

Date of Birth: 06 Dec, 1965, Birth Place; Dharan, Sunsari, Nepal, Fathers' Name: Kubir Jung Limbu, Mother's Name: Tilmati Limbu

Education: Master in business administration, Writing field: Philosophy of Fearism, Novels and Poems, Published Novel Books: Four novels, Doshi Karm 2050 B.S, Apman 2052 B.S., Sahid 2056 B.S., Aadibashi 2064 B.S., Philosophical Books: Philosophy of Fearism 2014 (English and Nepalese), It is translating in Hindi, Assamis and Burmese, Philosophy of Fearism- a First East-West dialogue 2016- English (co-author with Dr. R. Michael Fisher), Tribesmen's Journey to Fearless (Novel based on Fearism)

R. Michael Fisher (r.michaelfisher52@gmail.com)

Has a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction (UBC), and is an educational consultant, editor, lecturer, independent scholar, writer and founder of the In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989-), In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute (1991-), the Center for Spiritual Inquiry and Integral Education (2009-), The Fearology Institute (2018). He is a world-renowned expert on the topics of fear and fearlessness and has published hundreds of articles and books on the topic and on education: The World's Fearlessness Teachings, The Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue (with Desh Subba), and Fearless Engagement of Four Arrows: The True Story of an Indigenous-based Social Transformer. His latest blogs are at the Fearlessness Movement ning which he began with his with Barbara Bickel in 2015. Also go to http://www.loveandfearsolutions.com

Officer Furgeli Sherpa, from Nepal here presenting.

"Fear Management & Fearism" program was held in UN Workshop, Mukjar, Sudan 8th February, 2018. Participants were 21 officers from 8 countries. Fear Management, introduction, rational of fear management, principal of fear management, tactics of fear management and more slides were presented by facilitator Furgeli Sherpa. Furgeli is a police Inspector of Nepal Police armed force. Currently he is in UN peace keeping force in Sudan, Africa. I personally salute him for his creative work. He is the first person who introduced Fearism in United Nations. I request dear friends to congratulation facilitator Mr. Sherpa who push Fearism in summit of world.

If you have followed the FMning at all lately you may have noticed one of our FM members is Osinakachi Akuma Kalu (OAK for short), a young ambitious Nigerian man (25 years-old) from East Nigeria. His second book, which I have not yet read, is entitled "The First Stage of the Fearologist" (Vol. 1). [1] I had a chance this morning to read some of the Foreword and Preface of his book online at Amazon.com books, and it intrigued me what others were saying about him who know him as a student and colleague, a mentoree. Later below, I'll share my view of why this book is so rare in the history of humanity, and why it is important to me and the cause I lead in world reclamation. 

The Foreword by Dr. Mehzbeen Sadriwala begins with characterization of OAK, "He is a sound and much acclaimed motivational speaker and author" (p. 7). I trust that OAK truly has accomplished some reputation in a positive motivational way for some others, perhaps online, perhaps mostly in Nigeria in some places, but these are things I do not know and so it is good to learn what others think of him and his career arising. It gives me and readers from other parts of the world, some perspective at least as we read his book(s) and his views on fear and fear management. 

The Preface, to my surprise was not written by OAK, for that is the usual standard in my experience. Rather he chose to have it written by an academic friend and classmate of his, Sir Peter U. Aloh. It seems both these writers are from Nigeria. Aloh's Preface is impressive as writing itself and kept my attention with its flare of exuberance, as an echo of the exuberance of OAK, whom Aloh has tried to paint in his positive portrait. Luckily, for me, the Preface was not all positive, happy, glowing and bright, as that would seem too unreal for anyone who takes the 'alternative' path, the 'road less traveled' and the more prophetic way. The path, I call fearlessness, is not always such a glow with only positive happiness.  

Aloh's own words are worth quoting at length (as an excerpt) as he describes OAK with crafty language, albeit it could have used more refined English editing: "Crest fallen I seek [sic] him [OAK] share his experience and ways he navigates successfully through life with me. Like an automaton he switched over to a pensive mood as he recounts the yester years of arduous sufferings and losses, years when his mind's idealism was trumped by life's realism, years when his well built castle crumbles, the years of outsourcing on the streets, the years of hunger and pain just to strike out a Diploma through blood and sweat standing nearly alone as a derided 'useless boy' who has refused to understand the limit[s] that his talent and luck can carry him." (p. 11)

"Fear must be the killer of risk taking" -OAK

If I understand OAK's experience, through his mentor's eyes here, it is one I relate to deeply myself as a young man about OAK's age and younger, where I was also driven by idealism and hard hit by the realism of the norms of society. Afterall, the fact is, that I was a teen rebel in the North American 1960s-70s revolutionary movement, something that OAK would not have known and been supported by. No, he was born much later in 1990s into a world that, in most places, had sold out to neoconservative and neoliberal capitalism and materialism to the extreme.

I also pick-up that OAK, like Desh Subba, have come out of poor working class, rural and tribal backgrounds and to achieve formal education beyond the basic primary grades, when there is not a lot of money-back-up coming from parents and family, and when they also are not all that understanding of the value of education themselves, and are more practical --it is not surprising that OAK was labeled a "useless boy" from their perspective of the normal way to live in villiage life, in Nigeria, in Africa. But, I don't know what it was like for him, yet, I get a good taste of it from Aloh's perspective, and when I finally get my copy of OAK's new book, I can hopefully read a bit more of his life autobiography--and, yet, I am not so interested in the biographical details as I am in OAK's intellectual biography and development, and that is what this book seems to be most about. 

Aloh continues: "Derided and forsaken....But one thing continues to trouble his existence even with his seeming success: why are [the] majority of the populace [e.g., Nigerians] afraid to take risks; to confront challenges that prepare them to enjoy the wonders of their being? In muted reflection he understood that great legacies are made not by fear but by courage....Fear must be [OAK concluded] the killer of risk taking which births creativity and invention." (p. 11) 

 I feel and sense here the burgeoning spirit of the artist, as the one who sees deeply what others often do not see. OAK must have seen early in life the loss of the spirit of the people, and himself potentially, if he would ignore his own "creator" and artist-inside. See some of his poetry posted on the FM ning. In my own life, it was both in Nature and in art-making that I kept my soul alive and my creative line of development in continual maturation, so it wouldn't be stunted to the 'norm' of conformity. If one wants to leave a great legacy, one has to be a creator and leader. OAK has shared with me in emails several times, he is looking ahead, and beyond the shallow, beyond only the present, in that he wants to do the good work and leave a legacy in this world, and he seems to have found it in the philosophy of fearism and Fearlessness Movement, as we hear in the rest of the excerpt from Aloh. 

 Aloh continues: "Headed [sic] to the library, he decided that people must be made to understand this fact and the bettery way to do this would be via giving a philosophical and psychological analysis of how to conquer the beast [fear: see OAK's first book]....He decided that the AWOL status of Africans at the Fearism Study Centre Nepal founded by Desh Subba and the World's Fearlessness Movement founded by Michael Fisher and his wife Barbara Fisher [sic: Barbara Bickel] is enough. That the wrong barometric reading of Nigeria and Nigerians as a liability to the world must be corrected. He enrolled into the Fearism Study Centre Nepal and the World's Fearlessness Movement [online] reclaiming Africa's lost glory that has sunk into the labyrinth of obscurity....He grabbed the headlines for the right and noble reasons reshaping fearism's trend of thought to encompass the African Weltanschuung....[becoming one, the youngest, of the] three of them [i.e., Subba, Fisher, Kalu] the world known leading fearologists." (p.11)

 Now, this is all a great introduction, albeit, only scratching the surface of this young man's philosophical, ethical and spiritual commitment. It shows he can change himself by looking at the evidence, critically examining his own views, his own moods and temperament, and seeing larger perspectives, be those taught by others as mentors and teachers, or created by his own innovative unique thinking. This is the sign of a good fearologist in the making, and that's why I am glad, as is Subba, to welcome this young learner and adventurer from Nigeria to be a founding fearologist amongst us. Sure, he has lots to learn about being a scholar, of which he has also told me. He will have to learn the lessons of patience to balance with youthful exuberance. I look forward to seeing how his journey unfolds. I also write a piece about him and his rare work in this Fearlessness Movement in the book itself, so I'll leave it up to readers now to check out this book. I imagine that as he is beginning to design his courses to teach out of The Fearism Study Centre in Nigeria, he will use this rare and important book for a text. That will create the kind of discussion needed for the nascent fearologists attracted to study with him. And, of course, any such students, including OAK himself, will always have access to Subba and myself as mentors as they so choose. We are all in this together! 

Btw, I do believe our greatest oldest ancestors, in the subtle realms of teaching of the 'right old ways' to live, are deep in the soul of Africa and Africancentric ways of knowing and seeing--which, certainly we in North America (other than maybe some Indigenous peoples) have lost--we have really lost our way, our soul from the source, the evolutonary and historical Mother Worldsoul of Africa. It is rare enough finding a truly dedicated fearologist in the world, never mind someone in their 20s, and never mind they are a beautiful black person. I could go on and on of how historically rare this moment is, when one as OAK publishes a book with "fearologist" in the title. No one has ever done that. I'm glad it was him. 

p.s. To be clear, all of my praise, also comes with critiques. I in no way endorse everything he does or writes about in his books. He is his own person. In time, he and Subba and I will have our "truthings" with each others' works, as will all the students. It takes time to do a proper endorsement of someone elses work, at least for me it does. At this point, I endorse only generically his enthusiasm and contributions in helping us move the fearwork along into the future.  

Note

1. Kalu, O. A. (2017). The first stage of the fearologist. CeateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Amazon.

There are many approaches to thinking, writing and teaching. What I have learned over my 45 years of teaching, more or less, professionally, with then getting three post-secondary degrees in Education as a field, is that it is good to continually reflect not only on our thinking and content, but on how we design curricula, how we imagine the nature of the human being, and how we actually teach in diverse conditions and to whom. Most people as content-experts are not trained to think this way, educatively.  

I plan to write a few articles on adult/higher education and post them on the FMning, as it is especially important to examine how we teach about philosophy of fearism [1] (and the "Three Pillars" you've seen mentioned on prior blogs here). There is no doubt that I (like so many today) are very frustrated and critical of most public and generic education institutions, especially as so many of them have folded to economic efficiency (e.g., neoliberalism ideologies), and/or political regime's of authoritarian and repressive "revolutionary" even governments and their "reforms" they bring to higher education--but actually are "gutting" higher education and critical thinking all together. Then there is the ongoing critique I and many others educators have that the curriculums are so often reductionistic, parts-based, all about quantity, and the loss of a whole person being educated comes into question--and, many have called for a "spirituality" in higher education to meet the deeper needs and desires of our students, especially in very difficult times. 

Most of you who have read my work know that I am in favor of spirituality as a goal of education, and as a context for overall human development, especially at the higher levels of consciousness. In this regard, I acknowledge there can be many troubling views of "spirituality" that may or may not include typical "religion" or religious type approaches to education. My own interest is mostly reflected in the spirituality conceptualizations of the integral philosopher Ken Wilber. I thus, open this series of FM blogs with a republishing of one of my pieces on an old website at the Center for Spiritual Inquiry & Integral Education (for alternative online higher education I founded in 2009): 

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+First+Stage+of+the+Fearologist

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+First+Stage+of+the+Fearologist

This is the latest update (2018) of the diagram in Fisher & Subba (2016), Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue. We invite further ideas on this ever evolving integral model as we look for all the ways to apply the philosophy of fearism to large domains of societies and individual's lives. The latest addition is "Fearcriminalysis" (all issues to do with law and order). For full definitions of these all, you can consult our book for some, but there will be an upcoming FMning blog that will define these.

FEAROLOGICAL POINTERS TO GOD’S EXISTENCE

“The place of fear in our existential struggle is a pointer to a Supreme being”—Osinakachi Akuma Kalu

5.1 Introduction

Right from the origin of intellectual enterprise, especially from written history, there has been always this curiosity to speculate on the primary sources of all things. This search which started in the earliest times of human intellectual activity and which received different notions culminated in the medieval era when the primary sources or the primordial force of all things was understood and interpreted as “God”. Theocentricism was the dominant throughout that period.

​            Between the late 14th and early 15th century, the Renaissance emerged, and so there was a sudden transition from “theocentricism” to humanism: then emerged later was the modern era when the existence of the medieval “God” was questioned with a flurry of refutations.

​            Hence, while this write-up does not join issues with any of the mainline traditional God-talk arguments, it charts a new course by trying to demonstrate that the emotive tendency of man is a pointer to God’s existence. This is what is called fearological pointers to God’s existence.

​            Nevertheless, this argument which in not inductive but deductive, is written based on the validity of the arguments; and not based on the soundness of the argument or the truth of its proposition.

According to this argument, since the reality of fear in man is inevitable, and he strives towards perfection and sustainability of himself and the universe; then there must have been the existence of an absolute being who orders all things emotively, which is called God.

5.2 Fearological Pointer to God’s Existence 1

The human being (in contradistinction to other persons- robot or algorithms) as a rational being is capable of doing anything within his reach for self preservation. This tendency continues to the point that even the Seven Wonders of the World no longer beat the imagination of the civilized unless those who have not witnessed the “techno-scientific surprise packs”, which is as a result of the reality of the time, that is, the “age-of-minutest-techno-wonder”.

​            A critical examination of this human tendency concludes that it is as a result of ‘fear’. This is because; it is fear which spurs man’s intentional strivings or desiring. And so, this striving gears one towards self and societal preservation. However, since the creative cum domineering nature of man makes him to sometimes take things to their extreme such as the construction of bombs, missiles, acids and other weapons of mass destruction, fear now spurs man to produce defensive tools and methods as well as offensive tools.

​            Therefore, this sense of protecting and improving on life with regards to self-preservation is a pointer that there must be an absolute being who must have instilled this emotive feeling in man for the preservation of humanity (even though they use it maliciously) and its sustainability. This absolute being is called God.

The Syllogistic Demonstration

• The human person has the self-consciousness of his emotive feeling of fear.
• His emotive feeling of fear spurs him to self and societal preservation and sustainability: which cannot be non-teleological. The teleology of the emotive feeling of fear of the human person must be ordered by an absolute Being.
• Therefore, this absolute Being is called God.

5.2 Fearological Pointer to God’s Existence 2

Osinakachi sat circumspectly under the mango tree in a pensive reflective mode with eyes blood shot and head bowed down when SirPeter Aloh entered. He looked up and queried SirPeter, “Do you think that emotive reactions like fear in man necessarily point to the existence of a creator and sustainer of the universe otherwise known as God”.

“Oh! How awkward.” SirPeter relaxedly sitting down in the bench near him replied. “Such discussion existed only in the middle ages when the Concept God was needed to make meaning in the universe, today with speedy techno scientific realities like artificial intelligence and robotics, some of which have godlike powers, such discussion seem obsolete.” “Aha, tell him” Augustus jumped out of nowhere interrupting the discussion, “Since three days and three nights, this man has not slept, not eaten and that’s why his eyes are red bloodshot all under the pretence that he is cogitating and ruminating vigorously to show a fearological pointer to God’s existence.”

“Anyways” SirPeter continued ignoring Augustus’ interruption, “Osi, you seem to have the plenipotence of redirecting our world to view things from new length. Last time in your book, “Conquering the Beast Fear: A Philosophical cum Psychological Approach, you argued tenaciously that fear can be totally exterminated from someone’s life, which in turn raised new dust in that direction.”

“But that’s not just my point SirPeter. My point is, any man who refuses to acknowledge that fear in most circumstances is not positive but negative is on the fast lane to mediocrity; human beings are naturally ingrained with the instinct to survive and our survival are largely based on our mind and thought processes. And when such mind and thought processes are overburdened by fear our survival seems compromised.” Osinakachi corrected.

“But fear is a sign of weakness, a cousin of purposelessness and an opposition to risk taking necessary for our survival”, Augustus interjected.

“Well let me disambiguate your mind in that regard, Fear is a serious pointer that one is alive, every living human being is afraid of something and all men certainly are afraid of death. Desh Subba, my mentor will rightly assert that ‘Life is controlled and driven by fear’ said Osinakachi.

“People like my own mentors Prof. Yuval Harari and Ray Kurzweil’s, the co founder and chancellor of Singularity university and some others in the Calisco company in the Silicon Valley California are not afraid of death, they believed and are working assiduously to conquer and bridge death and I totally support and agree to the plausibility of their cause.” Augustus asserted.

“Man and his stupidity, almost always faithful to his nature, given a chance, he almost become a wolf to fellow man, stealing, coveting, lying, fooling around, being hypocritical, gluttonous, stingy, selfish and fearful. It is only under the cloak and aegis of civility and modernization that man hides and pretends that he is not what he is, so anyone telling you he is not afraid of death is merely exhibiting his hypocrisy.” Osinakachi explained.

“I think I agree with Osi, one of my mentors Mahatma Gandhi would assert the centrality of death by admonishing us ‘To live as if we are going to die tomorrow.’ Like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., subscribe to the idea that, ‘there is a kind of neurotic fear of death in every man because it is inevitable. It is a democracy for all of the people, not an aristocracy for some of the people. Kings die, beggars die, young men die and old men die...and anyone who has not discovered a cause to die for is unprepared to live.’

“Enough of quoting your mentors SirPeter, let Osi, tell us how fearological pointer to God’s existence equate with his above position?”, Augustus cheeped in a lighthearted manner.

“Augustus, I know you have a talent for destructive criticism when it comes to most of the medieval notions surrounding God’s existence, while having an irresistible and inseparable attachment to new techno scientific realities since after reading Yuval Harari’s books, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow and Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind, but you have to calm down let us hear him out and judge him based on the soundness and validity of his arguments.” SirPeter said.

“But that’s exactly my point, any prove of God’s existence or pointer as he puts it is bound to be a regurgitation of falsehood.” Augustus replied.

“Yet we can still hear him out, and know the veritable verity of the validity of his arguments.” SirPeter said. “Over to you Osi, tell us where your God’s existence and its fear pointer tallies here” SirPeter added.

“You see my dear friends” Osinakachi began, “as I said before, my mentor Desh Subba will say that ‘Life is controlled by fear’ and because of this man’s whole life seems like an illusion, he’s always unsatisfied with his present condition and uncertain of tomorrow. This breeds in him a fear in different guises: boredom, pain, dissatisfaction, disaster, crises, and desires which he can never satisfy.”

“Because of this man seeks more money, more activities, more honours, more entertainments, more sex, more distractions, more noise etc., but this fear of uncertainty still remains. But when we turn deep within, we find out that the cause of this fear is the deep gulf between our finite body and our infinite mind which wants to possess all that’s true, good and beautiful, but our finite body falls short in that regard, a sure proof that fear lies in the heart of the fearful and not in the object of fear.”

“Yet our infinite mind tells that this fear of disorder, crisis, pains, sufferings, failures, and unhappiness is definitive pointer that our mind needs peace and serenity that’s devoid of all that. What we find in this world is counterfeit peace. Earthly peace is mingled with conflict, earthly serenity is mingled with distraction, and earthly happiness is mingled with pain. Every effort we make to evade conflict and crisis has proven impossible and difficult to materialize, yet our mind is convinced that absolute peace and serenity that is devoid of any atom of fear of uncertainty is possible.

“This absolute peace of the mind that is devoid of fear necessarily points that there is a Being who can bring about this absolute peace that can satisfy the infinite human mind. This being that can bring about the peace and bliss of the mind and tranquillity of the soul we call God, hence St. Augustine said, ‘Our Souls are restless until they rest in God’.”

You can formally represent the argument as follows:

• In life we find dissatisfaction with the present situation of things which makes us afraid of the uncertainty of the next moment.
• Because of this we seek more activities, money, sex, distraction etc., which still fail to satisfy us and put to rest the turmoil in our mind.
• An introspective analysis of this fear in our mind reveals a deep gulf between our finite body which is ladened with dissatisfaction and limitation and our infinite mind which believes overcoming them to achieve bliss peace of mind and tranquillity of the soul that is devoid of any recurrence of fear is possible.
• This insatiable quest for the absolute peace of mind, devoid of fear necessary point that there is a Being who embodies absolute peace and serenity of mind that can satisfy the human mind. This Being is what all people speak of as God.

Silence…

“You seem to have indulge this your proof or rather pointer to God’s existence beyond the acceptability of modern science as a matter of patriotism to your Christian religion, have you not heard of the drugs used to induce happiness, controlling and manipulating the amount and quantity of happiness that one can and wants to have.” Augustus scoffed.

“I am a psychologist and I am abreast with the developments in the emotive area of human development and I know what you are talking about but the problem of the scientists you mentioned is that he equates mere hilarity with the peace and serenity of the soul devoid of fear that I am talking about. Even with all manipulations of the human hormones with those drugs, it does not eliminate fear from the mind and heart of such an individual.” Osinakachi answered with a grimace.

“Well if you look at it from a theist’s scope, you will quite agree with him.” SirPeter chattered.

“But I am a theist and I do not quite agree with the reasons he gave for supporting his conclusion, even though the conclusion may not necessarily be false. Remember Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s existence based on the concept of God’s perfection and unsurpassable greatness was criticized by his fellow monk Guanilo based on faulty premises.” Augustus contended.

“Not wishing to enter into the nitty-gritty of logic, I would say that Osi’s argument may not be deductively valid or sound but it is an inductively strong and cogent argument and I think that’s why he chose his terms carefully, instead of using ‘fearological proof of God’s existence’, he used ‘fearological pointer to God’s existence’”

5.4 Criticism of the Fearological Pointer to God’s Existence by Augustus Chukwu

For all the noise made out of desperation by the likes of theocentric obsessed scholars like Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm to prove the existence of an infinite, non-material, non-physical and non-human God with finite human categories only produced a picture of a sheer intellectual monstrosity and caricature.

Modern thinkers who have applied intellectual maturity and prudence have respectfully avoided, ignored or suspended this argument, to at least save us the intellectual energy of focusing on more pressing and relevant contemporary existential concerns.

Unfortunately, there appears to still be those who are persistent in resurrecting age old irrelevant discussions that barely qualify to be reckoned with the costly adjective: “intellectual” owing to its dogmatic underpinnings and its non-relevance to contemporary exigencies and concerns.

An intellectual response to this glorified outdated 12^th century mediaevalist dogma not only insults the productive time and intellectual effort put in reeling it out but at best shows the untenability, illogicality, irrationality and irrelevance of this argument.

            Nevertheless, for the sake of putting to rest this obsessive mediaevalist exuberance in my friend and brother and to further discourage such unproductive and retrogressive thinking in the 21^st century existentially-trouble laden age of ours I deem it wise to reply this sorry-argument with the following reasons which I wish to put forward, which are:

1. The argument’s inferential deductions are uncalled for
2. The argument in its sequential arrangement is logically incoherent

• The argument appeals to shallow thinking

1. The argument is of no relevance to contemporary concerns.

Having outlined these points allow me to thematically buttress them in this way:

1. That the Argument’s Inferential Deductions are Called for:

It is important to begin by stressing that most of the assumptions upon which these arguments are founded are false.

Assumptions raised in the Proof of God’s Existence 1

In his first version of the fearological pointer to God’s existence, the writer made some terribly troubling assumptions that need to be addressed promptly. The claim that man is capable of doing anything to preserve his existence is a universally agreeable truth that I subscribe to. However, the assumption that self preservation is caused by fear is only a partial truth considering the perspective from which life and the self is conceived. Life in itself as a given is good, beautiful, and meaningful and so also is the being that possesses it. Therefore the being who has life cherishes it in itself for this very reasons. When these values of goodness, purpose are threatened, life appears not be beautiful anymore and so becomes worthless for the possessing being – this results leads to suicide. It is when these values that define are threatened or absent that the possessor develops fear, a feeling that results from the absence of courage. Such that it is the sense of losing these values that causes fear. And so I think it is safe to say that every being seeks to preserve these values in creating, crafting and innovating products so as to preserve life and in extension preserve these values that give happiness. This I think is the case with human nature and not necessarily because we are afraid. Self preservation is therefore an endeavor to preserve the meaningful, good, and beautiful so as to secure happiness and not the fear of death.

This takes us to the next assumption that presumes that it is fear that spurs intentional strivings and desiring in man. This again is false assumption.

All acts of intentionality, striving and desiring are acts of the will that proceed from the faculty of the intellect. This means that for anything to be strived after it has to be knowable, and if it is knowable, then it is true (its existence is true), if it is true, then it is good and if good, it is beautiful at least ontologically or metaphysically speaking. It is when the intellect judges a thing based on its working categories as good that it is seen as beautiful it is then that the will is teleologically attracted to choose it, desire it and strive for it. The will desires it because the intellect has judged it as true, good and beautiful. It is therefore correct to say that the object of the intellect is truth and that of the will is that which is good. Therefore what motivates the will, desires or striving is goodness or beauty and not a negative emotion as fear. Something is judged by the intellect as good and beautiful when it is knowable, or intelligible and it is such when it is meaningful and having or serving a particular end/purpose. Truth is served by the principle of sufficient reason and the principle of goodness is finality, end or purpose.

Furthermore, the assumption that whatever that is in man must have been put there by a higher being is bespeaks of an immature, mediaevalist mindset that is governed or operated based on only a necessary causality or in strict teleological terms and this is what has informed the assumption that there must be an absolute being that has put a natural absence of courage in man – fear. I define fear simply as the absence of the feeling of courage and this feeling is a consequence of purely existential factors that have come into play. Again fear could be defined as the result of the activities of chemical reactions in one’s body throwing up certain enzymes, bile that are not favourable and healthy enough to energise a living body psychologically into carrying out a particular act. When the mind judges a situation a person wants to engage in as unhealthy or unfavorable it encourages or dissuades by the kind of enzymes or chemicals that the body produces and this just the bare fact of human nature which has no necessary spiritual connection.

Assumptions raised in the Proof of God’s Existence 2

In the second version of the fearological proof of God’s existence, I thank the author for the conversational mode which he arranged it and for anticipating some of my objections and answering it albeit unsatisfactorily. However, the author quoting his mentor Desh Subba made a presumptive and delusive claim that life is controlled and driven by fear. This assumption raises fear to the status of a negative indispensable spring board upon which life is centered. It presents fear as the single motivating factor that drives all living things towards a teleological end.

I however, think this assumption is not thoroughly thought through and this renders it baseless. This is because rather than fear being what controls life, I think the search for purpose and meaning is what primordially motivates life. And this is because purpose makes life in itself worthwhile and livable, purpose gives meaning to life. It is safe therefore to say that it is in the face of the apparent loss of meaning or the palpable absence of purpose that anxiety arises making life itself frustrating. When purpose is discovered meaning is restored to life and this is manifested existentially in the form of hope which informs courage an antithesis of fear.

When fear is presented as the single and major motivating factor of life it presents life and existence itself as negative. But metaphysically, Being (existence) in itself is good and is in itself motivated by good which presents itself as beautiful because it is known as true.

Moving on to his next deduction which claims that the search for an infinite reality points to the necessary existence of an infinite and absolute being called God.

This assumption I think is unfounded, unwarranted and practically uncalled for. The existence of fear is an existential emotive factor that is occasioned when a living being is faced with the facticity of his existence or experience – absurdity. When a person lacks the knowledge or requisite education to confront this absurdity it results into fear.

The real existential lacuna is the one created by man’s apparent longing and search for meaning – purpose and the experience of the facticity of absurdity. This fact is what creates anxiety and frustration. The reality of the myriad of infinite powers – infinite blissful peace of mind is what gives men hope. Also the reality of his apparent successes in overcoming the mental beast fear and his successes recorded in existential strides spurs a vivid conviction in him that there is nothing he cannot overcome with the right knowledge. This reveals the power of man and therefore becomes a pointer to the fact of man’s existence: a pointer to the fact that Man is God.

The argument that the possibility and search for an infinite blissful peace points to the fact of a divine infinite being called God is uncalled for, this is because there is no necessary connection between a rational possibility in existence and an irrational possibility outside existence. No necessary connection between a possible infinite blissful peace of mind and an infinite God. Such rational possibility can equally lead to postulating the infinity of man. Which is a more plausible deduction than that of an infinite God.

1. The Argument in its Sequential Arrangement is Logically Incoherent:

If am to logically judge Osinakachi's fearological pointer argument to God’s existence, I would say that it is at best an inductively weak and dissuasive argument and at worst a syllogistically invalid and unsound argument that is devoid of any trace of logical reasoning. Allow me to demonstrate this by analyzing his argument from the two basic logical perspectives of deductive syllogism and inferential induction.

I would like to stress the point that I am not oblivious of the escapist caveats and clauses the writer put in place to cover the palpable weakness, disuasiveness, and unsoundness of his argument and to avoid incisive criticisms as this. The writer stresses the claim that his argument is not a logically sound one but a valid one. This claim forces a rational mind to wonder what criteria he used in judging between a valid and an invalid argument considering the fact that most of his assumptions are premised on false illusions.

Again the writer puts an argumentative proviso stating that his argument is a deductive syllogism and not an inductive argument. A closer look at his arguments shows glaringly that there appears to be an improper assessment of his own reasoning method as I think his argument appears to be more of a weakly constructed inductive argument than a deductive syllogism. This is because following the proper rules of syllogism these arguments appear to be far removed from the modalities of valid, sound and true syllogism. This is because as we shall see later, he repeatedly committed the fallacy of four terms quatermnioterminorum in the two arguments. He would have been safe had he deftly crafted an inductive argument with intelligent logical escape routes.

           Allow me therefore to demonstrate the falsity of his argument by analysing and exploring how false these arguments are even in the case of adopting any of the two logical perspectives of deductive syllogism and inferential induction.

As an inductive reasoning this argument is essentially faulty, because of the following reasons.

First is the unreliability and uncertainty of inductive approach which essentially deals with the probability rather than certainty. Inductive reasoning checks the strength of an argument based on its degree of tenability or the degree of the truth value of its premises.

The arguments hold that the fear culture created by the deep gulf found in existential expectations points to a God that possesses such infinite nature that is capable of assuaging such infinite tastes. But this is not true. Having established the unsustainability of the underpinning assumptions e.g the falsity of the claim that life is controlled by fear , that there is a difference between the finite self and the infinite mind, which I refuted by explaining that the gulf created by existential expectations results in absurdity rather than fear. Again having showed the indemonstrability of proving non-human entity with human categories. ^[1]

It is therefore safe to say a fortiori that inductively the premises presented are too weak to stand for a strongly cogent conclusion or to be appreciated by human reason.

Again this argument analysed with Hume’s fork stands no chance. For Hume our belief in cause and effect relationship between events is not based on reason but a consequence of custom or habit. Hume notes that relations of ideas can be used only to prove other relations of ideas and mean nothing outside of the context of how they relate to other and therefore tell us nothing about the world. So for this reason relations of ideas cannot be used to prove matters of fact. A critical analysis of Osinakachi’s Fear-God analysis proves it to be a mere shallow belief and analysing it from the two-pronged perspectives of Hume’s fork which denies the relational and factual necessity of cause-effect relationships between matters of the world facts and non-application of ideas outside their contexts of relations in order to prove matters of fact Osinakachi’s fear pointer to God’s existence can easily be dislodged.

To properly understand and analyse his argument let me for the sake of convenience and brevity succinctly represent the argument this way.

Proof of God’s Existence 2

P1: Dissatisfaction causes fear

P2: We seek more activities to assuage dissatisfaction

P3: Fear shows gulf between finite self realities and infinite mind possibilities

P4: The search for absolute peace shows the existence of an absolute being

Conclusion: Therefore that absolute being is God

Granted that dissatisfaction causes anxiety which may lead to fear and that often times it is the case that most humans seek to assuage the dissatisfaction by engaging in more activities (even though some seek to achieve peace by engaging in less e.g. Buddhists).

First, the search or longing for absolute peace does not necessarily lead to the existence of an absolute being as there is no relational idea running on the same plain of thought. Therefore following the weakness of these assumptions, I think these premises don’t stand a good chance of defending his conclusions that there is an absolute being and that it is God.

Again as a syllogistic argument this argument falls terribly short of the basic structures of a traditional/modern syllogism. This is because a look at the five premises outlined shows that the argument commits the fallacy of four terms - quaternioterminorum. This fallacy occurs when an argument has four or more terms instead of the normal three terms characteristic of a syllogism. By doing this the fourth term automatically invalidates the argument. At a closer look at the argument it can discovered that it contains seven terms namely; dissatisfaction, fear, finite self realities, infinite mind possibilities, absolute peace, absolute being – God. This proliferation of terms certainly banalises and trivialises the whole argument turning it into more of a namby-pamby sort of discourse that is insipid, weak, and indecisive. Logically, therefore it is safe to say that this is no argument in the first place.

Still from a logical perspective, let me go on further to analyse the validity of his syllogism in the first argument. This is Osinakachi's argument as presented by him:

The human person has the self-consciousness of his emotive feeling of fear.

• His emotive feeling of fear spurs him to self and societal preservation and sustainability: which cannot be non-teleological. The teleology of the emotive feeling of fear of the human person must be ordered by an absolute Being.
• Therefore, this absolute Being is called God.

For the purpose of analysis the argument can be succinctly represented thus:

P1: Man is aware of his Fear

P2: Fear Spurs Self preservation

P3: Fear is caused by an Absolute Being

Conclusion: That Absolute Being is called God

A close analysis of this argument shows that it is simply a mockery of traditional syllogism which deals with only three terms and three premises of major, minor and middle. In this version Osinakachi's argument presents five terms in man, fear, self-preservation, absolute being, and God and so naughtily and egregiously repeats the fallacy of four terms quaternioterminorum which makes it unfit to be called a syllogism in the first place. Perhaps he should go back and learn his elementary logic before thinking of engaging in the futile intellectual voyage of proving God’s existence or perhaps also God’s existence cannot be proved through something as negative as fear in the first place.

The Argument Appeals to Shallow Thinking:

Furthermore, I think that this argument appeals to shallow thinking in the sense that considering the brazen logical fallacies committed and dictated here and there, it actually shows that the writer like Aquinas was more interested in concocting a shallow proof of God’s existence that is half hazard without putting in the scholarly and dutiful art of painstaking thinking and logical articulation. At best the writer can only be excused of any academic or intellectual blunder only in the case he admits that the fear-God argument is simply a non-rational proof or pointer to God’s existence and should be categorised under personal religious experiences of some sort. However, to this I would simply do Hume the honours of replying such claim in his words “if we take in our hand any volume: of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”^[2]

Well there you are, Hume suggests the burning of this sort of intellectual work. Now whilst I, out of friendship loyalty cannot advocate for the burning of a friend’s work, but those weren’t my words but Hume’s, who then am I?

1. iv) The Argument is of no Relevance to Contemporary Concerns: Finally, in a time when the world is faced with a whole lot of existential concerns like the three greatest threats facing humanity in the 21^st century are: Climate change, the threat of nuclear war and the dangers posed by artificial intelligence. The least vibrant intellectual minds like Osinakachi can do is to proffer possible solutions to these through his study and understanding of fear. Let’s say if I may suggest,‘A fearological investigation into the realities and dangers of Artificial intelligence’ I think this is better than wasting time, energy and intellectual vibrations on a dark age old medievalist failed project of the proof of God’s existence. It is at best the show of academic naivety and trite traditionalism. It will be well if my friend invested more of his academic time in relevant contemporary issues.

N/B: The opinions of the writer as expressed on this topic does not in any way reflect his original religious views but is simply an intellectual exercise made for the improvement of human knowledge and to bring about balanced perspectives on the issue in review.

Augustus Chukwu U. - (An Inspirational philosopher, political analyst, futurist)

5.5 Conclusion

The fearological pointer to God’s existence like initially hinted is not a proof of God’s existence but a means of showing that fear may serve as an indication that a Supreme Being exists who created and sustains the universe. I thank Augustus Chukwu for the criticisms offered to this argument and I challenge other scholars to react to this argument either for or against.

[1]This meaning that relations of ideas can only be used to prove other relations of ideas existing in the same categories and mean nothing outside of the context of how they relate to each other and therefore tells us nothing about the world. The unnecessary adoption of a nonhuman infinite concept or theory of God has no necessary connection to the finite, physical, and human categories and so serves no purpose in worldly affairs.

[2] D. Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding p.166

3.2 Brief Journey into Fearology

1. MICHAEL FISHER

                               Founder of The Fearology Institute    

         DESH SUBBA

The Founder of Fearism Study Center

Since the origin of academic enterprise, for while people of different epoch look at reality from different perspective, the reality of fear was paid little or no attention. There has not been any branch or field of thought that studied about the reality of fear holistically. And so most persons have misconceptions about the events of life which in recent time, some critical minded persons have taken it upon them to rationalized and scientifically demonstrate the need for understanding the reality of fear. This act or scientific demonstration is fearology. In the words of Fisher, “fearology is the transdisciplinary study of the relationship of fear and life (could include other beings including non-living)- usually, refers to human experience but does not have to be restricted”[1]

Hence, fearology is the art or science of critical analysis of the connection of fear and that which is. This is to say that there is always a link between an object or subject and that which fear. This link always has a gap for decision making. And so, in this gap is our ability to manage our fear positively or negatively. The objects of fear are those things which posses fear while the subjects of fear are fear mongers[2]. It is important to note that, groups can also pose fear which leads to tension, conflict and at times terrorism. These states of being can metamorphose into fear culture/ climax. And so, those who critically examines analyze and treat or rehabilitate group(s) of people who fear – fearer are fearologists.

In recent time the greatest fearologists are R. Michael Fisher from Canada, Desh Subba from Dharan Nepal, the fearologist of literature Rana Kafle from India and their disciple Osinakachi Akuma Kalu. For them scientists, futurists, psychologists, doctors or physiologist cannot give a good account of fear connection because they study fear in part and not as a whole. Hence, such an investigation leads one to fallacy of composition[3]. This is why all must tend towards the fearologist for a better analysis of fear and how it affects the human person and the society at large.

Fear is not just an ordinary emotion. The place of fear in human existence is inseparable and thus as important as life. Building on this backdrop, it should be given a proper attention. This is why Michael Fisher studied it for close to 40 year and Desh Subba for close to 25years. For Fisher, fear is what we ought to get rid of by being fearless. This is to say that, it is only on the level of fearlessness can one live to the fullness of his being. On the other hand, Desh Subba understands fear to be a motivator, that which direct and control human actions. For him, fear is both positive and negative but the positive outweighs the negative. This is why he believes that fear drives development and sustains reality.

In the understanding of Pooja Soni an Indian born researcher on Consciousness, fear is like a form of defense mechanism, this she began by looking at fear as part of emotion that cannot but exist without “simulatively” reacting towards something. Hence, she asserts in a descriptive form that, “an emotion is how an entity is present in a vicinity of a particular stimulus or how it escapes from that vicinity of the stimulus. Every entity strives to increase its presence in relation to other entities. And so the purpose of experiencing fear is to protect the self from potential danger”[4] . As a way of not mixing two concept, she explained further saying, “anxiety is when the self is still in anticipation of being subjected to a potential danger while fear is the ability to flee from the vicinity of the stimulu”[5]. Soni’s distinction between fear and anxiety is fearologically not the case. Fearologically speaking, not all fear leads to anxiety. This is because some scenario that creates fear often leads to development. One who is in a state of anxiety may not clearly give account of what led to it but one in a state of fear can to an extent.

For Zeeshan Hussain a Xinjiang Medical University trained medical doctor, "fear is nothing but man-made limits. I personally believe we can conquer anything as long as we are willing to rise above the limits we have limited ourselves to. Fear can do no harm unless we let it do otherwise. A strong determination and commitment can make impossible, possible. The best way to get rid of phobia is to expose oneself to it more often and by doing so there is no doubt that one day we will be no more afraid to it, because frequent exposure will make us used to it”[6]. He also pointed out the importance of fear management in the field of medicine stressing that, such practice is definitely pivotal for patients’ recuperation. Fear management should be practiced. Guess what, we prescribe antidepressant for patients the night before planned for surgery the following day. If we could lessen or totally kill fear in patients, outcomes of Surgery are also positive and it does help in swift recovery. Sometimes anxiety and fear are used interchangeably but I personally think, it is fear not anxiety. For example, a patient came to me a couple of days ago with immense fear of his brain been atrophied. Actually, this patient was young and someone had told him that he had accident years back and if such trauma happens, it definitely brings brain atrophy. It might be true but not in every single case. This patient was this worried because he was afraid, that I advised him to see a psychiatrist.

Building on their shoulder (Desh and Fisher), I realized that none of them are wrong in their understanding of fear. However, for me, fear is like a pointer. It serves as a universal harmony which direct things positively or negative. Ones management of his /her fear aids development or destruction of the self, Other[7], society or the universe at large. This is because, a state of fear effects the psychic conditioning of the emotive man who is a rational being. As an emotive being, no one can claim not to have an iota of fear. It requires nothing but existential suspension to be in a state of courage or bravery which is not the absence of fear but a way of being in another mood or state.

Having experienced so much fear in the face of danger and challenges of life, I took it upon myself to help people who are in the same shoe with me to overcome their fears. As a result of this, I started by trying to understand what fear really is by buying books, researching, reading, discussing and writing about fear. During my reflection and meditation period, I always try to make connections, linking what I have studied with the reality of my time especially concretizing it based on my worldview.

​            This desire, led me into writing about fear. The first set of books I read was How to Overcome Fear by Er M. K Guputa, Culture of Fear by Furedi, Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard and virtually all the encyclopaedias that contain any material on fear. These works influenced my notion about fear as something ipso facto bad.

​            This influence was reflected in my first book: Conquering the Beast Fear: A Philosophical cum Psychological Approach and some of my articles and poems. This is because the definition of fear by most of the encyclopaedia as a negative emotion or as an unpleasant feeling makes it impossible for one to conclude that fear has any positive dimension. Hence, any researcher making use of them is likely to see fear as something BAD, DANGEROUS etc.

A clearer understanding of fear came after reading the work of Lars Svendsen’s Philosophy of Fear, where he quoted Francis Bacon’s saying, “Dolendi modus, timendi non item” meaning “to suffering there is limit, to fearing, none”. He went further to write that “…a creature without the capacity to feel fear will have a worse chance of surviving and procreating. It is obvious that fear can often be a great assistance to us.”

In reaction to this book, I wrote so many articles trying to prove that such conception of fear by Lars Svendsen is mistaken until I met Desh Subba, a fearologist. With several academic discussions on fear with Desh Subba coupled with my intellectual ruminations on fear especially after reading his book, Philosophy of Fearism: Life is Conducted, Directed and Controlled by Fear, a scale literally fell off my eyes as it happened to Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian philosopher after reading David Hume the thorough going empiricist, and my perception of fear was shifted. This book made me to understand that the place of fear in man’s existential struggle was pivotal and so cannot be conquered but controlled or credibly managed. This is because the opposite of fear being courage does not connote the absence of fear as Nelson Mandela opined.

​            In my quest to deepen my knowledge of the phenomenon fear and how it can be controlled or managed, I enrolled into the Fearism Study Centre Dharan Nepal, under the aegis of Desh Subba. After a period of fearological voyage, I became the coordinator of the fearism movement in Africa under the direction of Desh Subba.

Owing to my relationship with my master, Desh Subba, he introduced me to another fearological elder whose work is technical in the person of R. Michael Fisher. This man is one of the intellectuals I respect. He has written over hundred articles on fear with over eighty technical papers.

​            Fisher who wrote his doctoral dissertation on Fear introduced me to his World Fearlessness Movement and I became a major contributor to the body. I see him as a father and he relates to me as a friend and academic contemporary. Building on this backdrop, he always sends me works to study so as to improve myself in that field.

As a result of our constant effort to give fearology a sure foundation in our time, we normally discuss on how to bring this noble intention of ours to fruition. Owing to the growth of our lexicon, some terms like “defearing”, “fearontic”, “feraontology”, “fearological Exhortation”, “defearologize” etc., which I coined are being worked upon for inclusion in the dictionary.

Whatever I am in the fearological milieu is because I rested on the shoulders of two great men, R. Michael Fisher and Desh Subba. Thus, as the first stage of my fearological career emerges after my program with the Fearism Study Centre, Nepal. My studies in this institute has made me see the “centrality” of fear in our lives and has led me equally to see fear as a pointer to the existence of a Supreme Being who is the creator and sustainer of the universe. Thus, I have learned, that though fear can be dangerous to humanity be delimiting people from achieving their potentials, yet at the same time, fear has contributed so much in the development of man by instilling in him constantly the need of self preservation which in my opinion is the driving force of civilization.

3.3 My Own Definition of Fear after Contact with Desh and Fisher

After my perception of fear has been modified by my meeting and reading the works of the fearological elders, I began the search for my own definition of fear. With the publication of my first article in the World Fearlessness Movement blog, I made my intention known which prompted Michael Fisher to write,

The ever energetic Kalu is at it again, and I look forward to seeing what his results are from this piece of research. I have long 'played' (seriously) with the problematics of how human beings "define," "conceptualize," and "operationalize" something called "fear" (by any other name, and, I am using English here because it is the only language I speak and know of, while admitting it is horribly biased from a global perspective of multiple languages, cultures and ways of knowing). I have published already on this search of mine, which is never ending. One thing I have mind-shifted on over the years is to focus less on the question "What is fear?" (as the only way to search for a definition or description, with a tendency toward only a rational-minded and logical deductive approach) to the question I find more fruitful "How do we best know fear?" (this latter, emphasizing an epistemic-based approach)--of course, both questions are useful for inquiry, and maybe there are even better questions to ask--that is what philosophers tend to always search for, and less a search for "the" answer per se. Kalu, in my view, has taken two avenues of expression and good research attitude in this study of his: (1) "creative definitions or descriptions" - yes, we really need to be creative with this and, (2) his title "Search for a Tentative Definition of Fear" -- I love this open-minded approach! Good for you, Kalu.”

In my first publication, I defined fear as, “the state for which someone is calculating so as to agree with what he or she thinks is positive and sidelines what he or she thinks is negative[8]”. This calculation can lead to miscalculation because the presence of fear will not allow the mind to uncover the bumps of the situation at stake due to the presence of unpleasant emotions caused by fear. The unpleasant nature of an emotion creates confusion in a person. Fear can never be a happy companion for most of the moments of our lives because the beast is wicked.

However, after meeting with Subba and Fisher, this my perception of fear changed. Hence, I define fear as an emotive process that exists between an object and a subject, which influences the subject’s decision either to improve, remain stagnant or degenerate in existence.

In this definition, it is important to explain the key terms used in it for a better comprehension of the definition:

Emotive Process- this is a process that is characterized by emotion; an operation that affects the mental content. Fear sends signals through this emotive process, which in turn affect the decision someone makes.

Object and a Subject- The object is “being”- concrete or imagined (whatever thought of) that makes one afraid. On the other hand, the Subject of fear is the one who is affected by objects of fear.

Improve – The human person tends towards self preservation when in the face of fear. This makes him to gear towards preserving or improving his existence, thereby working hard to not just to prevent the perceived danger that may occur, but equally working hard to improve on what is.

Remain Stagnate- For while fear helps man to improve in his existence, it also makes him helpless before danger (concrete or imagined). Putting him in a confused state, that makes him to remain in a particular state of existence. Thereby, making him to degenerate, because an unimproved existence cannot match with or survive in a world that gears towards improvement of existence.

[1] R. M. Fisher and S, Desh, Philosophy of Fearism- A First East – West Dialogue, UK, Xlibris,2016,p.158

[2] One who is involved habitually, consciously or unconsciously, in the act of perpetrating fear unnecessarily, cf., R. M. Fisher and S, Desh, Philosophy of Fearism- A First East – West Dialogue, p.156

[3] Fallacy of Composition simply means using an aspect of reality to make a general judgment.

[4] A discussion on fear and anxiety with an India female researcher and writer on consciousness. Cf., https://m.facebook/Pooja.Soni.

[5] Ibid

[6] A LinkedIn chat with Dr. Zeeshan Hussain on “Fear”, https://ng.linkedIn.com/feed/, Retrieved 1/26/2018

[7] Other from the existentialists views point. It means humans living with one in the society or the world

[8] Osinakachi Akuma Kalu, Conquering The Beast Fear: A Philosophical Cum Psychological Approach, Port Harcourt, EJ&Sons Publishers, 2016, p.22-23

The Fearism Study Center offers Professional certificates to students who engages in research studies(6months, 1year, and 2years) on the main three courses of Fearism:

1. FEAROLOGY- The transdisciplinary study of the relationship of fear and life (could include other beings including non-living)- usually, refers to human experience but does not have to be so restricted; serves as one of the pillar technologies or disciplines of practice under the umbrella of the philosophy of fearism and philosophy of fearlessness.

There's a good series of blogposts by academic/psychologist Darcia Narvaez, Ph.D., on "primal wounding" and its relationship to fear, addictions and many of the problems we face as societies, especially in the West today. I have copied an excerpt on how she speaks about fear in relation to primal wounding (trauma): [for the full article go to: http://kindredmedia.org/2018/01/tales-primally-wounded/ ; and you'll find links to the 6 part series]

"A primally-wounded society is filled with fear-promoting stories.

Stories, tales or narratives guide all societies. “We people” stories are passed down from generation to generation. Shared stories are part of what a culture entails (along with shared practices and shared beliefs). In the past, wise elders and designated storytellers held the society together with stories that humanized animals and promoted social cooperation, contributing to group survival.

Note that these stories decreased fear and focused attention on group goals for flourishing.

We live in a different era now, one in which elders have been displaced by bureaucratic systems of control, systems that tell tales to increase fear—fear of stepping out of their bounds.

When storytelling is taken over by high-powered and moneyed interests, fear promotion becomes dominant. These stories seem true because they have been repeated so often. We are shamed if we question them and eventually we self-censor our higher aspirations, succumbing to the heart-numbing tales, keeping the system alive through our action or inaction.

We primally wounded people are especially susceptible to fear-promoting narratives. We are trying to escape primal pain and alleviate distrust with some certainty somewhere. Fearmongering tales give us certainty."

Thanks to a few FM ning members for their donations to me to pay for the yearly cost of running the ning ($300 US): Fram, Barb K., Jan S., Hugo, Four Arrows, the Fearlessness Movement ning will go for another year (it's 4th).... yeah!!! And, if there are others who would like to make a donation to that cause, they can send funds through PayPal, or e-Transfer or mail a check or money order. Just e-mail me (r.michaelfisher.52 [at] gmail.com) to arrange the payment. I am still short about $80 dollars Can. to make up the cost of the FM ning. But, if I have to donate that amount I am fine with that too. -rmf

Education and the Fear Problem: An Investigation of “Truths”

 R. Michael Fisher

Technical Paper No. 71

 Editorial Note: The original plan was to publish this article with the Journal of Unschooling & Alternative Education. After submitting the draft, published here in full as Technical Paper No. 71, it was clear to me that the editor of that Journal and the philosophy he has toward critique and research, was not at all compatible with my intent to publish a piece that was investigative and revealing of a problem with educators, and in this case “visionary” educators. After reading the editors very harsh critique of my work in this paper and his common concern I was “unfair” (repeated three times in his letter response), it was clear to me that being fair or unfair is not the way to get to truth of the matter. After a phone call with the editor, and I appreciate his candor and his openness to discuss this article, that I just could not revise it and try to soft-sugar coat what I have been attempting to show is the case (now empirically) that educators as a whole (and now even so-called “visionary” educators) are just not very interested and not very competent to discuss the current 21^st century Fear Problem. The editor’s approach to a politically correct and more institutionally restrained addressing of this problem, if not censoring “truths” I have come by hard-earned in this fearwork and critique I do, are not a hopeful sign that anything is going to change much. I would rather let history judge the worth of this article, than one editor or a scholarly reviewer (whom I also asked to look at the draft and he was more or less also wanting me to soft-sugar coat it)—but two other scholarly reviewers I sent the piece to were not of that opinion and thought it was a good study and critique that needed to reveal what it does about educators and the topic of fear. Therefore, after 3 weeks consideration, and even trying to re-write another version of this paper, much softer, I just felt I was betraying the essence of my creative and investigative journalism approach in this study. Of course, I am not saying at all that the study herein of 15 visionary educators is flawless and did all the right things so-called. That’s minor compared to the truth it reveals—and, of course, some may argue it is only my “truth” being shared, as they will not like my interpretation of the larger truth that is exposed in this piece. Also, to be clear, this editor is not the first in my 40 years publishing, to attempt to challenge my style of research, writing and my philosophy of truthing. To say the least, I don’t find many souls out there who agree with my approach. I have chosen to send a copy of this Technical Paper No. 71 to all “visionaries” involved in this study. Finally, I am gravely concerned with the losses of quality critique that are happening in academia and society as a whole because of a growing over-protected culture of fear and its tendency to censor sometimes raw “truths” that need to be seen so we stay in touch with reality. I am no support of unethical or mean behavior and treatment of others, but I also am not about to pamper adults who teach and write in the public sphere. I too am one of those and I am as accountable to critiques of peers and others, just like everyone else I critique in this study. Thanks to the participants who responded, in whatever ways they responded. I know they all are doing good work out there in the world. I also know we can always do better in some areas. The Fear Problem is one area that needs a lot of work by educators. Thanks to Dr. Ricci for being willing to chat with me, and discuss the problems of this study on the phone as well. -rmf

 Abstract – This article summarizes the results of an initial qualitative research Fear survey of 15 North American “visionary educators” in late-2017. The purpose was to determine how they think about and define the Fear Problem today in the field of schooling, unschooling and in society-at-large. The author argues that although the 20% of respondents to the Fear survey demonstrate a basic “in-touchness” with the Fear Problem, postmodern research perspectives on “fear” suggest the visionary educators have yet to keep up with the trends and complexity of how “Fear” is now a major shaping force of individual and collective domains of reality. The author suggests directions for improving upon the reliance on promoting love and hope as solutions to the Fear Problem, which unfortunately, characterized the visionaries responses.

Four Arrows and my work recently is mentioned in "Stories That Heal Primal Wounds",

in Psychology Today magazine (2018 blogpost) by Dr. Darcia Narvaez 

Professor of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, IN, USA.
To read this interesting blogpost by her go to:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201801/stories-heal-primal-wounds

Distortion, or at least, inadequacy of representing the path of fearlessness (which this topic is my specialty) can be found in virtually every article, book, or video or course I have seen on the topic [1]. This continues in a recent video from a course by a young Zen buddhist practitioner who is very successful with some 2 million followers on the internet (apparently). He is putting out a new course "Path of Fearlessness"... so I took a short look at his write up on it at his website and then one of his intro. videos. I have so many critiques. But that said, I so appreciate the spirit of this fellow's offering to the world and his sincerity that is evident. I'll let FM ning followers decide their own critiques, if they have any or not. But just as a hint you will hear this Zen practitioner teaching that fear is such a great force and inhibition to humanity, then he immediately drops in to discuss "fears" (as concrete manifestations in the plural), and at that point, he has already gone off the road of authentic integral fearlessness critical inquiry as far as I am concerned. Another hint of the faux nature of this video and so many others out there is they all suggest explicitly in their introduction that there are no other tools or experts on the topic, other than themselves. The egocentrism and ignore-ance is very evident. Too bad they are so popular but that's the way consumerist society works, I guess. It is more what you can convince people of that "sells" than what is actually accurate and good depth offering.

p.s. I really like his policy on copyright and uncopyright, worth reading on his website! 

Here is the video blog you can check out on his work if you wish: https://seachange.zenhabits.net/course/fearlessness/

As well you can read any of my other writing on "fearology" as a nascent field of inquiry (e.g., see note 2) and for another critique of writers/teachers on "fearlessness" see Fisher (2010), pp. 22-25. [3]

Notes: 

1. See prior FM blog critiques I wrote on the "many" courses on fearology and fear management at https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/many-courses-on-fearology-and-fear-management and epistemological issues re: fearlessness https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/issue-of-adequatio-fearlessness

2. http://www.wildculture.com/article/disappear-fear-quick-fix-fear-pill-and-its-discontents/1276

3. Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world's fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 

This is the first in what will be a short series of blogs I'll write on the "Brief History of Fearology" [1]. As you may know, I have recently posted on the FM ning Forum a piece about the vision of the Fearology Institute. This is only a vision [2] but may easily become a reality in history in the next decade. I will do everything I can to assist this growth and development and I appreciate any others who will help with this venture.

My task in this series is to articulate a comparison of Fearology with Sexology and Thanatology. The reasons for this comparative historical overview will become apparent as the series unfolds. In the first instance of historical facts that underlies the development of Fearology, I turn to the history of "fearuality" as a major turning point for humanity and it own self-awareness of the importance of the nature and role of fear (a similar importance as brought forth by Desh Subba with coining and elaborating the first text on philosophy of fearism [2] between 1999-2014 and beyond).

In Fisher (1998) I began a glossary where I defined two key terms relevant directly to this series of blogs. The first was: fearuality- "a term created in the early 1990's [by RMF] to give the study of 'fear' a serious forum and name. This term is used analogously with 'sexuality' which burgeoned only in the last few decades [but began to flourish post-WWII, see below] as a legitimate area of [specialized] study--the study of sex and sexual behavior. This term ['fearuality'] gradually evolved into transpersonal phobosology, and eventually in 1997 with phobosology" [see below] [4]

The second term in Fisher (1998) was phobosology- "is the 'study of 'fear' and its interrelationship' with Life. This new discipline was named in 1995 originally as "transpersonal phobosology" and renamed as [simply] "phobosology" in mid-1997 by Robert M. Fisher [RMF]. The roots of this focus of attention on a systematic study of 'fear' (and fearlessness) goes back to as early as 1993 when Fisher was calling this field fearuality that was a way to look at 'fear' and study it just like sexuality, the latter which had become a field to study the phenomenon of 'sex' in the late 20th century [even earlier; see below]. Both fields are intriguing because they involve topics that are almost like 'taboos,' and do not have serious critical discourses (though this has changed in the last 10 years). A taboo is a 'fear' of something and it is thus avoided. So, the taboo against knowing 'sex' (and sexuality) seemed an appropriate analogy to the taboo against knowing 'fear' (and fearuality). 'Fear' actually seems to do everything it can to not know itself." [5]

In Fisher (1998) I continued to mark out bits of philosophy, theory and history around phobosology, so I'll quote it all, including the first philosopher to comment on my notion of phobosology (before it became labeled fearology; see this blog series 2 coming soon on the use of fearology):

"Phobosology is the first discipline to grow out of the spectrum framework of the transpersonal theory of Ken Wilber (see Appendix IV). Phobosology applies the spectrum or integral theory of consciousness [a la Wilber] and attempts a synthesis of all the disciplines and ways of knowing 'fear'--honoring each approach as part of the Whole or Reality. For an overview of the literature on phobosology (see Fisher, 1997c) [6]. These are all publications by Fisher, for as yet no one else has declared themselves a phobosologist ('fear' hunter, 'fear' researcher per se). The field is very new and this encyclopedia [Fisher, 1998] is one of the more important contributions to the field of a systematic study of 'fear'. A key task of phobosology in the next while is to define 'fear.' For we have to know what we are talking about when we use the term, and when we explore the interrelationship of 'fear' with Life.

Currently Fisher is planning a professional international journal for phobosologists [7] and anyone interested in 'fear.' The journal is likely to be called 'Fear' Spectrum: A Critical Journal on the Nature and Role of 'Fear'. This field of inquiry takes an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach to knowing 'fear.' The intention is to create a full scale public critical dialogue on 'fear' and its place in our society and future. All evidence seems to indicate that 'fear' is growing rapidly on this planet and we will have to learn much more about it. Ken Wilber, transpersonal [and integral] theorist wrote [after I sent him my brief proposal of this new field of study phobosology]:

Dear Robert, I think your transpersonal study of fear is a terrific idea. You are a meticulous researcher and the world would benefit considerably if you published all of this material that you have been collecting for over a decade--as well as your conceptual summary in terms of the fear spectrum. It all sounds great to me. My only negative criticism is the name, 'transpersonal phobosology'. That's a bit much... phobosology? Sounds like a disease of the nose. Anyway, good luck with this endeavor." - Ken Wilber, personal communication, 1995 [8]."

To end this first blog in this series on a brief history of Fearology, I draw your attention to an excerpt I took from the internet on the brief history of Sexology. Again, because from the beginning of my work in 1989 on fear (and 'fear') and fearlessness, the analogy of studying fear the way humans have studied sex, be it formally or informally, is useful. I like reading texts on sex and sexuality and sexology, then going in to the text and replacing the work sex with fear in all instances. This gives a kind of legitimation to the study of fear so seriously as have others done with sex. It always leaves me feeling more assured that someday, even with resistances (as you can read below in the history of sexology and taboos against knowing) that fearology will someday emerge as a distinct field of scholarship, professional practice and basic education for all. It must be added, of course, that thanatology (the study of death and human relationship to it) is also a similar analogy and taboo of sorts, which I will write about in another of this series of blogs.

So as you read the below, on sexology, try replacing fearology, and on sex, replacing fear, just to get a feel for how this analogy may be very useful in guiding future understandings and research on fearology. What is clear is that there is a politics of knowledge/power pervasive in any society and when it comes to taboo topics (e.g., sex, death, fear) there is going to be resistance to the development of awareness, education and knowledge that promotes better sex, death and fear management. It is of course to me an irony this is the case, because I also see that humanity (in the long run) also wants to advance its knowledge and skills in managing these topics.

[below excerpt from: http://www.davidmckenzie.ca/about-sexology/a-brief-history-of-sexology]:

"A Brief History Of Sexology

Clinical sexology has its roots in mid-19th Century England and Germany. Havelock Ellis (1859-1939), an English medical doctor, surgeon and sexologist, was one of the first researchers to challenge the sexual repression of the Victorian Age (generally considered to span the time of Queen Victoria's reign, 1819-1901) along with its taboo against masturbation (now considered by sex health experts to be a normal sexual behaviour, essential for healthy sexual development).

In 1919, Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, a German physician and clinical sexologist, founded the first Institute for Sexology in Berlin (Zentrum fur Sexualwissenschaft). The Institute accumulated a vast body of research on human sexual development as well as the treatment of sexual concerns and dysfunctions. It was the first such Institute to offer a clinic for the specific purpose of treating sexual problems.

On May 6, 1933, under orders from the Nazi High Command, Brownshirts broke into the Institute and carried away its vast collection of books, research material and clinical files to be destroyed at the infamous May 10, 1933 book burning on Berlin's Opera Square. The Institute was immediately closed. In passing, it must be stated that the later institutes, clinics and research of the great 20th century sexologists, Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, and Masters and Johnsonhad their forerunner in Hirschfeld's Institute.

After World War II, there was a renaissance of sexology in both America and Europe. In 1948, Alfred Kinsey and his associates founded the Kinsey Institutefor sexual research at the University of Indiana. In 1967 and in 1970, medical researchers and sexologists William Masters and Virginia Johnson published their vast, groundbreaking research in two separate volumes entitled Human Sexual Response and Human Sexual Inadequacy. They also founded a teaching Institute and treatment clinic. In 1983, Humbolt-Univeritat zu Berlin opened the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology to the public.

The science of sexology is now a well established and widely taught discipline in many of the world's leading universities. If you are interested in discovering just how widespread sexological research is, please visit the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology Website. You will find an exhaustive resource for learning about sexology's history and scientific research, and more links to the growing worldwide list of universities and institutes studying clinical sexology."

Now, I'll include the Wikipedia brief summary of Sexology:

Sexology is the scientific study of human sexuality, including human sexual interests, behaviors and functions.^[1] The term sexology does not generally refer to the non-scientific study of sexuality, such as political science or social criticism.^[2][3]

Sexologists apply tools from several academic fields, such as biology, medicine, psychology, epidemiology, sociology, and criminology. Topics of study include sexual development (puberty), sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual relationships, sexual activities, paraphilias, atypical sexual interests. It also includes the study of sexuality across the lifespan, including child sexuality, puberty, adolescent sexuality, and sexuality among the elderly. Sexology also spans sexuality among the mentally and/or physically disabled. The sexological study of sexual dysfunctions and disorders, including erectile dysfunction, anorgasmia, and pedophilia, are also mainstays.  [extract from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexology]

In the next series blog I will write a critique of these notions of sexology, of which I believe fearology can improve upon in its early conceptualizations in order not to fall into a [scientific and clinical] reductionism I interpret above in this discourse on sexology. Okay, until next time...

Notes:

1. An extensive history of fearology (before it was named this) has yet to be written but is very important to document. Some aspects of this history are available in my book (Fisher, 2010) where I arc out a transdisciiplinary and transcultural historical and evolutionary view of humans and their attempts to understand and manage fear. See Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world's fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. See also Subba (2014) for some historical overview of this as well [in end note 2.]

2. Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Australia: Xlibris. See also Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris.

3. Historically, and arguably, one could say that the world's first fearology institute, before I used that naming structure with fearology as primary, was the 1991 In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute I founded in Calgary, AB, Canada. The ISOF Research Institute still exists and facilitates research scholarship, writing, teaching on all issues related to fear and fearlessness in the broadest and deepest sense--of which, fearology per se is only part of.

4. Fisher, R. M. (1998). 'Fear' encyclopedia. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute, p. 84.

5. Ibid., p. 75.

6. Fisher, R. M. (1997). Phobosology: A basic introduction to written materials. Unpubl. paper.

7. The latest version of such a journal is still alive in vision. See https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/steps-to-becoming-a-professional-fearologist

8. Fisher (1998), p. 75.