Blog

Living in America the past 8.5 yrs, and the tumultuous presidential elections, has been an eye opener for Barbara and myself. Not that we both follow the official party politics and debates that much--though, in the last years we have been watching Democracy Now program to get our "news" in very small doses I may add. Years ago I predicted Hilary Clinton would run and win the next presidency in the country (USA) and I wish her the best to do a good job. I'd help her in any way she needs. I also know she is not perfect, and the Clinton legacy going a long way back in this country has left a lot of scars and problems in policies. I'm not hear writing about all that. I also see that as Trump self-destructs in terms of legitimacy as a president, as I also predicted he would because the American civil society is still strong and healthy in many areas and will not allow him to win--and, civil society also is unraveling quickly or so it seems--but I think many radicals are fear-mongering about this collapse way more than they need to in order just to make a point of the great reform and transformation required in the entire American system.

One really, likely, is not going to be "helped" to negotiate these very troubling times, of which the US election of 2016 is bringing from the shadows to the surface--it's like the unconscious repression is being released, and a neurotic state is moving at times in and out of a psychotic state--that is, a culture of fear, where as I listened to the last debate session between Trump and Clinton, and it's clearly disturbing--almost, no matter what candidate you support--the disturbance of psychic material they are moving within and speaking about--all shows the precarity of this country's democracy, social fabric, and social contract. You can feel the rip... and that word 'rip' is being used and is accurate. The terror underneath all this is so palpable amongst virtually everyone I watch on these 'political' broadcasts... and, so, as I say, I watch it rarely as it is so toxic to my system and living systems unless there is equal time for healing the fear-based rhetorics (of course, there is no such equal time provided on news media). 

That said, I feel a political, cultural and social obligation to help work on the social fabric, and guide in any way I can (and, that people will accept) to ensure the neurotic and psychotic are understood for what they are, not demonized, not pathologized to the point of hyper-reactive animosity. I treat the 'patient' as the entire nation, while I am living here, and in the not too distant future I'll be back in Canada and working with that nation. Of course, I have always been one that felt drawn to examine critically the love and fear dynamics of any system, from individual to collective, from visible to invisible--that's what I care about as the deepest source of all our worst problems as humanity.

I won't say more that this unless people want to talk about it here. I close with one of the brighter minds of the 20th century on the love and fear dynamic, and that comes from someone you have likely never heard of (as I had not until only a few weeks ago), Oscar Pfister, theologian, pastor, and psychoanalyst from the early 20th century [1]. Writing in his book (Christianity and Fear, 1948) that I am reading, there's a passage that stood out today, I'll pass on as a gift to all Americans in this very difficult and dark times. Albeit, in this crisis of leadership in the US election, the Green Party is finally having a good chance in this country so all is not 'bad.' Pfister writes about a theme that has always been close to my heart, and his whole book over 500 pp. is more or less devoted to the love and fear dynamic--and, its deep motivational and shaping role in human activity. He wrote [re: the 'ideal' community],

"The production of strong, fearless personalities united in a powerful community, not by compulsion but through love freely acknowledging an authority--this is certainly a grandiose ideal for the combating of fear; moreover it represents a brilliantly inspired method for permitting its beneficiaries to achieve lofty spiritual values productive of the utmost happiness, and the whole being based on secure economic foundations. But we must ask whether the [ideal] community system may not be ruined by the frailty of human nature which does not provide sufficient numbers of free [fearless] personalities freely subordinating themselves in self-sacrificing love to a social and spiritual whole. And even if repressions and fears are avoided to the greatest possible degree, can the level of sublimation and moral achievement required for the community's prosperity be reached and maintained? What is certain is that the community described presupposes a highly developed stage of individual and social morals, and that it is beset by numerous dangers. If the communal idea loses its driving force a base egoism springs up and an ugly partisanship disfigured by conceit, hate of other parties, class hatred, dissension and internal strife threatens the security of the whole, stands in the way of important achievements by the totality, plants the seeds of a new fear by frustrating love, lays the foundations for new primitive crowd formations, depresses individuals standing about the crowd to the low average level, instils a spirit of slothful negation and undermines the entire communal structure as well as the culture of the individual. It must be remembered that the entire system is built up on a minimum of compulsion and of repression.... And the spiritual element for its part can be maintained only by an effort.... It is no accident that hitherto the larger and more enduring communities have grouped themselves around a faith." (Pfister, 1948, pp. 147-148).  

The point Pfister strongly emphasizes before and after this passage on building the 'ideal' community--which can spread and grow and shape other communities, and a nation... is "education" and "development" of individuals so that they truly know how to discern between love-based and fear-based, healthy and neurotic, and that they are involved in their own fearanalsyis work (my term)... and, as for the "faith," yes, I have one you might say (not that I use that term), and, it is the Fearlessness Movement (i.e., the spirit of fearlessness that arises as fear arises--as naturally as does the spirit of healing when an organism is hurting).

End Note

1. Oscar Pfister had some 40+ years services as a pastor in Germany, trained in theology, then in Freudian psychoanalysis--he remarkably, takes the best of Freud and leaves the rest and includes a psychology of fear and religion that is incredibly insightful and close observing from his field and clinical experience with thousands of people. He knew religion did not have all the tools to bring about healthy functioning of the mild to most religious people he met when he was their pastor. It is remarkable he wrote this book in the years of Nazism in Germany, and somehow managed to get it published in 1944 (Gr. edition) and 1948 in English transl. I came across his work after reading some of the interesting cultural psychoanalysis articles by Dr. Richard Frie, at UBC in Canada.

Reference

Pfister, O. (1948). Christianity and fear: A study in history and in the psychology and hygeine of religion. [trans. W. H. Johnston] NY: The Macmillan Co.

I appreciate Rafiq's sincere and nuanced long response to my blog (Oct. 9/16) where I "review" his book. He was fine with me publishing his response here, as we both intend to keep the conversation going and invite others to comment and join in. Enjoy. I'll respond soon to this piece in Comments format.

Sometimes Fearlessly: A Grateful Response to Fisher’s Riff on Days of Shock, Days of Wonder

Rafiq

In his blog post “A Peek into a Young Artist’s Days of Fearlessness: Rafiq,” R. Michael Fisher does me a great kindness.[1] He takes my work as a writer seriously and he invites his readers to do the same. At the conclusion of his riff on my memoir Days of Shock, Days of Wonder: The 9/11 Age, the Ways of the Mystics, and One Man’s Escape from Babylon in the Belly of a Whale,[2] Mr. Fisher writes, “Rafiq will be an interesting player of the revolution to come, for I have no doubt of his importance … He and his work are still young and growing toward something more powerful. I’ll be watching, as no doubt will others, for what form it all takes.”

More than that, Mr. Fisher has invited me into a dialogue about my work with a reader who cares about the same things as me: the psychology of fear, the depth of love, the chance for revolution in the face of, as he puts it, “a harsh predatory capitalist world that doesn’t give a shit about his quest or mine.” It is rare for a writer to find a truly kindred reader. It is even rarer to find one who is passionate enough to ask questions whose answers can help carry the whole project of social and self evolution just a little bit further forward. In the interest of that project, then, here are my replies to his comments. I’m grateful for the chance to help frame these important ideas if I can.

But, first, a correction is in order. Although Days of Shock, Days of Wonder is endorsed on its cover by scholars Four Arrows (aka Don Trent Jacobs), David Ray Griffin, and Kevin Barrett, I never was able to find a publisher for this memoir. Like my first book, Gaj: The End of Religion,[3] which I wrote to counter the idea of God or Allah as an individual who could take sides in the “war on terror,” my memoir was published by my own company, Hay River Books, a writer’s cooperative that I set up in 2004, where various artists work on each other’s productions in exchange for similar help. So when Mr. Fisher writes the following, I think he has mistaken Hay River Books for Hay House: “It is an impressive feat for anyone to get a book like this published by an official publisher the quality of Hay River Books, as I believe they have published many of Noam Chomsky’s political tracts. Good for him.” I am happy to see that my book left the impression that it could have been published by Hay House, but it just ain’t so.

[RMF: Oh, you are right. My mistake. But actually I didn't think you'd at all be in the genre of 'new agey' type for Hay House publishers, but I meant Haymarket Books, where Chomsky publishes often]

Also, before turning to Mr. Fisher’s questions about Days of Shock, Days of Wonder, I should explain the context in which he asks them. His blog post, as I say, is a riff, not a review, for it is based on his reading of only the book’s final four chapters. He writes,

“I confess, beginning context material can sometimes be important for understanding what comes later in a book. So, if I misinterpret anything herein, it’s my own damn fault. Rafiq or anyone can correct me if I am way off the mark. Frankly, I get a thrill out of the risk of mis-interpretation. I can’t explain it other than it’s freeing to just ‘fly’ and be ‘incomplete’ and not apologetic to those who want a standard book review.”

I’m happy to say that Mr. Fisher is not at all “off the mark.” But filling in some pieces from earlier in the book will shed more light on my understanding of the themes he brings up.

On the matter of fear, I should respond to the following: “He skirted around defining ‘fear’ a lot more carefully (maybe, earlier in the book he does so) … I found him a bit of a conformist … in regard to his imaginary and understanding of fear and its management and/or transformation.” In my first book, which is a work of religious-spiritual philosophy, I write that a lack of connection to the greater whole “can give rise only to fear about the outcomes of our lives and to fear of each other. In turn, this fear breeds actual division, discontinuity, and the exaggeration of difference, such that our fears (like prayers) become the means by which we weave our futures” (p. 90). By the “greater whole,” I mean what can be called “God,” and I am writing about the distinction between God as an individual separate from creation and God as an energy that animates all of creation. This distinction is discussed in chapter one of Days of Shock, Days of Wonder, where I tell about how I came to write my first book.

In Days of Shock, Days of Wonder, as Mr. Fisher points out, I am “not trying to write a serious philosophy book.” Unlike my first book, which is all theory, my memoir is all practice. So rather than defining “fear,” it seeks to illustrate the conditions for fearlessness. The primary condition, as I say, is a worldview that is rooted in a holistic understanding of reality, wherein God is already conspiring in one’s favour, so to speak. One can move from the belief that this is so to the knowledge that this so only through firsthand experience of what I refer to in the title of my book as “wonder,” by which I mean evidence of a singular intelligent force at work in all of life.

Examples of such wonder appear in my memoir’s first chapter and form the core of many of the early chapters, continuing to accumulate across the real-life narrative of the book. Their collective effect is that they begin to suggest a grounds for fearlessness. But connection to the greater whole, whether in theory or practice, is not the same thing as absolute knowledge of the greater whole. As Four Arrows emphasizes in his recent book Point of Departure, the inspirited realm should be regarded as the “Great Mysterious.” One’s interconnection with the Great Mysterious is thus based on courage in the face of the unknown.[4] Courage precedes fearlessness, which cannot merely be claimed based on dogma but must be hard-won through experience.

In chapter nine, as I begin my retreat from Babylon in a camperized Volkswagen van, I write, “Driving out of the city, I turned on the radio in the middle of the Beatle’s Hey Jude to hear a joyous refrain. ‘Don’t be afraid,’ crooned McCartney. I told myself that I wouldn’t” (p. 67). What follows is an account of nearly killing myself while cliff jumping with my niece and nephews. The rally cry that day had been “no fear.” But they were just words, and when it was all over, I reflected, “I’d summoned enough fearless calm to come through with nothing but scrapes and bruised heels. But I was humbled. I’d been running around half-cocked. A city boy in nature. Real fearlessness was measured and patient. I would have to make it a practice on the road” (p. 68).

And that is what I did. The latter half of Days of Shock, Days of Wonder is an attempt to illustrate that process. After a week volunteering at a Buddhist retreat centre on Canada’s west coast, I write, “Each day before breakfast and dinner, I meditated with the group for thirty minutes. I was calmer than I’d been in my life. The world seemed ephemeral and simple. More than feeling fearless, I saw that there was nothing to fear after all. I vowed to keep meditating” (p. 73). Here, the link between fearlessness and an increased connection to the greater whole through meditation is key. This inner experience of God is a companion to the outer experiences of God that I narrate in terms of wonder.

After my van gets stuck on a beach, with its rear-mounted engine buried in a pit dug by my unsuccessful attempts to get it out, I write,

“If the tide came in, the engine would be flooded with salt and sand. It would be the end of the road. My pulse started to race. Was I truly fearless? I was about to find out … I lay awake and listened to the waves lap the shore … The waves seemed louder. All suffering is just thought, I told myself. The Buddhist stance … I turned out the light and slept fitfully” (p. 76). “At five-thirty I saw a thread of yellow in the clouds low over the ranch lands. Morning at last. I got out of the van. The tide was coming in. I started walking. I told myself that if all went to shit, I would catch a bus to an airport and get on the next plane to Montreal. I would leave the van behind, the solar panel, most of my stuff. But I didn’t really think it would come to that” (p. 77).

And it didn’t. My van was pulled out of the sand by a farmer with a tractor. We crossed paths on the road, and he managed to free the van before the tide was even getting close. Experiences like this one made it possible for me to keep on “jumping into the unknown without a net in sight” (p. 133). So although it may appear that there was little method to my madness, particularly given my professed preference for aligning with the flow of the Tao and letting its current carry me where it might, there was indeed a well-conceived basis for my fearlessness.

Mr. Fisher writes, “I was glad he interacted some with Four Arrows around the fear concept … However, in the pages I read I did not see an intricate synthesis that convinced me Rafiq was utilizing the best of what Four Arrows’ work had to offer him in this area.” Mr. Fisher is correct that at the time of writing Days of Shock, Days of Wonder, I had not moved from theory into practice with respect to Four Arrows’ ideas about how fear impedes rational reflection by making one susceptible to subconscious input from figures of authority.

Yet in chapter twelve I recount numerous experiences of Four Arrows that show how this aspect of fear works, all drawn from his memoir Primal Awareness.[5] I have included that part of my book in an article entitled “Indigenous Wisdom Explains Hypnosis of the 9/11 Lie” because understanding the psychology of fear is a necessary first step toward liberation from fear.[6] To be fearless in confronting authority, we must cultivate inner authority, and to do that we must confront past lies and discard subconsciously accepted nonsense. An ongoing project, to be sure.

As for the matter of love, I should respond to Mr. Fisher’s observation that I “didn’t spend a lot of time defining love systematically either. This makes me wonder, what does he actually mean when he writes about these important terms [i.e., fear and love] in human existence?” As with my attempt to illustrate the conditions for fearlessness, my book’s real-life narrative is intended to illustrate an opening of my heart and the factors that made this lived experience of love possible. And because no journey is linear, but instead a spiral that brings one back around to the same themes and awakenings again and again as it tightens, I structured my book as a double journey into love. That is, both the book’s middle and final chapters conclude with a surrender to love.

In the case of the middle chapter, it ends soon after a German mechanic I met while living in my van on the Baja Peninsula in Mexico tells me about his part in setting up a murder. I write,

“I watched the German sweating there on his back in the gravel and ground-up seashells of what was once an ocean floor. Like he was lying at the bottom of the world. And I felt only forgiveness. Love. Something I’d never felt for the killers in high places who’d done the [9/11] attack. Those misguided faces of the One. My days on the beach had opened my heart” (p. 81). Before the chapter’s end, I add, “I recalled what an American man had said to me in Nizamuddin. How the important thing was to choose one path and follow it to the end. At the time, I’d scoffed. That would be like reading only one philosopher. I’d forgotten what the Hindu thinker had said about all religions being a finger pointing at the same thing. The unifying, indwelling quality of God … [I felt] like I’d followed the path of Sufism to its end. Love for all in All. And I’d found my heart again” (p. 81).

While living on the Baja, I had come into the possession of a fat book of poetry by the Sufi poet Hafiz, who lived during the 1300s. Along with my immersion in nature and practice of meditation, this book played an important part in my orientation toward love. Having read it through twice, I write, “Not Shakespeare in his sonnets nor the Old Testament in its psalms built a greater monument to love than Hafiz. Love of self and love of God. The two entwined” (p. 78).

At the end of the book’s final chapter, I write that a true revolution required that we “ignite our inner fire and illuminate our hearts. We had to love. This was the teaching of Quetzalcoatl, Jesus, and Hafiz. It was what Gandhi had meant when he told us to be the change we wanted to see in the world … Love for all in All had to be the elixir” (p. 165).

From these passages, we see that I understand love, like fear, to be a factor of our connection to the greater whole. Love for God as a part of ourselves is the path to love for both ourselves and others as part of God. In a truly holistic understanding of God, all is God, so all grounds for distinction, all grounds for hate, fall away. When Four Arrows writes on the cover of Days of Shock, Days of Wonder that I have written “a book to ignite a generation,” he is referring to my memoir’s potential to ignite people’s hearts by illustrating through narrative how the workings of the inspirited realm testify to our unity, which is the grounds for our mutual love. Mr. Fisher is right when he says that my book is unlikely to ignite “anything of such grandiosity” as a revolution by my generation. Before that can happen, we need a reorientation as individuals toward a love-based rather than fear-based cosmology.

So what does fearless love look like in action? Mr. Fisher writes, “I think often because of his total fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants, and other factors, Rafiq ‘missed’ the boat of doing effective good work that could have been accomplished on his four-year journey.” He wonders whether I could have done my “socially-engaged art practices ‘better’” in the communities I frequently visited in Mexico. He is talking about actions on the ground in response to the lived experiences of actual people. I am not surprised that he should look for this type of practice in his assessment of what he calls a “a socially engaged artist,” a category that I am happy to occupy. In this respect, as with many others, his thinking and mine are aligned. As the following account will make clear, to quote a poster on the door of my Grade 2 classroom, I believe that “love isn’t love until you give it away.”

In chapter one of Days of Shock, Days of Wonder, I explain, “I was living in a one-room apartment above an all-night diner in a seedy part of downtown Montreal. A lot of people asked me for spare change. I usually gave them some” (p. 6). What follows are two anecdotes about how face-to-face generosity illustrates that giving and receiving are links in a single chain –  the source of reciprocity. In chapter three, I tell about two homeless Inuit men for whom my apartment became a kind of drop-in-centre where they got warm, cooked on my stove, and occasionally slept on my floor when the winter turned bitter cold. I would end up making a documentary with them so that they might have a voice. It’s called Be Smile: The Stories of Two Urban Inuit.[7]

Later, when I settled in the town of Sayulita on the west coast of Mexico, a similar situation arose with a teenage girl from Mexico City who was sixteen when we met and had been living on and off the streets for three years. She ended up staying with me or using my camping gear to set up home on the beach. Eventually, I helped her get a job at a friend’s shop, and she worked there for two years, living with me whenever she needed to. I thought about including her story in Days of Shock, Days of Wonder, in which case it would have been there in the final chapters that Mr. Fisher read, but I didn’t have any distance from that experience at the time. In fact, she and her punk rock friends from Guadalajara were crashing in my living room as I pounded out the book’s final pages.

There is one final comment to which I should respond. Mr. Fisher writes, “I’m curious what happened eventually to the white whale? In the 80’s I bought a 1973 VW and well ... a kinship with Rafiq’s spirit is inevitable.” The white whale, Ballena Blanca, is what I came to call the van that took me out of Babylon. In chapter fifteen of Days of Shock, Days of Wonder, after three harrowing months stuck in Belize with mechanical problems and after a week of daily vehicle breakdowns of various kinds as I drove north trying to get back to Canada, the van died in Austin Texas. The engine was blown. I write,

“I could rebuild it for about four grand. I could replace it for a lot more than that. Or I could sell the van for parts and walk away … I walked away. It was 2011. Two years to the week since I’d bought my home on wheels … I kept my drum, a backpack of clothes, a knapsack with my laptop, video camera, and hard drive. And one of the younger mechanics gave me a duffel bag for my books and some odds and ends. That was just about all of my possessions” (p. 130).

True to what I told myself the night that my van had gotten stuck on the beach with the tide coming in, I walked away with no more than I could carry. And I continued on. Sometimes fearlessly. Sometimes with love in my heart. Always in search of the authentic.

I submit this tantalizing idea about Nature being one of our most foundational teachers to understanding fear and fearlessness in a healthy and sustainable way, and to correct our distortive (if not pathological) ways currently dominating the field. Soon, I'll write a blog, doing a brief fearanalysis of a fascinating book on this topic by Jon Young (naturalist, tracker and mentor, author) in his 2013 book What the Robin Knows: How Birds Reveal the Secrets of the Natural World (NY: Mariner Books). To start off this discussion, I'll leave you with this image I painted in my "wildlife art" days in the mid-1980s and the word text I just put on top in this poster... a point of encounter and inquiry in/with the birds... stay tuned...

A Peek Into a Young Artist’s Days of Fearlessness: Rafiq

-R. Michael Fisher

From time to time I drop out of my philosophical and theoretical fearology work to hone-in on living exemplars (teaching examples and guides), who attempt to practice a life of ethical resistance to the over-determining ‘Fear’ Matrix of everyday life. After all, it is much easier to talk and theorize about liberation in ideal abstractions and through texts of the ‘great ones’ as (s)heroes; yet, so much harder to find examples of those who live it in contemporary North American contexts—that’s where I live. And, especially interesting is to witness today’s younger people, self-critically reflecting on their path, critiquing their own generation and the previous one, in a unique, very clear writing style interspersed with incomplete English sentences that look as they might sound, when they talk to you in person (e.g., “I did again.” or  “Our tribe.” or “Not love.”). I also prefer such inquiries into exemplars when the person is not so popular or famous but someone struggling in the margins as a human, artist and cultural worker like myself, who never quite ‘fit in.’

I have just read with intrigue the last four chapters (33 pp. + 12 pp. of endnotes) of Days of Shock, Days of Wonder: The 9/11 Age, the Ways of the Mystics, and One Man’s Escape from Babylon in the Belly of a Whale by Rafiq (2016) (aka Robert Sean Lewis), an eastern Canadian from Montreal. I read it from the back page (177) forward. It seems an efficient strategy in my experience to get to the “guts” of what a book offers without investing a lot of time in something I am not sure I want to. At age 64, an environmental and social activist-educator-radical for 45 years, I’ve read a lot, and my focus of where I put my energy these days is often precise, if not impatient.

No one recommended this book. I found it ‘accidently’ while researching if anyone had written any new book reviews on Four Arrows’ (2016) Point of Departure: Returning to a More Authentic Worldview for Education and Survival—as I am currently writing a book (with Four Arrows), due to be published by Peter Lang in 2018, on his “fearless” life and work, focusing on his original specific theory of fear and fearlessness utilizing general principles from an Indigenous perspective. I noticed immediately on the front cover of Rafiq’s new book the endorsement “A book to ignite a generation” by Four Arrows. I had to check that out, because by the end of this review of mine there will be my view of whether I think Rafiq’s book will ignite anything of such grandiosity.  

So you’re learning about me, perhaps, as much as this book by Rafiq. Like him, I won’t pass by a chance to write about myself and promote my work—I am an entrepreneur, with no salaried cheque every month or benefits. I have to self-promote. Ego? Narcissism? Yes, no doubt, and a whole lot more. Anyways, I’ve never been much for the long slow boring intro material—and, not sure I wish to wade through a lot of pages by Rafiq’s hand about 9/11 “facts” at this point—I’ve watched a few 9/11 truthing documentary films). Although, I confess, beginning context material can sometimes be important for understanding what comes later in a book. So, if I misinterpret anything herein it’s my own damn fault. Rafiq or anyone can correct me if I am way off the mark. Frankly, I get a thrill out of the risk of mis-interpretation. I can’t explain it other than it’s freeing to just ‘fly’ and be ‘incomplete’ and not apologetic to those who want a standard book review. I prefer a radical trust that I still can say something important, doing it my way. This is a release for me, as most of my other serious writing tends to be technical and guided by a thirst for completeness in research and accurate interpretations. But in the ‘free-spirit’ of which I sense Rafiq loves to fly, let me proceed likewise going with the flow of the southern west coast waves (California, Mexico) where he and his buddies loved to hang out, according to his story. Oh, I noticed he has had some reviewers on Amazon.com books reviewing it by the genre of a “novel.” Maybe it is, but it is non-fictional.

I don’t do formal book reviews these days but prefer a “review” that lives in some form of an inter-textual intimacy with my own journey of fearlessness, especially when the author of what I am reviewing is clearly opening their life and heart to an exchange with the reader and consciousness itself. I feel ‘called’ by such intimate texts and wish to handle them gently; albeit, honestly as well with critique as skillful means. Near the end, I will address why I chose to frame this dialogue with Rafiq’s text as indicative of someone, riffing along, more or less, on the path of fearlessness (re: the latter conception, see Fisher, 2010). I’ll also suggest where I think that path could be honed, both as a spiritual consciousness explorer, revolutionary and as an artist—each of which I feel comfortable in situating Rafiq and this book.

This is my first explicit encounter with Rafiq and his work and I wish to share some of the first impressions. No doubt someday I’ll read Days of Shock, Days of Wonder from start to end, maybe look on Vimeo at some of his films. Why wouldn’t I be fascinated to read about a “conscious” (p. 135) person and his “tribe” and what kind of communities they hung in—and a travel journey of a gen-Xer North American male searching for answers to big questions—searching, for his soul in a harsh predatory capitalist world that doesn’t give a shit about his quest or mine. And, then, a big attraction for me—his searching for “truth” (actually, big ‘T’) with a sincere drive to do so deeply—authentic, ethical, and creative as can be—and, continually coming up (most of the time) self-admittedly a little short, at times losing faith and a lot of grief and lament (and some joyous, even ecstatic highlights too). A few indicative Rafiq phrases caught-up in my net on this theme—I’ll call disillusionment (as he likely would too, p. 137):

 “In my days of truth activism, I’d struggled to stay on the Sufi [spiritual] path.”   (p. 164)

 “I still wasn’t myself [also p. 143]. I’d lost faith in the idea of the new human.... And Montreal was soul-defeating.... I was depressed. It’d been a year since I’d stopped meditating.” (p. 145)

“I wasn’t Taoist enough to work with others [effectively, intimately]” (p. 146)

“More than anyone over the years... [Jody] kept me from losing sight of reality in favour of my high ideals. (p. 147)

 “I’d seen the best minds of my generation swallowed up by the system.... The trick was to stay in the world without losing your soul.” (p. 153)

 “I was still looking for an alternative to the dominant system [Babylon] [p. 148].... I intended to take what I could from the modern world in order to help create Babylon’s lunar twin somewhere out on its fringes.” (p. 162)

 “But I wanted to believe that our [magical and sacred] ceremonies to activate love in the world had meant something.” (p. 142)

 [re: resistance to paying personal taxes to the State] “... like me, most people who’d woken up to their enslavement [in Babylon] kept paying them. We weren’t going to risk going to jail over it.” (p. 162) [and he often would show his own contradictions, that he was aware of, for e.g.,] “You couldn’t pay your taxes and be a moral person at the same time.” (p. 161)

 “I miss my tribe.” (p. 153)

 Gotta luv that ‘rawness’ and vulnerability in the text. Gotta question (I do anyways) How much truth can a human being handle today? Today’s culture really needs to hear these conscious journey stories and what our young people are going through (at least, some of the most aware “conscious” ones). I know he’s not the first in history to write one but that’s beside the point. Now, lest one think this book is a lot of navel-gazing, forget it! I mean it did strike me he’s a pleasure-seeking escape-from-society kind of beach-hugging “dharma bum,” as Wilber (2006, p. 109) calls a lot of the spiritual seekers suffering from “boomeritis” dis-ease in the post-1960s-70s of America. Admittedly, Rafiq’s journey of fearlessness recorded in these pages does often involve a “return to balance” (p. 150) a search and meditation on “some kind of holy union” (p. 155)—either trying to transcend fear in himself and the world or meditating on it and his ego in order to truly understand it and have it dissolve through mastery (pp. 154-55). Yet, what stood out more than anything else in terms of the purpose of this book was his cultural, economic and political critique as an activist-critic. He continually insinuates we have to look both inward and outward to keep whole.

 The word “revolution” is the bass drum beat behind nearly every sentence I read. Another reader may say “love” is the beat—he certainly repeated the latter word enough; but I found it less powerful than what was behind his passion for revolution. I spontaneously broke into a smile when he talked about his trip to the sacred temples of Mayans in S. America etc., and wrote, “At each site we would perform ceremonies to agitate for love. To help raise the collective vibration of the human heart” (p. 138). That was some of the most new agey stuff he participated in with his hippie tribe. He also was filming and observing it as a good anthropologist might do. “Agitate for love” is however, in my mind, an perfect indicator of that revolutionary political spirit that was akin to the discourse of a radical revolutionary (agitator)—and, to see that word juxtaposed with love... hmmm interesting! Oh, I also liked how he would critique some of this love-stuff, magical-stuff as well, e.g., the December 21, 2012 end of the world/time according to the Mayan calendar and many new age teachers at that time. I heard about it, watched the various documentaries and wasn’t impressed by any of it. I’ve written critically on a similar “event” that was supposed to be so spiritually transformative (revolutionary) on a grand scale back in Fisher (1987) due to some rare astrological alignment etc. I was disturbed then by the (false) “hope” I saw so many new agers fall into and then face great disillusionment (re: a substantive shift in consciousness/paradigm) as the year and years following that ‘great event’ played out in history in real-time, with real-bodies. Mostly depressing, I might add. I’ve been through several of these campaigns and none of them moves me nor seems very wise. I’m not saying these ceremonies are useless. They do probably help us find some strength and inspiration to carry on against the banal oppressive quotidian reality. Drugs do that too. I merely think they are typically over-hyped, if not ‘dangerously’ so. Hope/Fear are always sliding, colluding, and being sold to us by propagandists of every sort, secular and sacred. That’s another topic for another time—don’t get me started.

At times Rafiq would somewhat subjectively define the term revolution, contemplate on it and then lose its definitional clarity as fast as he found it—all, I think a good thing; because it keeps one always in a healthy questioning of such an important macro-conception as “revolution”—and, at times, he focused rather on “transformation” as a milder term less threatening to the status quo (and our comfortable way of life). I so appreciate that integration of the psychospiritual discourse with the sociopolitical sphere. He wrote, “But any revolution would be meaningless unless it changed our way of being in the world” (p. 164). I appreciated he both respected and at times was critical and disturbed by various revolutions and movements of his time, e.g., “new age” and “Occupy Movement.” I can relate to ambivalent feelings and thoughts about those movements as well. I get very angry at times by “young people” who think they are doing what no other generation had done before. OMG. All and all, his wide-reaching holistic sensibility makes for a strong path, a way to both compassion and wisdom—and, in my mind it makes the way to one that is not just out to be an activist-lawyer pounding out “truth” against “lies” and power and naming culprits—but, a voice speaking with nuance and troubling itself as much as it troubles how the rest of the destructive world is operating in Babylon (i.e., the ‘Fear’ Matrix, in my terms). A welcomed breath of fresh air.

Rafiq gained my respect quickly because of this holistic-integral sensibility of looking at reality from many perspectives not merely an immature righteousness one that spouts from a singular (rebellious, adolescent) perspective. Indeed, I was pleased to see self-healing with social-healing as foundational to Rafiq’s vision (even in all its instability) for revolution—if such a revolution in the Western technological world was even possible anymore. I share his questions and doubts too. In the opening section of my dissertation (Fisher, 2003) I waxed on for 50 pp. of fictional dialogue with (real) revolutionary thinkers in history around the question: “What does it take to make a (R)evolution today?” When my research supervisors, committee members and defense judges asked me to answer the question of what I found, I must admit, I couldn’t answer it ‘straight.’ I waxed on eloquently at the dissertation defense-spin to increasing glassy if not hostile eyes amongst them. No one really got it—well, maybe one out of the panel of seven members.

No wonder he also cites his experiences with Four Arrows and aligns as much as he can with a holistic Indigenous worldview, which challenges the Western dominant worldview—diagnosing it as “ill.” Four Arrows is one of the most holistic-integral balanced activist-educators I know of—and, so Rafiq is in good company and has a good ‘nose’ for sniffing out quality teachers, in my opinion. He searched and found Four Arrows and at times treated him as his mentor, even called him an “elder” in the Indigenous sense in his book review of Point of Departure (Rafiq, 2016a).

There is no way I can do justice to this book and Rafiq’s deep and unconventional thoughts (which most interest me as a radical liberation philosopher and educator). The review here would become many pages if I let myself fully explore it in careful detail and craft arguments and challenge his arguments. Yet, why bother? I want to take his work seriously, but he is also not trying to write a serious philosophy book. Is he? It is more an adventure story—with depth! Okay. Let me finish this dialogic textual interplay with him by doing a really quick and dirty fearanalysis. I’ll then end with my artistic analysis, as a social-engaged artist, raising questions about how he may have done his socially-engaged art practices ‘better’ during his four year journey in his VW van (“white whale”) in specific communities he continually visited. I risk, with humbleness (ha ha) doing all that with knowing only a ‘sliver’ of what he actually had done and does. I’m reading text, analyzing discourse, that’s all. I can’t say anything else about the man-in-real-lived relationship with him nor have I interviewed people who know him. I’m a fool.

The brief (incomplete version) of fearanalysis (for fuller delineation see Fisher, 2012; Fisher in progress) is, somewhat parallel but very different to psychoanalysis, where I ‘read’ the way an author talks/writes about fear and fearlessness. Rafiq doesn’t actually use the word “fearlessness” per se, at least in what I read but he uses “courageous” once (p. 153) among a list of other virtues he holds dear (e.g., balance, unity, wisdom, truth, love). Based on years of scholarly research and my own processes of healing and transformation, I (among others, like the late Rinpoche Chöygam Trungpa) hold the first steps of fearlessness to be vulnerability... a rawness of peeling away conditioned layers of oneself, not just in private but in public space too... and, Rafiq is well on that path—to repeat my own words: Gotta luv that ‘rawness’ and vulnerability in the text. The fact he was continually risking to paddle board on big waves in the ocean, venture into the “truthing movement” (re: 9/11) and live a wild life on the road not knowing what was coming or how he’d survive (e.g., without a lot of money), are all signs to me of the pilgrim of fearlessness facilitating their reality encounters by consistently “jumping into the unknown without a net in sight” (p. 133). Other people might judge him ‘reckless’ and full of bravado (male ego)—even immature. How does one define such labels? I don’t know for sure. The text overall told me probably a little bit of both male bravado and fearlessness spirited him along into these adventures and zones of danger and possibility. These same characteristics I read also in the biography of Four Arrows. Rafiq reminded me at times, somewhat mirroring, how I see Four Arrows operates.

My first fearanalysis (systematic) task is to underline all the uses of “fear” or relatives to it in the text. Having studied many authors’ writing about fear for over 27 years systematically, I get a quick ‘reading’ where someone is coming from relative to all the others I have studied likewise, via fearanalysis. I wasn’t impressed that he skirted around defining “fear” a lot more carefully (maybe, earlier in the book he does so). It would be important except that the concept is as important and as complex as “love” (and, he also didn’t spend a lot of time defining love systematically either). This makes me wonder, what does he actually mean when he writes about these important terms in human existence?

Okay, I’ll let him off the hook a bit because it isn’t that serious kind of a book on contestations of theories and conceptualizations of “fear” from multiple angles across disciplines. Methodologically, my ideal request would be that he treated both love and fear in holistic ways not just everyday discourse and his own fav notion at any moment in the text. Yet, “fear” came up forefront on a few pages, and I suspect his entire trip and his own philosophy is one of fearlessness (at least implicitly,)—and thus, to know fearlessness and master it is to know and master fear (at least, he does more or less bring this forward in his talking about “ego” –arguably, his writing is typically an esoteric and mystical spiritual genre, where “fear” is equated often with “ego” and visa versa; see, for e.g., p. 138). In that sense, I found him a bit of a conformist, lacking originality, creativity and depth around these great meta-motivational forces shaping our lives and his too. I mean conformist in regard to his imaginary and understanding of fear and its management and/or transformation. He might retort to my critique: “Ah, Michael, there you go, it is your ego always looking for what is lacking in someone else, so to make you feel superior and special.” I’ve heard this a hundred times over the past 27 years of my fearanalysis critique work—always raising the question, who is fear-projecting on who?

On the other-hand, I was glad he interacted some with Four Arrows around the fear concept and phenomena (e.g., Four Arrows’ theory of CAT-FAWN). However, in the pages I read (e.g., pp. 154-55) I did not see an intricate synthesis that convinced me Rafiq was utilizing the best of what Four Arrows’ work had to offer him in this area. It made me question how his “style” maybe quite like the dragonfly skimming along the surface grabbing what it can and running (flying) off to the next pond to fulfill the addictive zeal of “learning” from everyone and everything(?) Potentially, such a “style” I see in a lot of young people these days and their digital short attention spans and endless glut for information. Luckily, I missed a lot of that being a boomer.

I would guess Rafiq had read some of the metaphysics, by many writers throughout history and across cultures, that Love vs. Fear is the primary task of liberation work. These theories (philosophies, religions) claim, in some forms, that such meta-emotions (motivators) are not compatible (see Fisher, 2012a)—that is, not able to be complementary “twins” in the mythic sense as in say solar and lunar forces (that Rafiq was learning from Howard Teich and Four Arrows) (p. 154). My conversations with Four Arrows and interpretation of his writing over a decade, indicates the Indigenous worldview (love-based) and Dominant worldview (fear-based) are opposites of a very different kind than “twins.” I think this would be worthy evidence and theoretical argument to make the case of Rafiq’s own strong stance in the book re: that there cannot be (healthy) complementarity between “Indigenous ways... [and] Western [“modern tech”] society without losing their [Indigenous] essence” (p. 152).

This ends my ‘cheap’ fearanalysis, lest I forget to say, that because of his lack of depth into understanding fear, theorizing fear, and helping the reader be more clear how he was using that term, I believe this indicates that he had not thought a lot about fearlessness either up to that point of writing this book. My own integral-holistic theory (Fisher, 2010) of fear and fearlessness claims that one only truly reaches a stage of fearlessness (Wilber’s integral consciousness level) when they are seriously interested in fear at all levels of existence from multiple perspectives. It requires disciplined study, standing back and witnessing, what archetypally can be called the path of the Sacred Warrior. I surmise, from reading his text, Rafiq is definitely on that path, albeit, in the early to mid initiatory levels.

Now, to conclude, I have made it clear this is a good book to help understand what  “conscious” and sensitive young people may be going through in having to confront the Western modern tech world and predatory capitalism and its lies—of which the 9/11 debacle perpetrated by some corporate and governmental elites, is but one symptom. It is a good book in which to witness how “revolution” may or not be carried out in our times. It is a good book to examine the limitations of human beings too—and, their wounds and inabilities to hold existential, spiritual, economic and political truths. There’s no one to blame, really. Is there? I think Rafiq and his tribe got lost at times into a lot of blaming of this scapegoat or that one. It’s part of the grief cycle, so experts tell us. Hmmm....

My view, from the start of reading a brief bio of Rafiq was that he was an independent filmmaker and artist (writer, musician, etc.) with great social concern and wants his art to help make the transformation to a new and better (more sustainable, healthy, sane) world. He referred to as the “new human” (one with a soul)—living in the world but not of it.’ I too work as an artist in this context and struggle, in the Anthropocene, as some are calling this period of history today with cascading extinction-driving imperative forces (like global warming). Of many questions stirring in my mind about his “artist” in the world, from what I read, I continually asked what his methodology overall was, as a socially-engaged artist? He seemed to care about people and communities, but I didn’t get a sense he really utilized a clear understanding and foundation to stand on based on the long documented history and practices of socially-engaged artists.

It is like Rafiq hasn’t yet claimed the “territoriality” of that postmodern artist cultural worker role. Maybe he doesn’t agree with me on that ‘peg’ I would hang his work upon overall. My wife just this morning read me a text on this issue, of which I leave here as a “resource” perhaps of some use to Rafiq and others like him. It is from a book by an ecological and socially-engaged art collective (Compass) in Chicago and area, where my wife (also an artist) spent time engaging them in person recently. Anyways, the quote from their collective’s book (cited in Pentecost, 2012, p. 18) brings forward there can be critical pedagogical and methodological clarity brought to artists/teachers/activists who want to ‘walk’ (journey) and ‘work’ in the world and help solve its problems:

Celestin Freinet established the Modern School Movement in 1926.... He developed three complementary teaching techniques: (1) the ‘learning walk,’ during which pupils [or anyone] would join him in exploratory walks around town, gathering information and impressions about their community.... Afterwards the children would collectively dictate a collective ‘free text,’ which might lead to pretexts for direct action within their community to improve living conditions... (2) a classroom printing press, for producing multiple copies of the pupil’s writings and a newspaper to be distributed to their families, friends, and other schools; (3) inter-school networks: pupils from two different schools exchange ‘culture packages,’ printed texts, letters, tapes, photographs, maps, etc. (Pinder and Sutton, in Translator’s Note to Felix Guattari’s The Three Ecologies).

It was 1926... long time ago... when that kind of progressive educative action was being systematized, and it is only one type of activist work among so many since, and even before. I really never had a sense in my reading of Rafiq that he was drawing on such sources for his own activism, and I think often because of his total fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants, and other factors, he “missed” the boat of doing effective good work that could have been accomplished on his four-year journey. Who am I to judge? I’m sure he’ll at least consider my thought. It seems he was so compelled to ‘huddle’ and find comfort with his “tribe” and, I feel somewhat the loss and missed opportunity. Yet, clearly, I have no idea what impact he did have on all the places he describes he stayed at on this journey Days of Shock, Days of Wonder.

Rafiq will be an interesting player of the revolution to come, for that I have no doubt of his importance. Will he or his book “ignite a generation”—I don’t think so, for many reasons, some of which I have given, not the least of which, he and his work is still young and growing toward something more powerful. I’ll be watching and no doubt as will others, for what form it all takes. The fact that there are 16 book short ‘book reviews’ on Amazon.com alone already, tells me his book does seem somewhat popularly inspiring. It is an impressive feat for anyone to get a book like this published by an official publisher the quality of Hay River Books, as I believe they have published many of Noam Chomsky’s political tracts. Good for him. Many will like his style. It’s not my style but I feel akin to his overall undertaking. I’m curious what happened eventually to the white whale? In the 80’s I bought a 1973 VW and well... a kinship with Rafiq’s spirit is inevitable. Today, I lament, no more cars, nor more vans—I’ve used up my oil and gas quota and supported excess CO₂ for one life-time.

References

Fisher, R. M. (in progress). A general introduction to fearanalysis: Putting the culture of fear and terror on the couch.

Fisher, R. M. (2012). Fearanalysis: A first guidebook. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

Fisher, R. M. (2012a). Love and fear. A CSIIE Yellow Paper, DIFS-6. Carbondale, IL: Center for Spiritual Inquiry & Integral Education.

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

Fisher, R. M. (2003). Fearless leadership in and out of the ‘Fear’ Matrix. Unpublished dissertation. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia.

Fisher, R.M. (1987). Life after Harmonic Convergence. Erospirit, October, 13-16.

Four Arrows (aka Jacobs, D. T.) (2016). Point of departure: Returning to a more authentic worldview for education and survival. Charlotte, NC: Information Age          Publishing.

Pentecost, C. (2012). Notes on the project called Continental Drift. In R. Borcia, B. Fortune and S. Ross (Eds.), Deep roots: The midwest in all directions by Compass Collaborators (pp. 16-24). Chelsea, MI: White Wire.

Rafiq (aka Lewis, R. S.) (2016). Days of shock, days of wonder: The 9/11 age, the ways of the mystics, and one man’s escape from Babylon in the belly of a whale.           Montreal, QB: Hay River Books.

Rafiq (2016a). Indigenous worldview and the art of transformation: A book review by Rafiq. Retrieved from https://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2016_09_01_archive.html

Wilber, K. (2006). Integral spirituality: A startling new role for religion in the modern and postmodern world. Boston, MA: Integral Books.          

As the postmodern era of scholarship has recently opened debate and doubt about the nature and role of emotions, so also has been the case specifically with new postmodern scholarship on fear (what I prefer to call 'fear'). One recent example, worth checking out, is the edited volume Entertaining Fear: Rhetoric and the Political Economy of Social Control ed. by Catherine Chaput, M. J. Braun and Danika M. Brown (New York: Peter Lang, 2010). I had not seen this book until just a week ago and thought I ought to check it out. I only read the Preface and Introduction (by Chaput), and I must say this is great work going on regarding the way to conceive of rhetoric in a conceptualization Chaput calls a rhetorical "ecology of fear." Not having studied rhetoric and theory, this Introduction chapter is very technical, and theoretical and I was not able to follow it totally. It may take time to absorb through various re-readings.

I bought the book to add to my collection of new scholarship on 'fear' that takes it way beyond the psychology or philosophy of fear, and brings it into the intersectional dynamics of social, political and economic contexts and the way rhetorical situations and energies move--directly and most profoundly influenced by an "ecology of fear." This really interests me, although it is hard to get a handle on exactly what an "ecology of fear" is. There are other authors, from biology to cultural studies also using this phrase ecology of fear all with quite different meanings in some ways, and yet I am seeing some pattern that makes them all the same as well. So, hypothetically, and theoretically, the argument of Chaput et al., and my own thought, is that the best unit to understand 'fear' is by studying its ecology (and sub-ecologies). In other words, it is best we do not rely on studying fear "as an isolated event [or experience] rather than as a circulating energy" (p. 15). Let me cite Chaput some to give you a flavor of this ecological way she is attempting to create a discourse of understanding about fear for research and practical purposes (i.e., fear management/education):

"Global capitalism, as an extension of the past and an imagination of the future, relies on fear to pull us within its new modalities. Fear discourses [rhetorics] work in an paradoxical structure.... Although individuals certainly act on their own volition, their choices are powerfully proscribed by the rhetorical energy of fear.... What I am calling the rhetorical energy inherent in these discourses functions, according to theorists of fear, as a unbiquitous and apparently innocuous form of political and social control.... Unlike the visible repression of Orwell's watchful Big Brother, this form of social control occurs through the rhetorical energy circulating almost imperceptibly among many of the more open and free political and cultural sites of contemporary life.... this overdetermined rhetorical space of political economic reproduction [e.g., a campaign speech to preys on our worries] means that 'it is not necessary to make active or express threats in order to arouse fear; instead, fear can, and usually does, hover quietly about relationships [like a glue between them and the society's forms of social order] between the powerful and the powerless, subtly influencing everyday conduct without requiring much in the way of active intimidation' (Robin, 2004, p. 19).... [p. 14] the fear explicit in any one of these examples implicitly recalls the fear in the other spaces, and such [ecological] connections form the discursive undrepinnings of an overdetermined rhetorical ecology that sustains our current [conservative] political economic moment.... it is precisely this pervasive intangible quality that gives the rhetorical energy of fear its power.... Like ambient noises, fear resonates in the background of most contemporary experiences..." (pp. 20-21). 

What I make out of this way of imagining and using the conceptualization of a rhetorical ecology of fear, is that there has grown invisible 'channels' like grooves based on hyper-over-arousal of fear energy, circulating in these grooves (or veins) and each kind of experience that 'triggers' fear, then immediately lights up the entire grooved network of past and present and future imagined fears, and more fear energy is released from these sites in split second restimulations and accumulations but also in complex systems of constructing new ecological dynamics in which this rhetorical ecology of fear serves many things, of which global (predatory) capitalism is a major provider/host.

One almost has to talk about this organismically, and autopoietically, ecologically, as well as poetically, just to 'play' with ways to ensure we don't fall into an easy reductionism as fear is only in our brain, our self thought. No, an ecology of fear, especially via rhetorical discursive practices (many which don't seem fearful themselves per se or coming from someone afraid in any obvious way)-- takes on a 'life of its own' and thus 'fear' takes on a life of its own (a point Michel Foucault made about Discourses). 

There's an entire sub-field of study of the ecology of fear, in the larger sense, that I have long been a supporter of those naming this 'unit' and way of studying fear ('fear')... and, I am barely scratching the surface in this blog post... perhaps, as I read this new book by Chaput et al. more things will come clearer... and no doubt, more complex in how to understand fear ('fear') in our highly constructed rhetorical world today.

As I have promoted a healthy and sustainable, holistic-integral curriculum of fear management/education since 1989, there is little up-take of the 'big ideas' in regular schooling and adult education generally. There is a lot of resistance actually. And, of course, because fear ('fear') has such power today in cultural circulation, you can bet on just about anyone that wants to capture the market on "power" of attention and sales, and/or votes for a cause, the corporate world here below (i.e., Nike) has shown their own tenacious way to slip fear management/education to the populus. One of their ads, several years ago, was as follows (see below also for a collage I put together around this problem during my dissertation research):

fear of failure fear of success fear of losing your health fear of losing your mind fear of being taken too seriously fear of not being taken seriously enough fear that you worrry too much fear that you don't worry enough your mother's fear you'll never marry your father's fear that you will... Group Therapy from Nike--just do it!

Your Mind is a Battleground for those who want Social Control for their own "profit"-- lest, us not forget this in the Fearlessness Movement!  -RMF

 Introduction

 In the short essay “Can I Be Fearless?” by the internationally eminent organizational consultant, leadership trainer and teacher, Margaret Wheatley, available on the Internet at several locations, is everything I’m glad about what is happening with intention regarding the improvement of fear management/education (FME)[1] today—and, unfortunately, everything that is ‘wrong’ (distortive) with how we still think and talk and teach about fear. My position has been that we haven’t had an appropriate 21^st century upgrade [2]in our “program” of how we conceive FME for a long time and its more than overdue. Fisher and Subba (2016) concluded,

            There is something profoundly new to be said about fear and its impacts in the

            21^st century. The sooner it is said the better otherwise the evidence shows we will

            continue losing ground to fear—realizing one day, fear has us in its ominous

            grip—and, our healthy fearuality development (analogous to sexuality) is compromised. (p. xxi)

If we cannot arrive at an upgraded and disciplined multiperspectival view of fear itself within the near future as an intervention, then the Fear Problem will continue to rule and destroy life on this planet to the point of mass extinctions (Fisher, 2016).

Margaret Wheatley

Before I begin my critique of how Wheatley teaches about fear and FME in this essay, that I think her teaching is almost a “standard” for most teachers who talk about fear. That said, she is also one of the ‘cream of the crop’ organizational consultants and human leadership teachers on the planet today. She brings a welcomed Buddhist perspective to much of her work and to the functioning of a healthy workplace in the Western world. I have published off and on of her positive contributions and her critical and useful challenge for all of us to think better about the 21^st century in terms of how we relate to fear, personally and collectively. In particular, two of her publications are worth noting, of which I have honored for their direction we need to go, and which I ended my book (Fisher, 2010) with: (a) “Eight Fearless Questions” in 2006[3] and, (b) “Fearlessness: The Last Organizational Change Strategy” in 2007.[4]

When I recently found and read her essay “Can I Be Fearless?” (Wheatley, 2008), I decided to carefully analyze it to see what if any thing might be new in her synthesis and teaching of FME. It struck me as a good teaching case study.

            Problem of Use of Terms

The first problematic in this short essay is her unsystematic classification system (i.e., no system) for terms that are crucially important in any FME curriculum. There is no adequate attention given to discussion of fear per se or with a philosophy and/or theory of fear to accompany and support it. Where is her starting point for a discussion of fearless, if one has no robust idea of what she defines or means by fear?

I don’t necessarily expect something complex and scholarly in such an explicit defining, as her piece is obviously written as a quick and practical overview for the practitioner. However, this is an omission too often found in 95% of the writing I read on FME. Thus, she, like the rest, assume the reader already knows what fear is (i.e., an emotion, is the assumed default “truth”). I have challenged this type of omission in a recent article (Fisher, 2016a) by criticizing it functions as a political and epistemic hegemonic (dominating) discourse—and, thus a tragic distortion of the four major ways/discourses of knowing fear on the planet (i.e., beyond, fear is an emotion discourse). In fairness to Wheatley, she does draw on two opening quotes referring to “fear” by rather famous spiritual teachers, Hafiz and Parker Palmer,[5] who say a few things about fear but do not define it either, other than indirectly. They do at least acknowledge, as does Wheatley herself, the importance of fear in shaping the human condition—of which, my own work with Desh Subba supports (e.g., Fisher and Subba, 2016). 

Secondly, she repeatedly exchanges “fearless” with “fearlessness,” of which I have argued is a very common tendency, which has no theoretical or philosophical grounds to do so—and thus, falls into a common populist discourse usage with the same looseness (Fisher, 2016b). It also contravenes (seemingly by ignoring), the decades of scholarly work others and I have done on the topic. Albeit, I can forgive her somewhat for this loose use of these terms because I never articulated the integral theory of fear management systems until Fisher (2010), making the explicit distinction based on a good deal of historical and cross-cultural research. I have argued, however, since the early 1990s that “Fearless” is a very high level (or stage[6]) of evolutionary and personal development of consciousness that includes but transcends “fearlessness.” They are best used not interchangeably.

Her focus, despite the title of the essay (on “fearless”), is on “fearlessness”  and there is some worthy material there. Again, without having defined “fear” earlier, it leaves me with continually questioning how useful really is her discussion on fearlessness. I also question the reliance on any tradition (e.g., Buddhism, which highly values “fearlessness”) by Wheatley or other authors, touting the great virtue of fearlessness when one could argue the person pursuing fearlessness is not able to identify “fear” (or ‘fear’ as I add to the complexity of knowledge required). She does ask, “... what is fearlessness? It’s not being free of fear, for fear is part of our human journey” (Wheatley, 2008, p. 1). Here you can see the necessary dependency of fear and fearlessness as a dialectical relationship, yet, without fear being defined per se, and assume to be meaningful and true as “part of our human journey” (i.e., natural), she glosses over a huge epistemic problem in discussions about FME. She does not make clear what is natural fear or normal fear or pathological fear, etc. A number of authors do this in their discourse, but they all confuse and conflate to make natural and normal one and the same thing. This is highly problematic and distortive because of the evidence that is shown from many disciplines that there is a constructed fear born in the cradle of a “culture of fear” context,[7] and thus, to assume fear is simply natural or normal is to exclude the context of our lived reality. I have referred to this problem of reductionism (once again) to a hegemonic psychologization of fear (or FME). Writers, like Wheatley, disavow and/or ignore the historical, cultural, social and political complexity of fear and how humans are impacted by it and are participant co-creators of constructed fear (i.e., cultural modified fear, as analogous to genetically modified organisms). 

Colonial Western (Dominant) Worldview Bias

Although there are other things I could critique,[8] including how Wheatley later uses “true fearlessness” without mentioning its dialectical partner “false fearlessness” and why there would be such a distinction required in the first place. I’ll end with one last point of great disturbance—and, that is her highly Western modernist (colonialist) perspective on the topic, even if she refers to authority figures in spiritual teachings from the Eastern world (e.g., Hafiz, Zen). It comes across that she has not at all integrated Indigenous traditions around the world (especially, from her own country of origin, America) to offer wisdom on FME—an Indigenous-based critique made recently of the “Dominant worldview” in relation to fear, courage and fearlessness (Four Arrows, 2016; see chapter two).

This flaw shines brightly in the first paragraph of her essay when she talks of “our own families, perhaps going back several generations” as guides and inspiration because they “have been fearless.” She mentions, “They may have been immigrants who bravely left the safety of home, veterans who courageously fought in wars, families who endured economic hardships, war, persecution, slavery, oppression, dislocation. We all carry within us this lineage of fearlessness” (Wheatley, 2008, p. 1). I do not here a direct acknowledgement of the people who have lived relatively sustainably with Nature for 99% of human history and what they went through, and how they are the more reliable source (than the Dominant worldview) to understand fearlessness—and pass it on.

Bottomline, one finds no nuanced understanding of fear and fearlessness in Wheatley’s essay and teachings and worse it has no multiperspectival approach to understanding these notions. She makes no effort to question the “reality” and definitions she vaguely offers. The lack of such critical awareness is not what one would expect from a person who is into Buddhism. So, the message to me is that if someone as top-notch as Wheatley is so flawed in her presentation on this topic, what are we getting fed as a public by the rest of the FME teachers out there in the world?

Time to develop our own critical awareness of everyone who teaches some form of FME, even if they don’t believe they are doing so. Fact is, we most all are teaching by modeling, if not more directly through instruction. FME is a socialization phenomena, and a critical one to do well. We have a lot of work to raise the consciousness about the Fear Problem, of which part of it is how we talk, write, and teach about fear itself.

REFERENCES

Fisher, R. M. (2006). Invoking ‘Fear’ Studies. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 22(4), 39-71.

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

Fisher, R. M. (2016). Invoking fearanalysis: A new methodology applied to wicked problems and paradigm shifts in the Anthropocene. A CSIIE Yellow Paper, DIFS-15. Carbondale, IL: Center for Spiritual Inquiry & Integral Education.

Fisher, R. M. (2016a). 80% of fear discourse focuses on 25% of fear reality. Retrieved from http://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/80-of-fear-discourse-focuses-on-25-of-fear-reality

Fisher, R. M. (2016b). Problem of branding “fearlessness” in education and leadership. Technical Paper No. 59. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

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

Four Arrows (2016). Point of departure: Returning to a more authentic worldview for education and survival. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

 Kleiner, A. (with Wheatley, M. J.) (2007). Fearlessness: The last organizational change strategy. Retrieved from http://www.strategy-business.com/li/leadingideas/li00044?pg=1

 Wheatley, M. (2008). Can I be fearless? Retrieved from margaretwheatley.com/wp-content/.../Wheatley-CanIBeFearless.pdf‎

I think the following image here is self-explanatory, other than the fine details. So, I leave with you to ponder and feel free to start-up a discussion on the FMning. 

I've just written and published a CSIIE Yellow Paper which I think gives one the most updated clarity on my work. I've attached it here. "Invoking Fearanalysis: A New Methodology Applied to Wicked Problems and Paradigm Shifts in the Anthropocene" by RMF.

I mean if Michelle Obama, now First Lady to Pres. Barack Obama in the USA, back in Aug. 2007 was feeling afraid, and they lived a very comfortable life, you can imagine what the vast majority of the American population was feeling. She spoke to supporters in rural Iowa in regard to why she and her husband agreed to go for the presidency:

"And as more people talked to us about it, the question came up again and again, what people were most concerned about. They were afraid. It was fear. Fear again, raising its ugly head in one of the most important decisions that we would make. Fear of everything. Fear that we might lose. Fear that he [Barack] might get hurt. Fear that this might get ugly. Fear that it would hurt our family. Fear

You know the reason I said 'yes'? Because I am tired of being afraid. I am tired of living in a country where every decision that we have made over the last ten years wasn't for something, but it was because people told us we had to fear something. We had to fear people who looked different than us, fear people who believed in things that were different from us, fear of another right here in our own backyards. I am so tired of fear, and I don't want my girls to live in a country, in a world, based on fear." [1]

-----------

Wow! I hadn't seen this or heard this speech by her. It really hits the soul of things, and trust a woman to say it like it is in this realm of the affective side of life--living in a culture of fear that has truly not been anything but growing for quite a long time, and especially after 9/11. You'd think this would be the "grist" for the mill of American society, and especially American education systems to get out the best of our intelligence and figure out why it is that everyone is so afraid of everything down here!

--------

End Note:

1. Excerpt of Michelle Obama's speech, taken from Glassner, B. (2009). The culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things. NY: Basic Books, 243-44.

It is rare for me to find a transformative school, or school movement that seems like it really is what it advertises itself to be when looked at closer. It is rare when I get surprised there is a movement, I have never heard of (i.e., in North America) that is encouraging beyond the surface. I am aware of the great strides of progressive schools in Finland and how that model is taking off around the world, but right here in American there's EL Schools based on the Outward Bound design principles, brought into regular schools and transforms them. I think these are worth looking at seriously for anyone involved in curriculum development for the 21st century, and, I'm sure these schools are not "perfect" and I would have a lot of things to add, or would any other astute critic of educational practices. I am also not saying this is a radical school movement like I would like... but it seems, upon my reading the website that it is impressive nonetheless for what it is. The 10 principles are pretty great (albeit, I don't see enough Indigenous Education aspects up-front-and-center as Four Arrows would recommend [1]. Yet, a few things impress me, and that begins in Principle 1, I have included it below... and, you can guess why I like it so much. The second, is that Natural World is put out so prominently (principle 8) with also Solitude & Reflection (principle 9)

The foregrounding of the role of fear as the greatest barrier to human potential is not an entirely new idea at all, it is just rare to see it foregrounded in any school movement. I had never even heard of EL schools, although, I am somewhat familiar with the Outward Bound philosophy and programs going back into the 1970s as part of the Outdoor and Environmental Education movement. So, it is great to see this new adaptation into regular schools in the system and it is producing great results.

The area of my critique, of course, would be on what the quality is behind their conception of "fear" and most likely it is pretty shallow and individual and psychological--not an integral perspective. This is where I would bring forward the work of Four Arrows and myself to supplement such a "primary task" to ensure it is done the best possible [2]. I would encourage such EL Schools to join the Fearlessness Movement first off the bat. Then study these movements, and have their students study them, for starters. Why limit the imaginary to merely "overcome their fears" but rather put this into an evolutionary, historical, sociopolitical, liberational context. "Fears" is not the most important, but understanding the nature and role of fear itself is deeper and richer for critical consciousness... and, then, there are a few more steps along the spectrum of maturity that are required... all the way to fearlessness and on and on...

End Notes:

1. See, Four Arrows (Jacobs, D. T.) (with England-Aytes, K., Cajete, G., Fisher, R. M., Mann, B. A., McGaa, E. and Sorensen, M.) (2013). Teaching truly: A curriculum to Indigenize mainstream education. NY: Peter Lang.

2. in Four Arrows et. al (2013), see Chapter 13, "From Fear to Fearlessness"; also, in Four Arrows (2016), see Chapter 2, "Courage and Fearlessness." Four Arrows (2016). Point of departure: Returning to a more authentic worldview for education and survival. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

I have had many encounters with 'men of the cloth' so to speak, from many traditions, over the years (East and West). Although, I rarely have ongoing dialogues with them about fear and fearlessness. Often we conflict and there's no interest on their part to continue connecting. I lament. I believe religious and/or spiritual leaders of all stripes are important 'voices' to engage and to explore how they "teach" fear management/education, among other things that are supposedly about some kind of liberation path.

On a website blogpost not too long ago, I included a rare trialogue with two priests, Terry Biddington and Emmett Coyne; now, I have begun a new dialogue with a Swami who lives in St. Louis, MO. To begin following (and/or participating) I recommend you first read "Toward an Integral Yoga of Fear" which is my long written response to attending a 2 hr talk and experiential session with the Swami in Carbondale, IL less than a week ago. So, since I wrote that piece, the Swami has graciously engaged me and wishes to carry on our inquiry, so, here below is the collecting of our recent emails (I will post any other exchanges in Comments section to this blogpost). Enjoy. -M.

Dear Swami Sankarananda,

In sincere gratitude, and with my own take on the "teachings" you presented, perhaps you would like to take a peek at my initial responses in a blog I wrote this morning "Toward an Integral Yoga of Fear". Feel free to pass this on, also feel free to sign-in to this blog, whatever the case... it will be what it is... and we'll go from there my friend...

 -best, Michael

Sept. 6/16

Hello dear Michael,

Thank you. I'm happy that you joined us and that our discussion provided something for you to work with. I understand your perspective, certainly the study of Fear and Fearlessness can be a productive engagement.

I agree with you regarding the cause for fear that you enunciate; I'll call it conditioning from past experience (as reflected in society... all is based upon past experience). There is a deeper cause though, these ancient teachings will point to our idea of being separate from the source of happiness (and from all of the objects). It is interesting that you seem to dismiss spirit, or spirituality (study of one's own spirit self, or soul). After all we live in a world in which self existence can be proven ("I am" is true) but existence of a physical world cannot be. Indeed even our thoughts are relatively more real than the physical world, for they are the cause for it. And, it is posited by the sages of Yoga, the cause for fear is separation from the Truth... and this separation is only perceived. It seems that if we dismiss the subjective truth (which can be proven, albeit only for the subject) for objects, which cannot be proven, that we leave out what might be the most important field of study. And, from my experience, the most fruitful, the only one that will actually provide us with complete peace and fearlessness (the same).

I love the topic you research by the way, most of the discourses that I am sharing are on the topic, "From Fear to Peace". There is one this evening at 7PM at Yoga 7even in Springfield, IL... not too far from you. And again in Normal, IL on Friday. Please join if you would like to discuss, or like some more grist.

Bless you dear one, Om Shanti. May all know peace.

Swami Sankarananda

"The way of peace is the way of love. Love is the greatest power on earth. It conquers all things."  - Peace Pilgrim

858-859-0523

www.fromfear2peace.org

Sept. 7/16

Dear Swami,

So pleased you took time to read my piece and respond so generously. No doubt we have some different 'takes' on some things... and, for the record, I do not leave "spiritual" and self-reflection out of an integral approach, so it is interesting you never picked that up in the piece, and, that's always a problem of interpreting only "parts" of one's writing... anyways, I'm digesting and reflecting on your further thoughts. At some point, I'll respond further, I suspect. Would you mind if I posted your response on the Fearlessness Movement ning (as a Comment) on my blog. This would be great for readers and members to see your views with mine. Let me know. (btw, you could also sign up on the FM ning and post it yourself).  -thanks, M.

p.s. I won't be able to attend your upcoming talks in Illinois but thanks for the reminder and I'll keep in touch with your various travelings so at some point we may meet in person again

Sept. 8/16

Om, good morning dearest Michael,

 Thank you. I've just read your piece again and I must say again that I quite like the focus on "from fear to fearlessness", this dialogue is so important, and I both appreciate and respect the perspective that you present. It is balanced and helpful. Yes, of course it is fine if you post the response, furthering the dialogue is also beneficial. A key point that I want to share is the view that it is possible to transcend fear. Now this can only be treated as an individual statement or theory for now, as it can only be transcended fully one person at a time. Coming into alignment completely with our own inner truth (which is said in the eastern teachings to be a common truth - this is my observation as well) is the way. The nature of That truth is fearless, and one who transcends the control of the subconscious mind to reside in the intuitive Self is indeed fearless.

Bless you dear one. I do intend to visit Carbondale again next year, God willing, and would certainly love to see and visit with you then, or any time. God bless you.

Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti

Sept. 9/16

Dear Swami,

And to you blessings ... thanks for this note, and permission to reprint this dialogue and continue the dialogue... I will say, in short, I agree vehemently with the "fearless" Truth you and your ancient tradition speaks of.  I had heard in your Carbondale talk you referred to meeting a saint in India or maybe it was your yogi teacher (?) and you said "he was fearless"-- I heard that and applaud such attainment; and, I have no doubts that is a claim you make, an interpretation, worthy of your naming it--albeit, there would be other factors I would bring into how we talk about "fearless"-- of which I also have both experienced momentarily and seen/felt/realized being around others (including archetypal beings) where "fearless" is the best word to describe what is going on... I also, theorize my work for research and educational purposes--writing about a continuum of developmental fear management systems that people move into and through, and transcend (that is, if all goes well and they are encouraged to develop so, and/or rare magical moments of 'grace' takes them through without seeming any willfulness on their part)... yes, all the way to "fearless" (which is a stage beyond fearlessness). Anyways, I have conceptualized a "fearless standpoint theory" to work as a referent for this scholarship and way of being--a view point of Truth, Real, even if we are relatively living a long ways from it in the worldly world of experiencing that tends to dominate individually and collectively. Again, further fodder for other dialogues...   -best, M.

Sept. 9/16

Hello,

I would be very interested in a visual representation of the dialectics suggested in Wilber's model, between healing and growing, awakening and presencing.

I am not sure how to get started on this:  it brings up some fear, perhaps in part because Ken's work doesn't address trauma very well.

Durwin

As many of you may know, if you are following this blog, that I have been studying and writing about Four Arrows (aka Don T. Jacobs) for 10 years. I just reviewed much of his latest book Point of Departure: Returning to a More Authentic Worldview for Education and Survival (2016) and have now written an in depth technical paper "Four Arrows: His Philosophy, Theory, Praxis & Pedagogy" (click on Tech Paper 62) of which a major section includes putting his theorizing about fear and fearlessness into contexts of various kinds for the readers of his work. I'm pleased to upload that pdf. here for your convenience of access.

Four Arrows: His Philosophy, Theory, Praxis & Pedagogy

                                                                                                - R. Michael Fisher,[1] Ph.D.

                                                                                                             ©2016

                                                                                                  Technical Paper No. 62

ABSTRACT

Every once in a while in human history a really interesting person and in this case a critical thinker, shows up that catches my attention and enriches my own work. Four Arrows, a mixed-blood scholar and Indigenous educator has created a large body of work, of which I sample only a small piece in his newest book Point of Departure (2016), in order to analyze it. This essay is a first systematic overview of some of my findings, concerns and suggestions of improvements in Four Arrows’ thinking and philosophy, theory, praxis and pedagogy. A complex project, this essay remains a work in progress, with a future book planned. The two major Parts of the essay are: Part 1- Philosophy and Theory: (A) Use of Worldview and (B) Theory of Fearlessness and Part 2- Praxis and Pedagogy.

Any of you who have followed my life, research and teachings know that since 1989 I specialized in the study of fear and fearlessness (and their cousins) because indeed everywhere I read and whatever I experienced, it seemed that these two dialectical constructs and phenomena are critical to the foundations of all wisdom, compassion and attainment of peace, individually or collectively. As part of my quest to bring a critical integral theory (a la Ken Wilber) to the knowledge and know how accumulated on the planet regarding these two constructs, my aim is to bring a better sense, and classification, of how all the different speakers and traditions, theories, philosophies, theologies, psychologies are at times saying the same thing (apparently) and very different things (apparently). I won't get into all the methodological issues as my various writings will guide you to that problem of knowing fear and fearlessness [1]. In graduate school for my doctorate degree (2000-03) I specifically began investigating how academic disciplines were beginning in the mid-1980s onward (in the Western hemisphere) to coin sub-disciplines of study regarding the topic of fear, which I found incredibly interesting because they were extending beyond the narrow perspective of the psychospiritual traditions [2] of knowing fear--and, especially they were critical of the psychologization of fear that has dominated for hundreds of years. I saw these new systematic pursuits to knowing fear as very helpful, if not more holistic, and sociopolitical than what we have been dished out from the dominating psychospiritual traditions. Not that I think the psychospiritual traditions are not useful, it is just that they have overly dominated the discourses and ways we then come to learn in societies how to manage and teach about fear. That's where I become very concerned, as is the integral yoga philosophy I follow more or less [3] There are too many of these new subfields re: the new scholarship on fear, as it has been called, to list, but a few are labeled as aesthetics of fear, architecture of fear, sociology of fear, anthropology of fear, ecology of fear, geography of fear, etc.

After attending a talk from a yogic swami (monk for peace) living in St. Louis, MO, it was interesting to reflect on what a yoga of fear might be, and what it seems to be in the teachings of the "classical yoga" tradition which this monk was trained. I used "integral" yoga of fear in the title for this blog because there is another branch of yoga that is not "classical" (I'm sure there are other branches too)--and, so I am interested in integrating the classical teaching with the postmodern teachings of yoga and beyond that into the future-edge of where we are heading in the Western world, which is arguably a post-postmodern era, if we don't destroy ourselves first. But these terms and historical orientations are not the purpose of this blog. I want to share what this particular swami is teaching in his "From Fear to Peace" mission--which, he is encouraging all of us to follow and for it to become our mission. I was invited by Kate, a recent member of the ning, and she was invited by a friend who is a friend of the swami, and well, you know in a small town news travels fast and I showed up with Kate. I'm writing some of the reflections from the swami's teachings on fear because we are faced with another potential sub-field of study, yes, I'm calling it yoga of fear--with an integral twist. 

I will email this swami, as he so invited us there on the evening to communicate with him and assist with the mission, from fear to peace. Which I looked up on his website was also written "from fear to fearlessness" --and "from fear to fearlessness to peace"--so, yeah, I am interested to connect with this work in some way. It is very much my own mission, and the title of courses I have offered in this area with few people attending, like 2 or 3 and then they fade away fast. I think, after hearing the swami last night it is clear that people living in the USA (southern mid-west) are perhaps more attracted to the mission if you add the word "peace"--which, I never do, just like I don't add "love" or "nonviolence"--I typically use "From Fear to Fearlessness"--and, yes, by the end of this blog, I'll make an initial case for why I don't add those 'good-marketing' words in my own work, especially while living here in American culture today. Oh, btw. if you didn't know, I am born and raised Canadian living in the US for 9 years, and have been very critical of most of a very sick American culture and its globalization mission since the 1970s. Not that I will hold that against any American, even this American born and raised, trained in India, now swami teaching peace.

I generally enjoyed being with the group of a dozen people for two hrs listening to the classical yoga teaching on "Positive Thinking" albeit, I have never been a fan of positive thinking (but that's a whole other critique). Swami Sankarananda is a very happy nice guy and wants to be infectious with these qualities and virtues. He started the talk with a prayer that more or less told us not be "fighting" with each other during the 2 hrs. I know it was more subtle and meaningful than that, but nonetheless, I'm not one to ever be happy with that kind of yoke around my neck from the start of being in a human relationship or group--that said, I let that go. Swami's taught several philosophical premises from pre-modern classical traditions of yoga teachings, which yes, they are quite universal in a lot of the psychospiritual teachings I have found, and in his case he mentioned the Vedic teachings as a foundation. At one point he mentioned there are in this teaching the three greatest fears humans have to face and conquer "fear of non-existence/death," "fear of the unknown" and "fear of ?" oops, forgot. It struck me as all pretty basic to what I have read in hundreds of articles and books by diverse authors. So nothing too new for me at this point, and of course, lingering in the back of my mind is to say, "Hey, and why not include the greatest fear of all?" In my own 27 years study of fear and fearlessness, I have come to the conclusion, at least in the modern Western world where I live, the greatest fear of all is that we do not really know as much about fear as we think we do... and, if one really takes that in, then that really shakes the hell out of our confidence--even, our confidence that the ancient gurus, mystics, swamis, saints, also did not know as much about fear as we think they do and that we need to know to live in the 21st century. Thus, all the arising new sub-fields of research on fear I mentioned. There's an intuition, and a reasoning, in some humans willing to face the 21st century uniqueness in regard to living in a "culture of fear"--that, there is a whole new study required that is both psychospiritual and sociopolitical and historical, when it comes to truly understanding fear (or what I call culturally modified 'fear'). It is at this point that swami would not enter in his talk on fear and its management as thought management in the yoga classical tradition. Of course, I forgive the swami for that ignore-ance because he is not trying to be an academic or scholar on the topic of fear and fearlessness, he is being was he was trained to be--a practitioner and teacher. I have no doubt he's doing lots of good work, go see his website: http://www.fromfear2peace.org/

Let me take some quotes from the swami's website that caught my eye, people here on the ning may want to comment on these and have a discussion and support each other as well on the mission...

"You can conquer your fear and come alive?" - note, I have read this slogan in so many secular and spiritual circles it starts to feel rather prosaic to me and definitely psychospiritual speak...

"We never achieve happiness ever after by pursuing our likes or avoiding our aversions." - note, I agree in general, good wisdom there and thus, I teach to study and know fear deeply, holistically, widely, integrally... is essential to the 21st century so that we have the best ongoing theory and practices of fear management/education

"Love is the greatest power on earth, it conquers all things" (he quotes from a mentor The Peace Pilgrim) - note, I make a good deal about this being a highly questionable dictum; but that's a long complex argument; and, it is not that I am against love or anything, nor against happiness... it is just that I never worship them and this kind of statement to me is susceptible to breeding that and creating American-style "addictions" to everything, like peace, happiness, love-- all that good-feeling stuff...

Anyways, there's a sample. The swami does some of his own writing on fear and fearlessness under the "Mission" link on his website, and I really appreciate that. Again, I do take issue with some of it as well, but let me focus only on his quote (which he obviously endorses) of Swami Sivananda:

"Psychologists are of the opinion that there cannot be Absolute fearlessness, and that only determined effort can be made to conquer fear. This is incorrect. Psychologists have no transcendental experience. A perfect sage who has knowledge of the Absolute is completely fearless. The Upanishads declare in a thundering voice, 'The knower of the fearless Absolute Truth himself become absolutely fearless."

Note- this quote is premodern, meaning, generally applies accurately to the times of this quote and the perspective of the speaker. I see partial truth. However, there are far too many modern, and even more integral (post-postmodern) psychologists who have spiritual practices and have even labeled transpersonal psychology as a field and equally integral psychology. Again, I am not going to make a big long argument around this. My other issue is a lack of distinction in this use of the term "fearless," which my research shows is not so simplistic as to be a behavioral characteristic or virtue attained for only an individual. The psychospiritual (individualistic) discourse in this quote is troubling as to where the "fearless" gets situated. From an integral yoga of fear, I would suggest to embrace the partial truth of this claim and to re-constitute its meaning frame in a full holistic-integral (four quadrants) reality. Again, I'm not going to say more here in this first blog on this topic of a complex dialogue that is required, beyond only my thoughts... yet, it ought to be obvious I am not a fan of reducing all reality to "thoughts" as classical teaching of yoga and the swami I listened to for 2 hrs presented with such confidence as if it is the only truth about reality. That's the way it came across. Of course, that's my personal interpretation, but, it also happens to be a highly skilled assessment based on 27 yrs expertise in this area of epistemology of fear and fearlessness--that is, how we know fear, etc. So, all the happiness and positive thinking talk for me is fine, but it can become rather thin and too washy, if not distortive, if the rigor of critical analysis of how one talks about fear is not addressed consciously--and, if we are not allowed to "fight" over our preferences of teachings, theories, philosophies. I forgive the swami in this regard, because he was doing what he wants and what his experience shows is best for him to do. I'm merely pointing to other possibilities of truthing our way in and through fear and fearlessness--and, sure, peace too. My experience is that people want peace but rarely want to do the disciplined study of what gets in its way. Swami offered us lots of those techniques to work with but for me, they are mostly psychospiritual and we also need to study in the sociopolitical quadrants or I am pretty convinced we'll not nearly undermine the current "culture of fear" dynamics going on.

So, because I have seen the addiction of American culture as both outsider and insider, my doubts about the value of peace, happiness, love as the 'way to go' and/or to keep in our attention as the Saintly, and Divine, etc... that we have to be very cautious this is not a (spiritual) by-pass, slipping us around giving equal and conscious attention (at least) that we ought to give to fear and fearlessness. Ultimately, I think the swami, and the Vedas would agree with me--though, I am not at all an expert in yoga nor really any religious or spiritual philosophy. They are not my paths but I highly respect their offerings. Swami is right that a lot of us have trouble being "too happy" (e.g., bliss or ecstasy is terrifying), yet, people in the USA especially are addicted to fun/happy and the American way--it's all part of the sociopolitical and ideological basis of capitalism in this country-- so, I am always cautious when happy and peace of mind, or even mindfulness is sought as the next "pill" or "fix" or marketing strategy. Again, I'm fairly sure that the swami wouldn't disagree with me on the need to be cautious, as I appreciated that he did at least one time say we have to be cautious in come to yoga and the spiritual teachings because our ego (fear-based structuration) can easily distort, use, appropriate anything. Thus, my case, we better well understand fear ('fear') as not merely a psychospiritual ego phenomena, but a historical, ideological, cultural, sociopolitical, economic phenomena--that's, mostly the 'balance' I did not see in swami's presentation nor on his website.

So, beyond any figgly details and critique I may have deposited here... what is really important is a larger project of What would constitute an Integral Yoga for the 21st century? And, for pushing me in that direction, happily, I thank the swami and those who brought him to little ol' Carbondale for a night. The hard and long work of progressing this yoga of fear is however up to us all, or even one or two, to pursue. I'm in... if anyone else is... lets dialogue (and conflict, if need be)... for a greater cause of positive growth and development, yes, from fear to fearlessness, and to fearless! [4]

Notes

1. A good summary of these problematics of knowing fear, via a philosophy of fearlessness and fearism, go to Fisher, R.M., and Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris.

2. The short distinction here is one based on psychospiritual quadrants of reality (upper left) or Kosmos, as Ken Wilber identifies this epistemological quadrant as 25% of the Kosmos knowing itself, in his Integral Theory (see for e.g., Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology and spirituality: The spirit of evolution (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Shambhala). For the other 75% of co-arising Kosmos, and a truly integral epistemology which I think is about the best one can find, the three other quadrants were barely touched on in the presentation, although I did appreciate the swami giving several good references in the upper right quadrants (re: neurobiology, brain aspects)--yet, he was quick then to say but the Western approach is probably wrong and he would give the Eastern approach as the alternative corrective (his trained teachings). This taking one over the other view, is a sure sign of a non-integral thinker.

3. I don't actually fully like saying I follow "integral yoga" path (which was mentioned in the swami's talk but not pursued), yet, my roots of attraction to Ken Wilber's integral philosophy (although he is a Zen Buddhist), trace back into Hinduist thought, yoga, and especially the work of Sri Aurobindo and "integral yoga" that was brought to the USA, especially, foregrounded in an academic setting as the California Institute for Integral Studies, the latter of which I have followed more or less for a long time.

4. I say all these terms, not in only a restricted psychospiritual (individual behavioral, attitudinal, virtuous) sense, but an integral one. Which, one would have to study my work and dialogue with me to fully understand these distinctions.

I'm excited to have 26 wonderful souls join the FM ning in the past couple years since launched. I know most everyone in some way, yet I know you don't all know each other so anytime feel free to post more about you and your interests and why you've come to FM Ning. Note, in the very first FORUM post you can see my Welcome to new members and my suggestions for things you could talk about and share relevant to the FM. Let's begin the dialogues. Also, if you want to contact people on the ning personally just send them a note on their Wall, and/or ask me and I'll 'hook you up' with e-mails as I have everyone's. I apologize for the very brief descriptor I gave of profession for you all, it in no way reflects what is near what you may see as your identity of most importance. So, do share and fill me in too.

If you read my historical summary on Wikipedia of the Fearlessness Movement you will get the jist that what is being spoken of is a (r)evolution in which we as individuals, and/or collectively, can begin at any time to consciously resist, subvert, and re-construct a new society based not on the 'Fear' Matrix but a path of fearlessness. I would offer that we use the language from a philosophy of fearism, if you wish, so that we can identify ourselves as Fearist (R)evolutionaries.

Watching the great movie "Clandestine Childhood" last night (directed by Benjamin Avila, 2012) as I wrote and made an image of it in the Photos section today as well--it occurred to me to spend some time writing out a plan for the (r)evolution in steps of praxis (theory and action). This would be designed for students from as early as grade 1 on up to university. And, what is below also can be for anyone in societies anywhere (of course, in their own language and images; I will give English version here).

So, look at the Photo image "Tools for Students of the Fearlessness (R)evolution" (Aug. 31, 2016) on this website. You'll see the film cover I mention as being so inspiring because I watched this true story unfold and this boy of pre-pubescent years learning the good and the bad of revolutonaries work in tough circumstances. There is one scene where the boy is watching his parents smuggle several companeros (fighters of the cause) into their house and giving them the lecture on what work they are about to be involved in to undermine the current regime of Argentina. They pull out a box of guns and ammunition and each gets their "tool" for the revolution. It is not the only tool they use, in fact, all the brochures, magazines, money is being stashed in fake chocolate covered peanuts boxes as if these people were running a legitimate business. The boy watches the guns and takes in the gravity of what these people are up to. He also watches all of them, including his parents be killed by the end of the film.

There are many ways to fight a revolution, and for me, I have always fought as a (r)evolutionary, where the evolution of consciousness is primary to the battle against oppression and repression dynamics that both invade our exterior and interior experience. So, now for the tools I would hand off to my companeros of this battle of the Fearlessness (R)evoltution, return to the Photo image again and you'll see what I have prepared as a plan and set of basic tools. The student of this velvet revolution (some would call non-violent revolution) are a pen (mightier than the sword), index cards of multiple colors and always carried in one's purse, pockets, etc. And quotes from books, articles, anywhere on the Internet or from daily life, that you as a (r)evolutionary find inspiring and that challenge the old ways that we have thought about the world. I have always liked using these Fear Quote Cards since In Search of Fearlessness Project began in 1989.

And what about the paper clips in this Photo image? They are what you use (could also be tape, or staples, or glue) to attached the fear quotes on the index cards to anything and everything in your everyday environment. And, of course, you can merely hand out the cards, or leave them loose, like at a bus stop or in the school lunch room. But here's the idea I had this morning (and there are hundreds you too can think up; and even share them on this FM ning):

Whenever you are at school (yes, grade 1 on up to university) and have to hand in a test, assignment project, or anything like that, you automatically as part of your practice of fearlessness, attach one of your fear quotes from the deck of cards you've made. No explanation. Nothing. You just do it. There's no law against it. Now, the teacher who gets your assignment and/or test has to confront this quote. I love this idea. Perhaps, in its interesting "gifting" gesture [1], the card acts as a catalyst for dialogue with the teacher, and perhaps the teacher will bring it up to the class--yes, even in a math class. There is no place in our society where it ought to be a taboo to talk about fear and going beyond it. That is, these are cards that raise the issue, create space for, fearlessness to unfold. Just think of how many assignments/tests etc. that children have to hand in during their entire schooling, on up to university. Add up all those and over all the years, in every place in the world. Now, just think of one or more students attaching a fear quote card to them. This begins a (r)evolution in the way we educate ourselves about fear and the way we manage fear, and ultimately transform it.

I look forward to hear from anyone who has thoughts on this. Basically, there are "tools" for practical application of all the philosophy, theory, and ideas I have ever written on the topic of fear and fearlessness. One merely has to "act" and put them out into the world. Here is one way to do this. In my experience, there is something quite transformative (acting like a 'fear' vaccine) to putting these fear quotes out into the world. Too bad I never learned this "tool" when I started school!

End Note

1. The "gift of fearlessness" tradition has been studied by scholars, especially as this tradition has emerged in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism in the East for millenia. I first came across this literature in a great article by Hibbets, M. (1999). Saving them from yourself: An inquiry into the South Asian gift of fearlessness. Journal of Religious Ethics, 27, 437-62.

Desh Subba (2014), using a "fearist perspective" and a reading of history and human development based on a "philosophy of fearism"-- coined the term "feariatry" and wrote a few pages on its conceptualization (see pp. 156, 160-61).[1] His basic idea was that psychiatry has not fully seen the nature and role of fear in mental illness and well-being. He posited, that in the future there will be feariatrists as well as psychiatrists. The former would use a philosophy of fearism to guide their practice of psychiatry. He also believed that the knowledge from the sub-field of feariatry would help people in the grassroots of communities and other mental health and social workers to better understand that we ought to be diagnosing fear problems in people and offering them appropriate solutions and not allowing ourselves to be ruled by psychiatry. I would add, and not be ruled by psychology either (thus, Subba and I have also been developing fearology, and fearanalysis).

The following concept map is one of my first ways of articulating a vision for a field of study or a topic. This ought to provide the more complex version of conceptualization beyond Subba's initial concept. We both know there is no one and only way to define the sub-field of feariatry but it will take many creative efforts to build a good theory and practice. I have given a wide and deep lens to what I would like to see go into the development of feariatry in the future. The details of course are yet to come.

End Note

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

Wit(h)nessing The Birth of a New Movement in the Contemporary Arts of the East

 It has been a fascinating role for me, a Westerner to witness the birthing of a new movement of thought and creativity coming out of the far East.

 Philosophy of Fearism, is an underlying meaning frame and philosophical stance on what can be called a literary phenomena or new movement, that of Fearism; they are two expressions, arising out of the literary community of Nepal since the late 1990s and starting to bloom rapidly in some far Eastern countries, especially N. India, in the early 21^st century. Desh Subba, a Nepalese poet, fiction novelist, and budding philosopher, is one of the pioneer founders of this new movement, who authored its first major philosophical text. [1]  

 I (RMF) joined this new movement in 2014, as Desh and I were engaged in dialogue on email and were planning a co-authored book together [2]. Indirectly, on my own independent course of research, art, writing, education and philosophy of fearlessness, it seems I was beginning my own new movement of fearism but didn’t give it that name, rather I called it the fearlessness movement, which this ning is named after. This is why you’ll see often references from Desh Subba here, and other places in my work, because “two has become one.” One philosophy of fearism, as part of the fearism movement. At the same time, I have also been crafting my own unique way into this movement under integral philosophy (integralism) but that's another story [3].

 To help readers understand the context of a new movement in contemporary arts in the West, I looked up some information on a website below. At the end, of this list, I give my own version of Fearism, as I understand how it is operating and evolving in the far East; which, to note, no such collective movement is happening in the West (not yet). Desh recently published (August 21, 2016) on the FMning a list of 19 books based on fearism already published and/or coming out soon (most, not in English), as they range from poetry books to children’s stories, to fiction adult stories, and philosophical and literary criticism.   

 http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/lit/literaryterms/section5.php

 “Literature constantly evolves as new movements emerge to speak to the concerns of different groups of people and historical periods.” Of 30 or more movements, here are a few listed for the Western world:

 Postmodernism (c. 1945–present): A notoriously ambiguous term, especially as it refers to literature, postmodernism can be seen as a response to the elitism of high modernism as well as to the horrors of World War II. Postmodern literature is characterized by a disjointed, fragmented pastiche of high and low culture that reflects the absence of tradition and structure in a world driven by technology and consumerism. Julian Barnes, Don DeLillo, Toni Morrison, Vladimir Nabokov, Thomas Pynchon, Salman Rushdie, and Kurt Vonnegut are among many who are considered postmodern authors.

 Romanticism (c. 1798–1832): A literary and artistic movement that reacted against the restraint and universalism of the Enlightenment. The Romantics celebrated spontaneity, imagination, subjectivity, and the purity of nature. Notable English Romantic writers include Jane Austen, William Blake, Lord Byron, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, John Keats, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and William Wordsworth. Prominent figures in the American Romantic movement include Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, Edgar Allan Poe, William Cullen Bryant, and John Greenleaf Whittier.

 Surrealism (1920s–1930s): An avant-garde movement, based primarily in France, that sought to break down the boundaries between rational and irrational, conscious and unconscious, through a variety of literary and artistic experiments. The surrealist poets, such as André Breton and Paul Eluard, were not as successful as their artist counterparts, who included Salvador Dalí, Joan Miró, and René Magritte.

 Transcendentalism (c. 1835–1860): An American philosophical and spiritual movement, based in New England, that focused on the primacy of the individual conscience and rejected materialism in favor of closer communion with nature. Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” and Henry David Thoreau’s Walden are famous transcendentalist works.

Fearism (c. 1999-  ): A Nepalese literary and philosophical movement, based in the far East, that focuses on the primacy of fear in shaping human motivation and activities across all spheres of life; this movement has an underlying philosophy of fearism (e.g., Desh Subba’s work) which favors a positive role for fear, as well as a negative one; and, this teaching philosophy ought to be translated to all cultures around the world using all means from populist education to higher education. Desh Subba’s Philosophy of Fearism is one of the many texts that demonstrates the principles of this new movement.

End Notes:

1. Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. [Trans. R. Subba and B. K. Rai]. Australia: Xlibris.

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

3. Like the other influential new movements (isms), Integralism is both ancient and new (with Ken Wilber being one of the most important new interpreters and leaders of this movement with his Integral Philosophy). This line of thought has not specifically been influential to Subba et al. in the East. I look forward to developing and sharing this in the future, and I did include it in Fisher and Subba (2016) at various points. Also, the integral perspective has heavily influenced my philosophy of fearlessness (i.e., fear management/education theory) 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.

Veronika (a new member) has stirred up my interest in movies, based on her post a few days ago. I found this mash-up poster I put together a few years ago as a kind of celebration of gratitude to the artists/filmmakers who wrote and created these three movies, each of these characters the main protagonist. Can you name them and the movie they were in and why I might put them here on the FM ning?