Blog

I am taking a fearanalysis perspective to challenge the ways we talk (or write and teach) about fear. This is embedded in an underlying context of a philosophy of fearism (Subba, Fisher) and thus is more philosophical than psychological. I'm currently writing a journal article introducing fearanalysis as a critical methodology for cultural studies and education.[1]  A small section of the article lays out a minimum of nine precepts one would have to in whole or part agree with to begin a learning of the basics of fearanalysis. Of course, one may not be so willing to entertain these and argue against them. I would at least like a person to engage them seriously and enter dialogue around them with me and/or others, especially to engage those who claim to be fearanalysts (of which I am, unfortunately, at this time one of a rare few).

Let me give the first two precepts for fearanalysis I wrote down in the article and then enter a discussion, using an example I found recently on the Internet of a coaching practitioner talking about fear. It could be nearly anyone who might say this kind of thing about fear, and so I have no need to name them. I have seen this type of talk a  hundred times in my years of researching "discourses" on fear.[2] Again, I come with a specialized fearanalysis perspective to the topic of fear and how we talk about it, which is a scholarly and theoretical perspective, where understandably not all practitioners have that specialization or scholarly interest. Rightfully so, practitioners are hired for pragmatic tasks by clients and want to be "effective" at what they do. I love to work with practitioners, I too am one as well, and see if I can assist them to expand their practices and become more conscious of how they talk about fear. 

Two Precepts

At a minimum, in order to understand what fearanalysis is based on, the following nine precepts are core (not the only) foundations:

(a) avoid the habitual over-emphasis on discussion of fears (i.e., fear of x, y, z), phobias, etc. and conflating this knowledge with understanding the nature and role of fear itself and the even more complex conceptualization of fearism

(b) ensure multiple perspectives are examined on the topic fear, interdisciplinary, including populist accounts, but preferably transdisciplinary is useful

Two Examples of a discourse on fear that falls (somewhat) short of the criteria above. I quote from an Internet blog by a contemporary practitioner (coach/trainer):

1. "The sub-conscious mind is the home of those fears that are largely unconscious and which are driving up to 95% of our behavior. Trust me when I say that, after coaching hundreds of individuals, the fears are within all of us. I'm not good enough, I'm going to be found out, I don't fit in are just a few that simmer below the surface of our existence.... [and often, due to guilt, a cousin of fear, people would rather not face this truth] "I see it all the time, never more clearly than with 'spiritual' types... those who want to ignore or escape from the deepest shadows of fear by putting on a religious or spiritual facade. I understand. I, too, can adopt the facade. You see, it takes courage, tremendous courage to look at the fear. And then we discover that it truly is illusory." [bold added for emphasis]

[The above quote indicates the topic is circulating around the "sub-conscious mind" which is interrelated, rightfully so, to "the deepest shadows of fear" and yet instead of focusing on fear itself and a more complex conception of fearism, the primary text emphasis is on fears (fear of x, y, z) etc. What is most promising is the interest to explore the sub-conscious, unconscious realms of awareness and unawareness, which is where we will come to have to examine fear itself as the topic and begin to see that all our fears individually and collectively, are still "fears" and thus not all that useful, other than as surface symptoms, for understanding the dynamics of fear itself and fearism dynamics which are less visible and knowable at first but with good fearanalsyis (even psychoanalysis) can be revealed and be seen to be themselves symptoms of even greater unconscious realms of what I call the 'Fear' Project or 'Fear' Matrix, "culture of fear" etc. ]

2. "I 'get' what you mean about two different ways of using fearism [3]... at least I think I do. To use some cliche's, there are always two sides to a coin. Nothing is all good or all bad. No matter how you flip it, a pancake has two sides. (I can digress.) There are some fears that serve us in a healthy way; others are destructive. The most destructive are often buried deep within the subconscious mind, driving our behaviors despite our finest conscious intentions."

[The above quote indicates a reasonable first off-the-cuff interpretation of how Subba and I use fearism, however, it then slides into cliche's and that will in all likelihood lead to misinterpretation somewhat, as is the case above in its brevity of analogies. I am very familiar with the dialectic nature of the philosophies in Taoism and other nondual forms of thinking, yet, the common maneuver of a psychology of fear discourse is to quickly drop the philosophical part of the framing of fearism which is a good start of possibilities, then to reduce it to "fears" in making the analogy the author wishes to validate. This is chronically a problem I see where there is a categorical error enacted philosophically by taking a very complex construct "fearism" (in this case) and reducing it not only to "fear itself" (which would be less of an error) but then goes all the way down to the simplest construct of "fears." As I said before, nearly every book and article (almost) that talks about fear makes this same categorical error continuously. The error as well based on the two precepts above, is the beginning to talk about sub-conscious and unconscious shadows of fear, and yet the discourse stays within the dominating psychology of fear, and historical, cultural, political aspects (e.g., necessary in talking about fear itself and fearism) are left out. I believe all these tend to inhibit the full-potential of a good fearanalysis. Which is not to say the thinking and practice of such a practitioner and their discourse is unvaluable.]

A Take Away

When we talk about "fear" in any way, realize that when we do so in the public sphere (e.g., the Internet, a conversation, etc.), we are public and thus are engaging in what scholars today call a form of "public pedagogy." Typically, if not trained to thinking critically about our pedagogies, then we can spread knowledge very rapidly in the public and digital worlds without always thinking so carefully about what we are actually teaching and what that teaching (and its "discourses") are actually doing. For a fully ethical practice of public pedagogy, especially on the topic of fear, I propose that we begin to examine the problematic of switching categorical differences in knowledge about fear-- and the most basic way is to acknowledge the increasing complexity of holarchical order of constructs from fears to fear itself to fearism.[4]

Notes:

1. The journal article is entitled: "Invoking Fearanalysis: A New Methodology Applied to Wicked Problems and Paradigm Shifts in the Anthropocene."

2. "Discourse" is a particular complex construct used by academics in various ways, but it always more or less refers to the way people, organizations, etc. 'talk about' a topic and it can be thus analyzed as a pattern of communications based on a set of underlying assumptions and values, beliefs, worldviews and what are called historical and ideological discourse formations. Point is, we humans may think we are talking about our experience as if it is ours and we made it up entirely and are communicating it as if there are no influencing historical, political, and philosophical sources to the discourse formation. This has been shown to be a naive view of our selves and how we talk. Philosophers like Michel Foucault have well shown how discourses are knowledge-power entities (formations, patterns) that 'stick' together over time in cultures and are used by people to gain certain privilege and power in their knowledge assertions. Typically, they do not know they are carrying these (like memes), nor are we usually aware of how Discourses (with a capital 'D') actually are using us as their agents to pass on certain knowledge in certain ways. I have studied what is called a method of critical discourse analysis for many years now, and it tends to come into all my critiques.

3. This was a reply to my post on their blog about how Subba and I have two different ways of conceptualizing fearism (one more healthy, one not so because it is a pathology).

4. I would include my own notion of 'fear' in that spectrum of complexity between fear itself and fearism.

I hope to make a series of these dialogues with Desh Subba (living in Hong Kong), as we email exchange and co-author work on the Philosophy of Fearism. This dialogue I shaped and led as a kind of interview. Enjoy, -M.

Desh Subba and R. Michael Fisher in Conversation on:

            FEAROLOGY, FEARIATRY, FEARANALYSIS [1]:

                  Three Pillars[2] of a Philosophy of Fearism

 M (Michael): One of the things you and I have learned in attempting to promote the newest branch of philosophy [3], after existentialism and postmodernism, is how it is not always easy for people to grasp how a philosophy can aid their everyday life. Especially, it is hard for them to imagine that a philosophy called Fearism is going to be valuable to them or their loved ones or society living everyday life. What has been your experience of teaching? You have done much more direct lecturing than I have on introducing a philosophy of fearism, including your recent teaching experiences to many countries in the East and a few in the West.  

 D (Desh): It is human nature that we ignore common things that are habitual around us. Teaching Fearism, as a new type of philosophy, is difficult for people, be they ordinary citizens, professionals or academics. They tend to think what is common in everyday is normal and things have been like this from ancient time.

 M: Yeah, habituating to routines, norms and traditions is a powerful stabilizer in cultures of all kinds. Yet, you and I are nudging for people to attend through a fearist lens at the common things in their world, hoping they will begin to see them differently. 

 D: During my lectures in India, China, Bangaladesh, Nepal and even in the USA and Australia, I sometimes would ask the audience counter-questions by giving examples of their surroundings—e.g., window, door, balance of diet, physical exercise, etc. I say all these things are for making a better quality and longer life. And analogously, I say, we have fears habitually—that is, fear of accidents, diseases, death etc.

 M: I find it intriguing. I mean your teaching style. I sometimes wonder if it is uniquely Eastern and so different than how I approach teaching about fear in the West. That makes for an interesting exchange of the East-West dialogue as we can learn from each other, from very different perspectives. It seems to me you focus on teaching people to understand that fear is so common and habitual, and that has been part of human evolution as a motivator for everything we do, that people, for the most part, don’t realize it—its become a routine to live that way. And you reinforce that mostly that is good fear helping to improve our lives, like windows, doors, balance of diet, physical exercise. However, you and I also say that as tribes move to cities and become nations through time and development they tend to become more educated in knowledge and aware of more dangers. This makes for more things to fear. They tend to be more fear-based in motivations everyday, to the point where it is no longer all good fear that motivates.

 D: Yes. When I’m lecturing I say the scientists invent new technological devices and advance comforts and it mostly serves human life and society. It depends on our use and how to make it valuable to life. Analogously, I teach that Fearism is the same kind of device. We have discovered it now; we teach ways to use it. It’s time for them to learn and practice how to use it to improve their quality of lives.

 M: And, you and I as teachers sure wouldn’t want to force it on anyone. In particular, for this conversation today, I want to focus on practical concerns you and I have in regard to applying a fearist perspective that co-emerges with a philosophy of Fearism. I am thinking that our most practical direction offered to humanity, as outlined in our co-authored book, Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue (2016) has been a pointing to how to end suffering. You wrote, in your opus work Philosophy of Fearism (2014), “... man suffers from fear due to various reasons.... There are lots of problems and diseases [caused] from fear.” And, the situation is getting worse in our Extreme Fear Age, you pronounce—and, I heartily agree.

 Of course, there have been other philosophies and religions that have been offered for this same goal of stopping suffering; but based on our long studies, you and I believe they have all, more or less, fallen short of a proper analysis of suffering because they have minimized systematic critical study of the nature and role of fear in their philosophy or religion. You and I also believe this has been the problem with sciences. For sciences, like medical science especially, has attempted to cure disease (and dis-eases, as in psychiatry) and stop suffering as well. Yet, we argue that religion, philosophy, science, social theory and politics, have all been inadequate in their theorizing on “fear.” This is the premise of a philosophy of Fearism.

 D: I am not arguing that philosophy of Fearism is a complete philosophy for humanity. My point: it is a core philosophy in human life. There are typically not practical daily explanations in other philosophies to assist people from morning to evening and birth to death. Fearism starts from our consciousness. Consciousness starts from birth. Its central point and motivation is fear. On the basis of fear we look at the world. I met Dr. Hariwani, a writer from Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India, in Shillong, Meghalya, India in a recent Hindi literary program. He says not only life is conducted, directed and controlled by fear but the whole universe is conducted, directed and controlled by fear.

 M: As I understand this unique point of view, and it is interesting you have others who agree with you, in the Eastern world anyways, you paint a macro-picture for the good role that fear plays beyond merely in the world of humans or even earth.

 D: There are many universal fears. We cannot find an explanation for this reality and ways of seeing in previous philosophies. In 2012 there was a world warning of a Nebula coming near and/or striking earth and 6 billion people were in high alert with its dangerous course. I put the question on social media saying: Which philosophy can explain it? This type of A, B, C Nebula always emerges in human life and history of our solar system. Or we can say we are in the unique trap of multiple Nebulas that seem to be focused on destroying earth and killing us. Only a Philosophy of Fearism closely monitors, and explains this matter in a wider and more rational way. In the former type of thinking and analysis, without Fearism, people’s victim consciousness creates more suffering due to fear than is necessary. Fearism takes us on a course of consciousness that relieves this victim perspective and thus relieves some suffering.

 M:  So let’s get down to the focused topic for this conversation. As I said, you wrote in your opus work, Philosophy of Fearism (2014), “... man suffers from fear due to various reasons.... There are lots of problems and diseases from fear. This obstruction has occurred, as fear has not been theorised for a long time. Fear has been interpreted a lot. It has been theorised” (p. 159). I realize your text (2014) has been written in Nepalese, and the English translation is not the best here, but I interpret that by “obstruction” you mean a limitation and disturbance has appeared in humanity’s knowledge systems and disciplines that, more or less, has missed seeing and thinking clearly about the role of fear in human problems and diseases. And then you say fear as “not been theorised” very well for a long time in human history but more recently is being theorized (especially in psychology)—and, yet, if I understand you correctly, you are also saying this recent theorizing on fear is still quite inadequate and requires assistance from a philosophy of Fearism—and, more specifically, it requires assistance from developing sub-fields of Fearology, Fearanalysis and Feariatry. Is that correct?

 D: Yes, you are right, it is inadequate. Not only this, but previous philosophies are inadequate too. Humans have done their best and always try to complete their work on these things, but we have left a hole in our knowledge. Philosophy of Fearism was totally left out. You and I are the first persons making Fearism a philosophy and showing it to the world. Even our work at times only touches the macro-level but is not always useful on the micro-level. To patch the holes we need multiple explanations and that requires sub-fields of Fearology, Fearanalysis and Feariatry. To maintain our goal these have to be pillars; and, later as circumstances may change then we may require more pillars according to demand.

 M: I agree; there is never a fixed or static solution. A fearist perspective will continue to evolve as fear evolves. It seems to me one of the most pressing problems is the state of the environment, e.g., global warming (pollution effects). This will cause major planetary changes of mega-proportion, and with that, lots of destructive fear and terror through the disruptions—a time of great pressures, challenges and risks to life survival. We really need to get Fearism in place around the world soon to prepare for this crisis time, which has already started for the past few decades, at least. 

 D: Philosophy of Fearism is a general philosophy but also a flexible one to analyze such crises and helps in fear management and better education about fear. To specialize in particular matters, needs particular pillars. However, our three pillars will assist and sustain the use of Fearism for likely a long lasting time.

 M: What do you think might be the cause (motivation) for this “obstruction” to good theorizing on fear throughout history? Likely, there are multiple causes for this, but what do you think are the most important ones. And why?

 D: In my opinion, the main obstruction is Meaning. Everything is based on it. Meaning means perception, social consciousness and social knowledge. How knowledge is changeable, meaning changes accordingly. The current meaning world, and how individuals and institutions create it is what obstructs change of meaning.

 M: Some researchers call this a “meaning frame” which determines everything one understands about them selves and their relationships to everything. It is hard to change a meaning frame because it is so unconscious for most. But once it is made conscious, which is what education and self-reflection can do, the meaning frame (or “paradigm”) can shift dramatically.

 D: People have to make fearological knowledge, and consciousness and perceptions part of their new meaning frame. Thus, they can develop a new fearological world.

 M: Desh, you also wrote in your 2014 book (p. 159): “It will be easier to identify the disease caused by fear when its definition, condition, source, origin, effect, types, etc. are interpreted. The treatment system develops [i.e., improves] when a [medical] doctor declares [i.e., admits] that the disease is a result of fear. Medicine can be discovered for it.” In this last phrase I interpret you mean that Medicine, as a field of curing and aiming to stop suffering, can be reformed and transformed for making this change that a philosophy of Fearism is calling for it to discover. You also wrote, “All hospitals are established and medicines [discovered] due to fear. Yet fear was not identified [as so important] in [the history of] medical science.”

 That is, Medicine, from our fearist perspective, needs to discover more emphatically the importance of the nature and role of fear in general, and in its own evolution as a field of Medicine. Both you and I would go so far as to suggest new sub-fields of study and application need to be invented like Fearology, Fearanalysis and Feariatry to better inform the Medical field and society as a whole. Why do you think Medicine as a whole has not regarded fear as so important all these years of its history? Do you think this “obstruction” to do so is found in all parts of the world, East, West, North, and South? Do you think past cultures had “medicine” practices that were more in-tune with the critical importance of fear? If so, what ones and how so?

 D: Look Michael, every one is suffering some sickness from fear. Nowadays, I am studying the Holy Bible. Whenever I read it, top to bottom, I see many forms of fear: threatening, warning, killing, attack, disaster, hunger, disease, punishment, imprisonment, escaping, hiding etc. I am using a lens of Fearism to evaluate it. So, I can vision clearly this fear-based drama depicted in the Bible stories. Similarly, when we read life, society, economy, and politics with this lens, we can see obviously different forms of fear. Likewise, disease can be studied accordingly, we can find Feariatry world, which is unseen at this time but we can imagine it. Philosophy of Fearism is analyzing and arguing from this lens. Until now, patients in psychiatry and therapy are being treated under various names and diagnoses, but not in the name of “fear patient.” Fear is not seen as the source of the mind pathologies. This is blunder of the Medical world. The same blunder is everywhere for the most part in the wider world too. The world is following foolishly a rather zigzag ineffective road, instead of a straight road to the root of the pathologies of the mind and body. This is the reason we are not approaching good mental health soon. And sometimes we seem as societies to have become lost on the way. Medical science is doing the same, particularly in case of the fear patient who is suffering from fear unrecognized as the root source. I suspect this problem is in the East, West, North, and South. I don’t know if other cultures from the past were all that different.  

 M: Do you know of any medical professionals who are listening to your lectures, reading our books on philosophy of Fearism? Or, is our movement largely being listened to by only writers and literary people (i.e., artist-types) so far? How do we best get our fearist perspective to at least be considered in the Medical field and especially in the medical education programs? A big topic...

 D: No medical professional, that I know of, has listened to my lectures so far. I try my best to reach to them. You are right, mostly I lecture to writers and literary people and scholars in the humanities and arts.

 M: Same with me.

 D: Every one has some kinds of pillars of truth they believe in. It is not simple to remove their views. The major reason behind this is they want to hold onto it—their pillars. They don't want to shake them or have them shaken by others. Without shaking pillar, there is not chance to mix with new thoughts. They tend to believe in a pillar and that is final.

 M: Something this reminds me of, and I have written about it often, is the problem of people being too afraid to change their views on fear, to challenge their knowledge pillars about fear and its management and how we should be educating ourselves and others. It’s a real stumbling block to progress.

 D: Indeed. Yet, this resistance is not happening merely to a philosophy of Fearism. Similar problems we can see historically in each new ideology. Time will come to remove the old and replace with the new. It has happened in the past and will happen again. This is the time for a philosophy of Fearism to be delivered to every ear. I am doing my part of that, and so are you. One day, one ear will get the message and speak and share it with the rest of the world.

 M: Teaching about fear in this way takes a lot of patience. Thanks Desh for your patience to do this interview with me. Good luck with your work. I look forward to doing more of these dialogues.

I am currently taking inquiries from graduate students (masters and doctoral) and any other serious researcher... who, is interested in the fear and fearlessness literature and would like to work with me. I have a tonne of raw data, across many disciplines, and popular culture-- on fear quotes, specifically, that has never been analyzed. I could use some curious and enthusiastic co-researchers... to thematize and organize this data with all kinds of possibilities for us to co-write journal articles. Let me know.

R. Michael Fisher r.michaelfisher52 [at] gmail.com

I live in Carbondale, IL and thus, it would be most useful for grad students to have travel capability to work at my office in my home. Some can also be done on the Internet, but mostly what I want worked on are hard copy notes/files/folders that need to be handled physically.

I look forward to talking about possibilities. And, sorry, I have no funds whatsoever extra for this work. It would be all volunteer effort but would be a good thing to put on your resumes. Also, you may want to do a thesis or dissertation on this topic, of which I could assist you to organize that and provide a lot of material for it.

-cheeers,

RMF

In my more prophetic and ministerial mode, and damn right angry moments--because, of what is being ignored, denied, dissociated on this planet--that is the Fear Problem, I come back to a concept that is controversial to some, abhorrent to others, and is just right for me. Perhaps the religious followers of my writing (like some of my uncles) may find this a refreshing conception which pulls it out of a secular sounding teaching.

All along, from the start, I knew teaching about fearlessness (and fear) was neither to be restricted to the sacred or secular genres and traditions. The concept of a Gospel of Fearlessness, feels more like a passionate declaration, indictment, and reclamation project than does In Search of Fearlessness which I conceived with Catherine Sannuto back in 1989. In my righteous indignation I prefer the definitive and confident Gospel of Fearlessness to a more tentative In Search of Fearlessness notion.  

This morning I ponder the basics of this Gospel of Fearlessness, which is implicit I believe in the entire Fearlessness Movement that's been going on around the world throughout time. The basics of which I have also put into this more "religious" language as a "Credo of Fearlessness" which I sketched, with a similar purpose, in my book The World's Fearlessness Teachings (2010, p. 39). You can look up those sketches if you wish, but I wanted to put down the most basic basic aspect of what I came up with this morning for a Gospel of Fearlessness.

Before laying that out, I want to reflect for a moment on "gospel." It means to me a sacred story-- a telling of great importance to a culture and civilization, told with diverse tellers, who are also passionate and righteous-- for e.g., in their story of a Messiah, or of, at least, a process of liberation that we all have access to if we so will to access it and follow the regime of deliberative teachings, philosophies, and disciplined practices. I think this hardly should be called "religious" (or even restricted to being called "spiritual") as it is so fundamental to all humans, whether they are conscious of it or not--that is, to have a narrative of redemption from the pain and suffering and oppression of the everyday world they experience. As far as we know, there likely has never been a life for a human being that has not had this combination of weights to bear. The gospel stories, legion around the world and across cultures, offer a 'way out' or what you might call an idealist perspective and thus 'hope' for a better life and way--sometime in the future. They are stories of guidance when we may ourselves want to give up. Yet, they are also 'wake up' stories that prevent us (at least theoretically, or momentarily) from becoming paralyzed and numb as we are bombarded by pain, fear, suffering, distress.

Anyways, I don't want to give a sermon on gospels, as I really don't know much about them but I think I know enough, and the term really resonates with me and my teaching, which is the teaching I was chosen to teach. Remember, In Search of Fearlessness Project, as a gospel story itself, never came from some book, or guru, or anything but real embodied experience that I had with Catherine in 1989, through the veins of blood cursing through our bodies in the excited and trance state of joyous sex in the transpersonal dimension. Call it mystical experience if you like. It was and is real. There was this intuitive voice inside me (and us)... a gospel really all on its own-- that said, there is a Fear Project on this planet that is deadly and limiting of human capacities in most all areas of life. It is destroying our species and quality of life for other species. Humans are the central focus of this Fear in that they seem to produce Fear at a rate and in a way that is unique amongst all other species.

And so the gospel of fearlessness in this informal manifestation began in/with us as a couple, and now has carried on with Barbara Bickel and I as the 'next' couple after Catherine abandoned the ISOF Project in mid-1990. The story goes on and on... but now to the most basic basic of the gospel truth, in the way I best have found to understand it and purvey it to others--with, all due regard for the near impossible task of conveying such truth in words/text on a page.

The Gospel of Fearlessness as best I can articulate it with all my own biases, boils down to a story ("theoria" or theory) which proclaims:

(a) that we humans have a Fear Problem that is as important, if not more important, than any other problem that will act to bring us down toward extinction sooner than later.

(b) historically, and continued today, we humans have, more or less,  largely ignored, denied, dissociated from knowing this truth of the Fear Problem-- this is our "sin" no. 1

(c) we require a redemption to turn us around from only living in this human condition ("sin") and advance toward our true human potential (based in the best of our human nature before human culture took over domination)

(d) the biggest movement (especially in the 20th century on) has been to try to re-frame "fear" as an emotion that can have a positive, normal, and natural side--this "positivist" movement to re-evaluate the nature and role of fear may have some value worth keeping; but its negative side-effects have led to ignoring a whole body of wisdom that teaches a different story about the nature and role of fear--the positivist obsession of our day has lead us astray because of its reductionism (especially, to a biopsychological mode of thinking)-- this is our "sin" no. 2

(e) the Fearlessness Movement initiative and its deconstruction and reconstruction project regarding the very way we perceive and conceive and construct "fear" is likely the best way to go, so that we focus less on fear(s), as in fear of x, y, z and the idea that fear is one of many emotions and not more important or unique (typical of "sin" no. 2) and focus our inquiry on better understanding the nature of the politics of knowledge involved in how "fear" has been and is currently being constructed as 'fear' (i.e., culturally-modified fear)

(f) until we emphasize in our fear management/education the importance of a transdisciplinary (non-reductionistic approach) whole new imaginary and way of thinking about thinking about fear, there will be little progress at all in undermining the Fear Problem, and in fact, we'll only make it worse

(g) any real progress in analyzing the Fear Problem, and undermining its out-of-control growth in the 21st century, will require a unified effort and a systematic source of consistent funding and energy commitments by people and organizations--this latter has not accrued in 27 years since the founding of the In Search of Fearlessness Project-- that is "sin" no. 3

Thus, is the Gospel of Fearlessness in a nutshell. Perhaps, you could summarize the above into an even simpler nutshell so people could remember this gospel, and/or you may suggest things that ought to be added to it. I could think of a lot of things to add but my point here is to keep it as basic as possible, and still get the message across of what my teaching is all about.

The Indigenous educator, Four Arrows (aka Dr. Don Trent Jacobs), whom I have been writing a book on, has recently published his own book (his 20th), called "Point of Departure: Returning to a More Authentic Worldview for Education and Survival" (I've attached a color photo of the cover in Photos on this blog, published by IAP, Inc.). Also on Photos you'll see a page of text from the book, Chapt. 2, Courage and Fearlessness (which is always an interesting read).

I won't say more at this point other than to say this is his most controversial book likely... but we'll see. I believe Four Arrows takes a much more radical stand to a Two-eyed Seeing" approach which attempts to bring together Western and Indigenous worldviews (as "two-eyes"). Always willing to risk it all, Four Arrows has never been one to follow the trends...

Below is one of the book reviewers comments:

"How will we get beyond our 'Western' narcissism to explore, listen, and trust non-dominant cultural discourses which open us to sustainability and yes, survival? This book creates a pathway, reasonably and humanely  brings us to a critical consciousness of emancipation and activism. The time is now... to embrace praxis-based ways of knowing and humbly look to Elders of knowledge for nourishment and survival. Four Arrows starts us on the journey."

-Shirley R. Steinberg

Research Professor of Youth Studies

University of Calgary and founder, freireproject.org

Here is my latest art-i-fact as a cultural worker. It is some of my best thinking on thinking, on educating ourselves for the 21st century. I invite you to take a read of the Manifest%20Thinking.doc

Here is the Abstract to the Manifesto (for convenience):

Abstract

 Someone asked me, “What do you do?” I replied, “I am an educator.” They said, “So, what do you teach?” I replied, “First, I design curricula based on how best to teach—thinking about thinking. Then, I teach others how to implement that curriculum so they get as excited as I do about the great human potential of thinking integrally across the globe.” The following manifesto is my first articulation of the ideas and rationale for why, after 40+ years of research and teaching, I have chosen to focus on thinking about thinking. I lay out the simple and complex versions of the problem—which, boil down to the problem of how humans self-regulate, self-violate, and typically fail to manage difference, diversity of perspectives and ways of thinking effectively. I offer some premises behind my integral design for Education and the ways it can be implemented. This is a work in progress, never to be left as written-in-stone. It can always be critiqued and improved. I invite anyone into this dialogue to improve learning about thinking itself and all the diverse ways of thinking that we all ought to have free access to. A first example of an Integral Thinking Curriculum is illustrated to begin the Global Thinking Agenda. You might think of this manifesto as a “calling” to gather together as humanity to a universal goal of equity and equality of opportunity for people to think about thinking as the foundation for all else that follows—the latter, which we might call “education.”

If there has been any common theme (finding) in my research on fear (and fearlessness) since 1989, it is that people (and their organizations) who 'preach' a good message about helping humanity reverse the negative effects of fear (and/or eliminate all such effects) do not 'walk their talk.' Or, what I can fine-tune this critique down to is that they are characteristically un-cooperative in working with my initiatives that have the same basic intent as theirs--that is, to free us from fear so we reach our human potential and end the cycle of violence, etc. I've called this movement and initiative many things, but basically it constitutes the path of fearlessness toward liberation (i.e., see Fearlessness Movement). 

I know my findings are not a pleasant thought, if you really think about it. Why wouldn't such people and their organizations (including academic researchers) work cooperatively on this plight of the Fear Problem on this planet? It still astounds me the intractable resistance to share information, build coalitions and act to help support and critique each others work so as to find the "best" 'fear' vaccines available. Note, I am not talking here about some grand initiative to make money off fearful people. If you follow with any accuracy and sincerity the beginning (1989) of the In Search of Fearlessness (ISOF) Project (not-for-profit), you'll know that there is no such aim to exploit anyone for economic purposes, or any other purpose where fear and power are used to dominate over others. That is completely unethical by the code of the In Search of Fearlessness Project. 

Repeatedly, since 1989 I have invited anyone into the ISOF Project, and especially invited very systematically most anyone I could find who was teaching and writing about fear and how best to manage it, transform it, and so on. These documents are found in the ISOF archives, which btw, I just opened up this morning after they have been sitting in plastic storage boxes for nearly 20 yrs. There's certainly the possibility (but I doubt it), that my character is so flawed and obnoxious that no one wants to talk to me or answer my letters. Rather, I think something else is amiss, and it has to do with how people and their organizations seem to want to "own" and "protect" their specific ways of understanding the Fear Problem and offering services to improve it. They seem to avoid others who are doing the same, and certainly tend to avoid ISOF Project initiatives. 

In the archives this morning I found a 1992 letter (typical of hundreds, if not thousands,  I have sent over the years), which gives you as sense of the way I communicate professionally with such organizations (in this case)--it's another invitation which produced no results at all. No comment back. Not even an acknowledgement. The following organization is one of the biggest and most well organized in the world and attracts, I'm guessing, hundreds of thousands of people. Anyways, you can judge yourself and perhaps help me to think how to better unite all these disparate people and groups who teach about fear and its management: 

Dear Kay Stephenson, Executive Director, (Freedom from Fear Foundation), P.O. Box 8907, Stn. F., Calgary, AB T2J 5S6)  - Aug. 12, 1992

"Freedom from Fear," what a great name and a most worthwhile cause. The In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute has the same goal really, even though I know your organization specializes as an educational and support group for those who suffer from agoraphobia, anxiety and panic attacks. 

Over the past two years I have made a few attempts to find out more about your organization. For various reasons we have not yet been able to connect. At this point, ass Founder and Co-Director of ISOFCRI, I would like to know more about your group and receive some information packages you have. 

I have enclosed some resource materials and information about my work and goals of ISOFCRI. I am currently looking at providing a resource to all kinds of groups and organizations who are looking at fear and its negative effects on our lives. The research work we have been doing at the Institute is admittedly radical (which really means "roots")... in that it searches for the roots of all fear patterns however they manifest in any particular symptomatology (be it a clinical diagnosis... or be it a limiting factor to healthy development in general). Exciting work recently has come up with a metaphoric concept of FPV+ (fear pattern virus) and a fear vaccine which we are taking out to people, and groups in our educational program (see handout-proposal). I am currently making contacts within the clinical community to share this research with them. 

Our purpose is to provide an alternative and supportive approach to the treatment currently used with phobias. The clinical model is limited in scope and vision about understanding the dynamic and origin of fear. Our model is a healing model that goes beyond merely coping with fear patterns. We also argue that fear is not "bad" or a "disorder" it is a 'phenomenon' (distress pattern) that comes from woundedness (which originated from oppression/violence/hurting). Anyways, we can talk more later. 

I look forward to hearing from you soon. I will follow this letter up with a phone call in a few weeks.  -Sincerely, -Robert M. Fisher

***************

The truth of it is that I rarely did the follow-up phone calls, when they would not take the time of day to just send an acknowledgement at least they had received the letter. Some business consultant/coaches have said this is my short-falling; perhaps, but I am also one who is not going to spend a lot of time in places that I think are going to be not effect use of my time and skills. Sure, ideally, I wish I got paid as a Director for this work at the ISOFCRI in Calgary, and that I had a secretary to do the follow-up and make sure I remembered to follow-up. I was more into moving on and researching and writing and teaching, and looking endlessly for at least someone who had the basic decency to acknowledge my initiatives to connect. 

Unfortunately, I have to delete people (or robots) that sign-up on nings to get free advertising. The last two are deleted as they are clearly not legitimate for this website and its aims.  -M.

Journaling today, with some impulses stirring (not the first time in my life), to continue the prophetic thread of what seems inevitable. It's a life with purpose triple-dose with vision. It's a 'Calling' as they say. It's an 'Invite' as they say.

July 8/16- [some editing for brevity]

I've been thinking of the military black young 25 yr. old that just gunned down five white cops and injured 7 other cops in Dallas, TX before being gunned down himself. Not that I want to focus on "poor cops" or "poor whites" for I surely do not, as the proportions when compared to what is happening in the USA against blacks and others of color is a much more important story of chronic oppression and fear and "hate" (as they like to call it here). I'm thinking that everything about this latest mass murder incident in the USA (could be anywhere too) is connected to Culture Wars of one kind or another, touched by religionism, racism, classism, sexism, mental healthism... [long list] and... some would blame it on liberalism, progressivism, on and on. But, yes, most here would call it a "Gun Problem" and my echo response has always been, it is a "Fear Problem" (traumatic and historical and part of the growing culture of fear in the land, in the world).

Call it what you will, and my task is to record my research "test" as a good ethnographer would in/with another culture they are living in and studying simultaneously. I record. No one is contacting me--the outspoken, well-published and tireless "Fearologist" on the block. Sitting here in this local, in this nation. No calls. No one wants my help. I'll assist for sure, but of course, I'll assist only through the frame of In Search of Fearlessness Project (my life purpose). That would frame everything I could offer, in analysis and solutions as part of the Fearlessness Movement (my life research). Just too weird all these people-- just too inconvenient--even the radical (so-called young people) I shared my work with for so many years--they, are 'silent'. No calls.

They say they want change and transformation. Supposedly.

Oh, but they also say, I hear and do not hear it so loudly--as a critique: "But Michael, your In Search of Fearlessness Project is so 'heady,' 'intellectual,' and not 'down to earth' for the people to pick-up on." I say, "Oh" ...

Then I say, but usually don't say: "To change and transform the world (even the Gun Problem) is very simple. To live another way completely than we do, so as not to feed the mess we're in is very simple." I could say a lot of things, as I often write about, and end with showing how complex it all is--yet, (r)evolution is inevitable. Stick in there.

It won't cost anyone a penny more than what you are spending in your life right now! I imagine that might be useful as an entry to get their attention on the practical side of the In Search of Fearlessness Project. For 27 years I've searched for other ways of saying this. Today, I say it this way: "It won't cost anything but a decision and once made, everything will follow--for example, your money and capital won't follow Fear's Empire anymore. That will free it up for you to spend on the (r)evolution, on what the spirit of fearlessness is asking of us to make a commitment to. All else, a flood of change will precipitate from there, my friends, I guarantee. Yet, you have to make that decision."

To make a choice to follow the world's Fearlessness Movement can be done now. The $$ and capital and energy will follow, and be re-directed exactly where it needs to be by these choice-makers, I'll call them today, the "architects of fearlessness"-- we will build the alternative society, brick by brick. It won't cost you a penny more than what you are spending today. Oh, but yes, you are right, it may "cost" you a lot of other losses. Look out the window, my friends, at your life. There are questions to ask of why you and I grieve--carrying the blood of so many murdered... on and on... today, in the news, and coming soon, the next day...

I envision this (r)evolution no different in 1989 (with co-founding In Search of Fearlessness Project) than today. The $$ and creativity will flow, and I see it in proportion to those who made the choice to follow fearlessness not fear any longer. I'll be a guide for as much of that as I can, and I know a lot about making that choice. I'll watch you go through withdrawl--your addiction to 'fear.'

This is the Fearlessness Mission.... in its most practical application: a choice. Then all practical things will happen, and I'll witness them with you--and, we'll witness them together as one after another makes this choice and re-directs their entire life ways. You all know the 'words' that go with that kind of change, that kind of transformation. I'll not repeat them and load up with all the 'baggage' those terms have collected and distract you or I from the mission set forth here.

Oh, and, you'll likely have to make the choice more than once (that's a joke)--it's difficult, yet, practical as you going out to find a meal for yourself today. That's exactly how practical the fearlessness path is. I won't listen much to all your critiques. I've heard them all in 27 years. I've heard all the addicts, believe you me I have heard them--they are masters at procrastination and rationales to continue drinking from the poisonous breast that kills their soul. And, that harms the World Soul.

You've been invited. I await.

-----------

More and more I realize the essence of my being, my research, knowledge and wisdom, is that which is colored and wrapped in Idealist philosophy (in contrast to so-called Realist, Pragmatist, and so on). The Idealist says, "Let's make sure the spirit is connected with, as an idea(l) and then a choice is made based on that honest knowing what is 'Right' and the 'Way' and then, $$ and materials will follow, not fear and practical concerns as most important, but spiritual concerns and the radical trust is that that release will explode into the world as idea(l)s and 'make' love with material and practical realities and realms, and then manifestations of the more "visible" kind will occur. Every religious order of some commitment has shown what is possible to build from an Idea(l). This is where I operate from. There's seemingly no other way to create the needed flood of change today, other than this route, although, sure one can do little steps in other ways on other routes. That's what I envision. Always have, since 1989, there would become 'real' and material eventualities, communities and services at every "Fearlessness Center" in every major town and city in the world. It's really that simple, all driven by one joining the Fearlessness Movement (by any other  name).

The 'Fear' Vaccines as I have called them going way back to the early 1990s (In Search of Fearlessness Project or ISOF), are intended, just as they say, to counter the oppressive effects of 'fear' (and fear). I have written a good deal about these notions, including the distinction of "fear" and 'fear' (as a culturally modified fear patterning). I won't repeat that here and you may want to check out my other writings.

The 'Fear' Vaccines (which is really a process of "soft technologies") are intended to be practiced and studied. With time, patience and experience, they will counter-act to free you (and organizations) from any fear-based domination. They are essential "tools" in that sense to working one's way out of the 'Fear' Matrix (or 'Fear' Project, or fearism-t). These include 6 in their original configuration that evolved in ISOF (Calgary): (1) quality information on fear and fearlessness, (2) Liberation Peer Counseling, (3) Spontaneous Creation-making, (4) Community-building, (5) Sacred Warriorship, (6) Vision Quest.

The 7th vaccine has just been discovered in its latest form in the last 20 years or so by Dr. Don Trent Jacobs (also known as Four Arrows). I am currently writing a book on his life and work, but most importantly I have followed his work as a researcher and educator because of his discovery of a great model for working with decolonizing the mind, or de-hypnotizing ourselves from the dominant (and largely pathological) Western worldview. His model is defined in a mnemonic form: CAT-FAWN. There is a fascinating story behind the years of discovering this model, with roots of its "teaching" coming from ancient ancestors in remote Mexico and the shamans of the Raramuri there, as well as from the non-human spirit teachers-- and to be clear, it has not yet been put to full use (not even by Four Arrows), and I am just in the early stages of understanding it. I will write more on CAT-FAWN but not in detail here as I merely wanted to officially recognize it in my mind as the 7th 'Fear' Vaccine.

CAT-FAWN = Concentration Activated Transformation (CAT) and FEAR, AUTHORITY, WORDS, NATURE (FAWN). The basic principle behind this CAT-FAWN connection, as Four Arrows calls it, is that in any concentration state (subtle and light, or dramatic and heavy) we are in "trance" and in that state the human (and many animals) are highly susceptible to learning, for good or not so good. The point is to recognize with great critical awareness when one is going into a trance-state (i.e., CAT), it may be as simple as when you are watching TV too long, or driving a car, or working on an art piece or listening to music or when you have been injured and are fearful and/or terrorized... etc. By recognizing and predicting the high learning potential in this trance (CAT) state, you will be able to ensure you are not going to let Fear, Authorities, Words, or Nature be used against you and your current state, but be helpful as guides to move you along (in my words) the path of fearlessness of development.

More on all this as time goes... just also want to let you know that Barbara Bickel (my partner) has initiated with me to co-author a book on the 'Fear' Vaccines and all our years experience with them, and ensure they are documented for history. You can bet a final chapter will be on the latest addition of the 7th to the traditional 6 that we have the most experience with in the ISOF Community especially. Stay tuned...

[Prelude: the following is an excerpt from my spontaneous journaling and because of that I do not have all the references in here backing up what I am saying, as a scholar might do, and as I often do. Rather, I wanted to keep this less technical and formal and an expression of some of my intimate and philosophical thoughts as they run... feel free to contact me if you want more information and/or references. Note, most terms that have quote marks, especially when more technical terms, are the concepts of others, not my own]

Jun 2- the last full day of this trip to Winnipeg and my embedded relationships in the field space and mental-value epistemic space of what I would call the “Indigenizing Project” (which, in my own language is a part of the Fearlessness Movement and ISOF Project work for me. As you may recall the sixth ‘fear’ vaccine in the ISOF model was/is “Vision Quest.” Now, of course, these days in a postmodern and post-/neo-colonial critique, and hyper-sensitivity (dare I say “fear”) in identity politics land and politics, there is like zero-tolerance policies (nearly) floating in every which way to ensure that I as a “Westerner,” “Settler,” “White” “Eurocentric” "Male" "Heterosexual" person do not step over the line to enter into promoting a “Vision Quest” without "approval" of some Indigenous Elder or 'Indigenous' person (however, difficult and problematic those labels are, when it comes to issues of definition and authentication criteria, in the first place)--as anything other than a 'bad' thing (i.e., an act of violation called appropriation) from the point of view of that critique.

However, I am not going to be suppressed and oppressed by that critique and indictment alone, IF I think it is an oversimplified indictment without good evidence and without consulting me in the negotiation of that indictment, of which I am happy to give my case in equal argumentation, following the basic principles of a "Two-Eye Seeing" and “ethical space” argumentation.

I listen to the “appropriation” indictment, listen to it respectfully and engage it as much as the ‘other-side’ is willing;  but I also do not adopt, necessarily, despite what the pc police would have me adopt and swear to, because I find typically  their stance is still situated (Indigenous-Western) in a fundamentally postmodern response, if not a Romantic reaction (and retro-regression) response of cultural differentiation, protectionism, traditionalism, and an overall conservativism of the worst culturalism kind. I am much more interested in a philosophy of “cultural hybridity” as some scholars have carefully been arguing, along with a "trans(per)formative" approach to identity and pedagogy in general. The former traditionalism, with its odd postmodern garb, over-privileges an ontological and epistemological and axiological culturalism (primacy to the Cultural capital ‘C’ as meta-worldview) above and beyond the Natural and Spiritual domains—or what is intimately most accurately the Integral Standpoint (NCS) based on what I have argued in the Wilberian sense is a Fearless Standpoint Theory (FST). I believe this latter stance is the only way to ensure a freedom from epistemic violence perpetuated in under the flags of ideological reductionism that naturalism, culturalism and spiritualism are embedded in. In this sense, I am taking what Wilber has called a theocentric or kosmocentric perspective—which is something that the postmoderns and poststructuralists cannot stand and “hate” and will do everything in their power to maim and disavow credibility and integrity in the domains of knowledge-making and inquiry itself. Yes, my friends, this goes back to the “enemies of fearlessness” which I have argued all along soon after 1989.

I wish to write more of my own social philosophy of fearism, from FST and NCS, with its practical and theoretical threads, and in which the “Vision Quest” ‘fear’ vaccine is intended in these discussions to be revisited, extended, revised, as I have not given it the attention for some time. And in which I have come to see that my most recent work with Four Arrows (and the U of M Two-Eyed Seeing research team), is leading me to ask how it is that I can bring an Indigenizing lens (at least) to all of my conceptualizing, philosophizing, theorizing and practical work. Right off the top, is my interest to bring this to the ‘fear’ vaccines, and to an Indigenizing of the vision quest and a philosophy of fearism. The big debate that has to be worked through, not only in my own thinking, but so many others in and out of the Indigenous worlds, is how to define “Indigenizing” itself. That is what I think requires a lot of attention from me, at the least, before I proceed with the vision question and ‘fear’ vaccines. So, this is just a little ‘gem’ of my thoughts of late I wanted to share with you here at CSIIE for future inquiry and dialogues.  

I have just co-authored and published "Education, Theology and Fear: Two Priests and a Fearologist in Dialogue" (Technical Paper No. 61)... I highly recommend you check this out at Department of Integral and 'Fear' Studies (scroll down for a free pdf). 

HINT(S) FOR THE WISE

You may be wondering what is Michael up to now with this "theology" kick? 

I have been asking this question really sincerely for the past six months, since I have met both Emmett Coyne and Terry Biddington, the two priests (American, British) who have taken up my work on fear and fearlessness like no others in my career so far. And, yes, more or less, the three of us are discussing what a "theology of fear" (healthy-side, and unhealthy-side) might look like in the 21st century. 

Today, while journaling, I came into a long series of rather spontaneous connections, going way back to my interest in "theodicy" (of Good vs. Evil)... now, and since the 1989 founding of the In Search of Fearlessness Project, Love vs. Fear has been one of the core foundations of me working through what a "metaphysics of fear" could look like. 

That's enough hints... for why you may want to read this dialogue in tech. paper no. 61 ... There will be a lot more coming on this, because it seems "pressing" (or "calling") upon my soul to articulate this better-- much better-- than I have to this point. And, to finally, wet your appetite, the ongoing study of fear ('fear') now 27 years in progress is by any other name a code-word for evil ('evil') -- and, this is big stuff ... it has eluded me, and then revealed itself, and then eluded me -- my forensic fearanalysis is getting better at seeing through what it is I am on about here on this planet... ha ha! 

Spring 2006

[This is an excellent article, for a lot of reasons, and written by a Muslim leader is even more important, I think: and how appropriate I just found this on the Internet, published by New Perspectives Quarterly, 23(1), in 2006-- it is another way to imagine fearism-t, for one, and another way to imagine evil-- keep attuned with my own new blogs coming out soon around a metaphysics of fear, and theology of fear, of which Tariq Ramadan, and any religious or spiritual leader ought to be taking seriously]

The Global Ideology of Fear

Tariq Ramadan, Europe’s most controversial Muslim leader, is currently a visiting professor at Oxford’s St. Antony’s College and a senior research fellow at the Lokahi Foundation in London.

London — Global terrorism and the global war against terrorism both fuel, in equal and pernicious ways, the global ideology of fear.

When we examine the countries of the West or those of the South, particularly where the population is primarily Muslim, we can only conclude that fear is omnipresent and deeply ingrained. It is having an unmistakable impact on the way human beings perceive the world. We can observe at street level three principal effects:

First, fear, naturally and often unconsciously, breeds mistrust and potential conflict with the “Other.” A binary vision of reality begins to impose the outlines of a protective “us” and of a threatening “them.”

The second effect derives from the absolute domination of emotions in our relationships with the Other and of emotional responses to events. When fear rules, emotions undermine rational analysis. In such a state, we condemn the consequences of some action and reject the individuals who commit it, but we don’t seek to understand what led to such action.

Our “good reasons” and our “just causes” are praised by the general public without critical examination, while at the same time their “bad reasons” and their “evil intentions” are indiscriminately condemned. Fear authorizes us to forgo all explanations, all understanding, all analysis that might allow us to understand the Other, his world, his hopes.

In the new regime of fear and suspicion, to understand the Other is to justify him; to seek out his reasons is to agree with him. A curious—and dangerous—reductionism transforms reality into a series of discreet, disconnected facts, and the Other into a series of acts without cause, without history or historic depth, without reason and rationality. Emotion does not understand but rather appreciates or condemns; one’s “feelings” determine everything.

The third consequence is as paradoxical as it is startling: We may well live in the communication age, but human beings seem to be increasingly less informed. We have witnessed the multiplication of “communication superhighways” that diffuse a dizzying excess of information in real time, saturating the intelligence and making it impossible to place facts in perspective. The communication age is an age of non-information. We are passive receptors of reality and of facts; it is as if we have no grasp on how they come to be. Swept away by our emotions; trapped in binary, reductive logical structures; and lost in the rising tide of “as it happens” events and politics, it has become impossible for us to see, to understand or even to hear the Other.

In short, the ideology of fear has produced a devastating deafness: The Other’s world and the reasons he behaves as he does are inaudible; to attempt to hear them more clearly is to reveal one’s own ill-being, or, at worst, the vilest of treacheries. Between “us” and “them” a virtual wall has been thrown up, marking out the borderlines of our new identities and connections, protected within, threatened from without.

The upkeep and feeding of the “ideology of fear” has become a political weapon, particularly as part of the opportunistic strategies of the great economic powers of the day. Far from true political debate and shielded from objective criticism of the consequences of the world economic order, they perpetuate a state of fear and vulnerability. This in turn grants a license for security policies of the most dangerous and discriminatory kind—exceptional measures that are most inimical to freedom (particularly with regard to human and citizen’s rights) and often include extremist, racist concepts. The ideology of fear confirms the definitive, intrinsic guilt of the Other and the overriding necessity to protect oneself by increased security precautions or by force of arms—a condition made to order for the multinational arms industry.

The Globalization of the Israeli Syndrome | An observer of Israeli society and of its successive governments cannot but be struck by the similarity between the logical premises that inform that society and what is now taking place on a global scale. Since the 1940s, the history of the state of Israel has been shaped by fear, by the imperative of self-protection and by mistrust of the Other.

After the Nazi horrors and the extermination camps, after the painful European experience, Israel appealed to many both as refuge and as possible self-reconciliation in the eyes of history. Years have passed, but the same logic has perpetuated itself in the form of deep feelings of mistrust; the perception of self as victim; the reality of insecurity; the continued inflation of security policy measures; and the perception of the permanent hostility, unavowed or not, of the world around it.

In the end, however, roles and perspectives have been reversed: Israeli society is much richer than those that surround it, incomparably better armed than all the Arab countries combined, at the pinnacle of scientific and military technology, a true regional and international economic power. Yet it still sees itself as a victim of the destructive intentions of its neighbors, or their age-old opposition—of “Palestinian terrorism” or, in broader terms, of Muslim extremism.

The superior regional power has become a “victim,” of the Other’s “horror,” of his “madness,” of his “hatred,” of his “irrationality,” of his “murderous insanity,” of his “nihilism.” These are but a few of the terms utilized to justify a security policy that accepts “of necessity” violations of the principles of international law or of respect for the lives of civilians and of the innocent. They are used to authorize “moderate” recourse to torture and for the adoption of distinctive and openly discriminatory legislation toward certain citizens still considered too “Arab” or too committed as Christians or Muslims. The victim protects and defends himself. Could anything be more normal?

If we broaden our focus, we see a world that reflects these same considerations and postures. The “war” that has been unleashed to destroy terrorism is now founded on the same logical bases, but on a global scale.

Don’t get me wrong. Terror is a fact, not an ideology, and the killing of innocent people must be condemned with no exception. It is the ideological use of its consequences that is problematic.

The American neo-conservatives and their European imitators instigate and nurture a permanent sense of fear, which they wield as though it were an ideology. Their policies are based on a feeling of insecurity and a binary vision of the world. The imperative is one of self-protection, sometimes through draconian security policies that are hostile to freedom and, for some, openly unjust and discriminatory. After all, the West has become the “principal victim of terrorism.”

The world’s most prosperous, heaviest-armed countries are threatened. Citizens have to understand that they must revise the laws that govern them, and their rights, in more restrictive terms...for their own security. To confront the threat, and to calm their fears, citizens must be more closely monitored, intensively video-recorded, kept under constant surveillance. The Israel Syndrome, whose characteristics are the state of siege and of the reversal of the power equation on the level of perception and symbolism, has come fully into play: The Other is no longer criticizing our policies, he is negating our existence; he detests our values, our very civilization. He must no longer be held responsible for his acts alone but for his hatred, his nihilism, his madness and “why not?” his beliefs and his religion.

With Fear We Are All Victims | The first tragic consequence of the ideology of fear is to transform all societies and their members into victims. While in the West the idea of a civilization under threat gains currency, we can observe the same emotional reflexes, shaped by fear and victimhood, in majority Muslim societies, and even in the Muslim communities established in Europe and in the United States: “They” do not like Islam and Muslims; “they” have singled us out, discriminate against us; “they” are openly racist and xenophobic. “Their” war against “Islamic terrorism” is nothing but a “pretext for lashing out at Islam and at all Muslims.”

Everywhere we find the same feelings, everywhere the same attitudes. Before our eyes an ideology is emerging, one that transforms us into “victims” incapable of viewing the Other except as a potential threat. Because we are colonized by fear, it has become impossible for us to enter into the Other’s reasoning, even to hear him or, in the most humane sense, understand his distress and frustration. We are all, each and every one of us, caught up in the same web—a web woven of narrow-mindedness and sectarianism.

We must break the bonds of our fear, master our impulse to see things only in black and white and recapture our critical spirit and our ability to listen. We must once more become thinking “subjects”—that and nothing else. And yet, to do so seems so difficult.

Muslims, whether they live in the West or in primarily Muslim countries, cannot under any circumstances endorse the ideology of fear, nor can they fall into the trap of a polarized, simplistic and caricatured reading of the world. By perpetuating the idea, which has now become an obsession, that they are either dominated (or members of a minority) and unappreciated or singled out and marginalized, they unconsciously accept the premises of those who propagate this emotion-based ideology, of those who seek to build walls and dig trenches, of those who promote prejudices, fuel insecurity and fan the fires of conflict. These propagandists of fear tirelessly spread the idea that Islam and Muslims are threatened by the future; by allowing themselves to be swept into a vicious circle of self-justification and defensiveness, Muslims confirm and lend credence to a debate whose terms have been deliberately skewed.

Our very conception of humanity and life is at stake. Far more than simple politics, this new ideology is the challenge of our times. It raises issues of conviction, faith, understanding, ethics and behavior. If a vision is to emerge as a response to the ideology of fear, it must be one of self-liberation. This “act of self-liberation” is located precisely at the core of spiritual experience, for when the emotions urge us to let ourselves go, spirituality requires of us that we educate ourselves.

The American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., following the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, understood that it was all too easy to see one’s own community or cause as the universal value. He constantly warned his followers not to use the excuse of injustice done to them to abdicate responsibility for their lives and their obligations to others, calling for “spiritual discipline” against resentment or self-righteousness.

We must make a similar effort to educate ourselves in order to bring together the search for meaning and for God and respect for the principles of justice, freedom and human fraternity. Against the temptation to close ourselves off, to see reality in black and white, we need an “intellectual jihad.” We need to resist (jihad means, literally, effort and resistance), to strive for the universality of a message that transcends the particular and allows us to understand the common universal values that make up our horizon.

This enterprise of critical intelligence and understanding alone will make it possible for us Muslims to return to the Islamic concepts that contextualized or specialized historical definitions have often diminished, restricted or even amputated. Notions such as the Shari’a (Islamic code), “fiqh” (Islamic jurisprudence) and “ulum islamiyya” (Islamic sciences) must be reviewed and redefined in the light of the Islamic principles that call us to the universal, not through the narrow prism of the attitudes of “the dominated,” of “minorities” or of “immigrants to be assimilated.”

This is the reform—and it is a literally revolutionary one—that we must undertake in order to resist the ideology of fear. Some of our readings of the Islamic sources are a godsend for the propagators of the ideology that promotes fear to justify war, policies destructive of freedom and institutionalized discrimination. The reform we need does not negate a single one of the principles of Islam, its fundamentals and its practice, but it reinvigorates self-confidence. In so doing, this reform helps us overcome our fear of the Other, the obsession with adversity and the promotion of closed, reactive, petrified identities.

The original spirit of the message of Islam is an invitation to us; it teaches us to open ourselves to the world, to make ours what is good (whatever its origin). It teaches us to understand that each of us has multiple, fluctuating identities, that diversity is a school for humility and respect, and that humanity is one, just as God is One.

Fears, like fractures, cut crosswise. In Western society, we can observe signs of tension between those who define themselves in relation to others and have no desire whatsoever to acknowledge the fact, and those who understand that there exist values to be held in common, partnerships to be created.

The same fault lines exist in Muslim societies and communities. We must counsel those who lay claim to, and who accept, the principle of common values and are prepared to put fear behind them and not be deceived by the extremism of the “other side.” If they do, then extremism will have prevailed.

Today’s most urgent task is to bring together women and men from all backgrounds, from all convictions and religions, in the name of the common universal principles of the dignity of human beings and of the critical spirit. To overcome the ideology of fear, to loosen the grip of the emotions, requires a demanding critical intelligence and a sense of the ethics of debate, of receptivity. Some will identify these qualities with belief and spirituality, others with their conscience alone. But each one will understand them as the necessary, imperative qualities of his or her humanity.

Now and then it is important, I believe, for anyone, especially leaders of liberation to talk about their struggles. Not to over-indulge or anything, but to share the journey of fearlessness so that others can sense what it is like for others and leaders. If you were to read my boxes-full of my personal journals over the decades you'd get more than a handful of pages about the struggle to keep going. I sometimes just express "distress" and "despair" and "depression" and lots of rage and righteous indignation. Sometimes I get valuable insights. Mostly, a lot of sadness of how it is so hard to get others to 'take up the cause' and join me and/or join the Fearlessness Movement on the planet in their own ways. I certainly don't need to be the leader of it all. I look for fellow companions, comrades, and peers who are also leading this work. It's so hard to find them, and when I do they are so busy with their own worlds of goings on that they don't have time to engage with me usually very in depth. So, I suffer from an intellectual aloneness pretty much daily. 

The following excerpt from my journaling the other day is I think a good example of my struggles and how in journaling (often) I find some resolution to my internal conflict and other negative feelings and heaviness due to exhaustion of carrying out this work of fear and fearlessness with so little positive rewards from society. I certainly don't generally get paid for my primary cultural productions or efforts. I am financially dependent on my life-partner, not a situation that ever feels good to me or her. Yet, it is reality. 

April 22, 2016 - Fearism-t is not to be side-stepped, displaced by some simple elocution or filing away in a locked-up storage vault!!! -- in my mind. 

If I look at the underlying 'cause' of 80% of my mental and soul suffering daily it comes from my own (with others) forgetting that fearism-t, in one way or another is operating and tearing me down. All the triggering manifestations that disgust, sicken and hurt me (an other beings) are based in an ideological formation so hard to define and to keep a finger on. Let me tell ya! I just know intuitively, every few weeks or months, to pick up my own book/writing/teachings, especially the last book Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue (co-written with Desh Subba), and actually hold the book when I am in the midst of my despair and sickness of how the world is, of how I am. To hold that book and actually open it up and read it, is not easy for me to do when no one else around me is showing interest in the book nor asking me questions about it etc. Today, I read some sections and watched my mood change, the suffering disappear, and listened to my own voice articulate the essence of fearism-t, and its toxic impact... and it is as though I am reading into the entire W. society and civilization and its addiction to fear, and no wonder it doesn't want to change, nor engage with my work... or follow the path of fearlessness with any real sincerity never mind real discipline and sharing this journey with me. 

So, that's the jist of the journal entry, that went on and on much longer. I don't think it is necessary to write it all out. Maybe someday, historians will find these journals of mine and publish bits of them. I have shared my struggles with my daughters and with my life-partner, but not often. I have counseled on this material with many co-peer counselors over the decades, but there is really never enough quality attention for me to heal through all this distress and constant bombardment from the fearism-t ideology that is embedded in my own being, and all around me. It is an ideology so well designed to make us forget there is even an ideology of fearism-t that exists... and, I watch how easily I forget this, and I am the one who found this "truth" and labeled it, and have written more on it than anyone on the planet that I know of. That's how toxic and effective it is-- it can make me forget how to free myself from the 'Fear' Matrix, the 'Fear' Project, the Culture of Fear, the fearism-t complex itself. Forget. Forget. Forget. And, I suffer in that forget. I also think everyone does, but they are often not aware of what is causing the suffering. I have no doubt that fearism-t is operating to make people stop reading my work on fear and fearlessness. It is preventing them from coalescing with force, of following my lead... of taking their own lead to develop a radical fear management/education on the planet. Of course, there are rare (but fragile) exceptions to this rule and my observations. Nothing is sustainable right now... I just don't see the "movement" and I don't see the willingness to learn about it that is required. Again, I blame no one because I watch my own slipping 'off' track and forgetting, and suffering and forgetting why I am suffering. That is, forgetting the very deepest roots of that suffering in an imprisonment, that is not being led by fearlessness as it could be. 

I feel so alone on this battle, and yet, rationally I know I am not. The proof I am not alone was something I sought to find for years in my research. That's why I wrote a wikipedia on "Fearlessness Movement" of which is the introduction to this FM ning as well. Which, I encourage everyone who has signed up (or not even) to read that introduction--see the very first FORUM at the bottom of the webpage on this FM ning-- we are part of something much larger, lest we not forget this is so! 

Final note:  Yes, I am reminding, and I have uncovered a great systemic ADDICTION TO FEAR (1) that I live in, with, amongst... and, it would be a similar daily experience to live amongst an alcoholic family in denial, who has not gone to treatment-- I know that experience from my own upbringing, and I have worked as a therapist with so many families where this is so and have tried to support the children (mainly, the male adolescents)... it is a toxic system, and it wears you down, and it feels like it is impossible to change. That's what I am sharing above... what it is like to be an addiction therapist for the entire W. civilization that is addicted to fear and denies that it is. 

End Note

1. If you get the drift of this "Addiction Problem" then if you read more of my work you can re-translate that code-word for "Fear Problem" and if you read the two blogs that were created (after this blog; thanks to my editing flexibility here I can add this end note) you'll see that "fear" (and 'fear') as I have been studying them for 27 years are codes for "evil" ('evil'), that is the 'Evil Problem'. In my recent co-authored book with Desh Subba, "Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue" (2016), you'll see it is not by accident that in the Preface the discussion begins with looking at evil (a la Carl Jung) and linking it with fear and a philosophy of fearism. 

It's Spring (March 21, 2016) in the illusion of linear marked-out "time" as we commonly evaluate qualitative reality--fine, but meditate not on this, or that, or this, or that, unless you know what you are meditating on and for what purpose in terms of liberation, toward a fearlessness way. That is not an order, because for it to be so would mean I am bossing you around, and you have not hired me to boss you around. Thank goodness. 

It's Springing outward in great leaf-green forces... and I meditate with people like Thich Nhat Hanh (the Buddhist teacher today in North America)-- with people like David Suzuki (who is listening to Hanh), in this great little 6 min. video--- love it!  http://ralphmetznerblog.com/2015/04/24/thich-nhat-hanh/

Michael, I ask you what is meditation? And I don't know what you are talking about. 

Thich Nhat Hanh defines it in this little video on "despair" and the environmental condition and the environmental movement today (e.g., the climate change crisis, or "wicked problem" as Wilber calls it)... "Mediation, means to look deeply." [I would tend to call that "contemplation" but sure, I'm fine with "meditation" if the man says so]... 

It's Sprung... that the truth we have to face as in all possibilities of Truth, now and whenever... that's a wonderful existential occasion for potency in the path of fearlessness when we come to the "gate" (threshold) between first-tier and second-tier (using Spiral Dynamics integral theory)... when, "hope" and "despair" are seen as two sides of the same coin... clearly, Hanh is meeting these environmentalists in a way they don't like to be met-- he's calling out their fear/despair ... and does so by asking us to meditate on the total (or near) destruction of this civilization which I see is not about "doing" (just listen to see how Suzuki is so concerned about us become "passive")--- here is, my friends, the conflict in East and West-- a conflict that the West has constructed between "doing" (its favorite) and "being" (it's nemesis)-- harken, and echoing, I hear Erich Fromm... and so many ... 

Watch the video... meditate. 

Happy Spring!

As an educator, and as a critic of when certain ideas are promoted as propaganda, and distorted, I have to be concerned. Truly, I'd rather put my attention on more positive productions of my own work on fearlessness, for example. But when it comes to "fear" and our knowledge about it, I am on the path of the sacred warrior real fast. A defender of the dharma, as Ken Wilber has been called. I too am not about to leave knowledge about fear and its management alone--if, I see it is creating more problems than good. Now, the latter is not so easy to prove, and indeed, that's not my task. Other's with funding dollars and research support teams can go out there and prove the harmful effect levels of anything. I don't have that research team nor the resources to do it. I can be a good philosopher however, and that means offering a good critique--of everything. That said, I don't want to waste my time on everything-- I "waste" my time where I think I couldn't live with myself if I didn't say something. That topic of compelling interest is fear (by any other name). 

One major critical philosophical tradition has been to critique ideologies. I am talking about fear-based, fear-mongering distortions of knowledge. Now, there is not a premise in such critiques that persons, or organizations, etc. are consciously trying to reproduce toxic ideologies, nor do they want to do fear-mongering. But everything anyone publishes is potentially doing that if we are not consciously reflecting on what is being taught in discourses (e.g., how do we talk about fear). Well, there is an awful lot of talk about fear and an even greater volume these days of writing about it. I follow books on Amazon.com to watch how quickly a new book comes out on fear--like it seems every few months. All the authors have an agenda, and they want to help us be less afraid, and/or be only afraid of the right things, not the wrong things. That alone, on the surface is admirable and even ethical. But as critical philosophers, since at least Aristotle, have known, you can be right about something but be motivated by the wrong source and create unethical results. Carl Jung is somewhat famous, as a psychotherapist and theorist of the human psyche for his elaboration of the enantiodromia syndrome he found quite universal in most of modern human history and in people he observed. That syndrome boils down to a kind of 'law' of human behavior that goes like this (paraphrasing Jung): Those that try hard to do good end up (usually) doing bad. That is, the opposite results. 

So, if I as a researcher are looking for such syndromes, and I do, there is no greater source of cases of such as in the literature on fear management/education. I won't go into all the reason for why--but a good deal of my arguments can be found in my books and articles over the decades. One of the first steps to such critical analysis (i.e., fearanalysis) is to see how contradictions show up in common sense ("wisdom") of a society, a group, a writer/teacher, etc. So, here's one example that just popped-out at me today while researching new books on fear (the following are from the self-help genre): 

The example is Christian authors (but believe me, if you will, my research could find a similar case in secular writers). So, one author in a new book on fear (Jeanetta Dunlop, Unmasking Fear) writes: "As divine beings we are entitled to live a fear-fear life." 

The next Christian author (David Jeremiah, Slaying the Giants in Your Life), unknowingly, in distinct contradiction to the above author, writes, "The Bible, as a matter of fact, doesn't paint a picture of the fear-free life." 

Okay, I have to ask if I am selecting very specific quotes out of context and juxtaposing them to make my case of a contradiction in Christian teachings (at least by these two authors)? It is a slight possibility I am biasing this because I haven't read their books. I don't know them. I am speculating, but logically so, via a reading of one line of text, which is a "teaching"-- which has implications for readers. I ask, but what is a reader of such texts supposed to believe now? Which author is telling the best truth? I could go on an on as an educator and as part of a critical analysis... asking these questions. My reason for confidence in just how contradictory these authors are (as selected from many possibilities) is because I have read many such books by all kinds of people across as many diverse backgrounds as possible, over 27 years. If that makes me a bit of an expert on predicting where an author is likely going (in most cases, not all)--I can predict pretty well, and I have seen the pattern pretty well. In the self-help books, it seems people skew knowledge the most readily. Hey, we all skew somewhat anything we are passionate about to want to write a book about so we can help others by how we think we have been helped. I appreciate that desire. 

The ideological part of my criticism, however, is less forgiving, because these typical books on fear and its management/education, never critique themselves reflectively. The authors who write about fear don't seem to have that basic philosophical and ethical imperative in their work. I just do not see it (the rare exception is out there). 

I look at how there is so much contradiction about "fearless" these days-- is it good, is it bad? The volumes of teachings on fear and fearlessness is growing rapidly because of the era we are in--people are looking hard, and are quite 'desperate' for answers. Oh, yeah, and rarely do they read other authors and cite them in their own particular book or on their own particular promotional videos. Oh, no, they like to present their knowledge about fear as if it is their own great discovery, and if it worked for them then it will work for you. They are quick to flaunt their own philosophies. 

I think I've made my general point, of how this mess... of contradictions... and insufficiently good knowledge, often unethical knowledge... is splattering all over our children and parents, and so on... all over our societies... at least in the West. The East doesn't seem so obsessed with this. And my colleague in the philosophy of fearism (Desh Subba) tells me it is because the W. is much more fearful than the East. Now, there's an interesting thesis to test... as years go by. 

No, I'm not offering any advice on my critique here. You can ask if you want to know more. I'd rather, like you to think about it, and do your own research well, whenever someone says something about fear and its management as if they know what they are talking about. 

Everyone once in awhile, while I continue to surf the Internet looking for contacts and good info. on the Fear Problem, I find a 'gem' -- at least, in this case today, a gem of an article by Don Hazen, Exec. Ed. of AlterNet.org (an online community of radical progressive thinkers)... Don has a great article "Fear in America: Fear Dominates Politics, Media and Human Existence in America--And It's Getting Worse" (a quick read)... 

It does my heart good to find current folks taking up a series of articles on their sites like this one Don and AlterNet have initiated. Now, I don't think any of the articles following Don's are all that great... and rather, more distractive to me... from the punchy issues that Don himself raises. I wrote to him and maybe we can collaborate. I'm glad his article is out there, and their site has near 1 million "Likes"... whatever, that actually means... but yes, I thought to copy and past a few tid bit quotes that stand out for me as so true...

FEAR IN AMERICA by Don Hazen, March 15, 2015

Fear Dominates Politics, Media and Human Existence in America—And It’s Getting Worse

Today, AlterNet launches a series of articles and investigations on fear, and how to combat it.

"We at AlterNet feel our society is overrun with a destructive and growing social preoccupation with fear.... Politically, socially and emotionally, fear is arguably the most powerful potent force in society."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Emmett A. Coyne on February 29, 2016

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

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

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

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

Interdisciplinary Conference on Fear Studies (ICFS), would be a first of its kind in the world, in human history. The human Fear Problem is that bad, and anything less than a full interdisciplinary gathering is not going to be enough to turn the toxic concentrations of fear (and 'fear') around to live-able levels. 

I envisioned this ICFS today and thought I'd put it out to people on the FMning, and others who may see this. So contact me if you are interested to explore a role for yourself in this concrete and very important event. It could be one to two or three years down the line for it to fall in place, but it will fall in place and organize... I just don't know when and right now I don't have any solid volunteers to draw upon for any of my research and educational work. And, of course, I'd love to find funding so people don't have to just volunteer either. 

For point of interest, this conference would bring together as many diverse people who study fear (and/or fearlessness) in some way, so they can share their work, get to know each other and build a community to set goals for tackling the "wicked problem" of Fear. I know there are enough people out there working, often in their own isolation more or less--it's a matter of unifying our work and voices--and then, well... just about anything can happen with a team or group or international organization... whatever form evolves.

We have to start somewhere... this would be a conference open also to the public. Historically, this is not the first time I have wished to organize such an event. The major first thrust was in 1994-95, when a colleague [1] and I put many months into trying to get "Learning Under Fire" conference series going as a global event, with the first year being on the "Nature and Role of Fear"--in the widest sense. We got some interest, but not near enough, and we couldn't find the volunteers to help. It was laid to rest and I no longer am in contact with that individual. A lot has changed since the mid-90s... some twenty years has passed, and 9/11 and a whole lot more... surely, this time we may be more successful attracting attention. 

So, give me a shout: r.michaelfisher52[at]gmail.com

End Notes

1. Ian Dakers