Blog

I finally received a first published hard copy of my new co-authored book Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue (of which I have written previously on this FMning). I glanced it over and opened the book randomly at a few places and started reading. It's a little shocking to read one's own published work sometimes: "Who wrote that?" The overall impression is positive and that's a good sign. I happened to think (with all modesty and objectivity as I can muster) that there is no book more important on the topic fear and its management on the planet right now (that I know of). This short blog will say a few words (and quote from the new book) about why I think this is true. Btw, I thank my co-author Desh Subba (a Nepalese philosopher, novelist, poet) for his dedication to developing a philosophy of fearism and his openness to include me in that conceptualization and project. I see myself dedicating the rest of my working years (maybe 15 left until I'm 80) on this new philosophy. 

So the pages I happen to open to at random come from Chapt. 4 (pp. 98-100) which is unique in the book because Desh encouraged me to re-vise but basically republish a 2014 essay I wrote on a "Theory of Fearism" (Technical Paper No. 51) (note: theory of fearism as distinct from, but related to, a philosophy of fearism). I begin with a Foreword to Technical Paper No. 51: 

p. 98: "In Chapter 3 of this co-authored book there is a controversial message: "There is something wrong in the field of fear management" [a phrase I penned in my first major scholarly book The World's Fearlessness Teachings in 2010, p. xxvii]. I go on to talk about why we need various theories of fearism (mine, which I call fearism-t) in order to have a healthy philosophy of fearism, and from that a healthy set of practices of fear management (and fear education). Yes, I could just have easily written: "There is something wrong in the field of fear education" (i.e., fear education used in a positive way, analogous to sex education). So, how controversial is this claim? What do I back it up with? 

Let me first say, the phrase "something wrong" is hyperbole in a sense to attract attention on a problem in the field of fear management. In retrospect, I am not sure this is a good way to get attention, because the very discourse of labeling something "wrong" is highly problematic in terms of its long history (especially in the West) of being a way to put something, some group, some policy, some person (and their behavior or values) down. It is a criticism. And it carries a lot of fear-based baggage (garbage, toxicity) that tends to easily slide from saying "something is wrong" to "someone is wrong" and I would not want to perpetuate such a notion. I think it is too partial of a claim and it tries to paint the entire reality of something or someone as "wrong" in an absolute sense. And, it immediately raises the question of who (and from what perspective) can anyone judge that anyone is wrong--same applies to something. The use of the label "wrong" (often with emotional discharge behind it) is clearly an attack to putting something down and "diss it", more or less. I won't go on and on with this but to say the use of the term (hyperbole or not) is a dangerous one of bringing more injury into human society--and that means concomitantly bringing more fear with it. Arguably, it is "fear talk" to blame, shame and make someone or something "bad" (the opposite of good, and it may even mean making it "evil"). 

So, I used the phrase as hyperbole, and I could have (more sensitively) said: There is something wrong in the field of fear management, even though there is a good deal of something right in the field of fear management. Then, that would be both more fair, and less re-stimulating of our hurts and fear itself. Especially, in that I am not intending to attack anything or anyone per se who practices fear management as a professional, theorist, etc. Nor, would I want anyone who teaches and designs fear management curricula to feel I am attacking them and their work and their motivation. Criticism alone is usually not very useful and does more harm than good. Critique however, in contrast to criticism, is when you point out the negative and positive at the same time, in proportion to a healthy engagement with someone, rather than trying to put them down. I intended to offer a critique in my new book re: the state of the field of fear management (or, equally of fear education). I think if anyone reads my books they will find I can get passionate and critical and even slip into criticism but that if they read on it is more critique I offer overall. But I'll leave others to assess my work overall, as I am too close to it to tell. 

Returning to the point of this blog, I am taken with my clarity in the new book (scanning pp. 98-100), of how simple (and controversial) the message is that I have argued. It is worth repeating again but maybe I'll do it in a more readable way here in this blog. Things need to be said many times, and in many ways, in order to communicate. Sometimes a reader will hear it anew, from a different time and place and with some different language. As an educator myself, I am dedicated to not giving up on anyone, even when they tell me "I read your book and I don't really understand it." Okay, to the basic simple message in these couple pages, which really well represents my overall project--it all boils down to something like this: 

1. there is something wrong in the field of fear management; and that is skewing how we understand best how to know fear and thus, manage it well

2. that something wrong (or missing) is ....... a "harmful violent ideology" (p. 98) that over-shadows the entire study of fear

3. a theory and philosophy of fearism (e.g., Fisher and Subba) can address this ideology and ensure a 'correction' to what is missing (wrong) in fear management

4. no one else has pointed out the above problems (gaps, errors, "something wrong" or missing), until now, in this new book .... etc. 

Okay, there's the basics of the my work I am so passionate about. Would this excite anyone else, to the point where they would dedicate some time, or a lot of time to helping clarify the problem in the field of fear management (and, in every day life as we manage fear, more or less consciously)? With this new clarification, we could then develop interventions more healthy re: fear, and its study and management. We could create a re-evaluation of everything we think we know about fear, and run it all through a new deconstruction and reconstruction--that is, through a new theory and philosophy of fearism. 

On p. 99, I have a sub-title: Fearism-t and Epistemic Violence: Reconstructing Fear Management. That speaks to a greater articulation of all of the above. And, about now, one gets the creeping feeling that this all is about to impact the way one perceives, thinks, and acts in regard to fear. That's pretty major in implication to our everyday life. That involves being a lot more consciousness and self-reflective (and critical) about everything to do with fear--and, especially what others tell you about fear (e.g., authors, teachers, parents, ministers, psychology clinicians, policemen, lawyers, government leaders, business corporate heads, and so on). 

The simple notion is there. But will we talk about this further, or merely read about it? Will we talk about "a 'harmful violent ideology' surrounding the study of fear--and, in particular, the construction and dissemination of the knowledge about fear and its management and education" (p. 98)? Another way to put the problem is something like this: 

A lot of authors/experts on the topic of fear management (and researchers) often say: It is not fear that is the problem, it is how we manage it that matters most. Such a claim has become ever-popular in layman and professional circles today. It is partially (in my view) good wisdom but to a point. I (and Subba) tend to stretch this quite a lot more to a critical perspective on that claim itself (which, btw, those who utter the above predominant wisdom of the day, never reflect on themselves and offer readers some opening (cautionary) of critical inquiry into the claim and its potential limitations, if not distortions--they seem to not be aware of a perspective beyond their own favorite one--which gets repeated by others who think like they do). So, on p. 98-100 in the new book, I offer another entirely different angle (and I think a much better one): The problem with fear and how we manage it is that we lack a critical awareness and vocabulary (i.e., guiding methodology) that operates outside of the fear-based structure of the field of fear management. And thus, we return to the 4 points I listed re: the basic problem--which, you can see is articulated much differently than the popular wisdom problem articulation above. Introducing a notion of a harmful violent ideology surrounding the study of fear--becomes a very simple but also complex intervention I throw into the soup pot. The main ingredient missing in the popular wisdom is a notion of fearlessness (but that's a much longer story, of which I write about in my other WFT book). 

From this point forward, my work (and Subba's) is essentially different from anything else out there. It is also in that sense, critical of anything else out there. Now, in the long-run, time and experience will prove if it is better, as we both think it is. And, any such "proving" will only occur when others (beyond Subba and I) take serious interest with the necessary support of resources to help test the theory and philosophy of fearism. There's no doubt in our minds, that many theories and variations of philosophies are required to cover the huge territory of fear (and/or 'fear')--or what I like to simply call The Fear Problem today. So, I am not looking for only "followers" (yes, they are helpful for the cause), I am looking for allies who think critically (and have healthy doubt) about everything--including everything I just wrote in this blog! 

Give me a call or email [618-529-1166  r.michaelfisher52@gmail.com] if you want to talk seriously (or even playfully)... and co-create with me and this work. 

I promised (see latest Photo), that I'd do some writing around sex and gender (wars)... and especially around Dr. Sarah E. Nicholson and Vanessa D. Fisher, two bright stars in the approach of many perspectives on sex and gender, and evolution of men, women, feminists, etc. First, I'll guide you to my latest two pieces (see below). Later, I'll probably write more. Also, I've given a link to Vanessa's latest powerful video on the necessity of the messiness and need for vulnerability in the cultural woundedness of sex and gender. Lastly, I link to a good (positive) review of Sarah & Vanessa's book (2014) of which the reviewer also writes about my chapter in that book, and I respond (all from Integral Leadership Review journal).

Vanessa wrote to me: 

I put together a spontaneous video last night about my struggles and vulnerability being in the gender conversation. I ended up getting emotional half way through, but just let the camera keep rolling...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss_zSjghZtw

So, as for my two review pieces here you go: 

(1) "Women, Gender, Sexuality: Two Rising Stars and a Follower" (by R. M. Fisher, Feb. 8/16), go to http://csiie.org and click on Blogs (right-hand side) -- to read it you may be asked to sign-in as "Guest" which is just a button to press... hastle free... this gives the background really for my Amazon.com book review piece on Nicholson's book "The Evolutionary Journey of Woman"

(2) Amazon.com book review: Search "The Evolutionary Journey of Woman: From the Goddess to Integral Feminsim" and click on Book Reviews, and I am no. 7 ... it is enitled "In Defense of Woman's Journey: A Wicked Problem"  

And the review of Sarah & Vanessa's (2014) book: 

http://integralleadershipreview.com/12579-115-rejoining-conversation-commenting-integral-voices-sex-gender-sexuality-critical-inquiries/

-enjoy, 

M. 

Within the last few days several things have been happening as I tune into the world (and particularly the state of economic crisis in Illinois where I live with Barbara) and tune into what I am doing, who I am becoming, and all of what is 'calling' my soul (if you will) to present itself to the world. You may know me mostly (since 1998) as an independent scholar, writer, speaker, consultant, teacher, etc. All of that has been continually an interest and will remain so, of which my latest book Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue just published attests to my background and interests (as does this FM ning website). However, there is always a re-evaluation of what "I Am" and am becoming and how to offer myself to the world. 

I'll keep this blog post short other than to declare that I am opening the door again to myself as a teacher of fearlessness. You or people you know may contact me now because you are looking for such a teacher, or considering checking me out in this very particular role--not one that is casual as has been the case for decades, but now it would be a formal contracted role of "Student and Teacher" in the great philosophical and spiritual traditions of all history across time and cultures. Call me an elder, a wise person of knowledge, a sacred warrior, a healer, etc. All labels have their value and their distraction. For now, I prefer simply to call myself a teacher of fearlessness of which I am inviting students to pursue the path of fearlessness, which can be from either/or a secular viewpoint and spiritual viewpoint--it matters not to me because I have seen the core essence of all traditions around the world in my studies as basically after the same thing. They are attempting to solve the human Fear Problem, more or less, with various ways of doing so--and, often they do not say this is their core essence. As an experiential journeyor along the path of self-reflection, contemplation, meditation, and all the other forms of work I do to free myself from the regimes of fear ('fear') in this world, I see no contradiction in the essence of all these paths of liberation. That said, I am a postmodern/integral 21st thinker and teacher, and I have long crafted a very unique way to understand and research this phenomenon of the human Fear Problem and path of fearlessness--integrating what I see as the best of the traditions and discarding (through good critique) the worst of those traditions. 

I recently posted a Photo from a brochure I discovered some 10 years ago (The League for Fearlessness: An International Movement to Free the World From Fear), 1931. Finding this organization (that once was) became a validation of my own vision and initiative in founding the In Search of Fearlessness Project and organization in 1989. It was difficult on many levels to be a leader-teacher of the In Search of Fearlessness Project because I was seemingly doing something no one else had established a particular systematic tradition to do so. I had to learn with others what this ISOF Project was and would become and it has been a bumpy road. That's a longer story where you can learn details about on my various websites (particularly click on "Projects" at http://www.feareducation.com). The League for Fearlessness is the same kind of initiative I knew in 1989 I must bring forward into the world, for the purpose of the health of the World Soul (if you will). Again, notice one can use many different kinds of languages to describe all these things I speak of, but just because you read or hear the words and labels it does not always reflect exactly what I am speaking to. Interpretations are always tenuous at getting to the truth. So, that is the limitation of writing and speaking words and it is best sometimes to communicate with each other in silence. For the moment, I make the communication in writing.  

I trust you'll gather the essence of my opening the doors to students. Of course, one will immediately connect myself in doing so with 'gurus' etc. And in part that cannot be escaped because of the long tradition of what the guru-discipline formation has (and continues) to bring to the world. I was fascinated watching a video the other night documenting (from the inside) several (non-famous) gurus and their disciples of Hinduism in India in present day (see film called Naked in Ashes) where they give the facts: there are 1 billion people in India and 13 million "holy men" who live more or less in poverty as nomads offering themselves as teachers of the path of liberation. I couldn't help but see the relationship to what I have been doing since 1989, albeit I am a relatively comfortable 'working class' North American, not a Hindu, not of any religion, not a naked nomad on the streets (or in caves)--and yet, I am so deeply dedicated to the same essence of the work as gurus in India or anywhere, and like with the people who founded The League for Fearlessness in 1931 New York City.  Again, all of that is another story. 

Now, if you want to get a sense of what I am opening the doors to (in a serious way now, after many years hiatus)... as Teacher I would invite you to read my work ahead of time to tune-in to much of my thought at a basic level. Then contemplate what being a Student might entail for you and why you seem attracted (and, you may also discover in this reflection you "don't really know why?" which is fine too). Contact me and we can begin the phases of your training (i.e., education). You'll have lots of questions in the preliminary phases and that is all fine. You'll have critiques of what I am doing as well, and that is all fine. Here are the rough phases I envision at this time for a Teacher-Student Relationship based on the path of fearlessness (i.e., the World's Fearlessness Teachings -- see my 2010 book on this topic): 

Teacher-Student Relationship: Phases

1. 'Trial' Period-- Exploration of the relationship with me as Teacher and you as Student (this may also involve a group when there are more people involved simultaneously in this relationship with me and each other as a community of learners of the path)-- lots of questioning, assignments, dialogue, and practices (secular and/or spiritual depending on what you want as a Student at this stage) - at least 6 mo.'s this is a trial period and there are expectations of seriousness to work together and stay connected, but it will all be re-evaluated often and either myself or yourself can 'pull the plug' so to speak and we part and move on with our lives without (preferrably) a lot of critical judgment of each other--which, does not mean we ignore telling the truth to each other 

2. 'Initiation Preparation' Period - comes after the 6 mo. 'Trial' Period together and it arrives the moment we both realize that it would be good to keep the relationship going along the path and to enter into a deeper study and commitment with more rigorous practices... this may go for years before the next phase unfolds as a readiness to full 'Initiation' 

3. 'Initiation' Proper - a ceremony of Initiation to emerge as appropriate to each Student's path (and may likely involve other 'Initiates' and/or those in preparation for a future 'Initiation' [note: this is not a 'cult' experience but a 'culture of fearlessness' and like any culture of any kind, it has its boundaries and regimes more or less rigid all depending on many factors--the process is one of membership and joining, belonging, and responsibilities that go with that]

4. 'Post-Initiation' Period - this is a time (of indefinite length) when the 'Initiate' develops their own leadership and contributes to the path and teaching of others as a major vocation, under some guidance by myself as Teacher, and of course, the 'Initiate' may at some point decide to part from my guidance directly and find other Teachers etc. 

The value and payment for such a Teacher is always a difficult challenge to work out, especially when we live in North America or any modern capitalist society. The fact is that I need to survive with basic value and payment for my services in this world of demanding resources to pay the bills. On the other hand, the arrangement of payment is flexible to conditions and individuals and thus I cannot state any such one "cost" for such a Teacher-Student Relationship. It has to be negotiated and it has to operate in a non-fear-based way (as much as possible). The general path of fearlessness is aligned with what many today have called a Gift Economy and that topic ought to be part of how we come as a community of practitioners of the path to work and live together, share our knowledge and experience, and grow a new kind of world based on new ways of relating. 

That's enough of an Introduction to what I mean by opening my doors again... 

In the Spirit of Fearlessness, 

Michael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have just downloaded a long article "Educators, We Have a Culture of Fear Problem," one of my best (imo) in terms of a relatively complete analysis of the domain of how a culture of fear has penetrated the field of Education all the way up and down the spectrum right up to academia itself, at http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3  (scroll down to Yellow Papers).

I have included the Abstract of this paper below. I look forward to talking with you on this after you have read it (in part, or whole). I cannot think of a more important topic on the planet that we should be talking about and taking actions on in order to transform this society ASAP. But, then, that's just my view--although, the culture of fear and education topic is my expertise. Btw, this article was submitted to an academic journal in the field of Education and rejected by both reviewers (on not very stable grounds) and so I decided to add the reviewers criticisms of the paper in the paper itself (at the end) with my fresh comments of critique of their critiques--so, that might be interesting for you to read. -enjoy, M.

Abstract

The author argues that a focused universal agenda for educators to critically assess is the human Fear Problem (i.e., “culture of fear”). It could serve as a useful and ethical meta-context to rally around for a thoroughgoing new reference point by which to design healthy and emancipatory educational global systems. This is the first publication in Educational literature to summarize the status of discourses using the culture of fear construct. The author briefly tracks out his 26 year journey studying this topic and its relationship to Education and social policy in their widest global sense. He documents and critiques some current conventional liberal reductionist discourses on fear and education, as well as the arising interest in writing about the culture of fear construct and reality (from 1990- to date). Based on cross-disciplinary literature surveys, a basic definition of culture of fear is offered that is unique to the otherwise ubiquitous nebulous definitions of others. The article asserts it is now near impossible, and certainly naive, to mention and/or study fear without including the necessary, if not universal, meta-context of the culture of fear. Without such a context, fear will be reduced to a largely ‘value-neutral’ psychological discourse and phenomena instead of a cultural and political one. He offers several suggestions for resistance amongst the educational community to adopt the culture of fear in critical pedagogy and Education in general. Concluding remarks offer recommendations to resist that resistance and pursue proactive means to improve our critical understanding of the nature and role of fear, and the culture of fear in Education and civilization-at-large.

A short note to let you all know officially, we'll be carrying on with the FM ning for another year, and will decide then in 2017 if we ought to invest the $300/yr fee to keep this going. I'd really like to keep it going forever. So far, there is little activity on the ning and I would like to see that change but it is up to all members to be active and/or recruit others to join as well. 

I look forward to 2016 and movement forward with this great cause... 

all the best, and may the spirit of fearlessness be with you in the next yr.

Michael 

I have to say I am quite disappointed at Huffington's latest downgrade: she used to talk all about fearless and fearlessness in 2006-07 or so, and now she's only talking about "thriving" and how to re-evaluate the nature of success (which is a good thing)... but in her latest book "Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well-being, Wisdom and Wonder" (2015) she does not even mention at all fearless or fearlessness (1). I watched a 57 min. video of Huffington on stage at the Googleplex for Google employees (see Youtube) and she mentioned the word "fear" only once (i.e., we have a "fear of pausing" in our extra busy life-styles these days). Google as a corporation has been called by some a few years back a "culture of fearlessness" for its positive innovative activities, which makes this talk all the more interesting to me, and at the same time, disappointing. 

So what's going on with the change-up? What happened to her major life mission to help everyone (especially girls and women) become fearless? We need to inquire critically into this phenomenon as an example of my big concern about how superficial people really are (and are teaching) when it comes to how they conceptualize "fearless" this and that and this and that... and how fearlessness is ultimately distorted, and degraded in these hyper-sales type human potential pitches of all kinds of people, stars, and such... Huffington being one of them. I thought she might be something more in 2009-10 when I read and researched her work. Let me explain the "downgrade" problem... 

If you haven't heard of Arianna Huffington, a quick Internet search will show you who she is on paper anyways. She's a famous business person and health promoting personality (at least in the USA). In 2013 Forbes magazine voted her as one of the Most Powerful Women. All that success aside, the reason I have been sort of following her is because in my book The World's Fearlessness Teachings I highlighted her in the first chapter (pp. 4-13) among several other contemporary women leaders around the world who I cherished had been teaching about fearlessness as the best way to go in the early years of post-9/11 etc. Huffington wrote multiple essays, gave talks, and had a hit book entitled "On Becoming Fearless in Love, Work, and Life" (2007). I thought wow, this woman leader could really make a difference and promote fearlessness in a good way. 

I was disappointed that she nor her staff would respond to my short articles sent to them for publication in the Huffington Post (which Arianna is founder and CEO)... I was disappointed she never cited my work on fear and fearlessness all the years I have been publishing, etc. I sort of let it go and kept my eye on the positive things she was doing to counteract the fear-mongering in the 2008 American elections and her call for an "epidemic of fearlessness" among Americans and others to resist the abuses of fear in politics. 

I haven't followed her work for five or so years. But, turns out, some powerful things have been happening in which her "fearless" way of being in the world came crashing down. Literally, as she told her story to the Google staff on Youtube, she completely collapsed without provocation or notice something was wrong and broke her jaw and cut her head open above the eye-- near concussion. All because, as she says now reflectively, she was an A-Type personality and workaholic in denial all these years. Yes, in my words, it was this strong successful business woman and journalist that was teaching the world to be fearless... and all that time she was self-destructive and waiting to 'hit bottom' so she could turn her life around. She tells of her priorities and obsessive work habits and how she had lost the joy of life and was always tired (but she admits, she didn't know she was that off-balance and tired). She was a mess on the inside. The outside looked good. She sold a lot of books on "fearless" and everybody (nearly) loved her. 

I tell this story because, even in my book I applauded her call for an "epidemic of fearlessness" (and listed her as leader of such a populist Fearlessness Movement--see Wikipedia that I posted). I also critiqued her thin conceptualization of "fear" and making its meaning so watered down without rigor, and thus her definitions and meanings of fearless and fearlessness were also going to suffer. I had some doubts about it all but it was something rather than nothing. Practically, I let it go, but theoretically and philosophically I was disturbed (as I often am with people's shallow and marketing hype in using "fearless" to sell and coach and you name it)... 

Turns out my critique was accurate. Huffington was on a 'kick' with her "fearless" thing. It was temporary. It was false (or at least weak in foundations). I see this over and over in the Human Potential Movement and New Age, and in Business and Organizational Development discourses. It really pisses me off how much attention, money and following they gather... but the real authentic Fearlessness Movement never gets that. So, now we see Arianna Huffington not even talking or writing about fearlessness. I think, in fairness, she was caught in the masculinist world's interpretation and valuing of fearlessness--she, had not done her homework on the notion and how it is much more feminine (or at least more about balancing the worlds, if we want to label them so insufficiently as masculine and feminine)-- bottom line, she was out promoting her own version style (flavor)... and now she's selling "thriving" (beyond just surviving)... 

I'll end my disturbance of thoughts and feelings about how style and hype (celeb culture) get so much attention and money in American culture... and just say that Arianna had to 'hit bottom' like every addict. And addicts get addicted to fear and fearless. It doesn't seem to matter. They do so because they really don't understand what fear and fearless are about. They don't understand the developmental and evolutionary process, nor the world's fearlessness teachings. They certainly don't follow my work. Oh, well, her "thriving" is exactly where she should be... she has not yet matured to authentic fearlessness... if you see my book Fig. 2.1 (p. 48), I had mapped out this path of development as a universal soul path:  naive, to victim, to survivor, to thriver ... then (across 'Fear' Barrier-2) to sacred warrior (and magician) and then to royal leader... 

"Thriver" is, from the perspective of true fearlessness (sacred warrior-magician) still someone who buys into the normal culture more or less-- only tweaks it a bit to improve it... a 1/2 step beyond the 'norm' and when they are rich and famous, like Huffington, then they are "goddess" or "god" to the normals who want to really make it beyond survivor stage... my point, is there are still two stages left in development. Huffington has now settled (it seems, at age 65) with this great "wisdom" as one of her big offerings to people today, and she wants us all to slow down and sleep better longer... okay, fine, but she also still wants us to live in this world of coping (first-tier) and not really do anything too revolutionary... in fact, she repeated in the interview at Google, "just micro steps make a big difference"-- there was no more the talk of fearlessness and (r)evolution like there was in her teaching back in 2006-07... nope... something really downgraded in her teaching... but, maybe that's just what needed to happen... 

But, my critic keeps wanting to ask her: So, what happened to "fearless" and how have you integrated with "thriving"? 

If she answers that honestly, we all will see just how "thin" fearlessness was in her conception and teaching, coaching, back before her accident (he falling on her egoic nose!")... true fearlessness is not about ego-hype-style-charm and business wealth... not about bravado... thanks, Arianna for showing us all that! 

Endnotes

1. Except for on citation of a book title by Joan Halifax in the references which has the word "fearlessness" in the title of Halifax's book (p. 323)

I have recently come across a wonderful book by Emmett Coyne (2012), The Theology of Fear. Emmett is a priest who had lived a rather unconventional path and recently has taken great interest in the In Search of Fearlessness Project and the ways that I point to "Fear" as our main enemy along the journey of which, in Christ's words, we have to come to love (i.e., "love thy enemy")... no small calling. I wrote a book review of Emmett's book on Amazon.com which I suggest you check out. Here is the first paragraph from the book review I wrote there: 

The latest "white powder" in the mail hoax threats against Muslim Organizations this week and now the closing down of the entire LA School System in Calif by Education Officials... you really have to look at the twisting of discourse that is going on... which was well studied by myself (as a fearologist) after 9/11 and others like Gavin de Becker (a security expert in the US) and others... It comes down to the way knowledge is used in these "credible" (or more like incredible) "threats" to public safety... and how Officials in those domains of society make decisions. Without a doubt, LA Education officials are showing us all just how much they didn't learn their lessons after 9/11 as the entire W. world (especially in USA but also Canada) "panics" again, more or less. 

A long blog post could be written about this moral (safety) panic phenomenon, which is the "culture of fear" by any other name showing just how un-intelligent it is in the face of fear, terror, and then in contrast with what is merely a threat of fear and terror initiated by someone (as a criminal act). The "terrorists" today gotta be laughin' all the way to the bar, or wherever else they are celebrating the power of an email threat on a few school districts in the USA ... btw, New York Mayor and Officials (not in Education) decided there is no way they would close down schools broad brush like they did in LA. And, there is no facts or close to facts that show any real difference in these two localities, except that in the context of LA, it is the power of Education Officials to shut down or open schools, which is not apparently the same as in NY where the Mayor only has that power. I mention this because Education is the field I work in as a professional and to which I have been attempting to educate them on the role of fear and its irrationality for 14 + years. 

I keep thinking of the "costs" of the LA School-based Authorities today, acting on an email threat. You want to read a few of their "reasons" which always come down to the same thing... (when under pressure of the fear of being sued if they don't keep kids safe at schools--or the "but if something bad does happen?" -- all of which are xtreme applications of the "precautionary principle"--but that is another argument for another time)... I keep thinking what do the children and youth and families of entire city as big as LA take home from staying home... because of an email? Talk about terrorizing one's own people in the name of "safety first"... that's always the reason the Officials gave after 9/11, including going to War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and the mess of costs that has produced (likely Islamic State bred upon that error of the US illegal invasions into sovereign nations). 

Tell me, Education Officials, now what... there was no attack today... but what about tomorrow... and the next day? and next... now what are you going to do? what money (for one) are you going to spend to try to keep every child and youth safe in your school systems... and then, are you going to try to keep them safe when the walk home from school or go somewhere else after school and what then, are you going to do ... any time, any place... you see, it is a slippery slope of irrationality that is winning the day... not intelligence, not intelligent Defense, or Security... it is madness caused by moral and safety panic (assumptions)... of course, the Officials can always throw it back at me or anyone who critiques them as "What would you do if you were in our place?" ... that's of course a distractive argument that goes no where because it doesn't exist and because they don't really care what I would do ... because they would never let me get into power in that place where they sit and make these kinds of decisions and cover them with "reasons" based on patterns (i.e., fear-patterned) Discourses. That's what I want to end with... 

To end this initial blog, I want to put this distinction about Discourses... that came to me while reading only one news blog on this LA action (and NY reverse action)... it is that we citizens, leaders of all kinds, have to be honest about what is going on in a culture of fear--denial is deadly. The so-called "reasons" are that people have to be making "rational" and "reasonable" and "responsible" choices to protect the absolute safety of all their children and youth who are students under their care during a school day... but let us not be fooled (not anymore after what we learned in post-9/11)... that "Safety-Discourse" (or argument they make) is a "Fear-Discourse" in disguise, and their "Rational-Responsibility-Discourse" is a masked nightmare which is really "Irrational-Irresponsible-Discourse." 

They use language that is false and highly destructive. Anyone in high fear (panic) will do this to justify what they have done. In my view, and many others in the security business, and who study fear and social moral panics in a culture of fear... all of them will tell you how fear-based and irrational it is to do what the LA Education Officials did today... and one can only imagine how long they will keep doing it and/or other school districts will do likewise... I don't buy it for a minute that "safety first" is the only "first" value on the block... on the table... no, my friends, and fellow educators, what is first is Intelligence ... a good assessment of risks and costs... that actually comes before trying to secure safety... that's what all security experts will tell you... but when people are in fear of being sued because something horrible happens (and US society is really good at that-- finding someone to blame and sue)... then you have Fear running the entire program... and Educators of all, are people who should be well-educated about risk, fear, danger and their interrelationships. I have been trying to get Education Officials everywhere to listen to what good education exists out there... and how to operate from fearlessness not fear... in making any decision about anything... I always believed (ha ha) that Education was about fostering Intelligence... you can see what I am a big believer that Fear-Discourse rules Education (and has for a very long time)... 

Give me a shout... if you all want to know more... if you want to challenge me... go for it... respond on this blog, or email me rmfisher.88[at]frontier.com

Oh, and Pres. Obama, you may want to look at my book I sent you near a yr. ago, offering to "educate" yourself and your governments on fear and fearlessness... that is, Intelligence as "first" and Safety as "second" (or third, or fourth)... that's another debate... a long one... for another time... 

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

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

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

The obvious electric condition of affect flowing in the USA and a lot of Europe (at least) these days comes from the recent "terrorist attacks" in France and recently California... linked to ISIL Organization and the movement for a radicalization of the Islamic State conception (not all that different, but more publicized, than the Zionist State conception of the official Israeli government). And one could find another 20 or so "rogue state" types of organizations or "nations" in the world that are one way or another fighting for their right to exist, to critique the hegemony and status quo and defend themselves against the oppressive larger states and their enemies. 

I open with this rather cold-hearted political analysis of what is going on. I am not going to continue such a sociopolitical, geographical or historical analysis of the problem of "terrorism" (some call "freedom fighting") as many would call it in the mainstream, certainly in the USA. Rather, you may see that I am viewing the current (and ongoing) crisis as political and psychological, philosophical and theological, sociological and historical... all at once. There is criminal activity going on and "justice" (usually as revenge killing) going on. I find the whole mess of conceptions, perspectives and barbaric actions on 'both sides' an indicator of how sick our world has become in handling conflict, in handling views totally different, and views that are suppressed by the dominant. Don't forget to listen to the recent state address Pres. Obama gave in response to these recent rising attacks on European and American soil. Obama is, like 99.9999% of Americans dedicated to "wipe out" any such organization (e.g., ISIL is the latest target) that is against the USA policies, values, capitalist and military expansionism and its claim to exceptionalism via its claim to moral superiority, and a free democracy. 

Let me turn, and say, from a fearanalysis, from a perspective of fearlessness... any system that cuts off another part of its own system (i.e., a world system) and claims that it is to be "wiped out" by any means (be clear, there is not need in times like this for the USA military might to follow any kind of legal or just framework or attention to human rights or international codes of ethical war conduct... not for a second is that mentioned in Obama's speech... he actually is out to punish and kill people without a trial (a justification beneath all capital punishment regimes)... listen to the calm voice and rhetoric, it is very clear, as it was similarly when former Pres. Bush Jr. called for an equal revenge and the pres. of France recently did like wise--oh, you are able to do that once you declare "war" on some organization, some state, etc. This my friends, is the way we in the West do leadership even from so-called liberal or democratic governments. This is sadly how far we've come in what we have learned went so wrong with the American response to 9/11. 

Let me turn again, to focus down to the question I raise for the Fearlessness Movement (a global phenomenon: see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fear_educator/sandbox)... What role has fearlessness and fearless leadership to play in the current rise of actions and reactions to terror(ism)? Obviously, it has a huge role. First, any fear-based means of trying to control ("manage") or destroy ("wipe out") terror(ists) and terror(ism) and organizations that use fear to terrorize... all will fail. That is what the philosophy of fearism (and fearlessness) argues... at great length... in most all of my publications for 26 years and in the recent book by Desh Subba and myself coming out soon.

Yet, that may still sound abstract to many, unfortunately, who have not chosen to study my work or Subba's and who have ignored the experience of the ineffectiveness of fighting terror with fear-based means (e.g., punishment and terrorizing, revenge killing, wars, acts of injustice that are rationally and cooly justified, e.g., Pres. Obama's latest speech to the American public). Again, in this one blog I only introduce this topic for the FM ning. I am not propounding out a philosophy or theory that itself cannot be challenged. I wish it would be. I'd love to argue, dialogue, conflict, and grow with others sincerely engaged in such a discourse, seriously engaged in asking ourselves if we want to learn something "new" about the way terror(ism) moves in societies, and in the world systems of today. I know there are hundreds if not thousands of arguments, journal articles, research studies, philosophical and political critiques... but to this day (although I have not read them all), I see nothing "new" or anything I'd call a fearlessness approach. I'll stop, and await to see who else may want to join this discussion (oh, and feel free to set up a FORUM on this site for this very topic).

Journaling on this all this morning, and lamenting on the repetitive failed-strategies to solve a "Wicked Problem" (see two blogs prior)... wouldn't it have been so nice to hear Pres. Obama truly say somethings different--truly re-frame the problem differently--at a higher (mature) integral level guided by fearlessness? Oh, he says bluntly, he is not attacking ISIL out of fear, for that is what the terrorists would want. Cooly, bravely, as only American males are so good at on camera, he says, we will do what needs to be done to "keep Americans safe." Which will not of course happen, as we saw in the past 14 yrs... terror only moves and morphs, going further below the surface... and the violence that goes with it... and the more you try to wipe it out... the more it duplicates and spreads in more difficult ways to detect and to stop. Okay, wouldn't it have been nice to hear the president say, "All of the recent tragedies, and crimes, have left the world, and certainly many Western nations with a great dilemma.... a great problem we have not yet figured out how to solve but solve we must. It is the Fear Problem. If we don't stop the Fear Problem we will not stop the Terror Problem. Fearism (as toxic-fear made ideological weaponry) is after all, that which operates under terrorism. Let's all take moments to reflect critically on our own part in "THE TERROR THAT COMES TO VISIT US" that is, where, why, how... and less ought we focus on only the criminals of these acts of mass murders... even though, a part of us wants to hate their hate towards us."

And after my fantasy Pres. Obama speech, I am thinking and asking myself: So, Michael, are you saying, as it appears above, that whatever organization of thoughts, values and actions that exists, has a right to exist, because it exists? Yes, I guess I am saying that. It seems the only ethical coherent fearlessness philosophy that will bring sanity back. Notice, at no point, have I condoned in that right to exist (the opposite of "wiping them out") that such acts are free from social challenge and free from scrutinized, informed judgments by those whom we entrust (e.g., court systems--even if imperfect). Such discernment, sometimes judgements on ethical and legal grounds are necessary for sociality of systems--yet, they ought to be non-fear-based as we decide to to label things "criminal" or "not"... now, that all get's more complicated, for sure and a good theory of fear and fearlessness is essential to guide that process. But declaring war on everything that is totally different than your set of ideas, values, etc. is no way to end the cycle of Domination-Conflict-Fear-Violence that is really 'killing' us all... 

Here's the cover image of the new book I just wrote (with Desh Subba)... soon to be published Jan. 1/16... keep checkin' in, as I'll write a few blogs about it... looking forward to engaging with you all on this new philosophy for the world... a world in the 'grip of fear.' (btw, I designed the cover with my art work from a 2007 art series I called "Emotospheres"...

I just wrote and published a book review on Amazon.com books, after I read (mostly) Watkins & Wilber's (2015) book "Wicked & Wise" (which I refer to in the prior blogpost). Check it out 

http://www.amazon.com/Wicked-Wise-Worlds-Toughest-Problems/dp/1909273643/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447879290&sr=1-1&keywords=%22Wicked+and+Wise%22

"Wicked Problem(s)" is a term that Watkins & Wilber (2015) use in juxtaposition to the term "Wise" (for wisdom applied) (1). Wicked is potentially 'evil' (live, spelled backwards) because of the immense destructivity it carries individually and collectively. So, the other meaning is extremely difficult--challenging, to solve. For reasons, less-restimulating around "wicked" (in our W. historical past) and thus, not feeding into the growing excesses of mounting of fear people are already downloading and storing everyday, I'll take the useful 'call out' from W & W (2015) in their welcomed new book and just call these W-problems. W-problems can stand for a whole lot of things--like, world's problems--that is, problems seen from a worldcentric stance (worldview) (2). The subtitle of W & W's book is "How to Solve the World's Toughest Problems." Unfortunately, as I wish to report how their model of the Integral matrix is key in my work as well, they have (like most everyone) left out the toughest of the toughest of problems to solve in the world today (4)--you guessed it--the Fear Problem. Btw, check my latest book coming out in a few weeks on this problem (3). 

A couple things about their book which I admit I have not read it, but I read the last couple pages, which is typically of me--last is first--then, I know what I am getting into that will affect my decision to read the whole book or not. But before I go into the Integral matrix discussion they enter around "climate change" (a big W-problem), I want to say it is a delight to see Wilber is still going strong in writing (5) (as he has been "off" publishing for near a decade more or less) and has in 2014 "co-founded Source Integral and began developing the Integral Society initiative, which in collaboration with recognized global experts, will demonstrate how to develop human societies in the most comprehensive manner possible" (p. 296. This is the first book Wilber has written so extensively with another author on "solving" problems (applied). I think he has come to see that all his theory books and philosophy writings have now come to be ready to be more applied than ever as the W-problems are heating up. Good for him and his crew. And, I think the dedication of the book is worth quoting, not only to represent Wilber's worldcentric stance (or "Integral stance", see p. 293) but to show where W & W (and the Integral Movement) is coming from (at least, by noble intention): 

"We would like to dedicate this book to all those men and women around the world who look beyond their own needs and what they might want in life and serve a greater purpose than themselves. The people who can see that all of the issues we face, even problems within their own family, are our problems not 'yours' or 'mine.' Such a[n] [Integral, systems] stance reveals a deep understanding of the fact that we are not separate from each other and solving the world's toughest problems will need all of us." 

Well, such a dedication is clarifying at the general level, and it is not unfamiliar to me, as many authors have said such things. I would like to clarify the language with a little critique (I'll be brief). First, W & W have not, unfortunately, tuned-up to a language of the postmodern re: gender as they are using a very old binary of "men and women" and they say "look beyond their own needs" which is really, more accurately, for some of us working at worldcentric (Integral stance) like myself never seemingly possible as I live at the poverty-line, as I know other such individuals do. W & W obviously do not either know what that is like to live on the 'edge' or they are oblivious that it is an important factor for some of us at worldcentric operations in our work. So, "beyond" really ought to be clarified more accurately as "include their own needs" but do so within the context that "their own" also means the "world's needs" simultaneously. Lastly, they ought not to have used "not 'yours' or 'mine'" because, again, as I made my point above, the problems are both/and-- very much mine and very much the world's problems. I think a more integral-language could have been used for the otherwise lovely Dedication. 

The main point of this post is to move to the last pages of the W & W book (i.e., Appendix 6: Environmental Dimensions of Climate Change). Note, even if "climate change" is the signified W-problem, I believe both W & W would be in agreement to say that most all of the generalizations (theory) applied in Appendix 6 could be applied to any W-problem in the book and beyond what's in the book. I make that assumption. The most important reason I make that assumption is because of my interest in applying the "Integral matrix" (p. 292) more or less in my critical integral fearology work. I have been doing this for some 20+ years. I have also not been able to convince Wilber that my work is important, meaning, that my/our/world work on the Fear Problem is qualifying of dignity as a W-problem. Again, it is ignored in this latest book, and Wilber well knows that I have introduced him to my work on this problem since the early 1990s (we corresponded). Be that as it may, let me proceed to make the linkages so you may see (perhaps) how powerful the Integral matrix and vision-logic (apersperspectival-integral consciousness) and worldcentric worldview is when applied to "fear" (i.e., the World's Fear Problem). Fearology, as I have crafted it over the decades, is as "wicked" of a methodology (a W-methodology) as is the W-problems--in particular, Fear Problem (see Fisher, 2010 (6)).

I agree with W & W that the book Integral Ecology is "brilliant" (p. 292). Esbjorn-Hargens & Zimmerman (2009) produced an outstanding Integral assessment of the ecological and environmental problem(s) and the many diverse (often conflicting) individuals and groups trying to solve it. The assumption behind their book, following Wilber's basic Integral matrix conceptualization, is that (citing Esbjorn-Hargens) "No single method (e.g., level) can by itself 'see' or reveal climate change in its entirety." W & W reiterate (via Wilber's words) "You can't [realistically] honor various methods and fields, without showing how they fit together. That is how to make a genuine world philosophy." (p. 296). Integral matrix framework provides (arguably) the only and best truly Integral approach that values all the perspectives, fields, methods, and organizes them into a wise and compassionate model (a "theory of everything"; see, e.g., Wilber, 1996 (7)). Shift to the analogy (homology) of E & Z from "ecology" to "fearology"--and, at that point, everything you think you know about "fear" is about to change into multi-dimensional wickedness (dare, I say). And, I agree with E & Z and W & W that: "... our point in all of this is that wicked problems are wicked primarily because they are not approached from an equally wicked, complex, encompassing [i.e., aperspectival] multi-dimensional Integral stance" (p. 293).

I would add to this claim, which the "Integrals" never themselves seem to fully appreciate or write about, that anything less than such an Integral stance is one that is more fear-based than not, epistemologically. I make a long arduous case for that in my new book (see e.n. 3) and in all my publications on fearology. So, to again, play-off the work of W & W in Appendix 6, I am arguing that the human Fear Problem has never been solved, and fear ('fear') and fearism continue to plague us and distort our motivations (among other things). Continually, W & W call for this "subjective side" in our analysis and solutions to W-problems. E & Z did so as well, and they found in the literature, that over 200+ "ecologies" (i.e., "schools of ecology") can be identified (p. 292)--and, until we identify and embrace them, give them space on the table of legitimate partial truths in understanding the Big Ecology Problem-- there will be little and only fragmented progress solving the environmental (i.e., ecological) aspects of any problem, especially "climate change." Same with the Big Fearology Problem--and, I have not yet had the resources to classify the 200+ fearologies that exist, that is "schools" of thought in how they frame meaning of and identify the problem with "fear" (as a start). Each, more or less, with their own worldviews, own values, beliefs, facts, and so on. So, to conclude, if I get the support, I will lead this Integral matrix and stance further to study the Fear Problem--which is the motivational--I mean meta-motivational dynamic behind all the other problems (more or less) that W & W raise in their book. And yes, I too (theoretically) believe "Only by using an Integral Framework can we get a complete handle on the full extent of the challenge that climate change [fear problem] presents" (p. 293). 

So my friends, I trust this will give you a better understanding of the Fearlessness Movement and its work ahead. I end with Wilber (2015) from the Preface of W & W, which says in general what my whole blogpost here is about (except I would add "fearlessness" to the list of "more"): 

"The hope of both Alan and myself is that by using a more expanded, more inclusive 'Integral Coherence' model, a great range of new areas, dimensions, methods, fields, and approaches will be made available to you for a more comprehensive approach to whatever problems you might be facing--from the simplest to the most complex and wicked" (p. xvi)

End Notes

1. Watkins, A., and Wilber, K. (2015). Wicked and wise: How to solve the world's toughest problems. Chatham, Kent: Urbane Public. Ltd. 

2. Worldcentric, for simple identification, is a term Wilber particularly likes to use as operating when a personal or system/organization is focusing its attention, values, needs, actions, toward not just the body, self, ethnic/social grouping or institution, but the world (i.e., a global internationalist perspective, but also an ecological whole systems perspective that is evolutionary at its core). This level is developmentally called post-conventional in terms of (at least) cognition, affect, and moral capacities. Often it is called "integral" for short. See Wilber, the integral philosopher and theorist, in most any of his books, for more detail analysis of the different levels/stages of development. 

3. Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (2015). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris. 

4. The other thing I do before I even read the last pages of a book is to glance through the Index. I look for words like affect, anxiety, fear, terror(ism) and not a one of those terms shows up in the Index. That's not a good sign, in terms of a book on so-called W-problems. I think my point of this quickie fearanalysis will come through in the text above especially in terms of how the authors continually state how important "motivation" is in order to analyze and solve W-problems. 

5. This latest short bio on KW says, "... with 25 books translated into some 30 foreign languages... [he] is in the process of writing and publishing half a dozen new books" (p. 295)--now, that's impressive with someone struggling with all the physical limitations (and aging) he has to work with daily. You can look up Wilber's disease and such on the Internet (e.g., Ken Wilber, on Wikipedia as a start). 

6. I summarized my work (albeit, only a partial Integral matrix approach with focus on stages/levels) in a critical integral theory applied to fear and its management (via fearlessness) in Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world's fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

7. Wilber, K. (1996). Brief history of everything. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

If you note in the previous blogposting on the "art" I wrote Camus 1946... and that reference is to his dictum I'll share below, one I discovered in grad school eons ago... 

It has been one of the guiding quotes, poetic, philosophic, political, historical... and educational... of which I have not found one quote to equal its power on me... and of which I cite often in my work, almost like a signature "sound" that Beethoven or some musician might put on all their work, and most would not notice it. Here it is, something translated from Fr. which he wrote from the underground movement (The Resistance) in France during the Nazi Occupation, and it was published c. 1946 in the underground newspaper Combat: 

THE 17TH CENTURY WAS THE CENTURY OF MATHEMATICS;

THE 18TH CENTURY THAT OF PHYSICS;

THE 19TH CENTURY OF BIOLOGY; AND

THE 20TH CENTURY IS THE CENTURY OF FEAR. 

I always add my own last line: The 21st century is the century of terror. Yet, what does this mean to me? It means that I am as much a mathematician, physicist, biologist and now fearologist attempting to make some new great discovery for the century of which I have lived. I call myself at times a theoretical fearologist and nobody gets it. 

What is there to get? I simply ask that one reads my work with the same sincerity as all of the knowledge pursuits of the last 300+ yrs. I ask that people reflect on what Camus's quote and insight may mean? I have interpreted it many ways, but the simplest is... if the 20th century has turned out to be a century of fear then we ought to really study that as the new discipline of importance--thus, I have called for fearology, and 'Fear' Studies, etc. So far, this has little been taken seriously. 

The next powerful quote that has stayed with me (and there are others too) is from the scholar Ruth N. Anshen in the mid-1960s as she was describing the shifting emphasis to which knowledge itself ought to be used--all in the context of the crises in the 20th century that were pointing to a rather gloomy future for humankind. She wrote, "Knowledge... no longer consists in a manipulation of man [sic] and nature of opposite forces, nor in the reduction of data to statistical order, but is a means of liberating [hu]mankind from the destructive power of fear." 

Put Camus's discovery together with Anshen's conclusion... and we are in the realm of prophetic vision and work, of which I have documented here, and will do so in the future--like a graffiti artist... like a madman... like a shaman... like a mailman... always with a message at your door, if you open it up!

Just watched the "Elegant Universe" PBS series on a DVD with Barbara. We get DVDs from the SIU library for free, and often pick up science documentaries like this one on the new physics of "string theory" as a potential "theory of everything" to explain the entire universe, with nothing excluded from such an explanation in one unified theory... well, when I was watching it, much of the aesthetics of the string theory representations in a way reminded me of the more "solid" universe in the drawing I did spontaneously a week ago and then the less "solid" with the black lines on top -- looking a lot like "strings" as the new physicists were describing. Is this just an "accident"? Well not that I care that much if I was attuning to strings in the sense of physics, I was exploring in these spontaneous colorings aesthetics more than anything... and it is not surprising to me that "elegance" (a notion of beauty) is a term physicists use when in this aesthetic modulation/register... so, I wrote some notes on this "art" piece to complete it based on my experience of the documentary. Yes, point being, I am so much dedicated like these physicists to "discovering" something not before discovered... I can't seem to help it... 

I have just published Technical Paper No. 56 "Fearanalysis: Further Notes From a Forensic Craft" which I thought you might be interested in. Below is the Abstract of this paper and it can be downloaded from http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3 (scroll down)... 

Fearanalysis: Further Notes From a Forensic Craft

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

                                                                                                                      ©2015

                                                                                                           Technical Paper No. 56

 Abstract

The advancement of the methodology and praxis called fearanalysis by the author for the past 20 years, is a process of application, theorizing, and then refining the craft. It is becoming evident that in many ways (not all) the work of fearanalysis is in large part forensic—among its many forms of interrogation. Its primary critical inquiry is to reveal the uses (and mis-uses) of language that has anything to do with making meaning of fear—especially in the social realm. The author draws upon Ken Wilber’s discussion of the unconscious (repressed) in language (and linguistic formation) and its power—not unlike the “discourse” of language that Michel Foucault presented in his philosophy and theories of the ways we talk about subjects/topics over time and across cultures. Fearanalysis, in particular, unique among the methodologies that “study fear” is a critical discourse analysis of the “language” and “linguistics” of fear itself. This becomes even more complicated, methodologically (and epistemologically) when the author has posited within the study he calls fearology the necessity of cataloguing the dynamic (morphing) “forms,” “types” and “species” of fear itself—which, has led to his strategic and powerful use of the notion of ‘fear’ (including, but beyond fear). Simply, fearanalysis has taken on a forensic study of the “crimes” of language (and their sociocultural embedded status within a “culture of fear”) that involves fear—be that fear directly stated, or implied. All of which fearanalysis is one of the many tools the author has created to critique and improve fear management/education on the planet. These notes are an attempt to convey some of the author’s latest thinking, in lieu of a longer project eventually to write a full-length book Introduction to Fearanalysis.   

Annoyingly, a second time, Wikipedia (editors) have chosen, without reason, to remove the "Fearism" article I so carefully crafted and posted on their site as "Sandbox" meaning it is under progress. They have never done this with my "Fearlessness Movement" Wikipedia but just recently have I noticed the "Fearism" one is gone. So, I will post it here as an important archival document they cannot touch. -enjoy, M. 

FEARISM  -Wikipedia   August, 30/15

[page under construction] [note: although an E-W balanced perspective is attempted, this is still largely a W. biased article at this point]

FEARISM

Contributing to and/or countering the human Fear Problem (1), fearism is a phenomena and core idea with many concepts used with increasing prevalence in the 21st century in some scholarly, theoretical, and popular discourses. Respectively, it serves the intention to label a movement, philosophy, and/or ideology that either focuses on fear as the "most important consciousness [aspect] in life" motivating and shaping our lives (2), or it is used disparagingly to criticize those who appear to overly-focus and obsess on fear(s)--that is, "fearists" (3)--and, the latter thus creating acts of fear-mongering and/or an unnecessarily "negative" view of humanity, history, existence and fear itself.

Contents: 1. History 2. Philosophy, Theory, Practice 3. See Also 4. References

HISTORY

Although [Subba] (4) a philosopher, poet and novelist (from Nepal, living in Hong Kong) is supposed to be "The first to coin the word fearism" (5) in 1999 (6), R. Michael Fisher, a Canadian self-proclaimed integral fearologist and educator (7) coined it two years earlier in 1997 (8). Fisher used the term frequently after 9/11, 2001 (9). Since the publication of Subba's 2014 first English translation of his thoughts, in Philosophy of Fearism (10), Fisher (living in the US, developing a philosophy of fearlessness since 1989) and Subba joined their philosophies into one philosophy of fearism in 2015 in a new book based on their intertextual E. W. dialogue. They wrote: "Fisher recalls that excitement because reading Subba's book was like looking in a mirror across the expanse of the globe. We had so much in common to talk about. At last, it felt like each of us had found the other's equal in focus on fear as a serious philosophical and yet, practical part of our lives. We have our differences in studying fear [and conceiving fearism]... but we are focusing in this book mostly on our agreements. We want to build strong foundations of commonality and then later explore and critique each other's work and engage other critiques as well from scholars, professionals, and laypersons" (11).

Although Fisher, a scholar, and Subba, a writer, have used the term fearism by far more than anyone else, there are, according to Fisher's research (12), four American and British scholars (at least) known to have used fearism as a concept (once each in a journal article) in the field of Social Sciences, beginning as early 1997 (same year as Fisher coined it) and then in 2003, 2010, 2014. Kalir (2014) is the only author-scholar (other than Fisher, or Subba) to have used fearism in the title of their work (13). The 2014 and 2010 uses by W. scholars are citations directly of Fisher's work and his conceptualization of fearism (14).

Popular culture (e.g., Internet) uses of the term are sometimes (unreliably) difficult to determine by date (or place) of which they appeared. It is not a common expression, but it is also one recognized by many in pop culture. Anonymous (2009) wrote "Fearism Story: Fear of Others" on a blog (15). Olmsted (a blogger) in 2010 connected "old racism" conception to "new fearism," concluding: "Hate is so last century; it has been replaced by fear."(16) There are many others writing on the Internet using the term fearism (or fear-ism).


PHILOSOPHY, THEORY, PRACTICE

The most common way "fearism" is used comes from popular culture, as opposed to more rigorous scholarly and/or literary writing. In the popular domain (e.g., Internet) there are ample definitions of fearism offered, which are all similar in their disparaging view; for e.g., Orosco (n.d.), blogging as a member and spokesperson of a Latina Spiritual Liberation Movement, wrote: "When we live by fear, it imposes itself on our decisions about manifesting our dreams, maintaining our health or even when we love. Fear darkens our perception of the world, of others and of ourselves. This belief system based on fear is called Fearism" (17).

Although in basic agreement with this popular culture view of Orosco (n.d.), Desh Subba is a leading critical thinker and award-winning author/philosopher (18) (founder of Philosophy of Fearism and/or theory of fearism (19)) in the E. (Nepal), who takes a much more positive "fearist perspective" (20) on fearism in his analysis of the nature and role of fear on humans historically, today, and in the future. Subba wrote: "Fear was taken to be a negative factor yesterday [historically]. It has been negatively interpreted in many religious texts, philosophies, and literary texts. Fearism has a positive perspective towards it" (21). Subba concludes: “Fearism has a positive perspective.... Like Marxism and existentialism, fearism interprets both life and the world" with, more or less, emphasis on the role of fear (22); “Positive fear is essential to acquire success in life. Again, nothing is possible to do without fear" (23), yet, like in Fisher's philosophy of fearlessness (24) become a philosophy of fearism (in 2015), there is a "fearless path" (25) and "Fearless Age" (26) optimistically available for us all. Subba's primary suggested means of attaining freedom from unnecessary fear (i.e., fearless) is via mostly a philosophical attitude of rationalism (i.e., willed mental-cognitive changes), and accompanying (almost ascetic) choices of self-discipline (27).

However complementary Subba's general philosophy is to other philosophies (in part, a critical "Dephilosophy"), he (like Fisher) is also very critical of other philosophies (and religions) E. or W. for their lack of adequate acknowledgement of the pivotal role of fear and fearism--and thus, their shortcoming in offering a treatment to the Fear Problem. Subba's fearism (not unlike Fisher's fearlessness), is his recommended treatment (or practice), according to Long (2015), which "uses the concept of fearism as a therapy for everyone who wants to get rid of fear" (28). Subba's down-to-earth humanistic, secular communistic politics (29), practical and visionary philosophy of fearism has taken hold in parts of the E. like N.E. India and Nepal, primarily because of its roots in E. literary theory and practices and specifically because of its uniqueness in contribution: According to Bikram Bir Thapa: "His [Subba's] fearism will make [the] Nepali literary world and the world literature" something outstanding (30). Subba has described many who have been involved in setting up a Fearism Study Centre in Dharan, Nepal in August, 2009 (Chairman, Prof. Dr. Tanka Prasad Neupane and the poet, Vice-Chairman, MunaRaj Sherma). He has documented many lectures, courses, fiction and non-fiction publications in the E. (mostly in Nepali), but now being translated into several other E. and W. languages on fearism applications (31).

In the W., in contrast (partially) to Subba and his E. followers, R. Michael Fisher tells a slightly different story (and critique) of how fearism is theorized by W. scholars, including himself (preferring most recently a distinction of fearism-t as related but distinct from Subbaian fearism in its signification as 't' for "toxic" ideological more cultural-political form (32)). In Fisher (2014) and Fisher and Subba (forthcoming) he summarizes his research on uses of fearism by scholars, who (unlike Subba and Fisher) do not characteristically focus their professional careers on studying fear or fearism. Fisher's summary of such W. scholars suggests they all have a similar critique of W. society and culture that has aspects of it that are oppressive, and fearism is (like classism, racism, sexism) oppressive and violent in its operations--as Fisher's use of fearism (or now fearism-t) has been characterized by (33), since at least 1997. The current Fisher-Subba collaboration of one philosophy of fearism has altered Fisher's bias and turns more into a synthesis of the more positive E. form (use Subba et al) and negative W. form (use by W. scholars)--albeit, even in the E. there is no total agreement on the positive form (34). Fisher suggests diverse theories of fearism are required for the time being, thus, any differences in uses of the term fearism are not so important per se, yet in the future they may lead to something more: "As well as pursuing with Subba a philosophy of fearism [an umbrella conception], there ought to be sufficient space for a diversity of theories of fearism--if not, someday a more universal theory of fearism. I do not think we are there yet.... I craft [in Fisher, 2014] one particular theory of fearism... that ought to inform a generic philosophy of fearism [and visa versa]. It's a dialectical relationship" (35).


SEE ALSO

Fearlessness Movement


REFERENCES

1. Although many critical thinkers have identified the human "fear problem" (individually and collectively), including US President F.D. Roosevelt's 1941 declaration ["four freedoms"] (which, one is "freedom from fear,") and the United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights (1948) including that "freedom from fear" as a human right, the most systematic scholarly treatment of the Fear Problem, within an evolutionary and developmental perspective is articulated in Fisher (2010:91, 92, 94). Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world's fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 2. Long (2015) summarized Desh Subba's "philosophy of fearism" as operating on this premise. See Long, Y. (2015). Desh Subba Analyses Philosophy of Fearism in New Book. Retrieved August 13, 2015 from http://www.digitalproducer.com/article/Desh-Subba-analyses-Philosophy-of-Fearism-in-new-book-3694603 3. Within popular culture, for e.g., according to an online Urban Dictionary: "Fearist- [noun] "One who uses [fear-based] techniques such as improper spelling and grammar to intimidate others... political party, primarily consisting of gangsters [by George the Fearist, Sept. 02, 2010]. Retrieved from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fearist. This popular interpretation (labeling) is very different than Desh Subba's more positively connotation (via, his "fearist perspective") developed in Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Xlibris, 11-12. 4. According to Rai (2011:49), Subba is well-known as a poet and writer in Nepal and India as one amongst several Nepali literary figures (like Yug Pathak, Shrawan Mukarung) who are "highly influenced by the socio-cultural and political revolution in Nepal [under the regime of the Shah]. They have a keen sense of interest and concern to the ignored and marginalized groups in Nepali society and history." Rai,J. K. (2011). Voice of the subaltern in Mukarung's Bise Nagarchiko Bayaana. Jodem: Journal of the Department of English, 3(3), 41-49. Mahendra Multiple Campus, Dharan. 5. According to Long (2015), cited in E.N.2. 6. According to Subba, he first introduced the term in Nepal in his 1999 novel manuscript entitled Bhayabad, and his reviewers were so taken with the term they encouraged him to keep writing on it, which he has ever since. The Nepali Bhayabad is published later [by Kitabghar Publications, Nepal in 2014]" (Subba in E.N. 54, in Fisher and Subba, forthcoming, p.129). Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (forthcoming). A philosophy of fearism: A first E-W dialogue. Xlibris. 7. See bio profile at Fearlessness Movement (Wikipedia). 8. Fisher (1997) was writing his own theory of fear and was summarizing Dorothy Rowe's work around "Fear Denied" in one of her chapters and Fisher wrote: "'Fear Denied,' in Rowe's words, is when 'fear' becomes 'fearism' as a social dis-ease. She documents the long-term [destructive] effects of this denial of 'fear' and how it begins in our family home and the educational institutions of our young" (p. 263). Fisher, R. M. (1997). Spectrum of 'Fear.' Unpublished ms. The concept fearism was not further explicitly developed by Fisher at this time. 9. Without any knowledge of Subba's work (and visa versa), it wasn't until four years later the concept was developed in Fisher, R. M. (2001). 'Fear' Studies: A conceptual proposal. Technical Paper No. 11. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. 10. Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Xlibris. 11. Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (forthcoming). A philosophy of fearism: A first E-W dialogue. Xlibris, 18. 12. Fisher, R. M. (2014). Towards a theory of fearism. Technical Paper No. 51. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute, 22-25. 13. Kalir, B. (2014). The Jewish State of anxiety: Between moral obligation and fearism in the treatment of African asylum seekers in Israel. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.960819 14. That is, from Fisher, R. M. (2006). Invoking 'Fear' Studies. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 22(4), 39-71. 15. Retrieved from http://thechaosofdeath.blogspot.com/2009/04/fearism-story-fear-of-others.html 16. He is remarking on the Tea Parties (mostly White people), for e.g., and their use of creating fear of Black ascendancy in America, e.g. due to the rise of Pres. Obama in 2008, 2012 election victories and other changes in American society. Olmsted, M. (2010). How the old racism became the new fearism. Huffington Post, May 26. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-olmsted/how-the-old-racism-became_b_588794.html 17. Orosco, S. (n.d.). 3 steps to recognize and overcome limitation and regain your inner power. Retrieved from http://8waystosay.com/3-steps-to-recognize-and-overcome-limitation-and-regain-your-inner-power/ 18. Subba's (2014) book Philosophy of Fearism has won a few international book awards, e.g., National Indie Excellence Awards, 2015. 19. In Subba (2014) he uses "philosophy" and "theory" interchangeably, loosely, and problematically at times when discussing fearism. 20. "The fearist perspective is a new dimension [lens] to look at life and the world [whereby fear plays the major shaping role].... How does the fearist perspective look at life and the world? The purpose behind fearism [and fearist perspective and desire] is to conduct continuous research, investigation, and invention in order to [reduce unnecessary fear] in order to make life more comfortable [and achieve full potential]" (Subba, 2014:11).. 21. Ibid., Subba (2014:332). 22. Ibid., 332. 23. Ibid., 313. 24. See for e.g., Fisher (2010). 25. Ibid., Subba (2014:316). Fisher would call this "path of fearlessness." 26. Ibid., 45-46. 27. “There is no need for an outer source of power for the alleviation of fear. As man [sic] has great power and sense and knowledge.... the mind should be rationalised for its abatement. Thus the problem of fear can be solved... [by] changes in sense and knowledge” (Subba, 2014:331). 28. Ibid., Subba (2014), see his Chpt. 28 “Fearism Dephilosophy” where he wrote: “Eastern philosophy is close to spiritualism, whereas Western philosophy is close to materialism. These philosophies have presented various ways of lives and the world. These philosophies have realised fear yet not felt—what it is. How is it?.... Wherever life exists, no matter how far away it is, still the main road is fear. It is the greatest road. All other paths of life come to join the greatest road. Philosophies might have their respective powerful logic on lives. But the fearism gives new dimension to the logic and interpretations.... Fear is a guide to life and also the greatest orbit of a series of consciousnessnesses.... No other philosophy in the name of fearism existed before” (245). 29. Beyond religiously controlled conservativism politically, he prefers communism [albeit, his own particular meaning of that is unique) as establishment of what he calls "borderless society for a comfortable life" and civilization at a "fearless stage." (Subba, 2014:300-02). 30. Excerpt re: Bikram Bir Thapa, Indian Literary Academy Winner, Shillong, Meghalaya, India, is from "Reviews" on inside front matter of Subba (2014). Three and half pages of endorsements for Subba's book and work clearly show they come from literary scholars and writers. 31. See details in Fisher and Subba (forthcoming:128-29). 32. E.g., see Fisher in Fisher and Subba (forthcoming: 140-47); Fisher takes a "conflict theory" view rather than a more "functionalist" theory view ( the latter, which Subba tends to take). 33. In these publications, two influenced by Fisher's use directly, are very brief uses of the term "fearism" by Kalir (2014), Zembylas (2010), Shirlow and Pain (2003), and White (1997). Kalir (see Ref. #13. above). Shirlow, P., and Pain, R . (2003). The geographies and politics of fear. Capital and Class, 80, 15-26. Zembylas, M. (2010). Agamben's theory of biopower and immigrants/ refugees/asylum-seekers: Discourses of citizenship and the implications for curriculum theorizing. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 26(2), 31-45; White, J. K. (1997). Still seeing Red: How the Cold War shapes the new American politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 34. For e.g., on the inside endorsements for Subba (2014), Prof. Dr. Streamlet Dkhar, Khashi Language Department, North East Hills University, Shillong, Meghalaya, India, wrote: "'Fearism is a new concept; it is utilized to keep the cultural dominance and the matrix of superiority intact in a situation of multicultural society for the purpose of wielding abusive power and justifying such acts using other's fear. Identification of the practice of fearism would take us to deeper layers of [the] psychological impact that the victims suffer from." It appears Dr. Dkhar is using both the fearism-t form (Fisher) and more positive Subbaian fearism form together. 35. Fisher and Subba (forthcoming:140).

Sorry, this "Melinda Baby" mocked someone I thought I knew joining... turns out to be a hack/spam ... I've blocked further access to the site by this entity. 

After many prompts from dialogues with my daughter, with Barbara and others, and listening to some interviews on the radio, it seems I ought to put down some thoughts on my views about social movements (including environmental movements). After all, the Fearlessness Movement is my own term for many movements that I have recorded historically across cultures, that work to move the world from Fear to Fearlessness. 

Although I consider myself an activist-educator at heart, I am many other things too. I cannot dismiss there are other social/environmental movements also going on now, and have been throughout history. I cannot suggest they are of lesser importance in the liberation of consciousness and that they have no important role to play in achieving a better quality of life for all beings. That said, I am discerning, and have learned to be so after near 64 years on this planet. I am a social movement watcher and have also participated in several movements, from the environmental movement to the various human potential and new age movements to the critical education movements that have attempted to transform Education on this planet. Once I even joined a political party, but not for long. 

Yes, politics is part of everything I am interested in. Social movements, OLD (like Marxism) and NEW (like Black Lives Matter), it doesn't matter the topic of their content and lobbying, there is always a point of where I discern how much I want to be involved in these movements. I am rarely asked to be part of them or to consult to them. I'd love to do a lot more of that. The point of this short blog is to summarize how I have come to understand it is best for me to align and/or critique such movements. Btw, if you haven't noticed, or don't know my work that well, it is typical that I tend to 'go after' and critique the hypocrisy of 'my side' of the political spectrum rather than go after the obvious enemies that have their hypocrisy too. It is the obvious enemies that so many others are criticizing that I have not felt I need to join them (e.g., the Leftist criticizing the Rightists)-- on and on. No, I prefer to 'go after' my-side, my own kindred types and critique everything they do that I find hypocritical, contradictory to their mission, and sometimes just down right unnecessarily fear-based and violent. 

So, now you have some sense of where I spend most of my energy in my critiques of social/environmental movements... I critique those that are closest in philosophy to mine, and those that espouse the very best liberational ideas that I would ally with--however, my allyship is not without discernment and critique. I often introduce myself to those movements with a desire to help them--and, then I critique them. I challenge what I see is inconsistent with their mission as stated, officially or not. As Barbara says, "This doesn't go over so well." Because they want supporters and allies alright, they want their numbers to get larger, their funding to grow, so they can be more effective achieving their goals or even defeating their enemies. I see that practical need. However, that's not how I want to be part of helping any movement, including the FM. 

So, you can see I quickly get labeled a pariah in many of these movements I come in contact with. They are more interested in advocacy (lobbying) than inquiry--and that's where I have to draw the line when those two forms become too overly weighted--on one side or the other. I look for a 'balance' in operations and philosophies in any healthy and sustainable movement. I think politics can only be really "useful" to the many when it has that balance of advocacy and inquiry--and all that comes down to what i think I can best offer these movements (e.g., the current men's movement battling feminists, and visa versa, of which Vanessa and some other colleagues of mine are involved with now)--it comes down to HOW they do their movement--meaning, how they do critical praxis. That is, how do they use theory, and practice, to combine in a critical consciousness that is an ongoing self-reflexivity to make sure they are not reproducing the very same symptoms (e.g., violences of oppression) that they declare they formed to be against. 

This last sentence is worth re-reading. 

I am a critical pedagogue, cultural critic, and curriculum designer and consultant by profession, and by choice of vocation. I support social/environmental movements pretty much just because they exist and want to improve the world--now, whether I like their agendas or not, they have a right to put them out on the table of any healthy democracy. That's my initial thought anyways... then, they also need to be responsible for the reactions they bring upon themselves. I will help any movement deal with that 'backlash' phenomenon, if they want my help, of course. And mostly, I will look to see how fear-based perceptions, thinking and actions may be undermining the movement. Fact is, fear-based conflict has ruined just about every good movement there is on this planet--to be dramatic in my generalization. 

Indeed, conflict within rips them apart. I was just listening to an interview on NPR radio, on a documentary film-maker talking about his 7 year study and filming around the historical Black Panther Movement in the USA and around the world in the 60s-70s especially. I think that was such a cool movement, as their goal was to monitor and prevent police force and military interventions into civil society (especially involving people of color)... today, this is still going on as a major concern of the Black Lives Matter movement. In this interview, Stanley Nelson told how he discovered that the reason the Black Panthers fell apart after some years and have not reformed well is because of the interior conflict in leaders. And, I don't doubt it at all. The In Search of Fearlessness Project in Calgary, AB that I co-founded in 1989 broke up after a decade also because of rifts within. Now, Nelson also says that the riffs were fanned by the FBI and other forms of oppressive agencies and forces that added to the conflict that couldn't be resolved within the organizations. In my masters degree, after ISOF Project (Calgary) fell apart, I went to study New Social Movements (NSMs), because I realized ISOF was one in fact. I was its main leader. So, there was a lot of interest on my part to find out what happens in the birth and death of NSMs as they are called by sociologists today. 

In my graduate research in 1998-2000 I started by examining the feminist movement and what happened, why it was largely gutted by the 1990s. Time and time again, feminist commentators on the movement, as academics, and as participants, recall the inner-organizational conflict--splits in agendas, and power that corrupted. They also mention that those inner conflicts were flamed by agitators outside the movements (and anti-movements contributed as well). Oppression dynamics work that way-- you are in an organization and think that you are liberating yourselves until you look hard enough, one day, and see that the efforts at liberation are being distorted into fear-based patterns, curriculum, agendas and practices that oppress the very organization itself--and all the members in it, more or less. I was furious to watch this happen in ISOF (Calgary) and not be able to stop it, turn it around-- even though I worked for years to get the community to see what it was doing in some of its behaviors (e.g., internalized oppression). 

Turns out, all Old and NSMs have this problem, as just about any organization of people--right down to families as institutions or even relationships with an intimate other. Yes, that's why I have made a systematic study of conflict and fear. I trust you will remember that is my expertise. I also know, it doesn't mean much for me to say it, if you don't get it, or simply haven't studied my work enough to make a discernment.

So, in FM ning, it behooves us as a liberation movement to likewise question HOW we are operating as an online community--and to develop a critical praxis that demands ethically that we are not operating as individuals or as sub-groups, or as a whole, with a fear-based structuration--otherwise, the entire Fearlessness Movement ning means nothing--nothing liberational, that is! 

There's some grist for the mill...