Blog

I have been re-reading Paulo Freire on "critical pedagogy" lately, as I was into it in my early 30s. I never leave this radical liberation model of education, of teaching and learning, with the "oppressed" in mind. And the oppressed, for Paulo Freire included the 'oppressors' as well because they are the worst case in being oppressed themselves by say "patriarchy" or any other name you want to give to the 'big bad problem' of domination-subordination (master-slave) relationality. I mean "worst case" because they are "blinded" by their power/privilege and thus enabled to "deny" they are oppressors and oppressed. They cause the worst damage to the whole system, not the typically identifiable "oppressed" and marginalized with very limited power/privilege in a society.

Finding A Fearlessness Center Again

I have an article about to come out soon in the International Journal of Critical Pedagogy (Spring, 2017) on some of my challenges to the critical pedagogy schools of thought and discourse in regard to how they have not really gone after the big bad problem of oppression in the way I think they need to. That is, the schools of critical philosophy, critical theory and critical pedagogy have largely ignored (or only very partially) addressed the Fear Problem (which, I am also calling many other things, but an interesting term of late is "paranoiaic paradigm" that has to be addressed). Or, as I wish to put it on this blogpost, these schools of thought and education, of which Four Arrows (aka Don Trent Jacobs) is also very critical of and yet also applauds, have ignored the 'loss of a center' in the sense of loss of 'sanity' and an ethical reference point for it --by which he and I  mean a "Fearlessness Center." Yes, there has always been a Fearlessness center or core foundation of all living systems, Natural, Cultural and Spiritual--at least, so the theory goes. He uses the Indigenous worldview as his basis for re-finding that 'Center' and I use many traditions of thought, basically under the rubric of the Fearlessness Movement. We are going to produce a lot more systematic work on this in the years to come.

I am going to post one of Four Arrows' fascinating early diagrams (1998), CAT-FAWN Connection, attempting a holistic model to show the need for a "Center(edness)" in all curriculum, that can call itself ethical and/or liberational (see below). Lot's more to be discussed of course, as this model isn't totally self explainable nor is the "Fearlessness Center" he and I are now writing about in various ways and it will show up in our new book in 2018 Fearless Engagement (Peter Lang Publishers). Anyways, something to think about.

Reference: Jacobs, D. T. (1998). Primal Awareness: A True Story of Survival, Transformation, and Awakening with the Raramuri Shamans of Mexico. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.

There are many ways to walk the path of Fearlessness, and one way, more or less, is that of art, artworking, arting, and becoming an artist in your own way. Four Arrows', from an Indgenous worldivew perspective wrote, one of the best ways to stay in touch with Nature, especially when you don't always have a lot of access to natural areas, is to "Become an artist. It is taken for granted among primal peoples that creativity is everyone's birthright. Art should not be the prize of the wealthy or the exclusive domain of a few 'gifted' individuals" (Jacobs, 1998, p. 240).

I have mentioned on the FM ning a few times, Bracha L. Ettinger, my favorite artist/theorist these days, and with Barbara, we are always learning from her work which I think is going to some day be seen with the equivalent impact Sigmund Freud had on the world. Matrixial theory, is Ettinger's main contribution, and there is an excellent new interview from Dec. 16, 2016 in the New York Times (if you can believe it)... wow, this is great to have reach the shores of North America, as she is best known in Europe so far. The title of the interview is "Art in a Time of Atrocity: Ettinger and Evans".

I see Ettinger's deep analysis essential to guiding a sanity path of Fearlessness through a world more and more dominated by Fear.

Reference

Jacobs, D. T. (1998). Primal awareness: A true story of survival, transformation, and awakening with the Raramuri shamans of Mexico. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.

Everyone please note that most of the new members signing up in "clumps" are all spam. I erase their content as fast as I am able. It comes and goes in spurts, and right now there is being a lot for a couple days. So do not engage with those new members on the ning.

If you haven't seen it already, I recommend watching the 70 min. interview of Dr. Noam Chomsky, Emeritus Professor at MIT, author of over 100 books, and critic--go to Democracy Now, Apr. 4, 2017. I have been following Chomsky's work for decades, off and on. He has written often about the "culture of fear" in various countries and the problems with it in terms of undermining civil societies.

In this latest interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Amy introduces a question from the viewers as she introduces it as a question about "Trump exploiting fear" and Chomsky answers (a repetitive analysis I have heard him say this several times over the past decade about America):

"[T]his is a very frightened country. For years, this has been probably the most frightened country in the world. It's also the safest country in the world. It's very easy to terrify people [here]."

------------

Let me say a few brief comments about this statement/observation. To say the least, I agree with Chomsky on the Fear Problem in the USA, and not that I agree America is the most "frightened country" but it is at least right up there in the top of them in the world, especially countries that are under dictatorships, I'd say they are more frightened. But one can't measure this so easily and no data is presented by Chomsky, only some 88 yrs of observations of being an American, and that counts! He's an astute and brilliant social critic of our times. His voice ought to be taken seriously. Yet, so disappointing amongst all his fans and they must be millions around the world, I do not hear any concentrated effort or advocacy of how to handle the Fear Problem, not even from Chomsky himself in terms of fear management/education strategies. That's what tends to gut his emphasis on America as "the most frightened country in the world." You can say this, and it may be plausible, as I say, I agree more or less, yet what is there to do about it directly. I mean to go to the source. Chomsky's general solution is just to have a more rational and civil democracy that works well, and the fear ought to decline. That's pretty much the operating assumption. It's no doubt partially true. However, my 28 years researching the Fear Problem (and "culture of fear" specifically) tells me that this will not be a solution, and it also will not happen without some major intervention (e.g., 'fear' vaccine) to turn America around in another direction away from this chronic frightened state--kind of like a general anxiety disorder on the scale of a whole country. That is pretty much Chomsky's diagnosis. I don't disagree basically and other critics of the "culture of fear" phenomenon has said as much for decades, e.g., the sociologist Barry Glassner amongst the more popular authors.

I have written about Chomsky a year ago. Fisher, R. M. (2016). In defense of fearism: The case of Noam Chomsky. Technical Paper No. 58. Carbondale, IL: In                    Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. I argued he would in all likelihood support the philosophy of fearism (at least my own theory of fearism)--because toxic fearism is like terrorism but works in the more subtle infrastructures of societies to create this chronically frightened (anxious) state, where as Chomsky says, it becomes "very easy to terrify people." So true. I have lived in the USA for 9 years and I feel it and see it among Americans. Now, I have gone out to make myself present here (Carbondale, IL) and reached out to many activist groups, to clergy to political leaders to non-profit organizations, to school system leaders, etc. And they have little to no interest in the Fear Problem, even when they sort of agree with me it is a big problem in the USA. This I have found empirically disturbing to see how they will not, on the whole, or in small groups, focus on the root of all the rest of their problems that makes them so susceptible to being "very easy to terrify." It is like they are so terrified as the 'normal' condition they also are so arrogant that they are "fine" and that they already know how to solve their social problems, etc. They must be in a state of denial and psychic numbing, as far as I can tell. Even Chomsky, will say the core of the problem is fear but he offers no other analysis, or insufficient analysis as I point out in my Technical Paper No. 58. And, I have always said, to Americans I meet and who are so quick to reject or just ignore my efforts to help them, that sure maybe you don't want to be a "connoisseur of fear" (as Four Arrows and Sam Keen and myself suggest) but could you at least consult with people like me, a fearologist, so that you get that expertise to help? No, they do not. I can tell you in all these years, they do not ask for it. This is the real Fear Problem, is when you know you are operating out of so much fear (and thank you Chomsky for calling it out), and you don't do anything substantially different to change it.

All I can say, is that Americans didn't get here over night. It has been part of their European history coming to America, part of their slave trade to build this country--all points that Chomsky has pointed to historically, as have others. The American "culture of fear" or "politics of fear" (e.g., Corey Robin's analysis) has a long intricate history that must be understood and taught in our school systems, and generally it is not, and only as so partial and then with no follow up in terms of teaching fear management/education in the radical ways I have suggested for nearly 3 decades. So, Four Arrows has said it recently in our work together that the Indigenous Peoples of the world, practicing the 'old ways' have a worldview where they are taught not to fear fear itself. This has never really been part of the non-Indigenous or Dominant worldview on the planet.

I'll leave this commentary with the comment that Chomsky threw into his interview (and the quote above): "It's the safest country in the world." Too bad he didn't give statistics for this, and too bad Amy didn't ask him about this. Let me explain where it is coming from, as far as I can tell, because when you read the quote as a whole it is so paradoxical and ironic, that the most frightened country is the most safest in the world, according to Chomsky. Many of the culture of fear theorists, and critics have said the same things (Glassner, Frank Furedi, Gavin DeBecker, etc.). So what is going on here? The argument of these  critics is that America has created the "safest" society but yet it is the most "frightened"--and, there is a real 'disconnect.' One indicator these critics give is that the rates of crime have gone done for decades but on surveys the population as a whole keeps saying that they have a higher "fear of crime." All the critics pin this problem down on how media creates this fear by exaggeration and repetition on TV and other sources of mass media, and they do so to "win" viewers to their programs because nothing gets attention like fear--as they say. It is part of the "economy of attention" as some scholars have called it. It is part of the "culture of fear"--and then, when you get government leaders, activists, and corporations using this economy of attention--that is, economy of fear to manipulate people's opinions--then, fear keeps going up, no matter even if the society is relatively safe and secure.

I agree with most of this "culture of fear" and "politics of fear" analysis to explain the 'disconnect.' It is a very troubling psychic and social state going on, and I have witnessed it here in the last 9 years. But more disturbing to me, is how Americans are so arrogant, and ignore-ant, as a whole, to actually attend to this Fear Problem 'disconnect.' I also am a critic that you can't use simple statistics on "safe" and "secure" to measure a society that is living in a post-traumatic condition and culture of fear as ongoing chronic context. There is always, says, Brian Massumi the cultural critic, a "low-grade fear" that isn't even normal anxiety or fear--it is like another phenomena we haven't easily been able to "name" or study. I have called it toxic fearism.

It would be great if someday, Chomsky and others like him, and the culture of fear critics will take my work seriously and engage with me, instead of deny we need a much better fear management/education that is systematic in all curricula.

Abstract

This rather technical blog is a first introductory sorting through my synthetical and fresh thoughts, though with a long history, of why I have never been happy with the locating of "fear" as (only) an emotion or feeling as typically found in our thinking (norms). The theories of affects, feelings, and emotions are many and diverse, yet for me they virtually all fall into the same, often unconscious biased framework, paradigm, or what can also be called a (Dominant) worldview. There are a few radical sources of fresh and alternative thinking/theorizing that have led me today to create a new category of awemotion to work along-side, if not dismantle, the hegemonic control of Fear and its meanings and definitions. I no longer think it very productive to liberation to continue to see fear as emotional; at least not without a serious correction to that referential frame of meaning and shaping of experience that goes with it typical of Psychology. People of all stripes, for the most part, cannot seem to think of Fear beyond it being imagined and classified within this Emotional Paradigm. I'll give an introduction to the difference between emotion and awemotion and offer a theoretical rationale for awemotion as the best way to understand Fear beyond the Emotional Paradigm, the latter, which is arguably buried in oppressive premises of a phallocentric and non-Indigenous understanding. Therein, I surmount the scaffolding (only briefly) here for a new theory of Fear which will better help us solve the Fear Problem. My gratitude here is to three contemporary critical thinkers, theorists, who have assisted my synthesis: Four Arrows, Bracha L. Ettinger and Desh Subba. 

Brief Introduction

This morning I awoke with one of the synthetical moments of the hypnopompic trance-state of consciousness (between waking and sleep). This has always been a most creative time, when my brain/mind system has had a good night of dreaming and rest, and re-integration of a lot of the complexities and inputs during the day prior, and during my entire life-time. The synthetical moment is like a bursting of a "damn" or "knot" in my thinking and processing of problems to solve.

The biggest problem to solve since 1989 [1] is how to convince humans to experience, perceive, respond and think about Fear (with capital) in an entirely different way than the norm. Four Arrows (aka Dr. Don Jacobs at the Leadership Studies Program, Fielding Graduate University) and myself have had an intense six years specifically talking about how to re-frame Fear from a trance-based learning (TBL) and Indigenous perspective. We are working on a book together entitled Fearless Engagement (to be published in 2018, Peter Lang publishing). He began using a capitalization of the term to set it apart from fear (with no capital, which is the norm) as defined and made meaning by what he called the Dominant worldview (contra the Indigenous worldview) [2]. I really like his framing of the Fear Problem (my term) within this Worldview Wars (see also Culture Wars, Paradigm Wars below). If "wars" is off-putting and sounds militarized, I assure you that is not how I see the battle/resistance going on for domination, re: the problem of hegemony of knowledge/power in the domain of Fear Studies. Yet, you can turn the conflict and use your own word(s) of which many in the recent Indigenous resistance movements are calling themselves "Water Protectors" while various actors, non-Indigenous and/or Indigenous backgrounds, call themselves "Water Warriors." In this sense, Four Arrows has preferred of late to call himself an Indigenous (Nature and Culture) protector rather than warrior. I label him and his work within the Sacred Warrior traditions from around the world, across cultures and through time. These are word(s) for you to consider but further delineation here would be a distraction.

Multiple Perspectives/Worldviews: Radicalizing the Theory of Emotion(s): Fear

This morning I wish to briefly introduce a parallel notion to Four Arrows' work and his naming of Fear [3], which intersects with his conceptualization and radicalization of Fear. I am referring to two other sources that, more or less, complement Four Arrows' work and my own on this subject. Also, notice that the focus of this blog is not to go into the practical applications of a radical theory of Fear but to show the initial revision required in the dominant theory of fear as we normally have been taught--and, taught to absorb rather than question critically. The Biomedical scientific model (or paradigm) is part of the Dominant (i.e., non-Indigenous) worldview--and is thus, the worldview of the "colonizer" of the Earth and Natural Systems and the destroyer of much of what had been Indigenous Traditional Knowledge.

The biomedical perspective, now Psychiatry and Psychology serving as its agents, continues to categorize "fear" as an emotion--and thus, always emotional. This has been heavily reinforced by technologies (e.g., MRI brain scan research into the neurobiology of fear). It has told us that that is the way to understand fear. It has told us we ought to be emotional and manage all the emotions (i.e., fear being only one, not special in any way, from the list of emotions). Note, I am not questioning that we may at times be "emotional" that is not the issue here, if you read on, the context for how emotionality is constructed and regulated by "Authority" is the issue in question. The theory of fear (Fear) is one way to get at this critique.

I began fearology long ago as a way to displace this unquestioned assumption of the Biomedical scientific model. When I found Desh Subba's work on a philosophy of fearism (he's from Nepal, now living in Hong Kong) writing about fear in such a new way, as he has since 1999, it floored me that he was doing so without having known about my work. We had so many overlapping ideas and thus wrote a book together in 2016 [4]. I'll never forget the awe I had when reading Subba's primary text on philosophy of fearism (2014) [5], where he offered, in chapter one, some 21 "Definitions" of fear. I had never seen such a diverse array of ways to understand fear. And I had been researching the topic for over a quarter century at that point. And what was so rare was that he didn't start off with the standard Biomedical definition (i.e., fear- is a feeling or emotion). Clear to me, he was articulating an understanding of fear that was complex, holistic, transdisciplinary and obviously non-Western. He was giving an Eastern worldview perspective to the topic that was completely refreshing. Turns out Subba has a very broad background as a journalist, philosopher, and best known for his many books of poetry and fiction. He is an artist in the largest sense. I resonated, and since have helped in re-translating some of his English translated works (originally written in Nepalese), because it is very difficult to read some of his work even with the English translations he has to date. I know it is very costly to get good translations and he is doing the best he can with very limited resources as he lives a very working class life in Hong Kong. Readers of the philosophy of fearism are growing, and I am very happy to be part of Subba's leadership in this area. However, this blogpost is not about his work either.

The third theorist I wish to engage very briefly who helped me come up with the specific term awemotion (pronounced ah-motion) [6], is the Israeli (living in France) artist, psychoanalyst, activist and matrixial theorist Bracha L. Ettinger. This woman has amazed me with her matrixial theory ever since Barbara Bickel (my partner) and I discovered her work in 2009-10. Barbara and I continue to study her largely feminist/feminine theory that offers an important re-correction to phallocentric theory (i.e., overly masculinized perspectives, psychologies, and those that typically accompany a pathological patriarchy) [7].

Ettinger's notion of "feminine" is very unique and complex in her matrixial theory (which she coined over 20 years ago). I will only tell you that it is non-gendered as a concept and proto-subjective (or transubjective). Much of her matrixial theorizing is based on her phenomenological investigations into her artworking processes as an artist, and her work in the psychoanalytical relationship, her motherhood, as well as the traumatic era of a post-Holocaust survivor connectivity as "Jewish" in general.

Barbara and I have really fallen in love with matrixial theory as we are both artist and it speaks to us on that aesthetic and poetic level, but also on the psychospiritual level; yet, her framework is all-encompassing (cosmic), based on the "womb" (not just physically speaking) and the "maternal" and the child-mother bonding (again, not only physical but on the psychical and spiritual dimensions of experiencing--and, one doesn't have to be only a biological mother to engage matrixial theory and the reality it attempts to "touch" that is so ignored in the phallocentric Dominant and Biomedical worldviews). Her work is not metaphysics, yet it crafts what feels like an entirely new feminine theology (worldview). She isn't attacking all of the masculinist worldivew but says it is incomplete and crippled because it has for a long time in human history ignored and or deleted the feminine--that is, the matrixial reality. Thus, we all have suffered under this regime of political power/knowledge exclusion--and led to us generally "fearing the feminine." Thus, she also has feminist objectives but matrixial feminism is interrelated with but very different than all other kinds of feminisms.

Does Ettinger have a unique Fear theory? Not overtly. Her work is therefore different from Four Arrows and Subba that way. Yet, I find lots of overlaps in the three theorists, of which I will not be going into here in this blogpost as it would take a long essay to ferret those similarities and differences out. Yet, her Fear theory exists when I study it and write about it and it is wonderfully liberating because it does not encast and mold the definition and meaning of fear (Fear) as only "emotional"--rather, Ettinger is specific to include that emotionality of Fear in matrixial theory but by no means does she rely on the phallocentric Biomedical perspective. She doesn't actually talk about emotions much at all. Her emphasis is on a much more contemporary philosophical and theoretical body of work, and varied schools of thought, that can best be called the "affective" schools. She always talks about affect--which includes, but transcends the limited meanings of emotion. Again, all that is too complex to go into here. 

Ettinger's Matrixial Relational Ecology

Ettinger's matrixial-based affect-focus to understand the dynamics of the human experience is proto-emotional, proto-aesthetic, and proto-ethical. Her primary affects are "awe and com-passion" as the basic unit-bond of the maternal subjective formation of the baby and mother (or, more generally, what she calls the non-I and I relational dynamic; which I would call the matrixial relational ecology). It is upon her notion of "awe" in particular that I am now considering seriously as a very unique way to add as a prefix (that is the matrixial feminine side) to emotion--thus, we get the synthesis of awemotion. Think of this as a relational ecological understanding of our primal foundational onto-epistemological way of being in the world--that is, prior to post-traumatization (i.e., woundedness, and fear-conditioning) [8].

Like Four Arrows Indigenous worldivew, or Subba's Eastern worldivew, Ettinger's Matrixial worldview do not privilege the understanding of Fear as emotional but rather as relational and better situated in the concepts of alertness, arousal and ultimately awe (and com-passion [9]). I recall Fr. Matthew Fox once preaching about how the term "fear of God" in the Bible in the old Hebrew actually means "awe of God." Anyways, Ettinger, I believe would argue, that these relationally (more truly matrixial feminine) terms offer a "natural" and healthy responsivity to all relations (i.e., self/Other) and thus ground the human experience ontologically in love and trust (again, her definitions of these terms are complicated and corrections to the phallocentric views). "Fear of the Other" (or strange) is not where human subjectification and identity-formation begin and/or mature from--at least, not in matrixial theory. 

The entire understanding of the emotional and empathy with it, as we've known, are being critically re-framed by Ettinger into awe and com-passion as the base rather than anxiety (i.e., fear) that undergird emotionality and empathy as we know them as norm conceptions and practices. The Western (Dominant) worldview has given us a 'picture' of reality and human experience as based primarily on anxiety (e.g., existentialism, and developmental object relations, early psychoanalysis, Judeo-Christianity, etc.). The anxiety or fear-based perspective to basic human subjectivity skews our orientation to the world (to Nature, to God, to Spirit) via what Ettinger would call "reactive" rather than "responsive"--and, most importantly, that makes the orientation flooded with an ongoing sense of the world (and our own bodies, and God) as "threat" and "traumatic" signalling. It leaves us with a bereft (if not pathological) and very skewed psychology (and Psychology Paradigm). It isn't a healing paradigm that's for sure. It is a coping paradigm. This is violent and killing us.

A new paradigm is available, of which Ettinger is one of the major theorist I draw upon for such a reconstruction. To be sure, the entire body of research and writing and education based on "emotion" (and the Emotional Paradigm) is being challenged--and, that goes the same for the Emotional Intelligence theory, models and pedagogy! Okay, I'll leave this here, understandably incomplete... I want to think a lot more about Ettinger's complex "proto-emotion" (i.e., proto-affects) of "awe and com-passion" as foundational to a new way of understanding Fear. I will say, rarely does she talk about "fear" directly, though when she has, I immediately resonate with a deep and enduring truth in her work, and it sounds like she is writing and thinking from a Fearlessness perspective. I love it. Yet, it will take awhile to unwind her thought and theory and show how matrixial theory is non-fear-based (because, for many reasons, at least, it is non-phallocentric based). At least, this is the critical theory of matrixial theory I am attracted to pursue, so as to produce a better critical theory and pedagogy for the world and our ways of doing fear management/education.

Until next time ... [feel free to email me and lets chat about any of this: r.michaelfisher52 [at] gmail.com]

Notes:

1. In late 1989, while living in Calgary, AB (my hometown), I had a transformative vision with a female partner, Catherine Sannuto, at the time, that led to my naming and leading the In Search of Fearlessness Project (a not-for-profit organization). I am grateful to my next partner, Barbara Bickel, who came into this project and has helped support my work since. I established the In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute in 1991 and remains the structure in which I publish my results (e.g., Technical Papers Series).

2. Probably the best up-dated summary of Four Arrows "point of departure theory" that articulates the conflict (Culture Wars, Paradigm Wars, Worldview Wars) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives is his book: Point of Departure: Returning to a More Authentic Worldview for Education and Survival. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. I have written a book review on Amazon books, which will give you my early perception of the value of this approach he has taken, albeit, I am also critical and working to revise his views somewhat, yet keep their core intentions and wisdom in place.

3. Although Four Arrows had originally began using Fear (with the capital) in his doctoral research and his first major theoretical book on the topic (1998), he has not always been consistent in doing so and thus many of his readers do not often gather in the implication of how his view of Fear (based on many perspectives) is so unique from the norm view of fear (without the capital). See Jacobs, D. T. (1998). Primal Awareness: A True Story of Survival, Transformation, and Awakening with the Raramuri Shamans of Mexico. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.

4. See Fisher, R.M., and Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue. Australia: Xlibris.

5. See Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of Fearism: Life is Conducted, Directed and Controlled by the Fear. Australia: Xlibris.

6. The profound work of Erin Manning (also Brian Massumi) is also part of articulating my formation this new term awemotion; and also, the theory of Re-evaluation Co-Counseling (a la the late Harvey Jackins) has been influential, as a few others... however, I won't be going into their work here.

7. You can read and/or listen to Ettinger's work for yourself (e.g., Youtube) although, I caution that her work can be hard to grasp because it uses a complex scaffolding of theory and terms that take quite awhile to learn (not unlike psychoanalysis in general). For a much easier "in" to her work I suggest Fisher, R.M., and Bickel, B. (2015). Aesthetic Wit(h)nessing Within a Matrixial Imaginary. Canadian Review of Art Education, 42(1), 76-93.

8. This is complicated and not some "pure" or Ideal fantasy or potential phantasy that is disconnected from reality. Ettinger, like myself, show that the traumatic threads of historical woundness (unhealed) are continually circulating as traces, even in the unborn.

9. "Com-passion" is very different than an adult (or phallocentric) view of compassion. This has to be kept in mind if you want to understand the proto-ethical dimension of Ettinger's matrixial theory. This has a lot to do with the aesthetic dimension of experience of subjects and objects and the entire process of subjectification as Ettinger articulates it. For a simple description of this see Fisher and Bickel (2015) in relation to corrective matrixial theory of empathy. Psychology, at least in the West and modernity, has a very biased phallocentric view of empathy and Ettinger's work offers a great critique--and, likewise, I would add so does Four Arrows and Subba's work.

From: Time magazine (March 27, 2017), p. 24.

THIS IS THE WORLD young people live in today, through the eyes of an artist/cartoonist who perceives and creates images that depict often what is more in the "collective unconscious" (much like a good filmmaker), and yet we all know that we are living reality as something like this "dream" image that is depicted, as the arational space in which artists work. The image above can be interpreted in so many ways, and one of the reasons I liked it was it relates to my last blog on schooling and fear/anxiety (see below). How can educators, researchers, psychologists, pretend to make the study of "fear and learning" so clean cut and "scientific" and "statistical" when the lived reality of a child or adult going to school (in this cartoon by John Atkinson) a bit of a "nightmare" --even if an exaggerated one (dreams and nightmares exaggerate for a reason). Clearly, this is what it is like living in a post-traumatic culture and century, as several critical observers I have read speak about. I and others simply call it the everyday "culture of fear"... whatever the name, I like that we have pictures of this phenomenon, and that's why this art image is so important to reach the other-side of our rational brain and communicate what we often tend to deny and repress due to the predominance of the logical side of our brain that keeps busy and distracted in the everyday "conscious" world of affairs.

I see images like the above as not attempts to scare us most, but to wake us up to how scared we already are--and how we are living in a psychic numb state--which is definitely not healthy. We'd be much better to admit the fear(s) and work through them, as a good fear management/education would teach us how to do and not only teach us, would allow us to re-connect with our primal instincts of knowing how to manifest the spirit of Fearlessness in the face of Fear.

Once again, or rarely these days, I'll pick up a journal issue from the American Research Education Association. My life-partner is a member and receives their regular journal called Review of Educational Research. In the April 2017 issue [1], I scanned through Fong et al.'s paper "Psychosocial Factors and Community College Studies" a meta-analysis of data/studies. Okay, I am attracted to how they define psychosocial development, but it is typically pretty shallow and trapped almost completely within the framework of an individualistic "psychological" model/paradigm. The research they summarize is virtually about teaching and learning strategies and mostly about the individual learners characteristics and what they can do to worsen their learning outcomes and what they can do to improve them. Fair enough, this is important. But it all depends on what you are going to pull out of their psychosocial development that will really make a big difference, even a transformative difference, that's where I get critical of this research I see over and over again.

Let's look at the five broad areas these researchers take as likely most important in psychosocial development--and, remember they are focusing on how these relate to learning outcomes (i.e., primarily cognitive-behavioral psychology). So, they list the five, of which I am glad they list Fear (i.e., Anxiety): (1) motivation, self-perceptions, attributions, self-regulation, and anxiety. They discuss each one briefly before they do their huge meta-analysis of all the studies that involve these categories in some way, again, with focus on college student success. There's no big questioning about "success" in any sociological, cultural, historical or political context. Anyways, here is what they say about Anxiety:

Anxiety - "As the most widely studied academic emotion in the educational literature (Zeidner, 1998) [2], anxiety is not only conceptually distinct as a psychological factor but also highly prevalent in today's college campus culture and student population. Although some degree of stress [i.e., fear and anxiety] can indicate a healthy interest in the task and a response to appropriate task difficult, many students experience overwhelming amounts of anxiety that ultimately [negatively] affect their performance." (p. 395).

What is great about this is the up-front acknowledgement of the powerful negative role of anxiety/fear [3] in learning and successful performance, and that it has been obviously recognized by enough researchers and others in the field of Education to be "the most widely studied" of psychoemotional variables. Wow. Great. But then, after this great introductory sentence, and surely one could generalize that this finding on the major negative affective impact of fear for college students could easily be applied to K-12 schooling as well. I'm not up on the latest research, but I know as a professional educator for 40 years this is no surprise to education researchers and teachers. They know fear is crucial in educational learning successes and a whole lot of other things that go on in schooling environments/cultures, never mind society at large. But, I can tell you there is very little about this psychoemotional factor brought out into the common Education discourses, policies, practices. That aside, once I look a little deeper into this statement on anxiety, in the study, there is a disturbing finding of this large meta-analysis by Fong et al. (and, yes, it is related to statistical meta-analysis studies in general), these researchers admit in their Results section:

"We observed some differences as well between our review and Richardson et al.'s. Anxiety and stress were found to be consistently negatively associated with college achievement by Richardson et al. [4]; however, in the present meta-analysis, there were no significant [i.e., statistical] relationships between anxiety and achievement." (p. 414).

So, because their statistical meta-analysis did not pick-up any significant correlation of anxiety/fear to learning, guess what? They don't say another thing of any substance about this psychosocial domain--I would call Fear. Nope. They talk only about significant correlations issues, all the while I am asking yeah, but, what about the claim you made when you folks described "Anxiety" earlier in the article? If you re-read their statement (p. 395), again, so positive to me in admitting this is likely the most studied because it is the most powerful "academic emotion" recognized [5]. Yet, Fong et al., leave it behind and no new educative knowledge or ideas are shared about how to deal with this worst problem. It is astounding how 'blind' researchers can be. We spend our time on the less important, less worst problems in contemporary literature on education. That's the basic reality of Fong et al.'s study. Once more, Fear is side-lined to the shadows, and education as a whole does not progress, in my view. It regresses, and gets distracted. Okay, there are more problems in this study.

Besides both systematic reviews (meta-analyses), Fong et al., and Richardson, et al. being totally enwrapped in the limited world of Psychology discourse, and besides the problem of limiting (reducing) Fear to an "academic emotion" as if that can be restricted to academic concerns only, or even accurately--then, we see that this entire study does not study the "culture of fear" as an over-structure (meta-context) today in education but society in general. They ignore that, as likely is the case with most of the "success" interested studies in Education. Sure, they'll mention anxiety, but that's only a "variable" or "factor" not a context for these educational psychology folks. Big mistake. And, when I looked up in the references of Fong et al.'s article to who actually said that "anxiety is so important (i.e., the most widely studied academic emotion in the educational literature (Zeidner, 1998)) it turns out so problematic in that the Zeidner reference is a text on "test anxiety." All the focus is on cognitive achievement, behavioral outcomes and all within the context of "testing" achievement success. This is so disturbing because the Fong et al. study is on psychoemotional development, a notion they repeat in the article, and I agree it is so important. But "testing" is where the researchers go to find out how important anxiety/fear is. Wow, that is a big mistake. No wonder, they end up dissing Fear in their article, especially once it is not shown to be "statistically important"--etc. Also, it is disturbing to see their reference for the quote on the importance of anxiety/fear is now two decades old. What? They couldn't find a more up-to-date reference on Fear and learning? This is really not good scholarship, and it also shows how little they cared about this variable, they name "Anxiety" in psychosocial development. Typically, I have found educational psychology researchers to be very 'heady' people who love statistics and rational arguments--trying their best to get funding and credit for their "scientific" studies. And what gets lost in the mean-time beneath their own agendas, and their own fear of fear (to be frank)... very, disturbing for me as a fearologist to see this kind of research still filling major journals in education to this day. There has been such a major shift in American (Western) cultures in two decades, and anxiety/fear have to be looked at seriously in contextual ways of framing what is happening to our students in all schooling settings.

Oh, and I ought to finish this initial critique with how uneducational this education research continues to be. Let me quote Fong et al. again, with what they say about anxiety/fear management now [bold added for emphasis]:

"... many students experience overwhelming amounts of anxiety that ultimately [negatively] affect their performance.... To reduce the deleterious effects of anxiety on performance, anxiety requires management through a process of awareness, reflection, and control for students to analyze how their affective reactions to learning are manifesting and hindering their performance." (p. 395)

Added to this quote they note studies showing the negative associations overall between "anxiety and academic performance." Again, all psychological-individual based discussion here, including management strategies. Oh, to be fair, Fong et al., do say near the end of their article one of the limitations of this study is that it doesn't assess structural aspects of student learning (e.g., schools themselves, "college climate" and relationships,  organizations, structures, politics; see p. 416). However, that is tucked away as a caveat way to deep into and at the end of the article. Sorry, it doesn't cut it. The reality, is very clear what is being ignored virtually by Fong et al., and nearly every other researcher on student learning success. I want to know why the larger structural context(s) are ignored, not just acknowledged that it is ignored. We will never be able to address "many students experience overwhelming amounts of anxiety" as the real problem at the root of (most) all learning problems. We have known this intuitively as human beings since near the beginning of history. Tell me (tell us) something new would you please! Tell us something new about the nature and role of anxiety/fear, which you as researchers actually point out "anxiety [fear] is not only conceptually distinct as a psychological factor" --I agree, it is. But the article says nothing about why it is conceptually distinct. That is so disappointing. Again, we are not learning anything much new about this "most widely studied" (obviously, most important) factor. Again, your statistical analysis left it behind to be not seen, not conceptually distinct (aka important). This is so unacceptable research because we have the ethical imperative to actually help our students who are, as you admit, and research shows consistently, suffering "overwhelming amounts of anxiety." The construct "culture of fear" has to be taken into account, because "fear" is not an isolated phenomenon in education, learning, teaching. The current immigration (DACA) situation with so many students in the USA right now under the Trump administration being one driver of overwhelming fear of the vulnerable and yet it is bigger than that. I have documented this "culture of fear" and "education" literature some years ago (Fisher, 2011) [6]. If we are going to take the "social" seriously in "psychosocial" then we are obliged to always include a cultural/social context to any research on fear and learning/teaching.

I guess, I trust you all (including Fong et al.) will apply "self-regulated learning" to your own research and this article, and perhaps correct some things in future writing. Yes, I'd like you to "reflect" on what it is you are saying, think about what is important ethically--that is, in what is causing the major suffering (i.e., mental health issues)--and, especially, as you say in the article, anxiety/fear levels most negatively impact already susceptible ("primed") students--already "fearful" (p. 395). 

I hope you get lots of good feedback on this article: Dr. Carlton J. Fong, carlton.fong@utexas.edu

I also am glad to assist, if you wish re-thinking educational research that is actually truly educational for the real problems of student suffering (and, thus, their success as well. Feel free to contact me: Dr. R. Michael Fisher, r.michaelfisher52@gmail.com

Notes

1. Fong, C. J., Davis, C. W., Kim, Y., Kim, Y. W., Marriott, L., and Kim, S. Y. (2017). Psychosocial factors and community college student success: A meta-analytic investigation. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 388-424.

2. Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York, NY: Plenum.

3. My 28 years of research on anxiety/fear shows there is overall no distinguishing "actual" or "important" difference between these two constructs, even if many researchers will disagree, and give me the simple (operational) definition they use in psychological research. And, by the way, this also applies to existential thinking, although, I would have to go into far too complex of a discussion about this to nuance special attention to existentialism. For a review of my own thought on this you can go to any of my publications, and precisely, see Fisher and Subba (2016), look up "anxiety" in the Subject Index for several references, and note the issue of definition (contra fear) on p. 20. Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris.

4. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., and Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353-87.

5. Calling anxiety/fear only an "academic emotion" is also highly problematic, as my work continually has argued that we have to see "fear" as much more than an individual and psychological construct or "emotion." That emotion discourse is way to restricted, and insufficient to diagnose the Fear Problem on this planet (see Fisher and Subba, 2016).

6. Fisher, R. M. (2011). "Culture of fear" and education: An annotated bibliography, 1990-2011. Technical Paper No. 28 (2nd ed.). Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

During the writing of my largest and most complex book, The World's Fearlessness Teachings: A Critical Integral Approach to Fear Management/Education for the 21st Century (2010), I was aware that maybe I ought to first be writing an even larger and more complex book called The World's Fear Teachings. This latter book seemed to be the logical precursor to The World's Fearlessness Teachings. Right? You ought to know about how "fear" is being constructed as a concept and being reproduced in some forms of information and knowledge--passed on to others and generations to follow. Then once you have a big book to understand about "fear" in this sense, you could then better be able to use and understand the big book of how to cure the Fear Problem and it would naturally be something like The World's Fearlessness Teachings as the road to liberation.

Well, all logic of that aside, it turned out when I was contemplating writing a big book on my 25 years of research and experience studying fear and fearlessness, that I just couldn't make up my mind which book was first. I actually started some drafts of The World's Fear Teachings but then, it seemed too complex and would take many years to complete, as I envisioned it. So I stopped that project. And one day had a shamanic experience 'on the table' with a registered shaman (shawoman) in a therapeutic treatment session and then did my own self-shamanic journey to explore what I ought to do. I knew I wanted to summarize my work for the past 1/4 of a century. The dream-vision and my later logical rationale "pushed" me in the direction to first write the "fearlessness" stuff. I don't regret that move. I wanted to show the world that there is a Fearlessness Movement and Spirit that is always already there and ready to handle all the Fear that is going on and has ever been going on. All we had to do is know more about it, that "spirit of fearlessness" as our cura if and when we were ready to make the choice to utilize its guidance. This simple idea for that first big book more or less came down to the findings of all my research up to that point, in a nutshell, which formed a dictum in The World's Fearlessness Teachings, that is, "When fear arises, so then does fearlessness."

It was a short and sweet, optimistic note. Here was the dictum that I would offer to the world in the early part of the 21st century, and I was curious as hell to see how the world would respond. Guess what? It didn't. Well, not much. Pretty pathetic response. I knew it was a great dictum but why was it not taking hold?

This blogpost is not about this question of the value or lack of up-take of The World's Fearlessness Teachings, which apparently is not as positive and as inspiring as I thought it was. The blogpost here is about the companion volume I never wrote, but am thinking of again, and thinking particularly how to go about it so it will be more "fun" to write and not a multi-year slog out of scholarly pages that no one will want to read. So, I thought I had a really cool idea, and that's what I want to share, and get your feedback on as well. But first a quote, from the Foreword to my first big book on fearlessness:

"Fisher offers a vision.... And he wisely insists that because the terrible curriculum of fear has been implanted in us at every level of our being, it must be addressed in an integral, holistic manner that existentially transforms not only individuals but also their cultures. What Fisher offers us, at both the personal and collective level, are some preliminary theoretical ways and practical means to transcend the matrix of fear and step out (as is our birthright) onto the bright landscape of a teleological optimism--one that lies at the heart of Fisher's profound, and profoundly healing, educational vision."  -Dr. Clifford Mayes, Professor, Educational Psychology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA (p. x).

That endorsement is right on what my project is about, but this morning I am thinking maybe this companion volume to The World's Fearlessness Teachings will be just what is needed for the populations of the world to "wake up" and really get on the bandwagon to undermine the 'Fear' Matrix controlling us. Here's my little (big) idea for the companion book. It's title would be The Fear Bible.

Now, a little background before I say what would be in this book, The Fear Bible. First, I have been listening to artist-psychoanalyst and matrixial theorist Bracha L. Ettinger for a few weeks now (with Barbara) and we are so impressed once again at what she offers in way of a critique. The video we watched last night is entitled "Subject, Trust, and Carriance" (on Youtube). She takes apart the Bible discourses in a brilliant analysis of the (mis-)translations from the ancient Hebrew to Roman language and English. She does this showing virtually all the ways the (mis-)translation in English removes systematically any divine-feminine (Woman) from the text where it is really important stuff, and the divine-masculine (Man) is inserted. I won't give details, watch the video.

Point being, her matrixial feminine critical psychoanalysis is a "ground" platform to critique all the ways the paranoidal masculine has infiltrated the Western world, and the Abrahamic religious and cultural traditions and language (i.e., Discourse). In my way of looking at all this I want to do the same analogous thing with the Western world (especially), and show how "reality" has been (mis-)translated to us through texts, traditions and what Michel Foucault, the great philosopher/historian, called big 'D' Discourse. Discourse is the term for all the ways that ideas, and more than just ideas, flow through a civilization or culture in forms of information and then knowledge and then reproductions (e.g., cultural artifacts, architectures, teachings, etc.) of that Discourse.

I see a Discourse of Fear, has been flooding humanity for a long time. We don't know fully how to even recognize this. I want to show that there is a Fear Bible that has been written but is not actually written down in one book like the Bible--and, that's the big problem because we cannot at least have one source to go to to find out how we are being conditioned into one hegemonic Discourse on "reality" that is fear-based (even though, the Bible, may say it is love-based). So, I would research and write the Fear Bible as the book that I believe captures all the ways (and discourses) that are hegemonic in determining how we thinking about "Fear" (again, analogous to how the Bible is the book that captures (most) all the ways we in the West thinking about "God"). Get it? 

If I was to label my own philosophy that has captured (in a good way) my life since 1989, it would be to call it a "fearlessness philosophy." Now, today, I was thinking of some differences, initially, that ought to be distinguished between fearlessness philosophy (FP) and a philosophy of fearlessness (PF) [1].

First, I went on the internet and searched for fearlessness philosophy and that combination of terms, putting fearlessness before philosophy and as the identifier and inscription for a particular kind of philosophy, and found it is only used once in a publication, and that is by myself in 2007 [1]. All the 'near' hits on Google search related are all my publications and a couple of other authors who have not used this combination exactly. At some point, I'll search PF and no doubt there will be more people using this, although still likely not that many. Also, to keep in mind, there are authors/philosophers (especially in the East) who are very interested in a PF (perhaps even FP) but they haven't yet decided to put those two terms together. Okay, enough of that detail.

Now, to get down to my initial distinction of FP and PF, of which I prefer the former for various reasons (see below). I too have used both combinations over the 27 years of my study and writing. I also have other publications, with FP in them but the internet wouldn't have picked it up and/or some of my work is not published properly per se. Okay, now to PF - this more common phrasing is best to be used to describe when philosophy is applied to the topic "fearlessness" just as any philosophical investigation could be applied to any topic, like, for e.g., the "Philosophy of the Matrix" (which does exist, that is, when The Matrix sci-fi film trilogy by The Wachowski Bros. came out 1999-2003). This arrangement of terms is predictable in that a philosopher could (and they have) study the film using all their philosophy tools, by which they do not for a moment ask reflectively (or rarely might they) "Are the tools of philosophy as a discipline adequate to study The Matrix?" It is precisely, if you are an academic philosopher (or really any other kind of 'philosopher' even an amateur), such a reflective questioning that ought to be part n' parcel of any philosophical inquiry. Philosophy if it is anything substantive and important, always begins with questions about the nature of the methodology of knowing, the knower's capabilities, etc. in bringing them to a research, that is, a philosophical question or topic. Another, point, is to say, there is also a "Matrix philosophy" overlapping somewhat with a philosophy of the Matrix, but they are not the same necessarily. Matrix philosophy (analogous with FP) is when philosophy itself is intricately changed from its disciplinary canon or normal way of conceiving it and its methodologies and knowledges--thus, in this latter combination there is more attention given to the impact that The Matrix (as topic, or subject, or object) itself has on the philosophical tools (and/or philosophers) applied to studying it.

Okay, FP, now begins to look substantively different if you get some of this analogy I just went through. Indeed, FP posits from the beginning that "fearlessness" is not only a topic of study for philosophy (which is a good idea), but the dialectical relationship of the two components "philosophy" and "fearlessness" are in an irrevocable interplay, an intimacy of exchange, whereby it is expected (and assumed) there will be transformational set of findings from the process of bringing these two together. Whereas, in PF, there is no such expectation but rather the expectation and/or goal is that philosophy will make fearlessness more clear and knowable and so on. Science also operates this way, on this methodological and paradigmatic assumption, as if we had a "science of fearlessness" then you see the same operating procedures, more or less, in terms of the assumptions of relations of the discipline applied to the "object" of analysis. Whereby, FP reverses this as well (i.e., both/and). FP says that you ought to have the observer of the fearlessness equally "observed" and interrogated by "fearlessness." I know that can sound a bit strange at first. But really it is at the crux of this distinction I am making that everything shifts into the dialectical and transformative way of knowing and results of the inquiry ought to reflect this dialectical dynamic. Simply, in FP, there is a much greater demand on philosophy to actually 'become' fearlessness simultaneously, more or less, as philosophy studies fearlessness. Make sense?

There is a lot more I could go into regarding these distinctions, but this will do for a short initial blog on the topic. I am amazed I haven't written this out clearly enough over all these years, and I really ought to do a full technical paper on this. Soon. And, as well, now, I am sort of starting to see why there is no one else (apparently) on the planet throughout history using the term FP. It requires very rigorous parameters and a critical transformative dialectical framework to the inquiry. One could write a dissertation on this problem, of How Do I Perform an Adequate Study or Discipline Called "Fearlessness Philosophy"(?). I'd love to do that doctoral research, but maybe someone younger than I is better to be the one doing it. Let me know if you do. 

Note

1. This said, it is not a contradiction to my other claims to be working on and with the notion of a philosophy of fearism (a la Desh Subba). I am committed to both these strains of philosophy.

Notes

1. Fisher, R. M. (2007). Conceptualizing a fearlessness philosophy: Existential philosophy and a genealogy of fear management system-5. Technical Paper No. 23. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

As much as it is so important to acknowledge the nature and role of "fear" (complex as it is do define) in human affairs (e.g., philosophy of fearism) there is an equally important inquiry and education to be had in regard to how "fear" is not the only motivating, or even most powerful motivating force in human affairs. The basic philosophical and theoretical arguments are rich and complex, beyond the scope of this blog. However, I want to point out that if you wish to understand my own thinking on this topic then you really have to engage the feminine (feminist) matrixial gaze theory (i.e., matrixial theory) of Bracha L. Ettinger. She is a post-Lacanian psychoanalyst, theorist, artist, activist, and most importantly, as I have written about her and her work (often with Barbara Bickel), she is the next most powerful psychoanalytic thinker since Lacan, and before that, since Freud. And, the good news... she is working on an entirely new basis for the theories of human motivation, subjectivity (or what she prefers to call transubjectivity).

Barbara and I and a small group of artists Barbara knows have studied Ettinger's difficult texts some years ago. After that year long study online, it has been awhile and so Barbara and I took up recently to study her videos online for 40 days, attempting this as a practice. We'll be sharing and writing more on that later. But just to introduce you, if you haven't already been introduced to Ettinger and matrixial theory (a non-phallocentric theory) then I will give a link to an excellent lecture on YouTube below. To close off this short blog I want to say that I am ever-ongoing impressed by the depth and "truth" from her work in understanding human beings, and her aesthetical-ethical foundation for guiding a new way of being beyond a fear-based orientation to the world. Her linking of early-mother and child bonding (mostly, in the womb) is brilliant psychoanalysis in my view, and she is slowly being recognized in the field and beyond as an important theorist. At one point in the video (below) she says, that it is our nature in connection in the matrixial borderspace of the I and non-I (self and Other) that from the beginning we were unknowingly embraced in "fascination and awe and compassion" which is our natural state of recognition of the Other and which is the protoethical ground for any ethics, and she adds to this claim that such an awe and compassion in the earliest stages of subjectivity (largely unconscious) is a connection/recognition/co-emergence "before fear, guilt, shame, action, cognition, abjection and disgust." This is the primordial matrixial ground for a theory of fearlessness, in my words.

Go to YouTube video on Ettinger's lecture in 2010 at the European Graduate University, where she often teaches: "Aesthetics, Protoethics and Matrixial Subjectivity."

Barbara, an artist/researcher/educator and my life-partner has just posted an interesting piece, and expresses her concern of "fear of diversity" that is growing in America and with it and Trumpism a climate of anti-intellectualism like I have not experienced before where I am living. Here is her letter and post link.

Dear all,
I hope this finds you well. I am sharing new blog I have written in response to a fake news story that aired on an American national TV news channel last week regarding an art installation that I installed with students at Southern Illinois University entitled Dreaming Diversity. If you are want to know the back story go to my blog at

http://barbarabickelart.tumblr.com/

We are in a time of much fear of diversity in America-- and democratic education through the arts is more than ever being called for.  -BB

I think this is a good, second-tier, fearlessness perspective-- by Q'enti Wasi, an Andean mystic writer living in the USA. (Thanks Dan Millman, "Way of the Peaceful Warrior" for sending this to Four Arrows who sent it to me and I want to pass it on)-- it is so rare to find people with this kind of enlightened distanced perspective (or bigger picture) on what is going on in American politics today)-- you may compare this piece with some of the writing I have done on Trumpism on the FMning.

Go to: http://quentiwasi.com/2017/03/02/a-paqos-take-on-donald-trump

Ken Wilber, Integral philosopher, and pandit (scholar of spirituality and religions, and consciousness), has also greatly influenced my thought and life since 1982. Recently, I scanned all his books and searched for the term "fearlessness" and to my not surprise... it is only used once. He used in reference to his first wife Treya Killam Wilber [1], who died of cancer 5 years after they were married (see their book Grace and Grit, 1993). The fact he has been a Zen Buddhist practitioner and is well-versed in Yoga traditions etc., where "fearlessness" is an important concept, virtue, etc. It does astound me he has not written or talked about it all these years.

I am astounded why my major mentor, in terms of philosophical thinking since my youthful adult years, has not put this term "fearlessness" in his vocabulary and why did it become for me the most important term to articulate the path of enlightenment? A puzzler...

Ken Wilber, American Integral philosopher, age 68, with a deteriorating nerve illness/condition for the last few decades. He's still teaching and with over 35 books published.

Note:

1. He wrote, "Treya [who had malignant cancer near immediately once they were married] simply had no split between her public and private selves. I think that was directly related to what can only be called her fearlessness. There was a strength in Treya that was absolutely fearless, and I do not say that lightly. Treya had little fear because she had little to hide, from you or me or God or anybody. She was transparent to reality, to the Divine, to the world, and thus had nothing to fear from. I saw her in much pain; I saw her in much agony; I saw her in much anger. I never saw her in fear." (p. x, Wilber and Wilber, 1983, Grace and Grit).

Some of you may know that from the beginning of my learning about fearlessness, I was very influenced by Rinpoche Choygam Trungpa and his teachings on Shambhala, as Tibetan Buddhism in its more ancient Indigenous forms. Here's a quote on the sacred warrior along the path of fearlessness, I found today from Trungpa's excellent book (1984), Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior:  [this truly reflects my experience on the path]

"Experiencing the upliftedness of the world is a joyous situation, but it also brings sadness. It is like falling in love. When you are in love, being with your lover is both delightful and very painful. You feel both joy and sorrow. That is not a problem; in fact, it is wonderful. It is the ideal human emotion. The warrior who experiences windhorse feels the joy and sorrow of love in everything he [she] does. [S]He feels hot and cold, sweet and sour, simultaneously. Whether things go well or things go badly, whether there is success or failure, [s]he feels sad and delighted at once. In that way, the warrior begins to understand the meaning of unconditional confidence."

Looks like "Anne" was a robot spam ... has been deleted, sorry for the inconvenience, this happens now and then. -rmf+

I found this fascinating article (2014) in a journal Pastoral Psychology, 63: 625-39, recently by Gregory C. Ellison II, an African American Reverend and scholar-activist out of Candler School of Theology at Emory University, Atlanta, GA. It has this very long title: "The Way It Is and the Way It Could Be: Fear, Lessness and the Quest for Fearless Dialogues (TM)". It is very cleverly and creatively written--as well as deep.

I highly recommend reading it. For it offers an intriguing approach to bringing about better dialogues among diverse stakeholders on the great challenges of urban cities in American, especially how to help the African American males and their communities to help themselves via what Ellison calls "fearless dialogue." I won't go further into this at this point but will continue to stay abreast of his work with this mission, which I heartily support as it gives "fear" its due consideration in development work and thus contributes to the Fearlessness Movement overall. 

The first line of the Abstract of the article is intriguing: 

'"Fearless Dialogues (TM)" is the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st century," says Dr. Bernard Lafayette, an original Freedom Rider and internationally renowned human rights activist."

---------

I am always fascinated by New Social Movements of all kinds, but especially when "fear" is given such upfront attention. I look forward to hearing what you folks on the FMning think about his work (www.fearlessdialogues.com) and the article.

In my historical research on what I eventually called the Fearlessness Movement, Indigenous worldview at its ideal is definitely a foundation of this movement. Currently, Four Arrows (aka Don Jacobs), a member of the FM ning, and one of my collaborators on several writing projects on Fear and Fearlessness over the years, has written his latest piece in Truth Out e-zine: http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/39504-february-22-at-standing-rock-a-last-beginning

He asks all who are able to attend the latest protest stance.

He wrote,

"Joining the peaceful, prayerful Water Protectors on Feb. 21 and 22 in large enough masses will show the world that with courage to choose right directions and fearlessness to take action in behalf of them, we can protect our waters."

For full length article (and rest of this issue of Participation (journal) click onThe True Gift of Education

Figure 1  A-ness/D-ness Assessment Tool (by R. M. Fisher, (c) 1984)

[This diagram of four models of creating, was initiated as a thought experiment. Being a visual artist all my life, and having read lots of philosophy and other things that were attempting to figure out how humans form values and act upon them, etc., I asked one day in 1984, "If I were a Creator, what are all the different ways I could draw and color a shape?" I just picked up some basic materials for drawing and coloring, and set forth using the "rectangular shape" as an arbitrary shape. I could only come up with these four very different ways to create and thus answer the question I posed. Any sub-variations were not distinct enough to classify as a type. I settled with these four, and there is a more complex theory behind this which I have written about but it would take up more than I want to cover here. I then came up with questions to ask people about these four models/paradigms and that's a whole other study for analysis, but not here.]

In my writing on Four Arrows' life and work for a new book entitled Fearless Engagement, I have discovered an interesting concept of "fearless intimacy" (not that I coined the term, but it did arise in my own writing independently). I like this when things like that happen and I have another way to come at notions that I have been theorizing for a long time, like the notion of "fearless"--which, in the new book I'm writing (with Four Arrows) the plan is to label it Fearless (with a capital letter) as to distinguish it from the more common language that people use for "fearless" (with no capital). That's a long technical explanation for the capitalization and how Fearless is being articulated, and you'll have to wait for the book before I can share all that detail. It will come out in early 2018 I hope.

Now, to Figure 1 which is the reason for this blog post. I made the linkage while writing recently on fearless intimacy, seeing it connected to Four Arrows' Indigenous worldview writings and his CAT-FAWN Connection theory ('F' in FAWN stands for Fear), and then his use of the Lakota Indigenous conception of wolokolkiciapi- peace within oneself and all of creation (recently, from a chapter he has going to press). Anyways, all three of these aspects, plus knowing so much about Four Arrows' experiential journey at the extremes of experiences for many decades (he's now 70 yrs. old), it occurred to me he was describing D-ness (Figure 1) as an aesthetic visual expression (representation) of "Fearless." Now, when I first designed Figure 1 as a visual metaphoric test to assess people's aesthetic value biases, and worldview biases that go with that, it never fully came to me that the qualities of D-ness are as close visually as I could imagine it, and create it on paper with drawing and coloring materials to Fearless (and the three aspects of Four Arrows' work I mentioned above). And, yes, D-ness represents best what I (and perhaps others below) have called "fearless intimacy".

Three references to uses of "fearless intimacy" that showed up in a quick Google search are:

1. regarding the writing done by John Muir, the great American naturalist, Ehrenfeld (2008) described it as "his [Muir's] fearless intimacy with nature" (p. 284). This would certainly be similar to what I have learned from a lot of Four Arrows' writing, as Nature (with a capital) is so critically important in his life and theories, and the 'N' in FAWN of his theory stands for Nature. Ehrenfeld, D. (2008). Becoming good ancestors: How we balance nature, community, and technology. NY: Oxford University Press.

2. "When we refuse to listen, we must ask ourselves if we can hear our own inner voice over the fear that is running so much of life. Learning the art of listening is a powerful tool toward fearless intimacy and self-empowerment" (p. 158). In Britten, R. (2005). Change your life in 30 days: A journey to finding your true self. NY: Penguin.

3. "When there are no resistances, we then merge contract, close our eyes and in the darkness of our primal world, we rediscover the peace and pleasure of dark and fearless intimacy" (p. 105). Salzman, W. (2007). Ortho Para V. Lulu.com.

So, my take on "fearless intimacy" from all the writers above, including Four Arrows (who hasn't yet used this term per se), is that D-ness, especially in contrast to A-ness at the opposite extreme of the spectrum of ways of creating and organizing and solving a problem, shows us in this spectrum of possibilities, the "right way" to go. I use this strong ethical language in the same sense that Four Arrows does in most all his writing and teaching. He, like myself, are not timid in calling out for current humanity to awaken to the binary road we can take--the first road leads in the direction of D-ness, of which the Lakota term (as Four Arrows' interprets) is traditionally called the "Red Road" and therein is the manifestation of wolokolkiciapi- peace within oneself and all of creation. The other road, is in the direction of A-ness (beginning with any compromised reductionism of D-ness, to C-ness, to B-ness and eventually, horrifically, to A-ness as a way of being). So, there's some theory and a visual mnemonic device to complement the CAT-FAWN mnemonic [1] that Four Arrows offers in his work. Great dialogue to come on all this, as Four Arrows and I are still in the early stages of bringing these two models/theories/praxes together. I am excited for its powerful potential as a new 'fear' vaccine like this planet has not seen before combined this way.

End Note

1. See Four Arrows book (Jacobs, D. T.) (1998). Primal awareness. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions ... it will give you the full explication of CAT-FAWN Connection.

The 'C' stands for Concentration, 'A' for Activated, 'T' for Transformation, 'F' for Fear, 'A' for Authority, 'W' for Word(s), 'N' for Nature.

Like most "Systems", I never get along with them well. Wikipedia was where I built the following article and stored it on their sandbox works in progress pages, but now I see after a year or more they pulled it all down without any reason. This is not my first experience with such arrogance. I'll post it here for archival purposes, and if anyone else wants to post this up on Wikipedia and knows how to do it without getting it slammed down, go for it.

 User:Fear educator/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 [page is under construction]  -Feb. 10/16

Fearlessness Movement

Fearlessness Movement (also known as World's Fearlessness Movement, In Search of Fearlessness Movement, Fearlessness (R)Evolution, Fearlessness Tradition) refers to a global, universal, usually loosely defined and organized category of activities signifying a historical thought or critical consciousness movement. Although written and conceived as "the fearlessness agenda on this planet" in 1997 [1], the term "Fearlessness Movement" was inferred in 2000 and coined in 2003 [2] by the Canadian self-proclaimed postmodern-integral fearologist [3] and educator, R. Michael Fisher [4]. The Movement's priority, within the context of nonviolence and liberation resistance movements, is dedicated specifically to unraveling the problems created by fear for Homo sapiens (and also other species). Individually and collectively, the Fearlessness Movement fundamentally serves to move us from fear to fearlessness, acting as a fear-vaccine and systematic counter-resistance to the insidious 'Fear' Problem (also known as 'Fear' Project, 'Fear' Matrix, Fear/Anxiety Complex) [5], and its ideological underpinning in systemic fearism-t' [6] with its various symptoms such as terrorism and other diverse culture of fear phenomena [7].Fearlessness Movement ning was initiated in 2015 by R. Michael Fisher and Barbara Bickel to act as a global network to coalesce knowledge and interests to promote this work.


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


History

There is no known source or date when the Fearlessness Movement began though some manifestations throughout history have been tracked and labeled at times by scholars or populist leaders, for example: the Burma Fearlessness Movement [8] (a late 20th-century form of the ancient gift of fearlessness cultures [9] and their spiritual tradition in the far East, with roots in the worldviews of many Indigenous cultures [10]), The League for Fearlessness (early 20th century esoteric form, USA [11], A Course in Miracles (1960s-70s new age form, USA [12], Shambhala Warrior Training (late 20th century Buddhist form, USA) [13], In Search of Fearlessness Project (late 20th century emancipatory form, Canada) [14], Fearlessness Revolution (early 21st century populist liberal form, USA) [15], and Fearism philosophy movement (early 21st century scholarly/populist form from literary theory and activism out of Nepal) [16]. Simultaneously, there are unconscious and systematic distractors, resistors, and enemies of fearlessness [17] not to be underestimated.


In distinction to the above in the context of a post-9/11 era and global economic crisis, are calls for a "culture of fearlessness" contra "culture of fear" (e.g., regarding innovation at Google, Inc.) [18], which tend to be less overtly political or traditional forms of the Fearlessness Movement. Many (not all) of the latter forms use "Fearless" to name their self-declared reform, movement, or revolution under the premise of a for-profit business venture [19]. Fear and fearless are now sexy marketing terms for just about everything, with little to no critical analysis of the terms fear, fearlessness or fearless themselves or establishing an obvious developed relationship to the Fearlessness Movement traditions.


Although there are several mainstream scholarly works on the history of fear [20], there are no such works on the history of fearlessness. Therefore, the global Fearlessness Movement has no systematic documented history. The first attempt, a very brief introduction, was published by Fisher in 2007, in which the abstract says, "Although the In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989-) is coming on towards its 18th birthday, it has always been important to locate this Project as a New Social Movement [i.e., Fearlessness Movement], with an ancient-rooted past in a concrete history of liberation movements (E. and W.).... This paper provides an introduction to several exciting discoveries and initiatives that have led to clarifying both the importance of this historical ground/consciousness for the Fearlessness Movement (and ISOF Project) and clarifying the future possibilities for researching and writing a history of fearlessness" [21].


Philosophy, Theory, Practice

The ancient roots of a perennial ethical philosophy (E. and W.) which posits that Love is greater than fear, and the path and virtue of fearlessness (e.g., The Bagavad Gita [22] is the way from fear to Love, violence to nonviolence) (i.e., ahimsa), is indicative of the Fearlessness Movement's foundational philosophy, theory and practice of fearlessness, also defined as the basis of compassion [23]. In general, this philosophy of fearlessness is more accepted by Eastern religions and philosophies than Western, according to Fisher's unique research synthesis of the Fearlessness Movement, and its base in the World's Fearlessness Tradition and teachings (E. and W.) [24]. He posits premises of a critical and radical philosophy of nonviolence and liberation and a theory of fearlessness and "paradigm of fearlessness" (as 'fear' vaccine [25]) of which are essential to better understand fear and fearlessness and their intimately interrelated roles and impacts. He also distinguishes the Fearlessness Movement or "historical fearlessness" or "ethical fearlessness," with a developmental and ethical evolutionary trajectory, from individual "behavioral fearlessness," the latter the more common but reductionistic understanding and use of the term fearlessness [26].


In 2000, Fisher published on the connection of nonviolence movements and "fearless movement" toward a "fearless society" he had conceived, one that was inspired by many leaders, of which Mahatma Gandhi and his Satyagraha independence movement was foremost in its clear conception of the pivotal role of fearlessness. Gandhi once said, "God is fearlessness" [27]. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama once said to Westerners, "Don't fear fearlessness" [28]. Fisher wrote, "[A]s an educator, I am interested to challenge our ways of understanding and defining violence and the ways that we think are 'best' to deal with violence in all kinds of formal and informal learning sites. This publication is intended to briefly document a growing (populist and academic) movement that suggests that a non-violent society can only be founded on fearlessness--the ethical path of a fearless life--a way of 'Love.' The way to 'Love,' I argue (and this fearless movement suggests), is to better understand the nature and role of 'fear' and its impact on this planet." He suggests in his 2010 book that diverse, mostly independent sub-movements, more or less organized, express the spirit of the Fearlessness Movement, revolving around valued concepts like bravery, courage, without fear, freedom from fear, fear-less, no fear and fearless. In 1997, Fisher published on a growing "strong tradition and several new 'movements' (both secular and religious) that are anti-fearlessness" [29].


How does one join and carry out the mission of the Fearlessness Movement? There is usually no strict membership although some groups may have some criteria for such. If one decides to join the Movement that's all that is required, although various disciplined practices such a meditation, mindfulness, aesthetics, concentration, sensitivity, prayer, contemplation, fearanalysis [30], healing, martial arts, sacred warriorship, yoga, transformation etc. often contribute to a maturing mastery of fearlessness. The basic educational component is to learn/teach, with a critical lens, everything one can about fear ('fear') and fearlessness from diverse perspectives and synthesize these into one's own philosophy, theory and practices. It is essential, according to Fisher, that we promote a unifying of the Fearlessness Movement as a spirit to improve our current inadequate fear management/education curricula and pedagogy, aiming towards a healthy and emancipatory fearuality [31].


See Also


References

1. Fisher, R. M. (1997). Defining the 'enemy' of fearlessness. Technical Paper No. 6. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute, p. 1. Available @ http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3 2. He intimated such a "fearless movement" in a 2000 publication, preferring in later writing to use "fearlessness" instead. The movement concept with fearlessness existed from the inception of his project and writing on fear and fearlessness begun in 1989 with the In Search of Fearlessness (ISOF) Project. The "fearlessness movement" (no caps) was first coined in 2003 @ http://www.feareducation.com/ and click on "Projects". See Fisher, R. M. (2000). The movement toward a fearless society: A powerful contradiction to violence. Technical Paper No. 10. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Available @ http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3. It is unclear when others started using the term but most uses seem to be after 2003. Fisher uses caps on the term a few years later. 3. For a brief description of the nascent profession of fearology and role of a fearologist see http://www.wildculture.com/article/disappear-fear-quick-fix-fear-pill-and-its-discontents/1276 4. For scholarly summary of his work go to http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3 and biography summary/cv go to:http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=10 5. Fear with (') marks refers to not merely biophysiological and psychological fear but a sociocultural and political construction of 'fear' that is much more complex, invisible and insidious. See discussion of the problems of defining fear (and 'fear'), for e.g., in Fisher, R. M. (1995/12). An introduction to defining 'fear': A spectrum approach. Technical Paper No. 1. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Available @ http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3 6. Although there are some different uses of this term in popular and scholarly literature (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearism), the use here refers primarily to that articulated in Fisher, R. M. (2014). Towards a Theory of Fearism. Technical Paper No. 51. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Available @ http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3. A revisionary notion of "fearism-t" (as toxic form) is articulated in Fisher and Subba (2016), Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue." 7. For a quick good synopsis of the "human fear-problem" see Overstreet, B. W. (1951/71). Understanding fear in ourselves and others. New York: Harper & Row, 11-22; for a brief introduction to the culture of fear dynamics in contemporary society and Fisher's view as well, see http://www.ucobserver.org/features/2013/01/scared_senseless/ 8. The Burmese Fearlessness movement, based on the populist uprising in support of the Burmese opposition politician and political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi between 1989-10, and a later inspired movement with somewhat parallel aims regarding a political prisoner in Thailand led to the Thailand Fearlessness movement. See Fry, G. W., Nieminen, G. S., and Smith, H. E. (2003). Historical dictionary of Thailand. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 34. 9. Religious scholar Maria Hibbets (now Heim) has documented a religious, spiritual and ethical perennial philosophy at the core of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism in the far East, of which the ideal is to not think or act from fear and thus bring not fear (and its associated violence) to others (including other species) or oneself in all arenas of life. It is widely known in south Asian cultures as abhaya-dana or "gift of fearlessness." See Hibbets, M. (1999). Saving them from yourself: An inquiry into the south Asian gift of fearlessness. Journal of Religious Ethics, 27(3), 437-62. See also Heim, M. (2004). Theories of the gift in south Asia: Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain reflections on Dana. New York: Routledge. 10. A leader of this current thinking is the Indigenous educator, Four Arrows (also Don Trent Jacobs), who has written of the close parallel of fearlessness in the worldview of Gandhi and American Indian thinking. See Four Arrows (2006). Epilogue. In Four Arrows (Ed.), Unlearning the language of conquest: Scholars expose anti-Indianism (pp. 273-80). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 279. See also Four Arrows (with Ed McGaa or Eagle Man and R. Michael Fisher), chpt. 13 "From Fear to Fearlessness (Religion/Psychology and Spirituality)" in Four Arrows (2013). Teaching truly: A curriculum to Indigenize mainstream education. New York: Peter Lang. 11. The League for Fearlessness: An International Movement to Free the World from Fear was organized by 50 people, inaugurated Oct. 17, 1931, led by an esoteric spiritual group in New York City, associated with the theosophist Alice Bailey and directly facilitated by her husband Foster Bailey (a 33rd degree Freemason). It seems to have either gone underground under a different name or else folded rather soon after its inception(?). See reprint of this brochure in-full, and its counter aims to the dominating climate of fear during the Depression, in Appendix 2 in Fisher, R. M. (2007). History of the Fearlessness Movement: An Introduction. Technical Paper No. 22. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Available @ http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3 12. The Course as it is known in popular circles (for short) is a channeled book of spiritual teachings that began in the mid-60s, based on a unique blend of Eastern (e.g., Advaita) and Western (Christian mysticism, and new age esotericism) thought and practices. The teachings came with the intent of moving human motivation from fear to Love. Marianne Williamson is one of the most popular teachers of this book and movement today.See discussion in Harman, W., and Rheingold (1984). Higher creativity: Liberating the unconscious for breakthrough thoughts. Los Angeles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 115-18. Also see the book: Foundation for Inner Peace (1975). A Course in Miracles. Tiburon, CA: Foundation for Inner Peace. 13. This is based on the ancient sacred warriorship tradition in Tibet, carried forth into North America and has spread across the world in the last few decades, based on the teaching primarily of the late Rinpoche Choygam Trungpa (Naropa Institute, Boulder CO). Trungpa's classic book, with important writing on fear and fearlessness inspires many, including Fisher's In Search of Fearlessness Project. See Trungpa, C. (1984/07). Shambhala: The sacred path of the warrior. Boston, MA: Shambhala. See also http://www.shambhala.org/shambhala-training.php. 14. In Search of Fearelssness Project (ISOF) was co-founded by Robert M. Fisher (now R. Michael Fisher) and his intimate partner Catherine V. Sannuto in the fall of 1989 in Calgary, AB, Canada. ISOF Project was a counter to what Fisher then called the historical global 'Fear' Project. Inspired by a transpersonal love and study of sacred warriorship traditions (See Also), the organization (incorporated as a non-profit in 1995, closed down in 1999) had its identity and liberation mission from the start envisioned as "a therapeutic community dedicated to 'freedom from all forms of violence, oppression and hurting'." Fisher began the In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute in 1991 as the research, publishing and educational wing of the ISOF movement. That same year Barbara Bickel, his next intimate partner, co-founded the In Search of Fearlessness Center (Calgary), which operated as a small not-for-profit business until 1999. Info. on ISOF taken from The Glenbow Museum public archives (Calgary, AB) http://ww2.glenbow.org/search/archivesMainResults.aspx?XC=/search/archivesMainResults.aspx&TN=MAINCAT&AC=QBE_QUERY&RF=WebResults&DL= 0&RL=0&NP=255&%0AMF=WPEng Msg.ini&MR=5&QB0=AND&QF0=Main%20entry+|+Title&QI0=Centre+Gallery+fonds. See also more history @ http://www.feareducation.com and click on "Projects." 15. Arianna Huffington, populist liberal author of On Becoming Fearless and founder of Huffington Post, has politically challenged (especially) Republican party politics in the USA during the George Bush Jr. presidential campaign (2004-08) because of fear-mongering tactics to win votes. Bloggers (for e.g., http://www.punditmom.com/2006/10/on-becoming-fearless-part-2) have argued she is leading the "groundwork for a fearlessness revolution" and helping (especially women) start (in Huffington's words) an "epidemic of fearlessness," which Huffington calls "counteroffensive," in order to resist abuses of fear in politics (and everywhere). See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-we-need-an-epidemic-o_b_28561.html. Huffington in a CNN.com (Sept. 26, 2006) interview with Miles O'Brien says she started a "Becoming Fearless" section in the Huffington Post to encourage women to tell their stories about fear and overcoming it and "to start a kind of fearlessness movement, if you will." Available @ http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/15/ltm.04.html 16. This movement (somewhat like existentialism in the West) arose around 1999 from Eastern literary theory and circles in Nepal, as they attempted to define a particular signature to Nepali literature, based primarily around the writing and new book by Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear.' ''Xlibris. The "fearist perspective" (p. 11) as Subba calls it, is focused on assessing life from the point of view of fear as the major shaping influence/motivation, while at the same time working as a powerful ideology to help humans better manage fear on the grounds of fearism which asserts "We always seek a fearless path, and our civilisation has developed continuously along this path" (p. 273), a telos that is also brought forward in R. Michael Fisher's "In Search of Fearlessness Project." In 2015, Fisher and Subba joined forces for an W-E exchange in co-authoring their first book entitled "Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue" (Xlibris, 2016)--wherein, Fisher takes his philosophy of fearlessness and merges it with a philosophy of fearism. Fisher has also supported and critiqued Subba's "fearism" usage making his own distinction (i.e., fearism-t) when it comes to ideologism and a strong political context for the term. See Fisher, R. M. (2014). Towards a theory of fearism. Technical Paper No. 51. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. 17. Although many such enemies and processes of resistance could be documented, a preliminary analysis of these was conducted in Fisher, R. M. (1997). Defining the 'enemy' of fearlessness. Technical Paper No. 6. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Available @ http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3 18. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001461.html 19. For an example of a more social entrepreneurial campaign of this form by an influential leader Alex Bogusky, see "FearLess Revolution" http://fearlessrevolution.com/alex-bogusky/. For an example of a less political and more business (coaching) psychological form see http://yasminekhater.com/fearlessrevolution/. For examples of Christian-based ventures (and/or groups) using "Fearless Revolution" see http://erickajackson.com/ and http://thefearlessrevolution.com/. For a critique of exemplars of these "Fearless" forms see Fisher (2010), 22-25. 20. For example, Laffan, M. F., and Weiss, M. (2012). Facing fear: The history of an emotion in global perspective.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Bourke, J. (2005). Fear: A cultural history. UK: Virago Press; Robin, C. (2004). Fear: The history of a political idea. New York: Oxford University Press; Stearns, P. N. (2006). American fear: The causes and consequences of high anxiety. New York: Routledge. 21. Fisher, R. M. (2007). History of the Fearlessness Movement: An introduction. Technical Paper No. 22. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Available @ http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3 22. Mahatma Gandi wrote, "Fearlessness is the first requisite of spirituality. Cowards can never be moral! Every reader of the Gita is aware that fearlessness heads the list of the Divine attributes enumerated in the 16th Chapter.... Fearlessness is a sin qua non for the growth of the other noble qualities [virtues]. How can one seek truth or cherish Love without fearlessness?" Available @ http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap12.htm 23. According to integral philosopher and Zen Buddhist, Ken Wilber, the teachings of Buddhist education, in the words of Jeremy Hayward, involve: "Recognizing the fear as well as the fearlessness in others, helping others to recognize the fear and to discover fearlessness, this is compassion." Hayward cited in Wilber, K. (1993).Grace and grit: Spirituality and healing in the life and death of Treya Killam Wilber. Boston, MA: Shambhala, 382. 24. 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. 25. Fisher, R. M. (2006). An integral fearlessness paradigm. Technical Paper No. 9. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Available @ http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3 26. Fisher (2010), xv, 65-66. 27. Cited in Rao, K. L. Seshagri (1978). Mahatma Gandhi and comparative religion. India: Motilal Banarsidass, 69. 28. Cited in Ferguson, M. (2005). Aquarius now: Radical common sense and reclaiming our personal sovereignty. Boston, MA: Weiser Books, 154. 29. Fisher, R. M. (1997). Defining the 'enemy' of fearlessness. Technical Paper No. 6. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Available @ http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3 30. See Fisher, R. M. (2012). Fearnalaysis: A first guide book. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Available @ http://csiie.org/mod/page/view.php?id=3 31. See Fisher (2010) for background theory and the analogy of fearuality (his own term) with sexuality.