NEW BOOK by R. Michael Fisher (2022); the exact kind of easy to read short book (100 pp) on the philosophy of Fearism--a guide, a primer, an intriguing story! 

Order from Xlibris Publishers (Australia) and/or online booksellers e.g., https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/philosophy-of-fearism-r-michael-fisher/1142049448

BTW 

A book review video is available on the context and history behind this book and my views on "Fear Inquiry" --and, I read a few sections from the book as well; go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyeVeEHtqO4

A Talk By R. M. Fisher, @ Meditative Inquiry Conference, Aug. 18, 2022 

The link here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2H8yByGFYw&list=PLfVjDB_dQhEomgiYYmBJKj1nvD1oGBwaf&index=14

gives access to a Talk I did on the Fearlessness Worldview and its critique of Meditative Inquiry as is being promoted by several people, especially in E. Canada and the field of Education. This is part of a movement of spiritual education and its branches of holistic education, transpersonal education, contemplative education, mindfulness education, peace education, love education, etc. I critique the bias of perspective of all these movements that like to focus and collectivize their "corrective" for the world around virtues signalling and aims of hope. The Fearlessness Worldview, a liberation praxis itself and education process, takes another route, one that is arguably less fear-based, more integral-holistic and wiser than the fault of running after the next fix of 'escape' from fear and suffering and a world so enmeshed in the making of its own crises--at every level and especially at the level of the institutions that fall within the Dominant Worldview and its self-deception and corruption. 

After a brief meditation I offer at the beginning (photo above), I am 2nd to speak on the panel and I start with critical commentary about the problems I see in the book "Meditative Inquiry" based on the conference leader's work. IF you only want to see my teachings go to 25:38 on the video for a 20 min. rather improvisational lecture. And go to 1:10:45 for picking up on comments (Q and A) at the end of the panel session, in which you will hear one philosophy professor from India makes comments on my talk and concludes fervently "we need to be fearful and fearless" --then, I come on and comment on his comment and take the discussion further based on a question someone asked in the panel "define fearlessness." Of course, of which I didn't in a nice clean linear way! I give some reasons for why that is so, and the problem of my topic and this question in the context of having one or two minutes at most to engage it. I really find these rushed-time conference presentations as a format a horrid way to actually do serious scholarly work or dialogue. Oh, well... take this for what it's worth.... 

Of course, in only a 20 min. talk on a panel, it is near impossible to set up my arguments for a Fearlessness Worldview and 

Dr. Cal Newport's TED-X talk "Quit Social Media" is a must see video (13 min.), where he makes 3 arguments of why to stay off social media--and, he emphasizes in the 3rd one of those arguments that the worst is the rise in "anxiety disorders" (diagnosed or not diagnosed) that come with such use of this technology--a technology that is not essential to "deep work" and value and success in the society. 

go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E7hkPZ-HTk

As a fearologist and educator, I am equally concerned with the breeding of fear in a culture of fear embedded in social media platforms AS IF they are the only way to be involved in the world. I have never joined such social media platforms like FB, TWITTER, Instagram, etc. Only a modest participation in the FM ning community and posting on my Youtube channel is what I see as actually useful. I particularly know many of the truths that Dr. Cal Newport shares, as I have always believed children from the get go need to develop skills of "deep work" (concentration capacities and existential resilence)--boh of these skills are fast being eroded by social media and it hits the children earlier and earlier. My educational philosophy is one of getting children and youth unhooked from this 'sick' technology that is more harmful than not. Watch the video and make up your own mind. Spread the word... 

Challenging the Tendency of Elitism and "Grandiosity" in Movements

It was with some grief I found out a few years ago that Mariana Salcido, a signed 'member' of Fearlessness Movement, a loose member of Fearism philosophy group and curious advocate for The Fearology Institute, passed away suddenly. I heard this through another colleague who was communicating with her, and a family member informed him of her passing. She was relatively young, a mother, and left behind a lot of people who will miss her. I came across her in 2018 or earlier, and she wanted to discuss her way of getting involved in this fearwork. She was a fiesty born and raised Latino woman (living in the USA at the time) with a strong bright mind and critical view of how things ought to work better in this world. 

Just today, I found a correspondence with her that I wish to document on this archive of the Fearlessness Movement. It represents a piece of her philosophical challenges on a few different things but she was always one to see the critical importance of "fear" study and philosophy. This correspondence is one sample of many conversations on email I had with her, but I also knew she was struggling with many things in life, as so many young people do. 

I pick up her writing as part of a conversation she had around challenging the tendency to elitism and exclusivity for "the movement" be it labeled as "fearology" or even the Fearlessness Movement itself. She was pushing in a good way for us not to try to become a cult-like group of thinkers who encircle and keep telling the world how great we are and how much the world needs us, while forgetting to see we have our own biases and egos too. I asked her to write about this problem of "grandiosity" in any new intellectual or social movement, from her point of view. 

Mariana wrote, (June 15, 2018) not long before she died c. 2020: 

"The Bible spoke about fear hahahhaaa before anyone else! What is unique about this [Fearlessness Movement, Fearology, Fearism] is the approach. Fear has been traditionally, either used as a manner of control, spoken as an instinct (pretty lousy instinct that can be smelled by your predator, I wonder if it is not intended as a 'warning,' but, as evolutionary weakness); fear has also been used by 'motivators.' That is the worst, really.

I know the [Fearology] Institute seeks to release people from fear through consciousness. I like that, we can't teach everyone because some people won't want to be taught. Motivation is, I believe you made  this analogy, as easy to use as sex in public. I'm trying to imagine [Viktor] Frankl yelling at the people [in the concentration camps of Auschwitz] "Wake up! This is your time! You are successful! You can find a purpose!" 

I don't know how do you feel about motivational materials, as soon as I smell 'motivational' I send it away as far as possible from me. In the same line, fear is a good subject for psychology. But, I haven't seen anything serious on Philosophy of fear. What? What's philosophy?, they ask. Philosophy is how we tell people they are being manipulated. We tell them that when you catch them they say 'conspiracy theory,' we tell them that it is horrifying to be 'equal' (someone whould explain the omitted part 'before the law.')

IF WE ARE "EQUAL" as they understand WE ARE THREATENED TO DISAPPEAR AS AN INDIVIDUAL. How about showing that with real research but a smart apporach (no intellectual, no dumbed down). Flat. I need to research the old philosophy and see who speaks seriously and detailed about fear. 

Oh my...I'm sorry, too long. 

I feel like writing....

Hugs to both [RMF and Barbara] and thank you for a great conversation. -Mariana 

********

NOTE: Mariana contributed as blog post (poster) once: https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/photos/fear-question

[The following article is reprinted with permission from X. Yuan.] 

Fearless Conversations in Curriculum as a Wayfinding Amid Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Xuechen Yuan
Lakehead University

JCACS Musings, Apr. 19/22

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGpGwhzxzJsLzfBCcldNQRhjpdD

I fear many things amid the crisis in Ukraine when the immediate future is so unknown. Being immersed in mainstream news media makes me even more fearful. As a graduate student in Education, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the uncertainties of global consequences makes me very pessimistic about curriculum reform these days. At a time when collective trauma and fear coexist within the bodies of the world’s citizens, stories symbolizing backwardness are constantly told, and voices of hope for global justice are silenced. With the current nuclear terror in Europe, information warfare, the deteriorated NATO-Russian relationships, and the Taiwan Strait Crisis, news media induces a global mass hysteria of World War III. While people around the world stand in solidarity with Ukraine and others who are affected by Putin’s tyranny, I fear that humanity is headed for a more nuclearized, militarized, competitive, and backward situation. While looking at history, I realize that many of the decisions that led the world to being in an arms-race situation could have been avoided long ago. Decades of mistrust between the U.S. and Russia destroyed any hope for turning Russia into an ally and for democratic reform in Russia. Russian civilians’ distrust of the hypocrisy of democracy and freedom of speech has been reinforced since it does nothing to prevent millions of children from being malnourished, starving and dying.

To be fair, I’m writing this post out of fear. As someone born in an authoritarian state like China, I have always been discouraged to raise adverse opinions of sensitive issues on any platform. Especially in the face of the invasion, Chinese leaders have been siding with the aggressor, and have mass media intensifying toxic nationalism against the West. After an in-depth discussion with renowned fear scholar R. Michael Fisher, I realize that we could explore opportunities in fear. In Chinese, we often say Weiji (危机) — opportunity in crisis. I like how this transforms the relationship to fear rather than assuming a reductive and functional view that defines fear and supposes that it’s the best way to make sense of things (Fisher, 2010). We must understand fear, not run from it. The mainstream news media coverage of the current crisis in Europe has left us with a victim-type of fear, building curriculum that does not endow or inspire any practices of fearlessness. The American imperialism of news outlets has been inducing mass hysteria of nuclearization and Russophobia across the globe. It is not the future that haunts us but the fear of the future. But isn’t that what we fear every day? We fear what we are not prepared for (that we lack agency and readiness), but isn’t that the point of curriculum, to prepare us to face those fearful uncertainties during our apprenticeships, rather than spoon-feeding our ways out of fear?

Economic and political competition might seem like a ‘game of thrones’ for many conventional wisdom holders, and to many who view history as an objective truth. But I think of curriculum as being ‘agentic,’ a way-finding that can shift the narratives we tell of the past. A lot of us might be let down by the injustice in the world today, but we need to continue to find our ways amid fear, acknowledge and feel the fear inside of us, and then become courageous to face the fear. During this invasion, countless netizens, activists, and civilians around the world rose against Putin’s brutal actions. The borders between nations are no longer defined geopolitically, but agentically by conversations. In an internationalized and democratic world, conversations enable us to readjust and destabilize the conventional, now ever-changing borders (Pinar, 2004). The next step of curriculum for us is to define borders ideologically with depth imagery. An authentic conversation requires “going beyond the surface to take into account ‘unspoken’ and ‘taken-for-granted’ assumptions, including ‘ideology’ […and] must be guided by an interest in understanding more fully what is not said by going beyond what is said’’ (Aoki, as cited in Pinar, 2004, p. 159). So far, our democratic discourse/conversations have been based on denouncing Putin’s behaviour, which can be done intuitively and without much effort to engage in deeper conversations. Many who are sceptical of the ideal of democracy perceive it from the frame of reference of cognitive imperialism — ‘fast-food-like’ pedagogy embedded in empty words that lead people into a fallacy that they are endowed with greater freedom than institutions actually allow. Cognitive imperialism largely obscures the construction of conjunctive ‘inter-space’ in conversations while diverting public attention to shallowness of conversations — freedom of expression and individual liberty. What is beyond the unsaid, however, requires a curriculum of critical literacy in which people work together to co-create reciprocal and complex conversations. Our curriculum needs to create democratic agents, not agents in a democratic political structure. Conversation represents a relationship between spaces (not just ‘spaces’), where people engage in mutuality rather than dichotomous struggles of viewpoints. Therefore, when world crises happen, we do not just condemn the aggressor with empty words but act ahead to prevent it. This is how our curriculum can truly be agentic rather than being reactive (to fear).

From the emergence of COVID-19 to the humanitarian crisis in eastern Europe, it has become more necessary than ever for curriculum changes to address how the trauma of war, the separation, and the isolation of life, have lived in and affected our bodies, so we can hold each other’s hands and find our way out of the hardships collectively, rather than kill each other. Ironically, we can learn a lot from coronaviruses; even viruses know how to converse with each other and change according to different situations to achieve their survival goals (Chambers, 2022). I don’t know what the curriculum will look like in the future, but I do know that our curriculum should inspire people to share difficult knowledge, memories, stories, and to explore and confront their fears, not run from them. The purpose of this post is to find ways to encourage people to lift the veil of these unspoken fears, to engage in deep (as opposed to dichotomous) conversations with each other, and to prevent hatred, phobia, and mistrust toward others. To end this post with an excerpt from an interview done with University of Lethbridge professor Cynthia Chambers (2022), “The truth about maps is they’re only useful when you’ve already been somewhere, they’re not really helpful when you’ve never been anywhere [… We have to] find our way collectively and to learn together [under difficult circumstances], rather than looking to authorities for the final answer or being angry that nobody knows” (26:44).

Rise up, Ukraine. We stand with you!

References

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

JCACS Curriculum Without Borders. (2022, February 23). JCACS interviews Cynthia Chambers: Curriculum as wayfinding. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNAxSJbdBPo

Pinar, W. F. (2004). What is curriculum theory? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Here is a brief look at the Table of Contents for my new book coming out in the next few months, published by Xlibris. Thanks to support from Desh Subba. My goal with this project was to create a 100 pp. book as a basic introduction to most of the important aspects of the philosophy of Fearism as it has evolved to today. I look forward to sharing more of this book in little bits and creating discussion around it in the months ahead. Glad to share this sneak preview with you here: 

CONTENTS

 Preface

 Acknowledgements

       INTRODUCTION: What’s in a Name?, Why Focus on Fear(ism)?

            Time For a Primer on Philosophy of Fearism

            The Search for Fear-Plus

            Fearism Complicates Fear

            Risking to Care Deeply for Fear

2. HISTORY and PEOPLE Behind the Philosophy of Fearism

             Fearism: A Mixed History

                        Fisherian Fearism

                        Subbaian Fearism

                        Subbaian-Fisherian Fearism

3. An INTELLECTUAL MOVEMENT in Philosophy and Beyond

             Founders: From Dyad to The Triad

1. Michael Fisher

                        Desh Subba

                        Samuel Nathan Gillian Jr.

            Vignettes of the Three Philosophers: Discovering Fearism

4. FEARISM THEORY

             What Philosophers Would Think of Fearism?

                        A Few Fearists’ Imperatives

                        A Few Theories Within Fearism

            Some Philosophical Assumptions and Principles

            Some Critics of Fearism

 FEARIST’S QUOTES

 Basic References

 Brief Glossary

 Index

For full details of this Asian Cinema Call 2022.pdf download here.

The three editors for this Special issue that designed the proposal and will be assisting this project to completion are: 

Rayson K. Alex, Rajitha Venuogpal, R. Michael Fisher 

Deadline for Author's Short Abstract of Proposed Article - August 31, 2022

Final Publication May, 2023

See details inside the Call pdf 

Introduction: Fear Studies and The Fearist's Dilemma

And, I have been struggling cheerfully (mostly) with trying to figure out this Beckerian (fear) problem ..since late 1989.

And, just when I think I have it figured out, and can make up my mind, I get thrown off-track by the data, the evidence, the arguments of someone else. I feel a bit of 'nausea' or is it intellectual 'vertigo' (?); re-evaluation and critical self-reflection are non-stop.  

This has been with my latest serious encounter and re-reading of the work of the late Samuel Nathan Gillian Jr. And, I'm still trying to make up my mind. I also have always had problems with the binary of the two camps/schools (see diagram above)--yet, I also see their value in describing a real dynamic of thought, of ideas, of philosophies and ultimately of choices that each human makes (be they conscious or not in doing so).

You may know, the fearists [1] that have been collecting around the work of Desh Subba [2] have more or less been ambivalent, non-concise or decided on this problem--albeit, they have done so without consulting the work of Ernest Becker--as far as I can tell. There is much more discussion to be had there. It is essential to the general advancement of a truly postmodern and post-postmodern Fear Studies that I have proposed in many of my publications since 2006 at least [3]. 

Which Way To Go: Positive(?) vs. Negative(?)

Studying (see last two FM blogs) the work on fear by Sam Gillian Jr. (1939-2016), I have noted that he is a self-confessed Beckerian [4], albeit, very unique in his thinking and philosophy (I am writing an intellectual biography on his life and work). You'll note in the last FM blog I placed Gillian and Ernest Becker in the "Fear-Positivist" camp of thinkers (both happen to be existentialists) because they are out to re-cast and transform the overly-negative valuation and mis-understanding that "fear" (and anxiety and death) have received for hundreds of years, particularly in the Western world and modernity. They are not (therefore) "Fear-Negativists." The latter, would reject the claim that Subba (for e.g.) makes that: "life is conducted, directed and controlled by fear." That is too negative and not how they want to think about reality, the human being or Creation itself--thus, they adopt and/or develop a lighter-positive attitude, and set of beliefs (ideologies) and philosophies or theologies. The choice of direction (camp) taken, deeply impacts how we design our organizations, our cultures, and how we institute socialization, education and live our lives. No small consequences. 

Earliest of the Historical Fearists [5]: The work of Ernest Becker in the 1960-70s especially ought to be regarded as the first (proto-) fearist philosopher we have to draw upon in the West--although, he was writing with a modernist's universalist perspective in his claims. Desh Subba and I came along two-three decades later to build our own fearist philosophizing, of which a few others (in the East) have followed in our tracks. Gillian, uniquely followed Becker's fearism. He did not know of Subba's or my work. Albeit, I did contact Gillian and we exchanged email correspondence for nearly a year (which, will be published in my new book on him and his work). From what I can tell of his 2005 book, my thought had no influence on him and his writing and teaching. We clashed on some basic issues, although we agreed on others.

After teaching in The Fearology Institute's new 2018 programming several students who wanted to study fear(ism) and fearlessness, and fearology, it became very clear that I was disenchanted with their thinking and imaginaries regarding fear (and 'fear'). I sensed often, we were in a discourse battle (not a bad thing)--and, at one point I wrote a long intense paper and sent it to them to study. It was a critical paper (albeit, nascent one) of the entire problem of dividing the conversation into issues of "good fear" and "bad fear" (i.e., fear-positive vs. fear-negative). At times, I too was puzzled what was going on and I questioned the "fearists" and myself. I won't go into that longer analysis, and I haven't read my own paper from that time in years either. So, I will drop that discusson. I have some new thoughts shaping to share. 

Perhaps, to confuse things a little, for the purpose of finding more clarity; my fearanalysis of Becker's and Gillian's work of late is telling me, because of their agenda, that it is best to classify them both as human "Negativists" overall in terms of the (darker-side; shadow-side) context and perspective in how they conceive of reality and human nature--that is, they do not believe as the human "Positivists" do that humans are more lighter-side dominant (i.e., benign, love-based). The Negativists and Positivists clash on human nature and they clash on their orientation of the importance of "fear" in relations to human existence and behavior and human potential. 

Becker and the Fear Problem: "Terror" at the Base of Human Nature (Existence)

When I read in Becker's Pulitzer prize winning book The Denial of Death (1973), published at the end of his life (died early due to cancer), that he layed out the argumentation of both the human Positivists and Negativists (these are my terms, he used respectively, "Healthy-Minded" argument vs. "Morbidly-Minded" argument--for naming the two camps of thought)--and, Becker concluded after examining the evidence carefully that:

"I frankly side with this second school--in fact, this whole book is a network of arguments based on the universality of the

fear of death, or "terror" [for short], as I prefer to call it, in order to convey how all consuming it is when we look it full in the face." (p. 15) [6]

I am struck with the poignancy of his declaration of the two camps, and that he labeled them (albeit, with the cautionary of " marks)--whereby, the Postive is Healthy and the Negative is Morbid (or unhealthy). It seems he is being somewhat facetious or critical at the same time, and thus reverses the positive valuation in fact (for his liking) because of his choice to approve of and work with the Negative or Morbid (so-called) kind of thinking about reality and human nature. That meant, he accepted a reality of existence for the human being and henceforth, was an inveterate Fear-Positivist. I have problems with that commitment, although I see its validity to a point, and Gillian pushes the fear-analysis even farther and more importantly I think than Becker does. Gillian is a real hard-core fearist (even though, he did not use that label). 

I wonder where he would have gone with this Fear-Positivist and human Negativist philosophy and theorizing if he had lived a few more decades as a great thinker and synthesizer across disciplines of knowledge (see his Wikipedia:Ernest Becker); for some who knew Becker well and studied his work, they have told me that Becker likely would have got "darker" in his interpretations and understanding of the reality of Homo sapiens sapiens, that is, human nature and human destiny (along with planet earth) [7]. That aside, what we do see in Becker's (1973) book, so influential in many quarters of international discussion (at least, in its hey day)--that, if one starts with the argument that the human being is an animal, and recall that had great influence since Darwin (mid-19th century)--that, in the end, most empirical evidence points to the reality of what basically comes down to Homo sapiens can best be characterized and rather uniquely (in Becker's words): 

The result was the emergence of man [sic] as we know him: a hyperanxious 

animal who constantly invents reasons for anxiety even when there are none. [8]

So Vulnerably Human

Humans (a la Beckerian Negativists) = living terrified, hyperanxious, constantly 'out of touch' with their actual level of threats in their environment (and/or inside themselves). It does not sound like a very pretty happy picture of our species and lives. Those qualties make for a troublesome mix altogether; although, recall that being terrified and anxious (i.e., "fear-based" in terms of the two choices in the diagram above that is one way of interpreting Becker's (fear) problem)--is not the problem, for the Fear-Positivists are totally okay with accepting that is just fine, it is even positive to be terrified and anxious all the time--because reality is just that! Now, you can see the twist is in the fine details of that claim and one would have to critically ask, but what about "hyper" and the being out-of-touch part--how can these be healthy and just fine--even ontologically justifiable? [I won't go into that argumentation here] [also note: my definition of "fear-based" is way more complicated and intentionally troublesome than is the way it is used above and is implicitly understood in the Beckerian (fear) problem]

One the other hand, the human Positivists rally against it all (as they also do generally against anything Darwinian-informed). For myself, my first 1/3 of life as a thinker was absorbed completely in biology, ecology, evolutionary, ethological and environmentalist critique. How could I not be in agreement with the second solution to the Beckerian (fear) problem? 

That aside, we now have a whole lot of people, of all stripes really, that want us to be animal, and those that don't. Sure, some will try to 'mix and match' and 'blend' the animal-human (even Becker, and Gillian do somewhat)--but, then you have to scrape down--sit in the primal depths of reality/truth and look-at (not avoid) the layers of the real problem with the problem of being a terrified hyperanxious out-of-touch with reality kind of critter. From the latter characteristic in the list, the Repression Problem then comes forth [9], which I will not elaborate in this short blog. Anyways, the (primal) Negativists, often push down to where they relentlessly end up with their strongest pragmatist truth: humans are afraid to die and "fear of death" is thus the new primal motivational base reference point for where to begin a philosophy of human nature and all that follows from that. We are animal, they say, but we are a unique (vulnerable) animal--e.g., premature young incredibly helpless for a long period of their early development, big brains sensitive to knowing we are dying sooner or later, etc.   

[to be continued... perhaps...]

Endnotes

1. "Fearist" refers to anyone who systematically makes "fear" central to their investigations of human behavior and reality itself. There are more complex nuanced definitions and meanings that can be found too, but the basic meaning (above) is taken from Subba (2014) and the original articulation "The fearist perspective is a new dimension to look at life and the world" (p. 11). Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Australia: Xlibris. 

2. E.g., Subba coined his "fearism" notion in 1999 as part of his literary (novel and poetic) productions and literary criticism interests, which merged with his growing initiative to become a philosopher. He wrote the standard text for his new philosophy (see Subba (2014). 

3. Note, I did cite Becker's famous book The Denial of Death as one vector of inquiry, essential in developing the sub-field of Fear Studies; see, Fisher, R. M. (2006). Invoking 'Fear' Studies. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 22(4), 39-71.

4. True in general, there's many other influences I am finding in Gillian's thought; also Daniel Liechty, in a book review of Gillian (2002), noted Gillian was also "very 'Rankian'" (Liechty, 2004). Referring to the psychoanalyst-theorist Otto Rank. This book review was published originally "Book Review of The Beauty of Fear in Ernest Becker Foundation Newsletter, December; and reprinted by Gillian in the front matter of his next book in 2005. See the two books by Gillian: Gillian, S. N. (2002). The beauty of fear: How to be positively afraid. Phemore Press; and Gillian, S. N. (2005). Terrified by education: Teaching children to fear learning. Phemore Press. 

5. If pushed, and she's much lesser known than Becker, I would argue that the American adult educator-poet, activist, Bonaro W. Overstreet (1950's) is the first fearist--but, I'll leave that case for another place and time to argue. 

6. Becker, E. (1973/97). The denial of death. NY: Free Press Paperbacks/Simon & Schuster.

7. E.g., correspondence in 2020 with Dr. Daniel Liechty and Dr. Jack Martin. 

8. Becker (1973), p. 17.

9. The repression complexity (theorizing) in the Beckerian model has a long tradition in depth psychology and critical philosophy but easily it goes back to Arthur Schopenhaur, through Fredriech Nietzsche to Freud, and to Becker...etc. Tying reality-fear-repression together as one dynamic is key to understand--if one wants to understand the Beckerian Negativist perspective. I have only recently been thinking of repression-fear-fearlessness dynamics but it is too soon to share more. I guess, I see myself as post-Beckerian (meaning, I adopt the best of his work and transcend and create beyond it's limitations--that is, of existentialism itself). 

Figure 1  Philosophical Treatments of Fear (Historically in the Western World) 

CONFESSION OF A FEAR CRITIC [1]

-R. Michael Fisher, Ph.D.

Every philosopher, theorist, practitioner in any field of inquiry and endeavor ought to eventually come to a time in their life and career where they re-evaluate their work. This year has been a good one for me as a fear critic to assess what has been happening since I joined the stream of thought throughout time that has investigated "fear." I am feeling like there's a big transition, a growing doubt of some of my premises, and a suspicion that my fearwork may have 'taken a wrong turn.' The longer story is yet to be written. But I at least here in this blog want to offer Figure 1 as a preview of my mapping the historical moves and movements of various philosophers that I believe are quite important to Fear Studies in general. The main aspect of Figure 1 shows the "Positivization" of agendas of various thinkers and their movements as they worked to make the concept and experience of "fear" more positive than was the case for the majority (of their times). They all, more or less believe (and rightly) that "fear" has too often been given a negative valuation over it being positive in humanity and Nature. Although, since 1989, I have been aware of this positivization in various discourses on fear, I was never quite taken-up into the enthusiasm of the positivization movement in Fear Studies. Now, I am re-evaluating that choice on my part? My motivation? My insistance that there was a skewing of reality by this positivization, of which I wrote many critiques of what I called the "fear-positivists" (and/or "fear-positivism"), was maybe a good track to take philosophically but in 2022 I am starting to really wonder if my choice was a good one. 

Therefore in Figure 1 you can see that I have put the "Fisherian" camp of fearwork outside of the main field of positivization of fear camp. You probably know that I chose "fearlessness" as the core strength for my study of fear ('fear') and fearlessness. The others in Figure 1, all whom I respect (and other writers are not shown just to keep this diagram less complicated), are distinct in their working with the fear-fearlessness relationship. To be clear, most all of the fear-positivists are anti-fearlessness (except Subba and some of his followers, and except Four Arrows). The main reason for my re-evaluation at this time is that I have re-discovered the work of Sam Gillian Jr.(1939-2016) in recent months and have begun a serious study of his unique Beckerian and Black existentialism that leads into his philosophy and fear-pedagogy--all of which I believe is so uniquely constructed that it deserves the categorization of Gillianism of Fear. Gillian was not aware of the liberalism of fear and fearism of fear and other writers in the list above, but he was aware of existentialism in general and especially he was influenced by Ernest Becker's work. The latter, I greatly admire and have been studying off and on since the early 1980s before I even began the In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989-). 

I've been reflecting on my own path of fearlessness approach to fear. I have made various philosophical moves and created methodological approaches (e.g., fearanalysis) to accomodate my interest to camp more in the fear-negativist discourse but with a good deal of revision of those discourses that come from history. By no means, was I conforming to only making fear negative--yet, I was compelled to construct 'fear' as a postmodern concept, and situate Fear Studies within a "culture of fear" (and/or 'Fear' Matrix) and thus fearlessness as the main approach gave me a decided edge of negativity towards fear and knowledges constructed on fear. I also felt I was somewhat fear-positive and still do, but lately and with the work of Gillian, my critiques have turned on my own work. I do not believe my trajectory has been very effective, and there is a lot of evidence since 1989 to prove to me my work has faltered in having any real impact out there in the world, in the field of Education or anywhere else. The Fearlessness Movement (and this ning under that name) have been luke-warm to non-existent in real impacts and growth of a powerful modeling of fear mangement/education and/or of liberation in general. It's been a sobering reality of watching this non-productivity of my fearlessness-oriented fearwork. I am seeing that fear-negativity still is strong in my work and that must change to be more effective. Gillian especially has argued persuasively that a truly simple and productive fear management begins with fear-positivity and of course, many others have said this too (see Figure 1). Yet, for various reasons, it was the combination of Ernest Becker's philosophy and Terror Management Theory that arose from it; and then the application of the philosophy and pedagogy of Gillian (a Beckerian) that really made the difference. [see the prior FM blog on Samuel N. Gillian for more background]. 

Basically, the fear-positivism camp offers (likely) 'the best' treatment of fear philosophically, theoretically and practically--for where the "populus" and society as a whole is at. My own work is 20 yrs. ahead (i.e., 'out there' in the stratosphere)--and, I have to admit not very useful at the moment. In the end, I envision a more productive fear management education for the world that the fear-positivists will lead, and I can help serve that movement as well but I will always have my biases--and, perhaps, my fearlessness work will in some way hold a larger perspective for all the good of the fear-positivists; perhaps, my work will keep the fear-posiitivists from falling into traps of their own ideology and shadow(?) I can only speculate, my work has been in an important fear-negative camp for a reason and it is not just some personal fettish but only history will "test" that. I really don't know. What I do know is that there is still a good deal of synthesis required, and good critical analysis, to make the fear-positive camp stronger and more effective. And, really there is not a lot of time to waste for this to happen. If I can help out, do let me know. 

I'll leave this introductory confession right here... for discussion, if anyone is interested. There is a whole course I could teach on Figure 1--that would be a fantastic addition to Fear Studies and fearology, etc. Maybe some day, if there is interest. P.S. the International Journal of Fear Studies is homeless right now, but I am working closely with some colleagues (especially, Rayson K. Alex) to re-locate and re-structure the journal (it may be a year or two down the road before it is operating again).

ADDENDUM

To be sure there are sub-branches of philosophies and thinkers not mentioned in Figure 1, for example, a fascinating movement by Sijin Yan (et al.) on a Levinasianism of Fear and Four Arrows (Wahinkpe Topa) and an Indigenism of Fear, Libertarianism of Fear (Frank Furedi) all could easily be added; and, I suspect there are others I am missing too; note also there are Asian and African variant branches of Fearism of Fear (spurred on by Desh Subba but also some quite independent streams of thought). Also, missing here, is discussion of the role of religion (especially, the Abrahamic traditions) in securing the effective dispositions of a fear-positive theology (e.g., it is good to fear God, Allah, Yahweh)--that these religious discourses are core to cultural development and health is an area for debate. There is also missing here the debate on what a good "pedagogy" re: fear ought to be (?). Typically, the "pedagogy of fear" (e.g., Arie Kizel and others) is always constructed as a fear-negative discourse, for the most part. This really all needs to be unpacked further, and I think Figure 1 offers a larger framework for the evaluation on the nature and role of fear and education (learning) overall. As well, there is the Indigenous (and pre-colonial), post-colonial, Matrixial (feminine), and nondual, pragmatism (Barbara Stengel) and holistic and Integral perspectives (worldviews) that I have left out here--they are not to be taken lightly in their importance for the future development of philosophy of fear (fearlessness). And lastly, I apologize for the largely "Western" slant on this whole discussion and Figure 1 representation. Eastern (and Northern, Southern) perspectives need to map their own field of orienting the major branches of fear-positive and fear-negative discourses. 

Notes: 

1. Fisher, R.M. (2002). On being a 'fear' critic. Technical Paper No. 14. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.

 ****

Samuel Nathan Gillian Jr. (1939-2016), MEd. (photo c.1978) [1]

To teach care is to teach fear(fulness)--to teach children to be terrified (in a good way) is education at its foundational best; there is nothing more basic that the human species must engage, and if we neglect this duty, humanity will fail, argues the author Sam Gillian. 

I know of only a couple critical thinkers and philosopher-types who have written more than one book on the subject "fear" in depth. I can think of no black philosopher who has written two books on fear that are in depth. This alone makes Bro. Gillian [2] a central 21st century figure to pay attention to in the philosophy of fear. Because of his life-career (Bronx, NY) as a middle school teacher and adult educator, his two books [3] are key to any study and articulation of a "pedagogy of fear." I guarantee you dear reader, Gillian is quite controversial (even radical) and will in spirit and rational thought challenge many assumptions typical of progressive education philosophy and child-rearing, care-giving etc. I think he is a progressive educator of the highest calibre but he is fiercely independent in how he thinks about progress and progressive ideas related to fear. That's what makes him a unique philosopher with lots to teach. 

He is incredibly clear in his writing and thus I would say his work is "the best" there is out there on fear, for the person on the street, so to speak, when it comes to being applicable ideas to ponder and apply immediately to our lives. His books are not shallow over-simplified "self-help" in the typical psychological way. They are more philosophical reflections and at times they are 'sermons.' He has integrated many others' thought throughout his years of study of fear [4], which began in 1972, he tells us in his brief bio. in his first book. He is an expert on fear, no doubt about it. His contribution to a good quality "fear education" is so needed today and in the future.

Unfortunately, for many reasons, his work is virtually unheard of in larger circles and in academia. I plan to write an intellectual biography of his life and work and reverse this invisibility. I look forward to anyone who wishes to discuss the "Gillianism of fear" (as I call it) [5]. 

[note: Prof. Cornel West has some similar notions as Gillian, e.g., https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/centralizing-of-the-calamitous-philosophy-in-the-key-of-terror]

End Notes

1. Thanks to Bernice Gillian, Sam's wife, for this photograph. 

2. Bro. Sam or Bro. Gillian are terms I use as endearment and respect, and I have only used such because of Sam's own proclivity to do so with me (e.g., see the photo above where I overlapped the portrait of him with his book signing signature "Bro. Sam" and it was addressed to me as "Bro. Michael" in the inside cover of his second book I had purchased from him in 2005.

3. The Beauty of Fear (2002) and Terrified by Education (2005), by Phemore Press, his own publishing company. He published no other works under that press nor did he write any other books than these two. It is hard to find copies of these, but if interested you may try contacting Bernice who may sell you a copy of these titles sbgill4273@aol.com

4. E.g., he was a big fan of the existentialist Ernest Becker, but also the likes of Jiddu Krishnamurti, Alan Watts and many others. Very eclectic (E-W) reading underlies his philosophy.

5. Contact me: r.michaelfisher52@gmail.com

This has got to be one of the most stunning philosophical lectures/performances of a genius liberal-radical contemporary philosopher (Cornel West) in 2014, there is-- I listen to it and it touches so many chords and choruses of the type of philosophy I have been attempting and working through, and now coming out in my latest book "The Fear Problematique: Role of Philosophy of Education in Speaking Truths to Powers in a Culture of Fear" (IAP, in press). 

At one point in the talk, I particularly was delighted by West's bringing forward the Josiah Royce criticism of American philosophy, whereby (paraphrasing Royce), West says, "We need to re-word philosophy in a way in which it speaks to our times." Oh, yes! All of my work on centralizing the dark shadow (i.e., the tragic, tragic comedy, calamitous, the horrific)--and naming it as "fear"--for a start, has been about then finding the re-wording of philosophy laid down upon a new Fearlessness Paradigm. The search? the quest? the aim? For West and myself it is for paideia [Paideia (also spelled paedeia) refers to the rearing and education of the ideal member of the ancient Greek polis or state. These educational ideals...]

Glad to announce this new book, initiated and led by B. Maria Kumar and most of his essays, and I respond to them. (Indra Publishing House, 2022)

I think readers will find us as two fearists in a creative exchange that was a lot of fun for me to be involved. One may even learn something new about the "human" from this book. 

Bishwa Darpan

Monday, April 11, 2022

Interview With Desh Subba On Trans Philosophism

Trans Philosophism Is A Terminator

Desh Subba

Desh Subba was born in Nepal and lives in Hong Kong. He has been writing various books in 'Philosophy of Fearism'. His book 'Trans Philosophism' published in 2021. He is a founder of 'Philosophy of Fearism'. On its base, several books and articles have been written. Bishwa Raj Adhikari has interviewed him for Bishwa Darpan:

1. May we start the interview with the introduction of your writings?

I am Desh Subba. I have written different genres of literature. Since 1999, I have been concentrating on the 'Philosophy of Fearism'. It took a long time to shape a philosophy. I researched; consulted with professors and studied to support it. It was hard to find a clear outline. In the beginning, Fearism was a matter of mocking concept because it was hard to accept as philosophy. No one thought and heard such Fear+ism before. As for them, fear was an average thought as others’ emotions. It was true in a sense. It was the reason that it became a joke. It was not happening to me only. Most of the philosophers faced such difficulties. In my experience, people learn a piece of philosophy. A piece of learning cannot complete the learning process. We cannot understand if we start from the middle. It is the same as watching a movie after one minute or starting to read a book from the 2^nd page. When we miss the beginning, then we get lost somewhere. It is the trend of our academic research and study. Suppose, somebody read Marxism and said I know Marxism. At least to know Marxism needs to reach to Socrates and Plato because thesis, antithesis, and synthesis came from Meno and 'The Republic'. Once Meno asked Socrates,

Meno: "Can knowledge (virtue is written in Wikipedia) learn and teach?"

Socrates: "Cannot because it exists within us".

Meno: "How to draw it out?"

Socrates: "Through dialectic method."

He was talking about conceptual knowledge. Until the synthesis, dialect must continue.

Similarly, word communism first came from Plato. He used it in how to rule Athens. He said, "Ruler and warrior class are not permitted to keep the private property because if they acquire private property, they can be corrupted." He had a fear of corrupting the state. In a social measure, he preferred the communist system. We are playing a role like scholars of Socrates. After conversing with scholars, he said, "We do not know—neither the sophists, nor the orators, nor the artists, nor I—what the True, the Good, and the beautiful are. But there is this difference between us: although they believe they know something; whereas, I, if I know nothing, at least have no doubt about it."

2. 'Philosophy of Fearism' is now widely read. Can you explain it in the simplest form? 

It is a philosophy as other philosophies. Its primary subject is fear. It looks at life and the world on its basis. It is my understanding; most of the influential philosophies have come from suffering, pain, pleasure, happiness, will, desire, etc. Fear was left behind, even some philosophers had given the place but it was negative, harmful, and secondary. We (fearists) are giving full focus on it. Its major quotes are "life is conducted, directed, and controlled by fear", and the "(Existence of) fear precedes essence". At present, politics, economics, education, healthcare, entertainment, and relation is conducted, directed, and controlled by fear of Covid—19. It is very practical. It is not negative; it is the most positive motivator. We see the fear of pandemic activated government, scientists, and medicines. If it was not spread, it would not require the invention of medicine, insulin and issue the laws. We are not doing it just for Corona, we did since early civilization. The bottom line of our invention, development, and construction is fear.

3. 3. End of last year, your new book 'Trans Philosophism' was published. Can you say some words about it?

It is a metamorphosis of 'Philosophy of Fearism' in one sense and terminator in another sense.  By name, if we go through, it has four words Trans+Philo+sophy+ism=Trans Philosophism.  It argues that the later philosophies have to turn on 'Trans Philosophism' way. It has operated, refuted, criticized, and fearmorphosed (metamorphosed) the political theory of Thomas Hobbes, Communist Manifesto, Of Grammatology of Derrida, postmodernism, the subaltern studies, ecological crisis and Existentialism. 

4. How can it be metamorphosis and terminator?

When the variant of philosophy comes that is a metamorphosis; if it strongly refutes and takes into an advanced level that is the terminator. Das Capital is an offspring of the Communist Manifesto. Several philosophies are in metamorphosis form. It is in Communism, Existentialism, modernism, postmodernism, etc. Some parts of Hegelian idealism (idea, or mind, or reason, spirit, or and Giest) is the metamorphosis of Purush and Prakriti of Sankhya philosophy. The spirit of Hegel and Purush of Sankhya has a common base; it has the potential to create matter. Similarly, the political theory of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau is a kind of metamorphosis because their first form is the state of nature. An animal is a living thing, so the same animal changes in different forms. An idea needs to change through philosophers. We cannot ignore the metamorphosis structure of the Communist Manifesto, Das Capital, Leninism, Maoism, and some other communists. If we see in the context of Nepal, there are plenty of metamorphosed offspring of communists. They are metamorphoses in the 'Trans Philosophism' terminology. 'Trans Philosophism' is a terminator because it terminates the previous meaning. In reality, fear is a terminator. It terminates other emotions. To look from a fearism point of view is fearmorphosis.

5. How is the development of Philosophy of Fearism?

It is growing to the adolescence stage. It will grow into teenagers and adults. On its base, almost 20 books and lots of articles have been written. Trans Philosophism is among them. Dr. Bhawani Shankar Adhikari has applied it in his Ph.D. dissertation. It is a healthy symptom. In some books, I involved myself. Several universities have kept it in reference lists. Within 8 years, its progress is zeal.

6. Do you have some words for readers?

It is my experience, if we want to learn philosophy, we must go back to 570 BC, and nevertheless, we miss the page. Around 600 BC is its beginning. As I said, reading from the 2^nd page misguides our knowledge. 

Presented by: Bishwa Raj Adhikari

http://bishwarajadhikari.blogspot.com/2022/04/interview-with-desh-subba-part-2.html?m=1

Getting playfully serious about what would fearlessness look like in a "future's scenario" of the global problems... this is an interesting video you may want to watch on Dr. R. Michael Fisher (yours truly) spinning a real/imaginary scenario of being called into an international conference to help solve the most serious global problems. 

go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yF36_-NV7I

This excerpt (first draft only) is a small piece to give you a sense of what I am 'onto' these days, especially in writing this tenth book (to be published later this year by Information Age Publishing, in their Philosophy of Education Series, Ed. Dr. John Petrovic) [1]. I have been working months and months, and it has been quite a ploughing the soil. Hard going at times. This Chapter Five took weeks to complete, as I just did this morning. Wow! It is by far the largest chapter in the book (coming in at a heavty 25,000 words itself, without the references). Yikes.

A number of fresh insights came from the writing that I could put into it, so that was good. It is never a boring writing because I risk all the time, on the edge of not knowing what I am doing and not creating chapter outlines. I just start writing. 

As always, I trust this bit of expository on fear will intrigue you to critique, to commnent, here on the FM ning. And/or you can always email me directly: 

r.michaelfisher52@gmail.com

Notes

1. Excerpt from Fisher, R. M. (in progress). The Fear Problematique: Role of Philosophy of Education in Speaking Truths to Power in a Culture of Fear. 

This is the inside back cover of the Bio. for Samuel Nathan Gillian (1939-2015). I had a friendly (email relationship) with Sam since May 2004 until March 2005. And recently with one of his nieces (thankfully) contacting me--now I am in conversation with his wife Bernice, and there is a new project on my plate to write an intellectual biography on SNG. Just wanted to let you all know that. He has written two amazing books on fear (and education) [1], and I know of no one who has done that, and especially with him being an African-American black man, again, I know of no black person who has written two major books on fear; this combination puts his work out as an important historical record in Fear Studies. Intellectually, he developed some close links at one point with the Ernest Becker Foundation and he absorbed the writings of Ernest Becker. Sam was likely an existential thinker. Bernice says, with a great "zest for life." He also puts his own spin on fear and how best to relate to it, based on his life's experience and being one who loved children and teaching. In 2020 I wrote a technical paper on my initial connections with Sam and why he and I had our overlapping same interests and our differences about fear and fearlessness [2]. 

IF ANYONE has further information, of any kind, about SNG, please contact me: r.michaelfisher52@gmail.com

FYI: I just posted May 10/22 on "Cornel West" (see FM ning)-- as it is truly West's liberal-radical philosophy that in many ways (not all) is very much akin to Gillian's philosophy.

Notes: 

1. Gillian, S. N. (2002). The Beauty of Fear: How to Positively Enjoy Being Afraid. Phemore Press, Inc.; Gillian, S. N. (2005). Terrified by Education: Teaching Children to Fear Learning. Phemore Press, Inc. 

2. Fisher, R. M. (2020). Samuel N. Gillian's Beckerian Educational Philosophy of Fear/Terror. Technical Paper No. 102. In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. 

Recently published: 

Fisher, R. M. (2022). How we care for fear: Understanding fearism. International Market and Competitive Intelligence Magazine, 11 (March/April), 23-27.

For a word.doc version of this Understanding Fearism article 2022.docx.

Untitled by Amaris - watercolor on paper, Feb. 17, 2022   (published with permission)

This image is recently created from a participant in a Spontaneous Creation-Making (SCM) group session (on Zoom), which Barbara and I had initiated decades ago, and currently Hallie is running a group. It is amazing what births shows up when we have time to connect communally, slow down, and then each go off into our own homes for 25 min. creating something completely unplanned. One does not need to be an artist to do this. All medium and found objects, and performances, have shown up over the years. This one above happens to be a stunning water-color painting. Barbara and I have called this SCM practice and the care that goes in sharing the creations in the group sacred circle after, a 'fear' vaccine process since the early 1990s. Why? I'll get to that later. 

First, I'll share the story of the 'artist' (creator Amaras) behind this image, as they recently shared this image from a SCM session, as I was interested to put a quote to the piece. I discovered the quote some days after in reading a book entitled "Mary Magdalene Revealled" (by Megan Watterson) of which Barbara was reading and showed me some quotes related to fear in the soul/archetypal register of experience. So, here is the quote that I found and immediately. It seemed like a 'response' to the painting and how it was shared that night on Zoom. 

Watterson wrote in a poetic-trance like 'prayer':

"IF I could start again, it would be in the darkness. 

And in the darkness, all we would see is a hand suddenly extending out toward us.

And the invitation would be terrifying. 

Seeing this hand would compel our heart to start beating....

The fear comes from feeling out of control. 

We want to leave and we want to stay in equal measure.

We want to know what might happen next and for everything to remain exactly the same. 

Taking this hand is a choice to surrender." (p. 13) 

-------

Amaris replied to the quote: 

"This is an absolutely incredible gift...It captures the feeling that I had while painted--fear and rebirth, including moving through fear and lack of control within the internal space. Fear that holds immobile in stasis but can give way to room for creation and joy. Thank you so much. 

When I mentioned I wanted to publish their creation, they wrote, "I would love to read a blog about art and fear. These are themes that resonate with me very much, especially as it relates to phobia of one's inner experience. Art has been such a part of that personal exploration for me regarding this fear."

------

I suggest anyone reading this, take time also to be with the creation--and imagine its creating--itself. Wet and unabashedly a singularity of flow and ecstasy, and of course, with all birthing there is fear, perhaps terror, perhaps many sensations and feelings that only later we conceptualize as terror. The painting itself is important also as a process, not merely for Amaris, as she connects memories and investigates the "phobia of one's inner experience"--as she wrote of it later. It is important collectively, and that is significant for the group of SCM with it happening. What an interesting phrase that is. Like their painting emerging, a phobia is emerging to the light, with all the attention of the creator/artist entering into the unknown and unexpected that began with a paper with 'nothing' on it and then the materials and water and colors and rhythms became alive, like a "surrender" --and, ultimately this creation process is still going on, and is now going on in this digital medium of a blog.

I share this all because of the art itself and the process of SCM which I highly recommend as a practice of liberation--and, yes, I also share this 'story' because it challenges what Alan Watts wrote of (Zen style) in the 1970s in a book, I always enjoy going back to, "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are." In oppressive societies that 'shut down' early in our lives the full re-membering of the matrixial (mother-child-birthing)--and deny its true importance to our being on this planet in a body--I think arts-expressive modalities are a tremendous gift to 'touch' again the rich sensory experiences of who we really are--embodied that is, and yes, for us to stand back and feel the "room for creation and joy" as Amaris says. 

So many layers of interpreting and being/with are possible here... I am mostly aware of the power and healing that comes from wit(h)nessing, as Bracha Ettinger speaks of it and when 'more than one attends the fear' and re-births the fear--as communal practice in a sanctuary of art-care. My acknowledgement of gratitude to Amaris for sharing this with us. 

Thanks be, to Creation. 

This is when you know the system is fear-based. 

Have a look at this video I did over two years ago.