Dr. Arie Kizel, Israel and Dr. R. Michael Fisher, Canada
In this recent dialogue (FearTalk #26), these two educators dive deep into the organizational ideology of "pedagogy of fear" in socialization and schooling, and they offer a way out of this "prison" via critical open thinking as philosophical inquiry for/with children.
Desh Subba and Jamila Khattak (Ph.D Scholar)
Host: Jamila Khattak (Ph.D Scholar)
Jamila Khattak Ph.D scholar in education at Fatima Jinnah Women University Rawalpindi, Pakistan. I have expertise in research field on different topics and focus on teachers and students collaboration and training. Fear in students is very Fear in students often manifests as anxiety and stress related to academic performance, peer relationships, and future uncertainties. This emotional response can negatively impact their cognitive functions, such as concentration, memory, and problem-solving abilities, hindering their overall learning experience. Understanding and addressing these fears through supportive educational environments, counseling, and stress management strategies is crucial for fostering resilience and promoting academic success.
Guest: Desh Subba
Introduction:
Desh Subba is a renowned philosopher, author, and the founder of the Fearism movement, which explores fear as a driving force in human life and society. Born in Nepal, Subba has significantly contributed to contemporary philosophy by examining the multifaceted nature of fear and its impact on personal and collective behaviors. His seminal work, "Fearism," has garnered international recognition, inspiring discussions on how fear can be transformed from a hindrance into a motivational force. Subba's insights have resonated globally, particularly among youth, encouraging a reevaluation of fear's role in achieving success and personal growth.
Jamila: What is fear, and how does it manifest in our lives?
Desh Subba: In a normal introduction, it is an emotion, sense, feeling, and consciousness. What we understand is similar to other emotions. I call it general fear. It comes from the mind. Another comes from the amygdala part of the brain, which I call special fear. The amygdala is a
primitive part of the four parts of the brain. It only looks at fear. Our senses send a message to this part. It responds, and other senses follow its instructions. In Fearism, I talk about general and special fears.
Understanding Fear
Jamila: How can fear be a barrier to achieving success and personal growth?
Desh Subba: Most people understand fear as a barrier. Many authors and philosophers carry the same meaning. It is a dark part like Yang of Yin Yang Chinese philosophy. Our contribution to contemporary philosophy is looking at it from multiple approaches. In simple words, proper use of fear is a motivation. Higher and lower is evil. Even if we drink more milk, it is harmful. If we have excess fear it is a barrier. For example, a student knows all the answers to the question. He gets nervous and panics, and he fails the exam. Suppose for exam students
don't fear, do careless, they are unsuccessful. Some students fear too much for exams, and they also fail. So, they must have virtue fear (medium fear). It makes them successful in life. This formula is also applicable to teachers. Every professional has to follow it, for instance, doctors, drivers, pilots, heads of government, heads of any institution.
Historical and Contemporary Examples
Jamila: Are there historical or contemporary examples of individuals who have transformed their fear into success?
Desh Subba: There are many examples of it. We can see many speakers, they say, at the beginning, I could not speak because of fear, and hesitation. Slowly I controlled it myself and became a motivational speaker, singers, artists, teachers, and spiritual leaders. It is very useful
for those who are shy, hesitant, nervous, introverted, and have some phobias. Girls can benefit from this idea particularly those who are dominated by culture, religion, and tradition. It is shown in movies and fiction books.
Psychological Mechanisms
Jamila: What psychological mechanisms allow people to convert fear into motivation?
Desh Subba: At present many people are suffering from hypertension, depression, anxiety, and mental health. The doctor gives medicine to them but does not try to reach the depth of the sickness. So, their treatment is not successful. Several suicide cases are increasing day by day. When exam result comes, some students do suicide. Cause of it, they define failure in the exam. It is the general understanding of parents and teachers. It is not the bottom cause. It is factual. Transcendence causes vary. A dark future, prestige, and unsuccessful life are the cause. At the bottom is fear of the dark and failure of life. If we examine the reason for depression, anxiety, and mental problems, in most cases we find fear. During my philosophical tour, I reached northeast India Manipur. I met a chairman of a literary organization. He said he is a depression patient. I asked him, "How did you become a depression patient?" He told me, he misused some amount of organization. He was tense and worried about how to repay that amount. It was his starting point. It means fear of loss of prestige, reputation, arrest, and more crises. When we dig the depths of any crisis, we reach into fear. It was left by psychology and medical science. Lots
of analysis I have done on it.
Practical Strategies
Jamila: What are some practical strategies or techniques for harnessing fear as a positive force?
Desh Subba: Everything can be seen from Fearism's multiple eyes. When we see a beautiful flower, we observe it from different corners. If we think it is poisonous, then, it changes into poisonous though we don't experience it. Fear is the same. For a long time, it has been
understood as poisonous and harmful. First, we need to metamorphose this meaning into beautiful, fragrant, positive, and motivational. It helps us in succeeding in our lives. Suppose a person fears speaking in mass. Day by day his exercise helps him to get success. I was very
shy, dreadful to speak, and nervous. I was invited to give a lecture about Fearism at Hong Kong University. I have only a graduate degree and English is not my language. I am very weak in spoken and written English. The date was 26 March 2015. This university is ranked 18 in the
world this year. It is a very famous university. I must had to speak to promote my idea. What should I do? I didn't want to miss this chance. My sister gifted me an old-model Nokia phone. Everyday 1 minute I record and practice. Around a month later, I became confident that I could speak. It was my first English lecture. I spoke for one and a half hours. If a person can speak for one minute, he can easily speak for three hours. This is a practical strategy. Everyone can experiment with it.
Role of Self-Awareness
Jamila: How does self-awareness play a role in overcoming fear?
Desh Subba: All the fear we don't have to overcome. It cannot be overcome because it is a consciousness that emerges from the brain. American scientists did an experiment taking out the amygdala of a rat. The rat lost consciousness and went to play with the cat because the rat's fear was removed. It staggered on the way, out of control. Self-awareness is important. Suppose a man is going to suicide. He thinks he cannot repay the loan and interest. It is his understanding. After almost jumping from the height, he enlightened that "I was not going to
suicide because of the loan, I was going to kill myself because of fear of it. I can pay it on an installment basis." Before he had a boulder of fear, now he metamorphosed it into pieces- installments. It means a big fear is divided into tiny parts. It is a self-awareness of fear. It saves
his life.
Supportive Environments
Jamila: How can individuals create a supportive environment that encourages overcoming fear?
Desh Subba: Those intellectuals or teachers can create a Supportive Environment that understands Fearism and its school of thought. They need to understand the quotes of it, life is conducted, directed, and controlled by fear, and we are Fear Sísyphus being watched by
Panopticon. Religion, myth, psychology, literature, politics, criticism, and belief systems consist of it. When they look at life, education, society, health care, law, constitution, morality, and ethics from this theory, people encourage themselves.
Fear and Goal Setting
Jamila: How can setting goals help in transforming fear into motivation?
Desh Subba: A cricket team set a goal to win the World Cup. It is their goal. They must keep a fear of defeat. Fear of defeat is not negative, it is a positive because it forwards them. If a team does not keep it, they will be careless and not concentrate on the game. Fear of loss unites the team and focuses on the match. Ultimately, they win and share happiness. Not only do players become happy, but a nation celebrates bliss. That's why I said, Happiness doesn't have self- stand, it stands on fear. I give an example that is fit for a developed and underdeveloped
country. Pakistan and some corrupt, nepotist countries do not fear the law and people. They hold all powers and bureaucrats. They do what they like to do. No fear of law and order for them. It is the reason the country became an unsuccessful state. On the contrary, the developed
country has a fear of law and order and more fear from the public. If we are found guilty, we will be punished, they think. This fear stops them from doing illegal things. I am living in Hong Kong. Once our head of city (Chief Executive) was jailed for 20 months because of a
misconduct case. It is the reason, it has a high rank in the world.
Mindfulness and Meditation
Jamila: How can mindfulness and meditation practices contribute to transforming fear?
Desh Subba: Our knowledge of fear is wrong. It scapegoats us. We hate it. Civilization, politics, language, capital, hospital, insurance, fire brigade, army, detective (CIA, KGB, and RAW), and CCTV (paparazzi, newspaper) are for fear purpose or, fear-care. Fear Meditation, fear enlightens and transforms us positively. R. Michael is a specialist in fear management. It is important.
Mentors and Role Models
Jamila:What role do mentors and role models play in helping individuals overcome their fears?
Desh Subba: Almost all your questions are about overcoming fear. We never overcome it. Overcome is our mirage. That's why I coined the quote "Fear is a Sisyphus". When it is up, we bring it down. From down, we push it up. Again it up we bring it down. It repeats all the time.
It is an endless process. To give an example, I have a fear of blood pressure. For the time being it is controlled and that fear ends but not forever. At the same time comes the fear of sugar. Another example, I have a fear of bank installments, so I paid them. Again comes mortgage.
Terrorism & Counter-Terrorism: Two Sides of the Same Coin. The mass counter-terrorist hypnosis has begun. The latest gun violence is no surprise to me.
You all may or may not know as of last night that a shooter hit the former U.S. pres. Donald Trump with a bullet in the right ear during a political rally and a day before the Republican Party gathering as they prepare for the last stretch of the campaign with Trump leading that Party into the 2024 election in Nov. of this year.
Tensions are high and getting higher, political rhetoric and polarization are at a peak. Meaning anxiety and fear are peaking in that country and around the world, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Right wing fascist like leaders and outright fascists are winning over some governments around the world this year in unprecedented proportions. A terror run through the land, and Trump is situated in that Right conservative extremist agenda overall. No wonder all his incitements of violence against others in his years in politics since 2018 at least, he is finally overtly attacked by a single gun man on a roof with a number of bullets. Of course, the gun man was immediately killed by counter-snipers of the CIA etc. It was a suicide/assassination project by this person whom at this time we don't know any more of their identity or motivations but it is clear that a message of violence was met with a message of violence. Violence begets violence and under that is fear begets fear. This is how "terrorism" of all kinds (and its underbelly of fearism-t) work.
The times of spectacles of violence and the massive replays by media outlets of Trump being shot in the ear live on camera, will continue, like 9/11... this induces a shock and awe trance in the people, and the rallying of the patriarchal authorities to show they are "strong" and "in charge" and just listen to them and what they tell you--because that is the truth and will bring you safety under their powers of control. This is a most dangerous time in the wake of shock and awe to hypnotize people with messages and mesmerization. Another form of terrorism (fearism). And, its all about "guns" and who gets to wield them. For more on "shock doctrine" (i.e., indoctrination as perpetrated in times of emergency) go to Naomi Klein's book for example, "Shock Doctrine" which looks at this phenomenon and links it to "disaster capitalism" and political manipulation.
I've been thinking about how everyone has to give up their guns at a rally like that to get into the perimeter. Only the law enforcement types are to carry. Yet, it is odd that people at the Pennsylvania event have to give up their constitutional right for the sake of that rally and safety of the political candidate. Why is that? It is because people are terrified that someone will shoot a political leader at any time. The ironic and paradoxical insanity is not that hard to see what is going on. It is even more bizzare when you think about how "law" operates so arbitrary at times, like at a rally. The government tells us you have a right to carry (arms)--and, yet, you have to give them up because we tell you and we only will carry arms. Look, I am no gun lobbyist. I think guns are symbols of fear gone excess and overboard and is toxic to any society--it makes crazy people and they do crazy things. So, I thought to let you know I am most concerned we avoid getting hooked in the shock and awe and turn to the path of fearlessness--read the various blogs over the six years herein this website, and/or other places. Otherwise, it is easy to get caught up in other people's agendas of weaponizing fear for use to control. You can empower yourselves, just by recognizing what is going on. We can talk about this more as a FM ning community as well.
I looked up to see if Pennsylvania (where the rally and suicide/assassination was carried out) has gun laws of "carry" and they do. Here is an excerpt.
The opening paragraph states "without a permit" just because you are a citizen of the US, and somehow deemed "law abiding" however that is monitored(?). The 2nd Amendment is clear about guns as part of society. And, that means, violence is part of society. No country with such gun laws is going to be violence free, and in fact gun laws were put in place to manage gun violence. It's like an insanity of trying to manage fear by more fear, manage violence by more violence. And, pretty much that is the definition of "war" as it is known for as long as human history. We live in war torn states and a world where war is constant as a way to manage violence with violence. So, again, I post this up on the FM nign to show you how 'normal' and crazy this has become in logic and reasonable understanding and law. When you step outside of the 'Fear' Matrix of it all for a few moments, or longer, you see much what I am seeing about exactly why the former President would be shot, sooner or later. I won't even go into all the number of statements he has made about using violence against people in his country. Of course, the other President (incumbent) is only not saying these things out loud like a Trump, but the actions of their presidency and violence against people in his country or abroad, are no less gruesome and inhumane. That's my point. Guns are inhumane, and yet, are legalized in the USA constitution. So, what should we expect from that sanctioning (of violence)--that policy on guns(?).
Go to Alan Watts talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTTvr_2_Z1k
Btw., my fav. of his books is "The Wisdom of Insecurity: A Message for an Age of Anxiety" (1951). A classic text that really makes you think about your relationship with fear/anxiety. I began studying that book in 1980, a my ripe age of 28 years old. Wow... how time and anxiety flies by...
-have a nice day,
-Michael
Dr. Ramala Sarma and Dr. R. Michael Fisher
MY LATEST INTERVIEW(Jun/2024) by Dr. Sarma, has some really good exchanges you may enjoy--especially philosophy buffs. At the end, we talk a little about "fearlessness practices" but that will be more in a Part 2 of this set of interviews by Dr. Sarma.
As I have since late 1989 been mapping and teaching the Path of Fearlessness, as a universal path awaiting all humans who wish it; however, such an idealist notion has to be brought down to practical boundaries and limitations of real people in the real worlds (and personalities) they inhabit.
I am talking about the merits of and the limits of "personalities" (so, called "personality types" in psychology). In other words, some genetic, and some personality type patterning (usually pre-set during pre-natal to first 7 years of age) can influence the ease or difficulty of finding oneself able to slide along the path of fearlessness as a life trajectory--as a path of liberation.
Another factor is environmental circumstances, that will make it easy or hard to advance along the path of fearlessness. But all of the above factors are also built-in with the ability of making choices and being responsible for making them. A huge factor is the attachment to "social bonds" --that can be both valuable to growth and devlopment of fearlesnsess and it can be excruciatingly limiting. "Fear of exclusion" terrifies some people more than others--even though, as a social species we are all terrified to be socially excluded.
What I want to share with you is that the Myers-Brigg's Personality Assessment (with its 16 types of personalities, based on a lot of research), (for a free testing service to see which type you are: go to:Nine Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1GE, United Kingdom
Registered in England and Wales, # 8646330
https://www.16personalities.com
....has some value in each of us finding our personality type general orientation [1]. Again, I am critical of much of the typology discourses, and that they are not critical enough to larger issues of what impacts people and their personality, values, genetic dispositions, motivational templates, environmental and historical and political conditions, etc. However, of late, I have seen that my own personality type is likely a larger factor in my own life and profession and my mission on this planet.
I am an INFJ type (2% of the population) [2] for sure, according to this personality assessment schema. I find this kind of psychological information sometimes helps me personally deal with my ups and downs in the world and explains 'a story' for my dilemmas, my doubts, and also my successses or near-to-come dreams of successes. In many ways, the following video (which I can't stand like the gross stereotypic images at all: you might just want to listen to it and turn the picture off or close your eyes)--in narrative is very good at describing the "enlightened INFJ" --although, it doesn't really define "enlightened" so you can take that with a grain of salt. I would say, it is a close description (i.e., 7 characteristics) of fearlessness personality, in other words. However, the rest of the summary of the INFJ provides a lot of resonance with my notion of walking the path of Fearlessness--and, why I am drawn to it...and, why others may be as well. Fearlessness provides the lens upon which to critique the world and be compassionate and useful at the same time. Yet, the video also explains why there is such resistance and animosity amongst most all people towards the INFJ types. [3]
End Notes
1. Btw, I am not interested in personality types (or any other typology, like Enneagram, like Astrology, or others) if "personality" is all that one is seeking to understand. I am rather interested in the soul path, and spiritual journey of consciousness and my role in that in this life time and/or others. Simply, I believe personality (also temperament) are sold constructs of a lot of gravity in determining how one evolves but there are also larger forces than personalities at work. Most spirituality, tends to diminish the importance of identifying one's personality and temperamental biases. You could say my interest is biopsychospiritual in this regard--that is, more ecological.
2. Note: this 2%, independently derived by Integral Theory (and Spiral Dynamics Theory) is resonant with % of people at Yellow-vmeme (i.e., Integral Consciousness). I have totally studied these later theories for decades, and knew that I was an "integralist" through and through. Now, to see it correlates with the Jungian model of Myers-Briggs is more than a little interesting and raises lots of questions. "Fearlessness" in its true sense is way beyond behaviors, it is a Paradigm and Consciousness in my own thinking and sure, probably < 2% of the population really 'get it.'
3. My book with a colleague on "Resistances to Fearlessness"(2021) is a good resource for detailed analysis of this problem; and, why the world remains addicted to Fear as its ruler.
Our new FM ning member Christina has written a very carefully drafted blog some years ago, and posted it on the FM ning the other day. I appreciate the care that went into that blog and I encourage other members to check it out. Also, Christina said in that blog a few lines that caught my attention, worthy of deeper discussion:
We live in a challenging time. I fear for my children’s future. I see people striving to be ‘Übermenschen’ and ‘Self-Actualizers’, in need of recognition.
What if it is belongingness that matters foremost?
About 1.5 years ago, I was in a contemplative mood and made this teaching video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWB4QuGrTBM
by V. Duane J. Lacey, Ph.D.
I acknowledge that there is a fear of AI today and that it is mainly concerned with an uncertain future. I have called this a form of Hobbesian diffidence specifically toward our future with AI.
Generally speaking I do not subscribe to the idea that fear can adequately account for everything. However, I do think it is worthwhile to recognize that fear sometimes works in 'mysterious ways', and does so without our realizing it. Desh Subba's Philosophy of Fearism helps us to recognize fear as central to our philosophical tradition, especially the western tradition. As a strategy for approaching philosophical issues both past and present, fearism focuses our attention on how fear operates both when we are aware of it and also when we are not. Here I want to highlight some of these ways in which fear seems to manifest in the ongoing development of our relationship specifically to Artificial Intelligence or AI. In particular, I will focus on a kind of Hobbesian 'diffidence' and its relevance to certain aspects of the world around us today, as well as a sense of "nostalgia‟ for the world that has since become a thing of the past. In both cases the question arises: is it fear that might be at work, though not immediately recognizable as such, in our concerns about AI? Can diffidence actually be useful for us? Can nostalgia?
AI is itself a kind of question mark. Recently in public interviews Harari has said that every generation thinks it is facing a unique new problem never encountered before, but that this time it is actually true. The reason, he argues, why this might be the case is that AI is a new problem that we have not seen before insofar as it represents a technology that can both create new things, and also make its own decisions, whereas previous new technologies, no matter how
dramatic, impactful or advanced, have not presented this possibility. In other words, humans (even if only a small, entitled, irresponsible and powerful self-interested group of them) have always had a level of control over technological advancements. This is why much of the relevant philosophical literature that addresses issues concerning technology and culture especially in the twentieth century is focused on understanding how to 'use' technology in an ethical and
responsible manner. Thinkers like Benjamin, Heidegger and Jonas, and later Postman, usually help us, in part, to recognize the need to resist a 'technophile' love for further and further advancement, i.e., they have different ways of approaching and critiquing the idea that just because we can do something does not mean that we should. This question of responsibility, however, does not apply in the same way to AI as it does to previous other technologies; or to put it another way, while certainly it is necessary to ask these same questions about AI, by themselves these questions are not sufficient to address the challenges that AI represents.
In this regard, one new challenge that AI represents is a degree of autonomy from human control. As such, AI is as though another group or category of social actor, which means that we may be able to apply a Hobbesian perspective not merely with respect to fellow humans, but with respect to AI. Here Subba's fearist critique of Hobbes' system as “Fearolotic” ('fear' and 'politics') or a politics grounded in fear, is a helpful perspective that allows us to recognize the risk of misunderstanding fear in the manner that Hobbes might be said to misunderstand it. This perspective also allows us to redirect a Hobbesian notion of fear when he characterizes it as 'diffidence' (for example in Part I, Chapter XIII of the Leviation) in our dealings with others in a state of nature. In other words the diffidence that Hobbes identifies as one of the causes for our quarrelsome nature, i.e., our distrust of one another without a social contract, is likewise now
applicable to AI. We do not know and we are not confident about how this technology will interact with us. Thus, we are distrustful, suspicious, diffident toward, and in this sense fearful of AI.
For Hobbes, the natural solution to this mutual mistrust, this diffidence, is attained through human reason and our desire for confidence through peace. Hence, the social contract, when enforced, is our agreed upon source of confidence against diffidence. Why should such a solution not work in the case of AI? Perhaps the most obvious factor is that such a social contract would require the acknowledgment of AI as an equal player or participant in the contract. Here the weight of a Hobbesian notion presents itself quite clearly: what if we cannot trust an AI to uphold its side of the bargain? This is the experience of diffidence, and neither was this state of affairs sufficient in the Hobbesian system of for a contract between humans. Instead, a Sovereign was required in order to enforce the contract. Who, or what, then, should act as Sovereign in a social contract between humans and AI? If AI becomes as advanced beyond human capacity as some fear that it will, would it agree to a human Sovereign? Would humans agree to an AI Sovereign?
When or how, moreover, would any of this agreement or lack thereof take place? Perhaps it is already happening, and this is one of the reasons why it so difficult for us to know exactly what will happen or when; not so much because we are unable to predict the outcome, but because it is already taking place gradually, in disparate and seemingly unconnected ways. If we step back for a moment to consider the extent to which AI is already a well-integrated part of our daily lives, through our Google searches, our online identities, the algorithms to which we either knowingly or unknowingly expose ourselves and by which we are both directly and indirectly influenced, and so on, it is worth considering that our fear of AI is always hypothetical, and that it is precisely by means of a hypothetical fear that we fail to recognize the extent to which we have already entered into, or are entering into, a social contract with AI. In this regard, fear becomes a distraction, like the misdirection in a magic trick. In some ways, fear always operates in this manner. When we are actually experiencing something it is no longer a matter of fear, but rather a matter of fact, sometimes painful, sometimes joyful, and sometimes with indifference or lack of real awareness. If this dynamic is at work in the case of AI, then it would mean that our fear of AI in the future is exactly what allows AI to infiltrate our present without our really being aware of it.
If this dynamic is currently at work, then our challenge is to redirect our Hobbesian diffidence from our future with AI, and focus it upon our already present contract with AI. But how might we do so? Actually it is not so difficult to redirect our diffidence in this way, albeit impractical (which is itself part of the challenge). In order to redirect our diffidence especially on an individual level, we may simply consider our daily routines. How much of our daily lives involves or requires AI? Which aspects and activities of our day to day lives would remain precisely as that they are if they were completely devoid of AI? Perhaps, when each of us actually does step back to consider our lives in this manner and with this diffidence, we may even come to realize that it is not our lives with AI that we fear, but rather our lives without it. I
do not say that this would be or that it is the case, but it is possible.
It is with this possibility, then, that nostalgia might actually be a useful experience. One of the challenges we face when redirecting our diffidence in the manner described above is that our lives today seem unimaginable without at least some form of AI. Yet there are those who are still alive today who can, from memory, better imagine such a life. That pang or pain of lament that accompanies nostalgia may seem like a matter of loss. The feeling of nostalgia, that is, may
seem like a useless longing for that which is no longer the case. Is it not pointless, then, to lament and long for that which is gone and can never be attained again? Was that life, which was less inundated with such pervasive amounts of AI as we encounter today, however we might remember it, not itself part of the very conditions that led to AI and our lives as they are now in the first place? Even if we could 'go back', would we not just end up in the same present state of
affairs? That latter question, of course, is quite difficult to answer and requires a good scientific and science-fiction mind with a grasp of the actual possibility of time travel to even begin to answer. However, the pain of nostalgia could be useful, not because we can go back in time, but because it may be a guide post, a warning or an indication of something that we can, in fact, address and fix, at least to some extent and most of all with respect to ourselves individually. Here again, similar to what Subba wants us to recognize about fear, it is not simply something that we must avoid or overcome. Fear, and I think nostalgia as well, are both real experiences that do have value when they are properly integrated into our larger human experience. Instead of a vague longing for the past, we may allow the sadness or pain of nostalgia to be as though an open doorway through which to pass and explore, whereby one may ask oneself: what, exactly, do I long for? Certainly we do not want a return to everything from the past down to the smallest minutiae. So what is it, exactly? With this question, once again, we may apply our diffidence. What role and in what form, if any, did AI play in that past, and specifically that part of the past to which our nostalgia has led us? If it is something that we can rescue from the past and reintegrate into or lives again today, then our relationship to AI is now insightful, informed, more intentional and under our control, at least to some extent and more so than before.
I acknowledge that there is a fear of AI today and that it is mainly concerned with an uncertain future. I have called this a form of Hobbesian diffidence specifically toward our future with AI. When, however, we consider a perspective such as that of Subba's fearism, we are reminded that we can redirect that diffidence of the future toward our present lives. When we use the fear and distrust that characterizes diffidence as a tool through which to analyze our already present social contract with AI, then we are taking control of that fear and putting it to work on what is the case, rather than what might be the case. In so doing, our attention is not misdirected toward an unknown future away from our present, and we may begin to discern the details of our fear and diffidence. Next, what aspects of our lives today, now that we are using diffidence as a tool, cause us to lament what no longer is the case or is missing? What leads to a feeling of nostalgia? We may then put this feeling to use as well, and combine our diffidence of the present (not of the future) with our nostalgia for the past. We may turn that diffidence further toward the past and toward that for which we are nostalgic, and ask what is viable (and desirable), from that which is gone, to bring back into our present lives today? How much of that which we would like to rescue from the past is already imbued with AI, and in what form? These are some suggestions, then, for how we can make use of our capacities for diffidence and nostalgia in addressing our fear of Artificial Intelligence, past, present and future.
Dr. R.Michael Fisher, fearologist.
I would highly recommend this talk (38 min.) I made 5.5 yrs ago. There is something in the simplicity of how I talk about fear(ism) and its applications that today I am much more complicating and for many listeners more confusing. Sad truth. So, it is good to go back to my earlier articulations. My point implicit is, that if you are only interested in managing fears better (short-term gain), and not interested in the path of fearlessness via an understanding of the philosophy of fearism, then I will not be much help to you as a fearologist. I am critical of the short-term quick-fix solutions to the problems of fear, individually or collectively.
This photo/art installation I created in c. 2012, while living in the USA. It represents a vision of a way that "organization" is designed into the cosmos, at least the human-solar-earth cosmos of relationships. It is called a Spiral Dynamic of Values-Memes, each of the nine, totally interlinked are given an arbitrary color to classify their uniqueness (patterns of values within the pattern of all Life--that is, of Evolution). This theory and analytical tool is a means of understanding a big part of reality, especially cultural memes (analogous to genes in the materialist plane of existence). I have been trained in this theory and practices--sometimes called Spiral Dynamics Technology. I wanted to share it as another way to understand "worldviews"--as this is an approach to worldview meta-theory.
If you are not so interested in all of the trandisciplinary research and thought behind this "structure" and its usefulness to analyzing and solving human problems on this planet, then at a minimum you might be interested that the theory has a notion of 3 tiers of holarchical development/evolution (or what I prefer to call Evol [1]): the first v-meme patterns of Tier-One are (beige, purple, red, blue, orange, green). The cover the developmental phases of pre-concrete, to concrete, to formal cognitive thinking and the associated values and intelligences operating from that consciousness structuration. These are more or less fear-based in general structure, and then there is an Evol movement to develop more complex systems/thinking/consciousness (soft structures and harder ones too) that are Tier-Two (yellow and turquoise), and then Tier-Three (coral). I won't be able to near go into all of what is behind this model/theory but to say I have found it very useful in my own work on the path of fearlessness (theorizing). The researchers from Claire Graves to Don Beck and Ken Wilber and others have argued that once you come to the transition borderlands of development between Teir One and Tier Two, the biggest factor underneath motivations is that the Tier One memes tend to still make decisions and act according to fear-based criteria and emotional registrations in the systems, whereas this is not the case with the (rarer in occurrence) Tier Two v-memes which I label fearlessness [2]. Then Tier Three v-meme (of Evol) is the highest LOVE v-meme associated with the non-dual.
So, those interested in how I think and theorize about the Path of Fearlessness, you now have some more data/theories to think about, re: worldview changes and growth (development) that exist--which, I find explains a lot of phenomenon, individually and collectively. But, of course, lke all theories they have their problems and limitations. I argue with others that Spiral Dynamics (Meta-theory) is useful to bringing about an Integral Age (vision-logical and integral consciousness). That's a longer story...
Notes
1. Love spelled backwards is Evol. I really like that because it is evol(ution) as I think of it, in which there is ever-evolving 'source' (beginning) and end--which is Love. I do not see "evolution" only the way scientists do nor all the mis-uses of evolution/development in human history because of a pathological set of worldviews that have guided interpreting Evol. The integral model and meta-theory (Tier-Two consciousness) is capable of correcting that flaw and thus replaces evolution with evol. The holarchical concept is an integral corrective to "hierarchy" (especially, pathological hierarchies). The holarchic means part/Whole units in systems are the focus of study, not one or the other but both all the time simultaneously--also written as Self/System dynamics in evol. That may still not be satisfying for critics who see this model as hierarchical, not matter what the theory actually says, and they are convinced that any "structure" of lower and higher order systems is making one 'higher' better, etc. This is very old paradigm thinking of worldviews that are pre-Tier Two in consciousness structure. At Yellow meme (FMS-7), true Fearlessness, in my theory, the clarity and intelligence of "integral" is quite different and sees that the base foundational v-memes are the most "foundational" to the entire spiral--and, without them, the whole spiral comes down--not good. However, the upper v-memes are the most "significant" and bring great gifts to what the foundations have built. And, of course, there can be pathologies at all levels of the v-memes in the Spiral in evol. That's another complexity I won't go into, but "fear" (and 'fear' constructions) are core to my articulating a critical fearanalysis of what goes wrong in evolution and development and why we end up with messes (crises) like we do as our species continues to grow and develop.
2. See my (integrally-informed) Fear Management Systems Theory (nine FMSs) at the base of all my work on "fear" and "fearlessness" since 1989.
With the risk of sounding arrogant, god help me, I have to smile and stand up tall, and sit down again, and think... why is it I want to share a new list of RMF Theories.docx I have created, co-created and/or adapted from others over the past 50 years or so (?). I guess, it feels good to list them and explain them briefly, all in one document, and now they may be a resource for others. Of course, there are a lot of these theories that come from my work with fear/fearlessness but also a lot that don't. It's their combination that makes up the capacitance and proficiency of my thought, my critiques, my inventions... and I look forward to more to come. Maybe in some way, it will make you ponder about your own theories, and/or the one's you tend to follow and may not be so aware that you do. I'm all for being more conscious about our theories that are hidden in the background of our minds.
Excerpt from Fisher, R. M. (2022). Philosophy of fearism: A primer. Xlibris.
This new (yet to be publicly released: see movie trailer) film documentary is interesting and provocative, and deals with fear/terror in a way most films would never touch. Independent filmmaker (Editor-Director) Laura Dunn 2024 has produced (with Marie Becker and DOP Jef Sewell) something very important for our future of understanding ourselves as a species in this amazing universe. I watched a virtual showing the other night. The opening lines, from an interview in 1973 with Sam Keen (writing for Psychology Today magazine) and Ernest Becker (who is laying on his death bed in a Vancouver hospital) are worth quoting below, as is Keen's recent reflecting on his experience with Becker and his legacy of work in cultural anthropology and philosophy.
[Here is how the text of the film unfolds:]
Keen: Certainly, a lot of people would ask [you], is it accidental that you became fascinated with the topic of death? Or, is this a premonition [of your own eventual death]?
Becker: No, it has nothing to do with myself. I came upon the idea of the denial of death strictly from the logical imperatives of all of my other work. I discovered, that in fact, fear of life and death are the mainsprings of human activity. And then everything can be explained from those fears. [1] This was the ultimate idea, and everything rduced itself to it. This was the ultimate economic simplification.
[from the separate recent interview by Dunn with Keen]: You know Becker is a hard read....You can't read Becker without dealing with your own darkness.
[unknown source by Becker]: There is nothing for the intellectual to do today, in the world mess, except to elaborate his [sic] picture of what it means to be a man....That man is an animal that holds up a mirror to himself, showing himself what he is. If he does this in an entirely honest way, then he becomes an interesting animal, an animal with possibilities. But just to run driven without stopping, without elaborating some kind of image, without showing oneself what one is, this makes a creature very anxious."
[from the separate recent interview by Dun with Keen:] "Every man is paranoid, and why are we paranoid? Because the world is terrifying!"
[for one of my past FM blogs on Becker]
Notes:
1. This is a 'theory of everything' (human, at least). It is a powerful theory of the (new) psychology of humans, that Becker was working on as an anthropologist, who studied across disciplines, and yet he brought his anthropology and philosophy together to apply it to such a new psychology of humans, which boils down to a new psychology of fear and humans.
Figure 1 Mapping Mind (of the Ages, developmentally)
INTRODUCTION
"Of all spheres of understanding, the social sciences have been most influenced by the postmodern contribution....The postmodern contribution has radically challenged [the] Modern Age assumptions. And at the same time, with each social science sphere...it has proven to be severely limited in its ability to provide a useful alternative."
-Charles M. Johnston (2015, p. 497)
In this very brief essay, I wish to re-introduce the In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute (1991-) which I founded and have been Director of since. This ISOFRI has been a site for my researching, teaching, writing, publishing and transdisciplinary explorations into the nature of fear(lessness) and applications for that new understanding to the wide world. There was a website for it back in the early 2000s but it didn't stay up. And since then there is no such site online but there have been various branches from this institute, e.g., Global Fearanalysis Institute, and the latest one has been up just over a year Fearology Center.
One might ask why ISOFRI did not flourish or have a grand website? There wasn't the backing for it. People weren't that interested. Maybe this will change in my life-time, and maybe it won't. None the less, it has been my central home as an independent scholar-educator and now fearologist.
Focus of this essay is to create a skeletal framework of the mind of the ISOFRI so people can get a 'picture' of it and hold it, then contemplate it, and/or comment on it and even revise it. But at least, I wish to stir much more conversation with others even if they are not overly interested in the subject of fear(lessness). The more broad and deep common ground I am looking for in dialogues with diverse peoples (academic and/or laypersons, secular and/or spiritual) lays in the territory of Knowledge. I could also include Truth, of Reality, Power, etc., and of 'Who we really are.' Figure 1 (above) is the simplest way to show the arc of evolution of Mind in a particular map and set of categories, and these latter set are utilized by a wide range of academics and other critical thinkers that I too utilize. Not that all of us would exactly agree on what the exact definition (or order) is per se of the terms in Figure 1.
MAPPING, MIND, AND ITS (ST)AGES
Let me back up slightly before diving into Figure 1 and its general representation of how knowledge (thought and its consequences) has evolved on this planet over millenia. Many do not know that when I took on the topic "fear" as my primary research in late 1989 (founding of In Search of Fearlessness Project), that I was thinking that this subject would be as good as any (if not better than most) for inquiring into the worst problems of humanity on this planet. Many also do not know that I was already influenced in my methodology (i.e., my worldview, my meta-perspective on perspectives) by the integral philosopher and psychological theorist Ken Wilber. His transpersonal theorizing led him in the 1980s to come up with the buds of a new branch of psychology (and philosophy) called Integral Psychology/Theory. I became a budding integralist in the early 1980s and then particularly intensely in the 1990s and onward. I am a Wilberian thinker but not a Wilberite. I am more so, an integralist thinker and I am also a critic of Wilber and his work and the movement he instigated. That is a much larger discussion beyond the scope here. The point is, when I took on the topic of "fear" systematically I did so through the Integral Lens (is one way to call it) but also a Fearlessness Lens. Simply, I wanted to know fear(lessness) from many perspectives, transdisciplinary, holistic-integral and yes, post-postmodern. But to know fear from a post-postmodern perspective, which I think is the most fresh and exciting in its discoveries and possibilities, I (like you dear reader) will have to step backward along the historical (spiral) trajectory of knowledge (i.e., of "Ages of Mind" is another way to think of it).
Figure 1 represents a map of the way "Mind" shows up now and has done so over the Ages. Mind is way grander and inclusive than merely "brain" (another topic for another time). Mind is closer to thought (but that is even quite a gross reductionism). Thought is like consciousness.
Yet, without getting too technical, my mapping (and others) in Figure 1 is sufficient as a basic foundational guide to what comes before Post-Postmodernist thought. Oh, and keep in mind "thought" here is also consciousness and all the values and ways of knowing and organizing the world and oneself and societieties, that goes with it. "Schools of Thought" is also like what I have mapped in Figure 1.
In including the history (spiral) of Mind collectively, the oldest in evolutionary and developmental terms in anyone's life-time as a human is ARCHAIC (ancient, and pre-modern, as some also call it). There is no definite 'real' boundary between any of these (St)Ages and remember that the 'seeds' of the higher Ages are already budding (implicate order of things), more or less, in pockets of places and times within the earlier Ages (some call "Stages" of development). Roughly, TRADITIONAL (is a few thousands of years ago) and still flourishing in many parts of the world (more or less dominant in socieities and cultures and in individual's thoughts).
Knowledge and ways of knowing are carried in these 'big forms' (stage-structures) as memes (not merely in genes)--and as what Michel Foucault called "discourses." Culture is a big part of the transmission mechanism for these Ages but it is more complex than that alone.
Next, MODERNITY-- starting rougly after the Middle Ages and Renaissance into the Enlightenment (c. 1700s on). This is what most of us who call ourselves "modern" human beings have been steeped in. It is the water we swim in, in terms of thought/mind/frame of reference for reality and knowledge etc. But around 100 or much less years ago (especially 1980s) POSTMODERNITY came on the scene (specifically developed in academic criticial thought and theories, especially in the Humanities). And, this type of thinking is not familiar to Modern peoples, and virtually unheard of (or despised) by Traditional Peoples (especially religious conservative people who equate it with "liberal" or "progressive"). Moderns don't tend to like it either and find it virtually unhinged and difficult to understand.
Most recently evolved is another necessary adaptive (intelligence and) change (as all these Ages are depictions of changes required by evolution of the Mind itself). POST-POSTMODERNITY (or as Wilber prefers, INTEGRAL AGE). So, you simply (for heuristic purposes of this essay) conclude, more or less, that Mind has taken a spiral form of variant forms, and continues to do so. There may be new forms that come after post-postmodern and so on. Note: Most people like to 'stick' to the familiar form (of thought) from a particular Age or they may mix a couple of these but that's it. They don't want all the complexity of looking at all the (St)Ages as valid. That's a big problem, but I'll indirectly address that as an epistemological problem in the last section of this essay re: Wilber's Critique.
Again, I remind you that all of these Ages are now mapped by an Integral Mind. It is the Integral (post-postmodern) mind structure and thought that cares about them all as equally important in the Spiral's integrity (or wholeness). Most non-integral thinking "minds" don't see it this way and tend to think their own fav. way of thinking is 'best' and all the rest are not worth much or they are even 'evil.' Lots of conflict going on over the six or so formations of Mind in Figure 1. I remind you also this essay is about how I come to study fear(lessness) since 1989 and I really think this kind of Integral mapping of Mind is one of the best of the best for analysis and solutions. I won't go into all that as you are better off to read my more extensive studies and writing on this all (e.g., go to Google Scholar and enter "R. Michael Fisher" and "Fearlessness").
WILBER'S INTEGRAL (THEORY) CRITIQUE
For a matter of context, some eight years before I focused on fear(lessness) as research subject, I had come across Ken Wilber's theorizing. It was not popular nor was he, other than in a very small circle of transpersonalists (mostly in California). I took it at face value when I opened one of his 1981 books, and it blew my mind with the depth and breadth of analysis of cultural evolution and the massive literature summarized in it. The thinking of this philosopher of consciousness (in all its forms) was stunning and so different than anything I had read and I had read a lot of people by that time. It started a journey of investigation and sub-specialization of what we can call "Integral Thought" as part of Mind. But it was only in the late 1990s that I fully got the 'big picture' of the Ages (Figure 1) sort out and why it is important to map the Mind in this particular way (historically). Brilliant. I will quote Wilber (1998) and his critical analysis at length:
[he is arguing with his integral critical lens that we don't want knowledge/realty/truth and methodologies to be too much in the extreme of attention on "objective" only nor do we want them on the opposite side of "subjective" only; he has just argued a good deal of all the Ages in Figure 1 can be healthy and can be pathological in part if not 'corrected' integrally]
"Since modern science had, in effect killed two of the three value spheres [1] (I-aesthetics and we-morals), postmodernism would simply attempt to kill science as well, and thus, in its own bizarre fashion, attempt an 'integration' or 'equal valuing' [extreme pluralism] of all three spheres because all three of them were now equally dead, so to speak [i.e., from an integralist mind perspective]. Three walking corpses would heal the dissociations of modernity. Into the postmodern wasteland walked the zombie squad, and the wonder of it all is that they managed to convince a fair number of academics that this was a viable solution to modernity's ills.
Nonetheless, (extreme) postmodernism is now by far the most prevalent mood of academia, literary theory, the new historicism [and new identity-politics], a great deal of political theory, and (whether the proponents realize it or not) virtually all of the 'new paradigm' approaches to integrating science and religion. It thus behooves us to understand both its important truths and its extremist distortions [pathologies]." (p. 120)
[Note, for my part as a critical integral fearologist, I too have had to battle with these conflicts of "minds" of the Ages, their healthy and pathological applications, and I have had to sort through how they each impact the conceptualization of fear ("fear") ('fear'). And thus, that influences how fearlessness is conceptualized. It is a major deal. Deconstructing and reconstructing the vocabularies we take for granted in fear management/education is a lot of work. Rare few understand why the need to do this, and only an "integral" mind and thought system can understand it truly. Yet, there is still lots that can be relay to other "minds" of the spiral and Ages [2]. Oh, and I am convinced that all children in schools and elsewhere ought to be familiar more or less, and age-appropriately with the Integral Mind schema and methodologies and imaginaries. Twenty-first century thinking cannot be, without this approach, very accurate or useful to framing the relationships of all the other options (forms) of Mind through the Ages.]
Wilber (1998) concludes this passage with the most important piece to understand, as far as I am concerned:
"MOMENTS OF TRUTH IN POSTMODERNISM"
"Postmodern philosophy is a complex cluster of notions that are defined almost entirely by what its proponents reject. They reject foundationalism [e.g., Traditionalism], essentialism, and transcendentalism [e.g., Integralism]. They reject rationality, truth as correspondence, and representational knowlege [e.g., Modernism]. They reject grand narratives, metanarratives, and big pictures of any variety [e.g., they would reject Figure 1 above]. They reject realism, final vocabularies, and canonical description.
Incoherent as the postmodern theories often sound (and often are), most of the 'rejections' stem from thre core assumptions:
1. Reality is not in all ways pregiven, but in some significant ways is a construction, an interpretation (this view is often called 'constructivism'); the belief that reality is simply given, and not also partly constructed, is rferred to [negatively] as 'the myth of the given'
2. Meaning is context-dependent, and contexts are boundless (this is often called 'contextualism') [3]
3. Cognition [Thought] must therefore privilege no single perspective (this is called 'integral-aperspectival'). [i.e., Integral Age Thought form or post-postmodernism]
I believe all three of those postmodern assumptions are quite accurate (and need to be honored and incorporated in any integral view). [4] Moreover, each tells us something very important with regard to any conceivable integration of science and religion [and art], and thus they need to be studied with care. But each of those assumptions has also been blown radically out of proportion by the extremist wing of postmodernism, and the result is a totally deconstructed world that takes the deconstructions with it." (pp. 120-21) [5]
A FEW FINAL COMMENTS
With Wilber's integral critique, and the guidance of Figure 1, we begin a journey to piece together 'an image/picture of the Mind' (as one of my colleagues believes is so important for humans to have, at least those who have to try to live well in the 21st century). There are more 'pictures' (maps) to also bring into this inquiry but we have a good start with this one and Wilber's nuanced understanding particularly of POSTMODERN thought. I do think that there are immense gifts in POSTMODERN thought/mind that are essential to being a good thinker today and into the future. That's a larger argument for elsewhere. This boils down to how best to define (conceptualize) fear and its management and education on this planet. And what parent, adult, schooling systems can carry on and "plan" education for the future IF they do not have a picture of the Mind. It is inconceivable to me to do so. But obviously, lots of people are doing 'their own thing' and not necessarily at all utilzing the truths of POSTMODERNISM that Wilber has identified so well. Constructionist thought, contextualist thought, and integral thought are all part of that postmodern improvement plan--yet, rarely, do people have a clue what this means. Our task is before us to at least given a map and let people then choose what they will, at least then, they have a comparison to chose from, so that ought to make for a better choice-making. Yet, I am not naive to think that the map will resolve all conflicting discourses and favoritisms that go on in how people think and value.
--------
Notes:
1. Many philosophers (including Wilber) have named these three as "Science, Arts, Morals"--at the basis of what could be called "Quality" (e.g., this latter point is one I have made for a long time and recently Ian McGilchrist is making in his important critiques].
2. I acknowledge the problems of "hierarchy" and all the different meanings and schools of thought/mind that are brought to bear on the concept of hierarchy and its consequences. Way too big of a problem to tackle, and especially I encourage you see Wilber's writing on this and how he distinguishes "holons" or "holoarchy" and/or his notions of "natural hierarchy" vs. "pathological hierarchy" (e.g., the ideology of patriarchalism). The Spiral form for this evolution and historical unfolding of Ages/Mind is not meant to be pathological hierarchy nor only privileging Post-Postmodern (Integral) even though a simple reading of Figure 1 may look like that. Wilber makes a useful distinction in evolution and development between "foundational" and "significance" on the Spiral--and, thus, all forms are valid and essential--now, one has to nuance that premise with the fact that all of the forms can go off the spiral (rails, so to speak)--and become more or less pathological. A good deal of discernment is required, and arguably the Integral perspective is the 'best' viewpoint for that discernment overall on the Spiral (but, surely, that is speculative as well, it is not an absolute truth).
3. In an impressive lecture by Ian McGilchrist (2024), "Everything...is altered by its context." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REB7GOxX5Mk
4. What Wilber is profering her is a basic premise (developmental theory) of knowledge via the Integral lens, and that is: an integral view ought to include but transcend the prior Ages (Thought, Mind).
5. Wilber, K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul: Integrating science and religion. NY: Random House.
https://mcusercontent.com/c13fbb2a033abc9ee271896fe/images/50bff240-04a9-5b1d-80f5-6cfd8c275cb2.jpg" alt="" width="564" align="center" data-bit="iit" />
Episode 4 of Conscious Conversations Season 3 is here.
Some of Michael’s work can be found on his YouTube channel and Fearlessness Movement blog.
Conscious Conversations features spiritual teachers, seers and thought leaders who, through their insights, help our listeners gather tools that can aid them in navigating life, enriching their lives – mind, body and spirit. Our intention is to share with our community a deeper perspective about spiritual awakening, the journey that follows, and how we can utilise these tools in our daily lives. Our listeners would like to hear more about our guests and how they embarked on their personal journeys of transcending challenges and breaking boundaries, walking with spirit and fulfilling their purpose.
Through Conscious Conversations, we aim to create a collective safe space that encourages honest human connections, helping listeners reframe the self-limiting ideas they hold about themselves and their life experiences. We hope these podcasts will inspire deep and meaningful conversations that lead to intentional changes designed to facilitate healing and expansion.
You can find this episode on your preferred podcast platform and our YouTube channel where you can subscribe and share.
We encourage you to subscribe to our Patreon page and support our work with your paid membership.
For my latest teaching video on "In Defense of Gen Z, Millennials" go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LajmPaQ_uSk
I argue that an elite (very privileged) "warrior class" (like the Spartans of ancient Greece) are attempting to "toughen up" and "grow up" the younger generations to make them fit for the way the elite class wants to have their way with the world as a whole. This class is also terrified of losing their grip on power and wealth, success and privilege, and they are attacking youth for being "too interior" (touchy-feely) and thus many are over-therapized. The discussion could also be summarized in the fearanalysis of a class of elites who are "deniers" of many major crises going on in the world and how terrifying that is existentially for youth today. I argue they practice adultism and an authoritarian class imperative to be "the conquerers" (of Empire Consciousness)--and, yes, "conservatives." I offer a non-polarizing but more subtle and important critique to their critiques, and ask that we consider the arguments and reality of what it means to move from a coping culture to a healing culture, a fear-based (culture of fear) to a fearlessness society.
I ask for dialogue and sanity as the older generations have to learn to listen and talk with each other. The young will benefit greatly from our efforts as the older generations.
To view this short documentary audio podcast on an amazing leader from India, and one who promotes "cultivating fearlessness" -- see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1O7bPqHy2E
Her 40+ years has been, amongst other things, devoted to fighting (via non-violence) the "industrialization of nature/food" (agriculture especially). I was listening and thinking most of her critiques and protest ideas could be analogously applied to the "industrialization of children and child care" (education especially).
I think in a world of such crises and tragedy, horrors and fear, it is easy for activists of justice to become soured and mean, hateful and despairing. Here, if you look at this face and listen to this Sacred Warrior, Vandana Shiva, you are faced with a 'mirror' of how to 'balance' the dark and the light.
Published in 2024, by Information Age Publishing, I highly recommend this book, some of my best writing on fear(lessness) and education. Here's a mere excerpt from the Table of Contents, to excite your neurons:
Fearologist, Dr. R. Michael Fisher, gives a talk on "Gut Mind & Fear (Primal) Intelligence, where he talks about his approach to "spiritual education" (via path of fearlessness) as quite different than most. He shares a story of his early life encounter in the wilderness with a 'grizzly bear'--a story with a teaching from Fear. Go to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z9Rvz8QrBY
