I just read your book on Trans-Philosophism. This time around it looks like our ideas got a little out of control. You started introducing concepts you didn't really argue for, and some claims simply needed substantiation. There was one by Marx, for example, that just didn't sound right. You also said Socrates, Plato and co. were Existentialists. Existentialism was highly contextualized as a post-WWII phenomenon and can't be construed as correct.
Even though I commend you on a valiant attempt at a new philosophy, and a new approach to again, what I see as socio-economic problems with some older ideas.
Is English your first language? if not I suggest you get a ghost writer because I am sure he/she can get things sounding a little tighter for you.
First, awesome intro! 21st century--TransPhilosophism. Nice citation of Camus. "Trans-Philosophism is meant to bring a refreshed and artful reality back to philosophy" xx -Awesome!
"According to Socrates. . . " I was unsure of this quote somewhere at the beginning of the book, you might want to double-check your sources. Was this from a Platonic dialogue?
Kent Olson, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, United States
Who is V. Afanasyev? Can you tell us more about him and/or why you draw from this source so much? p.369: "Scientists are predicting the possibility of the earth entering into a black hole." You might want to back this claim up. "Marxist argument that black color change and returns to black is not possible." Does Marx actually claim this? It doesn't sound like something he would write. "Other philosophies and religious could not picture" should be Philosophies and religions." p.390 "A fierce attack on Oxygen" should
be rephrased. p.390 What is metafear? this might be interesting, you should introduce this as a concept into your system early on and argue for it.
p394 I still don't know what Heart Playing Cards are in your system. Could you explain this and related ideas better? p.398 Why is "Landmark" capitalized? I am over halfway through the book and am unsure what amygdala is, make darn sure we know what it is. p.400 "Plato Aristotle and Greek philosophers " were not existentialists, they didn't have them yet, and the philosophies were different. p.410 "Sentence is a text. It is a physical body (earth)" -I am having a problem with this. p.422 I would look into C.S. Peirce's semiotic system again. I need help with the following concepts Fearomenology, Xfearomenon and Fearomenon on page445, these concepts are used somewhat strangely in a sentence and are not really introduced. Could you unpack phrases like these for the reader, because he is unsure what you are talking about? This needs help: "When I was repeating my rational, I hooked to the four causes" page 446.
"Socrates wanted to prove the wrong Oracle" I am unfamiliar with this story, could you provide a reference? p.321 "The social revolution is a deep-giving upheaval into the political-economic life of society" -I need help here. P.322 What are B3, N6,D3? Explain more about Thanatos and related concepts in your work, someone might not have your body of knowledge. p.322. "Hatredism principle was applied against them." Why not "A principle of hatred was. . . " You needed to tie in the Bolsheviks and other related historical phenomena with your treatment of Lenin.
Your stuff on Marxism is the best. 
p.36 "Nationality in SU is illustrated by several illustrations." You want "shown by several illustrations." p.164 Good grasp of Marx, but he would say the Trojan was socioeconomic like any other social event. p.173 "If population growth is to be left free as Marxism says, it doesn't take long to see encroaching of the. . ." I simply got lost here. Does Marx think the population should just grow? You'd think he'd be smarter than that. Could you check your source? "The peasant, bourgeoisie and the capitalist" It would sound better if you said "bourgeoisie" who owned the newer means of production in Marx's time and the bourgeois who were old money. "Marxists want to develop a society with his consciousness, society already constituted on the base of Heat Playing Cards" p.202
p.257-259 You might want to look into William James and the cash-value of a belief. p.285 "As equipment developed slaves started to produce more production." How about "Produce more" instead, or "produce more products"? p.260 I like this the thought ". . .the capitalist system was raised. The workers were somehow independent." p.360 There actually is a problem there, you should write about that. Try to introduce Satalism, can you give examples? Historically capitalism & socialism have been at odds. p.263 "The division of labor in society is a theory of Emile Durkheim. -I think it was around before Emile Durkheim. p.263. Rousseau is a good writer to bring in. Try not to quote Wikipedia.
Okay, I think you need to outline your argument in the beginning and have your major concepts defined. As you go through, point out your socio-historical examples of Fearism and/or your gripes with Marxism. I do not think your title should be that verbose, nor do I think you need to tie in Sartre et al. Just limited to communism, you could show how your concepts work. I see you grappling with many ideas, and this looks like a completely new approach to social commentary based on philosophical ideas such as Thomas Hobbes and Plato. I do like Asian philosophy myself, although I find some of the concepts need elucidation. I am sorry I did not get all the page numbers down. At certain points I just got lost.
I commend you on a heroic effort, and good luck on your journey!
Sincerely,
Kent Olson
1st degree connection 1st
PhD in the Philosophy of Science
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Note: With Kent's approval I have published it for philosophers.
Comments
Kent Olson has made a recent comment on one of Desh Subba's explictations of his trans philosophism
Olson wrote, "Desh, try fear as a metaphysical first principle, as in the manner of Heraclitus or Thales, et al."
I think that would be a very good direction of pursuit as well.
Oh, btw, you all commenting here, and Desh... IF you want to submit a fine-tuned review of the book for publication, I'd be glad to work with you--for the next Spring 2022 issue of the International Journal of Fear Studies. Submissions due: Apr. 1, 2022
-Sen. Ed. Intl. J. of Fear Studies
r.michaelfisher52@gmail.com
I owe a review to Desh, this could be a good occasion! Thanks for letting me/us know. I hope to find enough time for reviewing the book, even if the deadline is not that near in time.
Drawing "mystical" into the "unknown" and not-yet-understood--all as "philosophical" is certainly (in part) a great direction for any analytical philosophy to 'balance' its strengths with a softer-side of inquiry, of knowledge, and of the practice of knowing/unknowing. I like all the comments staying open in this discussion--that's fearlessness itself. In having translated into English Desh's writings since 2014 many times, not that I take his mother tongue and translate it, but I take his challenged and insufficient English and translated it, I have run into many of the problems of clarity and logical unfolding of arguments. A lot of the time, I am so uncertain if I am even close to what he wants to say--as I am an English-speaking only person. However, Desh has been educated in universities and earlier years in English so it is not new to him. I also think he 'likes' to subvert things--Western, English, dominator cultures and colonialism at the same time. Having met him in person, he's a playful (trickster-type) guy. Who knows? Ideally, a good scholar in both English and Nepalese will someday show up to do the fine-tuned translation work but until then, we in the West do our best to see if we can engage his work. I know he loves to see this tried, at least.
Dear Dr Olson,
You make the answer to Desh Subba's work explicit when you say at the end of your review: "At certain points I just got lost".
This is the meaning of the philosophy, to lose oneself and find oneself, and then lose oneself again. To seek.
I do not doubt the value of analytical methodologies in philosophy, but I consider attempts to transfer new suggestions with new languages to be successful, because lending an ear to such new attempts can allow new insights.
Desh Subba's intuition of rereading the history of west thought, considering it to be traversed not by a growing logos but by a constitutive fear, deserves theoretical attention (here, it is hardly worth pointing out that fear in Greek can be translated as φόβος but also as δέος ).
In the folds of Husserlian unsinn, in Camus' absurdity, in Sartre's being condemned to freedom, in Heidegger's concept of life as a gift...
All the things we cannot talk about help us to reflect. They are the mystical. They make us lose our way but they contain the alpha and omega of philosophical thought.
We all owe a rooster to Asclepius.
Hoping my english language sounds good.
NT
Dangerous but yet essentil point. Ben detto!
I so appreciate this initial grappling with Desh's (trans)philosophizing (i.e., his philosophy within a fearist lens/perspective, and yes, an Eastern sensibility, but not only Eastern). Thanks for all who enter this territory of meta-thinking about thinking in philosophy itself. I look forward to more of this level of analysis, and I would love if people on this topic, with Desh, would ensure not to leave out the importance of fear-fearlessness at the core of all of Desh's work as a philosopher.
I have read Kent's comment without having read the book yet, so my judgment is based only on what I have read previously about Fearism and what I know about Desh and Asian culture/way of thinking. I should make some remarks, but sadly I have just a few time, so I will just point out three aspects, which appear to be the most important to me.
First of all, I have always thought that Contemporary Existentialism is somehow inspired by a specific way of philosophizing that was present since the beginning of Philosophy about two and half millennia ago (in the case of Western Philosophy). In my research projects about Existentialism, I have never found time enough to prove this yet, but I think that there have always been a philosophical tradition using rationality in a peculiar way, which is more attentive to concrete experience and what binds the human being to the world rather than to logical and theoretically correct/certain reasoning (maybe Jasper's a-logic is what defines the best this peculiar way, which is a-logical - i.e. it uses logic in a different way - rather than illogical - i.e. without logic). Pythagorean philosophies maybe started this tradition (but this should be proved), while Stoicism astonishingly looks to have many points of contact with Existentialism throughout the whole History of Philosophy (Spinoza is maybe the clearest point of contact between Stoicism and Existentialism, being in the middle between Ancient Philosophy and Contemporary Philosophy).
What I want to say is that the origins of Existentialism in the previous History of Philosophy should be traced, clarified and justified as soon as possible, because I am convinced that Existentialism is the contemporary name of a way of philosophizing that has always been present in Western Philosophy (and this would be relevant for the definition of Western way of philosophizing as well).
Second, I have often said to Desh that his endeavour to study and understand Western Philosophy from an Eastern point of view is admirable and relevant for intercultural dialogue, but the translation of the Western way of thinking in the Eastern way of thinking and vice versa cannot be a naïve one. Desh, as an Eastern philosopher, has to try justifying the theoretical points of departure and points of arrival of his thought, so that to build arguments that are more consistent and can be contextualized (and then accepted or refused). I have already noticed this when reading Desh’s previous works, and Kent’s comments confirm that this point has not been fixed yet.
Third, on the other side, both the parts must make a mimetic effort so that to understand the other, when dialoguing. Differences in Western and Eastern way of thinking are consistent, and this is a plus, because this means that they can give both a significant contribution to philosophical matters, starting from their different point of view, approach, way of thinking (as Francois Jullien shows in his studies). This means that Western people cannot approach Eastern way of thinking without knowing their culture and how Eastern grammar/vocabulary (and thus way of thinking) works. I think that we, the Western people, have to enhance the Eastern attention to what binds us to the natural world and our position in its order/flow, which is exactly what the Western Philosophy has partially sacrificed. Eastern Philosophy can help Western Philosophy only preserving its emotional and concrete (even if less logically rational) root and Western Philosophy can help Eastern Philosophy only preserving its attention to theoretical and rational relevance (even if too much abstract). So Desh has the difficult task of preserving his Eastern sensibility (which is what can be relevant from the Western point of view) while learning to justify his positions. But we, the Western people, have to welcome this Eastern flow of a-logical concreteness, if we really want to exceed our point of view.