desh subba - Blog - Fearlessness Movement2024-03-29T12:19:06Zhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/feed/tag/desh+subba“The Philosophy of Fearmorphism in Partial Structuralism” by Saima Hasanhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/the-philosophy-of-fearmorphism-in-partial-structuralism2024-02-17T00:26:40.000Z2024-02-17T00:26:40.000ZDesh Subbahttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/LimbuDeshBahadur<div><p><span style="font-size:14pt;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14pt;"><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}12381326895,RESIZE_930x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-left" src="{{#staticFileLink}}12381326895,RESIZE_400x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="12381326895?profile=RESIZE_400x" width="250" /></a>The existence of the whole universe is a gallery through which the life visits within and outside. N</span><span style="font-size:14pt;">aturalism is the characterization certificate of the living and non-living things. We as a </span><span style="font-size:14pt;">human race stand at the center of such a universal structure. The greatest of all great is the </span><span style="font-size:14pt;">undiscovered unity of the Lord of worship. The man, world and God relation has been a </span><span style="font-size:14pt;">subject triad in various studies, either in humanities, science or technology. <strong><em>Nevertheless, </em></strong></span><span style="font-size:14pt;"><strong><em>death is the reality which doesn’t have any recovery.</em></strong> The human is destined to end, though a </span><span style="font-size:14pt;">thoughtful life is still available, full of dreams. Somehow or however, I exist, we and all of us, are </span><span style="font-size:14pt;">born in this world to live the best way we want or we may quest for in order to utilize the necessary opportunities, goods or </span><span style="font-size:14pt;">luxuries in life. Simultaneously, we are attached in a relationship with this outer society consciously and unconsciously.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14pt;">My identity comes out in the presence of the other man, otherwise there exists no meaning and the purpose of life, assuming it is only in darkness lacking </span><span style="font-size:14pt;">individuality or meaningful existence. The reality of existence is useless, if it has any purpose or we have been sent for being tested; all such dilemmas are logically unverifiable. The only fact that we can conclude: is that we are born with a body and of a sensible mind. A philosopher’s mind tries their best to search for the answers to satisfy their quest for ultimate reality, as the backdrop of their quest for meaning and purpose.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14pt;">Turning to the contemporary modern approach of analytical philosophy, it brought language as the whole sole domination of what is civilization. It posits that linguistic structure is the only knowledge discovered within human race, whatever is customized as language. All discourses are constituted in a basis for producing knowledge of this external world. The infected life of an individual shows the symptoms as <strong><em>fearmorphism</em></strong> in partial structuralism. Projecting towards such linguistic or structural codes of living prevents us from our essential interrogation of impartial existence of the ‘self’. It is the<strong><em> Sartrean man</em></strong> of authentic being to be conscious of realization if being for itself (authentic being) from being in itself. As in connection to the concept of a partial world it is not completely non being but the being - a kind that projects us with the readymade choices. This structuralism constructs partial owing of identity, to the fact that it is fixed and limited and that doesn’t allow our responsive freedom and wide awakeness as possible. Within such a mood of being, of course, it conveys <strong><em>fearmorphism</em></strong> of a partial structuralism. These choices are like the bolster of <strong><em>fearmorphosis</em> </strong>unrecognized and unrealized. The zone of comfortable practice shut the doors of possible illumination of man’s destiny. And 'freedom' is compromised.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14pt;">The life of human beings is always situated and through choices projected towards the future accelerated by the hierarchy of needs. Thus, it is a kind of cyclic being in the world. While in between, at some moment or projection of choice (given bolster) one enjoys and feels happy. It is the motivation for something which they desire or they reason that is responded but it is needed to understand that it doesn’t mean man is happy in totality. We all must interpret the difference that is the life but only to fulfill our needs or the structural demands. The real essence of the impartial self is nowhere existing or I may refer it, is nowhere dominated. The push and pull of the hierarchical needs are also a player in disguise. Each situation of a human life has a saturation point and one again has another venture. Slowly and gradually humans unconsciously keep getting away from this impartial self. The overall cycle of the life of a human being goes in a manner delineated by the partial structural society or a world as a whole. Now, an individual self--a part (impartial) is dominated by nature to represent the whole (partial). The very notion which I want to elucidate here is the role and nature of a partial whole and how the impartial self cannot be revived due to <strong><em>fearmorphism</em></strong> of the whole. </span><span style="font-size:14pt;">However, the concrete fact is that ‘all of us are conscious of his impartial self’. We humans with a perfect mind and body have a great mechanism in-built to calculate right & wrong and good & bad through the process of life. The lost humanity is the resultant symptom with implications of this partial structure and it's doomed fate of self-surjection [self-subjugation?].</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14pt;">I really sometimes sit to contemplate, and to see, and I remind myself as being a part of the whole, unable to present my impartial essence in this partial world. The partial structuralism holds me so tightly that I am bound to carry a handbag rather than keeping a wallet in my pockets. Think for a thought of a moment, if any self introduces to wear or carry the wallet in some sort of style how will it be accepted and affected, and also know the disturbance it will create in the marketing of the handbags. This is another serious factor and there, of course, is an invitation to the criticism against being away from the structural strata. The habit of avoidance is one of the methodologies that make us distance the presenting of our essential impartial existence. This is actually a type of <strong><em>fearmorphosis</em></strong> which is greater than the <strong>fear of DEATH</strong>. It holds how my ‘impartial self’ unfits in the ‘partial world’. However, this illustration is too simple but speaks volumes to portray the world as Partial Structuralism or a cause of <strong><em>fearmorphism</em></strong>. The relational role we play in the presence of ‘other’ carry us to develop the way shown by the whole. And in doing so, we all are <strong><em>Sisyphus</em></strong>, the <strong><em>boulder</em></strong> we are carrying again and again is the result of not being the impartial self. This is the first and foremost <strong><em>fearmorphism,</em></strong> which later develops into different types of <strong><em>morphism of fear</em></strong>. The philosophy which I am trying to introduce through this paper is partial <strong><em>structural fear morphisms</em></strong> that recently discussed and developed in the writings of my works (see Subba, e.g., Subba, 2023),<strong><em> as a contemporary philosopher of the 21 st century.</em></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14pt;">Moving with these artifacts then lets starts our journey of life as a narrative. A captain of a ship never knows that their ship shall sail to its destination or not. They are well familiar of the structural nature of the water body they sail and well know they are at risk of different <strong><em>fearmorphisms</em></strong>. You may be thinking of what is the <strong><em>fearmorphism</em> </strong>of the ship sailing in the water? The basic inherent feature of water has different <strong><em>fear morphosis</em></strong> like water storm, high winds, sea pirates, underwater volcanoes, water currents, the sea creatures and within the ship itself. Here, in limitations of the partial structuralisms, these can be described as different <strong><em>forms of known fear, </em></strong> still the captain sails. Similarly we are the captain of our life that owns peculiar structural <strong><em>morphisms of fear</em></strong>. The responsible man as a captain is ready for such hardships and challenges because of the motivational force of the destination. And, they keep this journey going with the ups and downs of it, along with the different destinations intended. Man is also the captain of his life similarly, which carries the responsibility, authentically served. The existence means, he is born, reared and grown with the world. Our existence is surrounded with the partial structure that encourages our body to disguise the essence and report in the manner convenient to the 'normanl' system of conventions. The cycle of life is difficult to such a manner of operations, and one is challenged to be merely strong willed, to be the impartial self (part) in the partial whole. The consequential fear of the choices of the </span><span style="font-size:14pt;">decisions, in a situated life of being limited, is the very nature of our essential self.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14pt;">The purpose of life cannot be fulfilled and the cycle of life within <strong><em>fearmorphism</em></strong> has no end but death itself. We the humans of this advanced and technical world has rather increased the fear by the ameliorating of the existential being. The addition of the complex mechanics develops novel types of <strong><em>fearmorphosis</em></strong> is another application of this modern world. The philosophy of such partial structure as a whole and part as a self in relation of the above ideology needs wise critical hermeneutics of the purposeful life as a humanist in the world. Derivatives of the structural <strong><em>fearmorphism</em></strong> has its own relevance and existence and it cannot be discarded or demolished for it is relatively significant in the development of life. But what all is pertinent is self-certification. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14pt;"><em>This is the very relevant issue to ponder and procure the essence than being a <strong>Sisyphus</strong> of the modern world of partial structure.</em></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Reference: </p>
<p>Subba, D. (2023). Fearmorphosis: Man is a fear Sysyphus being watched by panopticans. Xlibris. </p>
<p><br /> <span style="font-size:14pt;"> - Saima Hasan</span><br /> <span style="font-size:14pt;"> (PHD Scholar)</span><br /> <span style="font-size:14pt;"> Department of Philosophy- Faculty of Arts</span><br /> <span style="font-size:14pt;"> Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14pt;">[note: Edited for English and clarity by R. M. Fisher]</span></p>
<p> </p></div>Critique of Lars Svendsen's Philosophy of Fearhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/critique-of-lars-svendsen-s-philosophy-of-fear2024-01-19T02:42:16.000Z2024-01-19T02:42:16.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p>I offer below an excerpt of a few pages from my new philosophy of education book [1]: </p>
<p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}12360978688,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}12360978688,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="710" alt="12360978688?profile=RESIZE_710x" /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}12360979098,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}12360979098,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="710" alt="12360979098?profile=RESIZE_710x" /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}12360979657,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}12360979657,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="710" alt="12360979657?profile=RESIZE_710x" /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Reference: Fisher, R. M. (2024). <em>The Fear Problematique: Role of philosophy of education in speaking truths to powers in a culture of fear. </em>IAP. </p>
<p>To READ more on this new book, go to: <a href="https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/the-fear-problematique-fisher-s-new-book">https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/the-fear-problematique-fisher-s-new-book</a></p></div>Connecting Fearism spokespersonshttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/connecting-fearism-spokespersons2023-12-31T19:14:26.000Z2023-12-31T19:14:26.000ZDr Nusrath Fathimahttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/DrNusrathFathima<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12343345265?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><span style="font-size:17px;">"Fear is beautiful Consciousness" (Desh Subba)</span></p>
<p><br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">It's my immense pleasure to meet today with An esteemed retired DGP (Director General of Police ). </span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">I'm Thankful to Mr. Desh Subba sir (FearismStudy Center, Dharan, Nepal) for introducing me Mr. Maria B sir. </span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">Desh Subba and Maria B are very knowledgeable, keen, kind and Down to earth personalities. </span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">Desh Subba is the leading Fearism spokesperson in the East, and Co-founder of the Fearism Study Center (Dharan, Nepal, 2009). </span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">Subba has published his first book " Philosophy of Fearism " (2014), He started Fearism as a literary movement in 1999 with fiction and in 2011 with line poetry.in his service subba has achieved International Book Award (2015, Finalist), Dr. Shyam Karki and Indira karki Award in 2015 and National Indie excellence Award (Winner , 2015) and many more. </span><br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">Mr Maria B who is a honorable retired DGP from Madhya Pradesh, India has gained many achievements during his service. In his service he was deputed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI, in 1996 to Visit British Police establishment, in london to explore the possibility of training collaboration between UK Police and Indian police. </span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">Maria B was honored with Sahitya shree Award, Vidhya vachaspathi , Acharya, and Bharat Basha Bhushan Award, and many more...like Indian Police medal (GOI), president's Police Medal (GOI), Singhast Medal (MP, govt) and Raj Basha Gaurav ( Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI).</span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">Maria B has been contributed and still on going in contributing his knowledge regarding fearism and other aspects which are nation facing issues to the newspapers like Andhra Prabha, Times of India, Telangana today...</span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">Both Maria B and Desh Subba are very actively connected with philosophy of Fearism and have published many books together. </span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">To understand the subject Fearism, we must need to understand what is fear??</span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">Subba has beautifully described fear that "Fear has completely surrounded all living creatures, especially man, all things, natural things, human beings, and invisible things produce fear all the time. </span><br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">The fearist perspective is a new dimension to look at life and the world. The question strikes the mind, how does the Fearist perspective look at life and the world ? </span><br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">The purpose behind fearism is to conduct continuous research, investigated invention in order to make life more comfortable. </span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">To understand more about fearism the following books will be helpful which has been published by Desh Subba and Maria B. </span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">1. Philosophy of Fearism by Desh Subba </span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">2. India, A Nation of Fear and Prejudice: Race of the third kind - B Maria Kumar, R. Micheal Fisher and Desh Subba</span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">3. Fear, Law and Criminology- critical Issues in Applying the Philosophy of Fearism- R. Micheal Fisher, Desh Subba, B Maria Kumar </span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">4. Hidden dimensions of Human existence - A fear fearlessness perspective. -R. Michael Fisher, B Maria Kumar</span><br /> <br /> <span style="font-size:17px;">5. Resistance Fearlessness: A Philosophy of Fearism Approach- B Maria Kumar, R. Michael Fisher</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:17px;">6. Philosophy of Fearism: A first East-West dialogue. -R. Michael Fisher, Desh Subba</span></p></div>Comments on Fear, Fearmorphosis and Scapegoat Theory by David Grahame Armeshttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/comments-on-fear-fearmorphosis-and-scapegoat-theory-by-david-grah2023-11-13T01:18:34.000Z2023-11-13T01:18:34.000ZDesh Subbahttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/LimbuDeshBahadur<div><p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">Ed. Note: Fearmorphosis book by Desh Subba 2023 reviewed here below, was first posted in The Existentialist Cafe group on Facebook. On that post David Grahame Armes commented. His comment cannot be shared with readers. For the convenience of them,with the permission of commenters, published. -DS] </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><span style="font-size:12pt;">****</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;">Desh Subba, isn't this article saying fear of everything crashing down is fundamental in metamorphosis within people, economies and societies which has delivered every advance known to Humanity? I do not dispute that fear can be a huge motivation for most people, but this can go too far reaching a point where people no longer fear even death because they've had it up to here with fear, and of course many people find this extremely difficult to understand and frightening because such people appear out of control still living but with a totally different motivation. This is basically true. Nevertheless, it is people in this state of mind who have actually delivered the great advances in Humans and Society. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:14pt;"><em>Without fearless Universalists like Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Gandhi, MLK, and Baron RAF Battle of Britain Air Marshall Lord Sir Hugh Tremenheere Dowding (who had a laugh claiming he never got the true recognition he deserved after WW2 whilst turning his attention to working with Walt Disney in the Fairy Investigation Society), there would likely be nothing to raise the endeavor of people from the barbarity of constant warfare of some sort or another.</em></span> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;">World Religion was created and maintained by these people, and without tolerant liberal Religion as the first and arguably best form of Politics because it acts to unify despite what openly sectional politicians who brought it down say today, there really would be no universities, libraries, science, schools, industrial revolution, philosophy, politics, and comfort. Even an isolated Amazon tribe motivates its members through something greater than the struggle to keep alive, probably because that would be far too depressing and they'd all give up and die out. Even today in the seemingly secular West we still idolise Love and falling in Love as the highest motivation we could hope for even though being in Love confronts everyone with our collective desire to be Functioning Mad rather than still Mad but not Functioning so well. If the Sisyphus metaphor is correct here we have to madly embrace not being afraid in order to keep getting motivated to keep pushing the huge rock up the hill. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:14pt;"><em>I guess I don't totally agree with the <strong>Fearmorphosis</strong> thesis, because in a Western mindset at least we desire to be fearlessly Mad and Free in order to get anything done.</em></span> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;">In this respect we have been extremely successful so far, even if the Planet teeters on the edge of total destruction regularly these days. What Westerners say is <em><strong>Liberal Democracies</strong></em> that idolise Love and Freedom rarely if ever go to War with each other, so we are frantically trying to help everyone be as Mad as we are before the whole thing goes belly up!</span></p>
<div><span style="font-size:12pt;">The real huge gaping academic gap in the market for ideas, is a more comprehensive examination and appreciation of what Madness actually is and how it can metamorphosis into different things that we decide are not Madness whether for Good, Reason, or Utter Evil? We simply are not looking at the main drivers of real Progress in every way. Not whilst we're basically using pseudoscience to control it whenever it appears problematic regardless of whether this is true or not?</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size:14pt;"><em>The element in the Fearmorphosis thesis covering different forms of <strong>scapegoating</strong> is relevant to how we treat pseudoscience mental health patients.</em></span> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:12pt;">In my own case, there appears zero interest in whether the original reasons for <em><strong>scapegoating</strong></em> me had or have any basis in reality, as well as a grim determination to carry on <strong><em>scapegoating</em></strong> me regardless. The fact that only something like God Almighty can probably deliver me from this fate, and in fact is something I claim to know something about, only seems to motivate the <strong><em>scapegoating</em></strong> further and in and of itself the combination of the two is driving Political and Psychiatric change yet again!</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div style="text-align:center;"><span style="font-size:13.3333px;">****</span></div></div>Fearmorphosis: A Book Reviewhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/fearmorphosis-a-book-review2023-10-31T16:06:24.000Z2023-10-31T16:06:24.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}12280820476,RESIZE_1200x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}12280820476,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="710" alt="12280820476?profile=RESIZE_710x" /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>To see complete review go to: <a href="https://kcsunbeam.wordpress.com/2023/10/30/book-review-fearmorphosis/">https://kcsunbeam.wordpress.com/2023/10/30/book-review-fearmorphosis/</a></p></div>About "Philosophy of Fearism". Attempt to defend criticism of Sartre's philosophy.https://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/about-philosophy-of-fearism-attempt-to-defend-criticism-of-sartre2023-09-29T03:34:16.000Z2023-09-29T03:34:16.000ZDesh Subbahttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/LimbuDeshBahadur<div><div class="gs"><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}12237175074,RESIZE_400x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}12237175074,RESIZE_400x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="12237175074?profile=RESIZE_400x" width="200" /></a></div><div><div class="ii gt"><div class="a3s aiL"><div><div>by Jun-ichi-Suzki, Hokkaido, Japan</div><div> </div><div>Desh Subba is a Nepali-born writer and poet. His self-published book ①"Philosophy of Fearism" depicts fear as a major part of human life. According to him, life is guided and controlled by fear. And we humans are in the age of "FEARMORPHOSIS," which is a combination of "Sisyphus," "Metamorphosis," and "No Exit," and we are making the argument that in society and life various Sisyphuses are pushing a rock. Here again, human is Fear Sisyphus being watched by Panopticons.</div><div>②And he keeps writing that "Hell is other people concept is wrong because Hell is himself. Sartre contradicts himself, we can see contradiction between Existence Precedes Essence and Hell is other people."</div><div> </div><div>Sartre's literary works that are relevant here include "The Wall'' which depicts the delusion of life as seen from the perspective of a person who is placed in a "death-limit situation'', "No Exit'' which depicts the hell of others, and "The Wall''. In "The Dead Without a Grave," he depicts a person dying after all attempts at justification are invalidated, and expresses the "vomiting nature" of existence through "vomiting."</div><div> </div><div>Verification:</div><div>①"Philosophy of Fearism" depicts fear as a major part of human life. According to him, life is guided and controlled by fear.</div><div> </div><div>This is the first time I've heard the phrase "philosophy of fear." I think this theory was built with a focus on the human "consciousness of fear." This "consciousness" is suitable for things that are "feared." In this case, the "fear" that exists in the outside world is being watched by Panopticons and Metamorphosis, right?</div><div> </div><div>First, in existential philosophy, humans are "free''. "Consciousness" is "free" even if circumstances prevent it from being "free." It is impossible for our human "consciousness" to always be "fearful." The "consciousness'' of "fear'' exists as an "object'' of human consciousness in contrast to the "situation'' or "existence within the situation." "Fear'' does not "exist'' in "consciousness.'' The "consciousness of fear'' as a "concept'' "exists'' within humans, and through the act of manifesting it, we create an "image'' of it in the outside world, whether it be in the space in front of us through our eyes or outside the window even behind the eyelids for instance.</div><div> </div><div>The fact that humans are free also means that they are trying to transcend their destiny and categories, which "depicts fear as a major part of human life. According to him, life is guided and controlled by fear."</div><div>As a matter of fact and as my experience, I do not live my life depending on something called "fear."</div><div>In my opinion, the philosophy of fear has its meaning in the real world of North Korea, where Kim Jong Il's dictatorship is in place. There, people are stripped of their humanity and their freedom of action and speech is severely restricted. It is precisely under such circumstances that resistance and revolutionary movements are necessary. I think we need "action'' to overcome the "philosophy of fear'' rather than just analysis. If a talented literary figure in North Korea were to write a literary novel based on the "philosophy of fear," they might be able to create a good work.</div><div>Additionally, the same situation applies to those who have been deprived of their freedom due to the killings and oppression of the people in the Tibetan Autonomous Region under China's effective rule.</div><div> </div><div>Human beings always use their imagination in their daily lives. Imagination is also "consciousness." I previously talked about the difference between "self-deception" and "lies" and how humans use these two in their lives. And the important thing is that we spend 1/3 of our lives sleeping. This means that sleep resets your daily life. You could call it "oblivion." Also, I think you can understand the importance of dreaming because here again we use the "consciousness'' of "imagination.''</div><div>②"Hell is other people concept is wrong because Hell is himself. Sartre contradicts himself, we can see contradiction between Existence Precedes Essence and Hell is other people."</div><div> </div><div>Well, let me disproof about "Hell is other people concept is wrong." </div><div> </div><div>Just like myself, the "others" is also a "self-existence''. The "others'' is also an "existence'' whose "existence precedes essence.'' Sartre devotes one of his three books, "Being and Nothingness,'' to "exploring this "existence of the others'' .This is because the world is an aggregation of these "self-existence'', and elucidating the meaning of this human relationship is a feat that traditional "realists'' could not accomplish.</div><div>And the meaning of "Hell is other people'' is "Humans always judge their own worth, their existence, and the way their lives should be based on the eyes of others. Hell is the expression of the fact that you cannot escape forever from the gaze and the feeling of being measured by others."</div><div>There are such things as "Hell" that has become a reality and "Hell as a concept", so taking these into consideration, if I change the expression, "Hell is also other people'' .</div><div>In addition, in Christianity, there is also "Purgatory".</div><div> </div><div>Well, in conclusion, Sartre's ontology is not contradictory. Thank you for reading through my attempt to defend Sartre's critique of existential philosophy.</div><div> </div><div>[NB: This article is taken from Jean-Paul Sartre Facebook Group. With the permission of Jun-ichi-Suzuki it is re-published.]</div></div><div class="yj6qo"> </div></div></div></div><div class="gB xu"> </div></div>Sometimes I Get Lucky: Saying Something Really Goodhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/sometimes-i-get-lucky-saying-something-really-good2023-08-31T18:34:11.000Z2023-08-31T18:34:11.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}12214602482,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}12214602482,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="12214602482?profile=RESIZE_710x" width="696" /></a></p>
<p>------------------------------------ ***** ___________________________________________________________</p>
<p>I mean sometimes amongst the millions of words I have written, spoken and published, I say something not too bad--even a little extraordinary, if I do say so myself. </p>
<p>The above paragraph comes from a preview (galley proof) of a book soon to be published this autumn [1]. Thought, to share it, as I came across it this morning as part of my reviewing the edits for this book and the many errors I make, even when I think I have been so careful. It's humbling. </p>
<p>Anyways, back to this text above...there's a lot to consider there. I'm always glad to hear what other's think. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>End Note: </p>
<p>1. Fisher, R. M. (2023). The Fear Problematique: Role of philosophy of education in speaking truths to powers in a culture of fear. IAP. </p>
<p> </p></div>Fearism, Fearlessness, Love and Traumahttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/fearism-fearlessness-love-and-trauma2023-08-01T00:16:15.000Z2023-08-01T00:16:15.000ZDesh Subbahttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/LimbuDeshBahadur<div><div><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}12167986053,RESIZE_930x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-left" src="{{#staticFileLink}}12167986053,RESIZE_400x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="12167986053?profile=RESIZE_400x" width="200" /></a></div><div> </div><div><span style="font-size:14pt;">“When the artist understands fear as a mental construct at the root of everything,</span></div><div><span style="font-size:14pt;">when she understands that fear is a choice that dictates all, her path to love opens up. She chooses to move into a state of fearlessness (e.g., see R. Michael Fisher, who is a Fearlessness philosopher from Canada)--and, one choice at a time continuously creating life from a place of core stability. Fear cannot be eliminated as everything stems from it. Yet the artist knows that by removing all fear-based conditionings and attachments that no longer serve the transmuted self, she advances into enlightenment. She becomes love. She becomes limitless.</span></div><div> </div><div><span style="font-size:14pt;">Desh Subba’s in dept study of fear (Philosophy of Fearism) should be taken as a serious guide to help one go deeper within to heal traumas rooted in fear as well as to move into a new state of reality where fear is seen as a choice to master rather than an emotion to fear. To see fear in its truth, accepting it as the fire that ignites our journey to love is remembering that love is the all.”</span></div><div><div> </div><div><span style="font-size:14pt;">Author</span></div><div><span style="font-size:14pt;">Roxy Genier</span></div><div><span style="font-size:14pt;">Philosopher of Luxury</span></div><div><span style="font-size:14pt;">Global Citizen<br /></span></div></div></div>The Feuerbach Factor: Understanding Fearism Philosophyhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/the-feurbach-factor-understanding-fearism-philosophy2023-06-06T15:13:56.000Z2023-06-06T15:13:56.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><span style="font-size:10pt;"><em>Philosophy of Fearism or FEARISM philosophy,</em> whatever way one constructs these, is a historical (potentially grand and radical) turn in philosophy, and like many other turns before it, there needs to be serious investigation into this turn and its reasons for wanting to make a turn in the way philosophy itself is perceived, constructed, and operates. Any top-notch political movements would do well to be informed by fearism philosophy. -rmf</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong>Introduction</strong></span></p>
<p>I often encourage folks to study fear(lessness) with expanded imaginaries rather than old school only ideas and imagination. I ask the learners be open and curious. Lurking amongst the history of ideas about fear are limitations as well as the benefits of careful study. However, in the late 20th century, a new turn had occurred with the emergence of two concepts <strong>"fearism" (Fisher) and "philosophy of fearism" (Subba).</strong> This blog will not cover that history of new thinking on the topic as there are lots of resources now published to do so [1]. But if you were around in the 1990s, for e.g., there was no way to study fear that truly provided a new philosophy of fear at the same time. </p>
<p>Okay, enough on the history of ideas and their politics. Let me now turn to the subject of this blogpost, which spun from my watching last night the fascinating historical/drama film by Raoul Peck (2017) <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/03/13/the-young-karl-marx-a-film-whose-time-has-come/#:~:text=To%20summarize%3A%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Young%20Karl,which%20the%20film%20concludes%20with." target="_blank">The Young Karl Marx.</a> Without resorting to a <em>marxophobic</em> reaction as so many do in the West (especially N. A.) and around the world with fears of socialism and communism, let's back off that fear-based move and keep open and curious, and let the criticism fly later. My colleagues and I are promoting fearism not Marxism per se. </p>
<p>Peck's film relates to my wanting to talk to Feurbach's philosophical turn in the mid-19th century that Marx and Engels fed from as young revolutionaries in Europe and Britain. It relates indirectly to my desire to elaborate a simple summary purpose of <em>philosophy of fearism </em>and clarify for readers why is this an important history of ideas to name fear(ism) as a philosophical base and movement itself. But before I dive into <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Feuerbach" target="_blank">Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach</a>(1804-72) and his great influence on W. thinkers like Darwin, Marx, Freud, Engels, Wagner and Nietzsche, for examples, let me say a bit more about the Peck film and my attraction. </p>
<p>I am attracted to any teachings that helps one understand the status quo and its oppositions, the latter being ideas, discourses, and/or movements that challenge and critique the mainstream (sometimes called the Old World view). We see a young 20's something <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=karl+marx&source=hp&ei=FzF_ZK_xF6XA9AP67rvQDw&iflsig=AOEireoAAAAAZH8_JycIt7lMBI4zYDBtials50zhJQ9I&gs_ssp=eJzj4tDP1TcwsUjOMWD04sxOLMpRyE0sqgAAPtoGTw&oq=Karl+Marx&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIKCC4QsQMQigUQQzIHCAAQigUQQzIKCAAQigUQsQMQQzIKCC4QigUQ1AIQQzIHCAAQigUQQzIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIICC4QgAQQ1AIyBQgAEIAEOgcILhCKBRBDOgsIABCABBCxAxCDAToICC4QgAQQsQM6CwguEIoFELEDEIMBOhEILhCABBCxAxCDARDHARDRAzoLCC4QgAQQsQMQgwE6CwgAEIoFELEDEIMBOg4ILhCKBRCxAxCDARDUAjoFCC4QgARQAFjAHGCvM2gAcAB4AIABU4gBoAWSAQE5mAEAoAEB&sclient=gws-wiz" target="_blank">Karl Marx</a> and <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=friedrich+engels&source=hp&ei=vzB_ZI_YGtXD9AOskYHwAg&iflsig=AOEireoAAAAAZH8-z5nzDIMTTZaSCPod_9EItrVqVI-1&gs_ssp=eJzj4tDP1TdILrDIMmD0EkgrykxNKcpMzlBIzUtPzSkGAH0OCVw&oq=F&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADILCC4QigUQ1AIQkQIyCAgAEIoFEJECMgsILhCKBRDUAhCRAjIRCC4QgwEQxwEQsQMQ0QMQgAQyCwgAEIAEELEDEIMBMgsILhCKBRCxAxCDATIRCC4QgwEQxwEQsQMQ0QMQgAQyCwguEIAEELEDEIMBMgsIABCABBCxAxCDATILCAAQgAQQsQMQgwFQAFgAYPM9aABwAHgAgAFaiAFakgEBMZgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz" target="_blank">Friedrich Engels </a>meeting and building a manifesto to challenge the Old World (largely unjust) ways of doing economics and labor relations. A good movie review (Arnoff, 2018) says this is the film the younger generations have been waiting for, those who are tired of the only two alternatives battling under Capitalism vs. Communism. No, there is a third way, called Socialism.</p>
<p>The young Marx was a leading ground philosopher and Engels a sound boots-on-the-ground scientific-empirical thinker of socialism, who saw what was needed to reform labor relations (i.e., classism). That's a great thing in the history of ideas and movements for positive change--in fighting oppression. And the film shows how brash the young philosophers were and the risks they took for what they believed in. <em>The Young Karl Marx </em>is entertaining too but it is "a theory laden movie" an "ideological coming-of-age story" [2]. It depicts some of the real strengths and flaws of revolutionaries and philosophers. It shows that all philosophers also have their politics and there is plenty of clashing. The young brash Marx is obnoxious and angry and determined. His flaws showed and it was clear he needed mediated help from allies like his Jenny and Engels and many others. It takes a community to change the world --to bring about revolution. Clearly, Marx and Engels failed overall, as have many other philosophers to bring about the change they wanted--that is, their ideals. Although, for sure, arguably, much good did change because of these thinkers and those around them that they drew upon, like the ideas of Feuerback and Proudhorn, for examples. </p>
<p>What was Marx's main complaint? There are many things he critiqued of the status quo, but I'll stay in this blogpost with the philosophical ones, and relate those to Feuerbach's critique and then finally to the philosophy of fearism critique today. </p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong>Understanding Feuerbach's Radical Descent and Philosophical Turn </strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;">First, I admit I have not read Marx and Engels and Feuerbach, other than those mostly who have written about them. I have drawn often on philosopher Ken Wilber to understand these thinkers and their movements they produced in the history of philosophy and in the evolution of consciousness itself--the latter is my most interest. Ultimately, as a fearist thinker myself, I want to know the intimate link between consciousness and fear. I'll return to that later. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;">Secondly, I am not for or against Marxism, or Communism or Socialism. I am curious what each of these ideological movements, sets of ideas and their leaders have to offer for a better (less oppressed) humanity--and, that ultimately would be a way to lead the world be be more sane, ecologically sustainable and a healthy place to raise children. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;">Thirdly, I am not an ideologue per se, in that I am pushing any "ism" and think all other forms of thought (and isms) are crap. Such exclusionist and reductive (and highly political) thinking doesn't make for good philosophy. Now, I am not a professional philosopher either, and I am want to critique philosophy and even poke fun at it, as we see in the young brash Karl Marx. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;">Fourthly, let me say in summary in my own words, without a lot of research on Feuerbach, what I think was happening in these 19th century revolutionary storms of ideas, ideologies, critiques and new offerings of how to live more justly and fair. I simply, woke up this morning, after watching the movie last night, and in my hypnopompic state and darkness of the bed, I am starting to link things. I know Desh Subba has written a lot in the past few years on his fearism critique of Marxism, etc. This is all lingering in the back of my mind. I want to explain what Subba is doing with his version of fearist thinking and some of my own thoughts. So, begin, I say, and write something to start it off here, and the FM ning is as good a place as any to jot down these notes. The largest power in philosophy of the early to mid-19th century seemed to be Hegelian thought. It was Idealistic. It was stunning in depth and scope, but it lacked a practical empirical substantiation. Feuerbach, then Marx (amongst others) were looking for the strengths and fault-lines in Idealism [3] as a way to bring about any real revolution in society, and their criticism was aimed at Hegel and philosophical academicians and at the pompous "young Hegelians" in politics as well. So, Marx and Engels led a socialist attack on "abstraction" (and Hegelian thought and political spin from it). Marx was looking for ideas to turn around Hegelian philosophy in politics and economics. He later would call this class-critique and critique of oppression in general. But before that, I want to focus on the historical evolution of the ideas of criticism that the young Marx was propagating so passionately. So, let me turn to some expertise knowledge beyond my own, from scholars like Wilber and Collins [4], as starters. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;">Collins (1998) a sociologist, and a conflict theorist of my own persuasion, is also a great historian of sociology. He has put his scholarship into studying global philosophies and their players and movements as a dynamic network of patterns of power, well worth understanding. Ideas-people-places-power flows are all important in this socioecology of philosophy. So, what does Collins offer us in understanding the core of mid-19th century Europe and the philosophical (political) turn going on and Feuerbach's location in it? In very brief, Collins noted in Germany history of thought and philosophical circles, several networks were going on, and by 1837-42 the "left-Hegelians" were following Feuerbach's philosophical critique mainly [5]. These were more "coffeehouse" like circles and less academicians centered in universities, while basically, they would not last long and German philosophy would move into the academy thereafter. The young Marx and Engels were part of the Feuerbach leftist socialist wing but eventually left it in developming their own critique. A big part of that critique, still following Feuerbach's critique of Hegelianism overall, was to move to a more materialism and secularism in their foundational philosophy--turning spiritual Hegel on his head, as it is often said by historians. They claimed Hegel has it all wrong, and that material was ultimately real, in opposition to Hegel's metaphyics of spiritual is ultimately real. Hegel's philosophy and its new spins could never, for Feuerbach and Marx be a foundation for a just society of labor relations and basic humanist values in the economic sphere of survival. Hegel was philosophy for the bourgeois (elites). </span></p>
<p>Feuerbach criticized religion (Christianity) and broke with tradition and Hegelian sympathy for Christianity. "After Hegel's death came Feuerbach and Marx" (and others) [6] to dominate the intellectual waves of thought in philosophy and politics. The Battle of Sense and Soul (Material and Spiritual) (Descenders and Ascenders) continued at this time in history (and it still does). Feuerbach (then Marx) were fighting back to ground philosophy in the sense-world, anti-metaphysical, anti-abstract, anti-elitist. Wilber (1996), wrote, "There is a famous phrase, that after Hegel everybody was saying 'back to Kant!' [i.e., rationality and its grounding in the senses, and empiricism]" [7]. Wilber summarizes: "The collapse of Idealism left the Descenders [materialists] virtually unchallenged as the holders and molders of modernity....the Idealist current was snapped up by the industrial grid and converted, via Feuerbach and Marx, into a strongly materialistic and 'naturalistic' conception. It's almost impossible to escape the modern Descended grid, and after absolutely heroic attempts by the Idealists, they were hounded out of town by the troglodytes. And so Feuerbach, a student of Hegel, would soon announce that <em>any </em>sort of Ascent, was simply a projection of men and women's human potentials onto an 'other world' of wholly imaginative [false] origin. And, according to Feuerbach, it is exactly this ['fear'] projection of human potential onto a 'divine' sphere that cripples men and women and is the true cause of self-alienation" [8]--and, concomitantly, such 'fear' projection as I call it and existentialists like Becker would call it immortality projection, there is a weakening and vulnerability created to exploit that alienated and wish-filled man by the world of the senses-material and economic exploitation. "Get real!" is the Descender-call, the Feuerbach-Marxist charge here. Then, they argue, we can resist and avoid exploitation of workers and the poor, by those who would seduce us into being 'slaves' (labor) for this so-called higher divine spiritual end, of which the elites propogate as ideology in the name of the bourgeois church, state, and corporations. Real empowerment was grassroots, secularist, modernist, and a Descender movement in consciousness itself. </p>
<p>Wilber (1995), a 'neo-Hegelian' of sorts (but an integralist philosopher), today argues, we humans of the West especially, have not recovered yet from this massive philosophical turn and 'blow' (collapse) of the Kosmos into the materialist explanation for everything--a worldview of only the seeable and matter-based substance is real [9]. Engels would pen, "nothing exists" apart from nature and human beings....The enthusiasm was general; we were all for the moment followers of Feuerbach." Wilber laments, "And the entire modern and postmodern world is, in effect, the followers of Feuerbach" [10]. The larger philosophical question for our time is: What impact on consciousness itself is such a Descender victory?" It has big problems, so Wilber and I argue. </p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong>'Fear' Projection and It's Mighty Problems</strong></span></p>
<p>Feuerbach then was a philosopher of mighty insight and leadership capability obviously. Marx took it further, and others have taken it further too. This is nothing to dismiss too easily as nonsense. What intrigues me as Wilber analyzes the Feuerbachian (r)evolution of thought, he points out the critique of the materialists toward the spiriitualists (or at least the idealists), is that the latter are projecting ideals for human beings (i.e., their higher human potential and empowerment) onto the divine fantasies and constructions and dogmas around them (e.g., religion). "Projection" is a powerful psychological term, and it is argued by many (including myself) as a fear-projection (or 'fear' projection, as I prefer)--by which a certain inferiority complex in the human is projecting onto the immortal and trying to find a "fearless" representation of identity to attach to to make them feel better (be less fearful of mortality), etc. This complex projection phenomenon, driven by fear-based thought is pathological. Wilber sees this too, as do I. But the materialist philosophies were also trying to point this out and correct it with their own cura philosophy of the time (e.g., secular materialist, and humanist, modernist). Fine. But they could not see their own fatal flaw in the materialist (Feuerbachian factor) turn. That's the point of an integralist critique (a la Wilber), which I prefer, and going beyond that it is my contention that the very ones critiquing the spiritualist philosophies had their own fear-based agenda and ideology as in their form of rejection and criticism. They would not turn that projection critique on their own positionality, and philosophies and politics--that is, on their own self-alienation and diminishment of consciousness itself. Wilber (1995, 1996), for example, tells this story of the unfortunate binary of Ascenders-Descenders, in what is a compelling philosophical story and critique. I recommend you read his lengthy analysis. But yes, Wilber agrees, fear-based projections are on both sides of this battle for reality, and Ascenders only are just as bad as Descenders only. That's the point. It creates massive pathologies at all levels of society and the world and a lot of toxic destruction has shown itself because of the failures of modernity and postmodernity (post-Feuerbachian factor). </p>
<p>So, along comes this late 20th century, early 21st century new fearism philosophy (a la Fisher-Subba) as another corrective to the Feuerbachian corrective--and, a new battle for philosophy and politics, and how to best live generally, is underway. History of philosophy is like that. History of ideas is not static. And, fearism presents new ideas (and old) and offers up a new menu of choices. At least, that's the argument I wish to remind readers of. Check it out yourself. </p>
<p>What fearism offers is a re-visioning of what is the basis of existence, and it concludes "fear" is the basis, and it precedes essence and all else that is real. With that, there is no need to be depressed about it. For "fear" in the fearism lens, from the fearist perspective, is not merely negative, not merely an emotion or feeling or defense. And, from there a new story of human potential and corrective to the pathologies of history and philosophy are ready to take shape. But, will it ever get off the ground? Will it every be applied in important places of society? We don't know that yet. The Fearism movement (like Fearlessness Movement) are very nascent, at least, in their current forms. I have always argued, however, that fear(lessness) is foundational to life and evolution. They are ancient forces and intelligences waiting to be tapped by us. We still have to wake up to this potential, and I believe (like Subba, and some others) "fear" is a great channel for this awakening, for this paradigm shift and new philosophy. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>End Notes</p>
<p>1. E.g., see Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (2016). <em>Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. </em>Xlibris; and Fisher, R. M. (2022). <em>Philosophy of fearism: A primer. </em>Xlibris. </p>
<p>2. See Arnoff, K. (2018). <em>The Young Karl Marx</em>: A film whose time has come. <em>The Intercept. <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/03/13/the-young-karl-marx-a-film-whose-time-has-come/">https://theintercept.com/2018/03/13/the-young-karl-marx-a-film-whose-time-has-come/</a></em></p>
<p>3. Keep in mind that intellectuals, E. and W. at this time, says Collins, "were cosmopolitans" and globalist and more universalist in outlook and philosophies and "Idealism is cosmopolitanism in religion; it is religious thought argued out independently of dogma and tradition. That is why Idealism everywhere is the favored philosophy in the transitional generation of secularizing reformers" (p. 686). </p>
<p>4. Wilber, K. (1995). <em>Sex, ecology and spirituality: The spirit of evolution</em> (Vol. 1). Shambhala; Collins, R. (1998). <em>The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change</em>. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. </p>
<p>5. Collins (1998), pp. 530-1. </p>
<p>6. Ibid., p. 686. </p>
<p>7. Wilber, K. (1996). <em>A brief history of everything</em>. Shambhala, p. 282. </p>
<p>8. Ibid., p. 283. </p>
<p>9. Wilber (1995). </p></div>Fearism: A Philosophy Who's Time Has Comehttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/fearism-a-philosophy-who-s-time-has-come2023-05-10T02:03:46.000Z2023-05-10T02:03:46.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p> </p>
<p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}11074251278,RESIZE_1200x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}11074251278,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="11074251278?profile=RESIZE_710x" width="845" height="556" /></a></p>
<p>FOR THE FULL TALK, GO TO: <a href="https://prism.ucalgary.ca/items/b7a1e87b-f771-4a2d-914b-a1a5c8c08af9">https://prism.ucalgary.ca/items/b7a1e87b-f771-4a2d-914b-a1a5c8c08af9</a></p>
<p>For the most updated summary (primer) of this philosophy, go to: Fisher, R. M. (2022). <em>Philosophy of fearism: A primer</em>. Xlbiris. </p>
<p> </p></div>Feariatry: Psychiatry in a Critical New Keyhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/feariatry-psychiatry-in-a-new-key2022-11-21T05:09:30.000Z2022-11-21T05:09:30.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong>FEARIATRY,</strong> is a play from the book of "psychiatry"--as an overt word-game and conceptual connection between the two. "Feariatry" first coined by Desh Subba, the founder of <em>philosophy of Fearism</em> (see his 2014 classic book), knew on the one hand exactly what he was expressing with this 'call' to begin a new theory, study and practice of feariatry that would complement, if not some day replace, psychiatry as we know it. On the other hand, he did not know what feariatry would actually shape out like, and he wasn't going to lead that formation. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;">Subba is no psychiatrist or psychologist, and this raises the question: Who is he to be so rebelliously confident that the entire domain of psychology and psychiatry need to change?--and more so, need to transform their very identity and ways. It's a grand sweeping gesture for anyone to make. I loved it when I read it and had already intuited in my own work on fear and fearlessness that, indeed, there was something fundamentally wrong with these two fields and the BioMedical Paradigm they rely on, that is, if we ever want to truly have liberated humans and societies on this planet. Like Subba (and others), I was a quiet advocate for years to revision psychiatry and psychology--as they are accepted legitimate in the mainstream and by the State. In fact, they are 'the State' and its long-arm of intervention into how human beings 'should be' and how they should be fixed when they are no longer 'normal' (i.e., how they should be). This for me, is a very contested territory, and reaks with ideologies of "normal" and the control systems to maintain such. Yes, a politics of psychiatry and psychology cannot be ignored, in our search to better understand human behavior, etc. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;">I encourage people to read the reasons for Subba (2014) making the claim for a lot of changes in concepts, fields of inquiry and disciplines because of his discovery of the core nature and role of fear in life and human life in particular. Philosophy of Fearism was his beginning articulation of that primacy of "fear" and the valuation imperative that discovering fear as such one ought to revise everything--even change our language which has gone away from acknowledging this primacy of fear (e.g., see also the fearist Samuel Gillian's (2002, 2005) work on this loss of fear from the English language as a cover-up of distortion due to mind conditioning, propaganda and ideologies). The <em>primacy of fear </em>is the central philosophical and theoretical driver behind Subba, and myself, and our work in <em>fear management/education. </em></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><em>BACK TO SUBBA </em>and a fearism perspective (a fearist lens)--and, one now is reconfiguring psychiatry and psychology--based on the fear findings. It is a new awareness, a new paradigm of fear, that is being 'called' to bring about a better (hypothetically) psychiatry and psychology to the 21st century. I have totally got on board with this project too. FEARIATRY is particularly intriguing to me. You may search that term in the upper right box of the FM ning and you'll see some of my posts on feariatry over the years. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;">BACK TO PSYCHOANALYSIS--AND <strong>OTTO RANK (a post-Freudian psychoanalyst and theorist)</strong>-- as I have always liked Otto Rank since my reading of his work in the early 1980s, and off and on, I am now reading his 1941 book "<strong><em>Beyond Psychology"</em></strong> (also once named, in the text "beyond individual psychology"--but he also meant beyond social psychology as well)-- the Preface and first chapter pages of this book are intriguing. I kept writing in the margins just tonight that "this sounds like a good place to start a theory of feariatry" --and so on. Indeed, I find a good deal of his thought, experience and theorizing fascinating as grounds for a fearist-revisionist accounting of what psychiatry and psychology need to change. I will do another blogpost on this soon, but just wanted to give you all a heads-up, and to get you maybe starting to think about Feariatry with some seriousness--as it is one of the least developed paths/areas/pillars under the Philosophy of Fearism and Fearology trajectory (i.e., Subba-Fisher's work)...</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;">A<span style="text-decoration:underline;"> small hint</span>: Rank is very big on bringing back to center (or at least to 'balance') <strong>"irrational"</strong> [1] along with "rational"--and, he believes that is the only way to human health, sanity and a good life worth living. He is a psychoanalyst who actually undermines psychoanalysis (and psychology generally) by the time he wrote this last very honest and penetrating critique in 1941--his last book before he died. For me, I see his 'call' for "beyond psychology" as exactly a route to foreshadowing a "feariatry" (and fearanalysis), etc. But Rank saw through this problem, and named "fear" and "fearless" as key players in his revisioning--so that very much excites me. Again, I'll write out more and cite his work in another blog soon. </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> End Note</p>
<p>1. By "irrational" he means just the same as "the natural" (e.g., "natural self"); in my theorizing, with my partner Dr. Barbara Bickel, we often call this "arational." </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p></div>Review of R. Michael Fisher's, Philosophy of Fearism: A Primerhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/review-of-book-by-r-michael-fisher-philosophy-of-fearism-a-primer2022-10-16T15:19:28.000Z2022-10-16T15:19:28.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><strong>Review of book, by R. Michael Fisher, <em>Philosophy of Fearism: A Primer</em>, </strong>published by Xlibris, 2022.</p>
<p><strong>Nicola Tenerelli</strong></p>
<p>Università degli Studi Aldo Moro, Bari</p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.nicolatenerelli.it">www.nicolatenerelli.it</a></em></p>
<p> "The problem is not the fact of dying, but the Fear of Death, that feeling that so disturbs us and prevents us from achieving inner serenity. How to fight it? Epicurus' solution is this: When there is us, there is no death. And vice versa." <em>(Epistle to Meneceus, 124-127) </em></p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><span style="font-size:14pt;">"We could say that this book is the Manifesto of Fearology." <span style="font-size:10pt;">-N. Tenerelli</span></span></p>
<p>The philosopher of Samos took refuge in ataraxia, but his answer highlighted his awareness: the real human dilemma is the problem of Fear, which is more important than death.</p>
<p>We can say that if there is <em>phobos</em>, there is no <em>logos</em>; in the presence of Fear, full rationality is lost, so it is impossible to give an ultimate answer.</p>
<p>Answering the question <em>what is Fear? </em>is in itself an exhaustive operation, a philosophical question.</p>
<p>That is why the question <em>what is Fear </em>is among the first questions a human being asks - right after the fateful one: why is there Being and not rather nothingness? -.</p>
<p>The question <em>what is Fear </em>is both theoretical and practical; it represents the meeting point between utilitarian rationality and primordial sentiment. For Severino (1929-2020), philosophy stems from ancestral Fear (<em>thauma</em>): if we could know what Fear is, we could know Being: if we could answer - <em>what is Fear</em>? - philosophy would not exist.</p>
<p>Philosophical thought has always moved on the boundary between the known and the hidden, and it has always sought to erode this seemingly insurmountable limit. Every revealed truth (<em>aletheia</em>) is once again hidden, veiled twice: re-veiled, in effect!</p>
<p>In Heideggerian terms, the gap between what a human knows and what he can never know must be maintained so that Being is preserved: so he does not fall into nihilism - the claim to be able to discover the truth conceals the will to nullify Being -.</p>
<p>Firstly, the question <em>what is Fear </em>is a foundational question because it relates the subject to its deepest interiority.</p>
<p>Secondly, just as importantly, the incommensurability of the question - <em>what is Fear </em>- relaunches philosophy, both because it shows that philosophical thought is indispensable and because it gives meaning to the limited existence of human beings and their desire to improve.</p>
<ol>
<li>Michael Fisher is a thinker who has devoted all his studies expressly to the subject of Fear, author of the essay <em>Philosophy of Fearism. A primer</em>, published by Xlibris; this volume is intended to introduce even non-specialists in the discipline to this field of philosophy that arose - a further merit of Fisher's - outside institutional and academic circles.</li>
</ol>
<p>The essay is a presentation of the Philosophy of Fearism and its disseminators; R. Michael Fisher, a Canadian, is the most authoritative representative of this philosophical current; other philosophers of Fearism, the Nepalese Desh Subba and the New Yorker Samuel Nathan Gillian Jr. (1939-2016), all of whom were fellow travellers encountered by chance during their decades of study, are mentioned in the essay.We could say that this book is the Manifesto of Fearology. Evidence of this is the subtitle, Primer, which also implies the first coat of paint that is applied to the canvas to prepare it for painting - let us not forget that Fisher is an artist.</p>
<p><em> "Glossaries in fearist books are unsystematic, although useful — but, for research purposes there is not yet enough conformity to know exactly what is what in the whole domain of terms and concepts and theories under the umbrella of a philosophy of Fearism. With this caveat in mind, the reader is advised to not become overly concerned about all the technical terms right away and also not to try to change them, without spending a good amount of time studying the philosophy of Fearism. It may take years to really get the feel for what this philosophy is all about."</em> (<em>p. 50</em>)</p>
<p> We are obviously dealing with a philosophical text, so no one expects an easy read, but Fisher has propped up his essay with a series of twenty-one Frequently Asked Questions to answer what Fearism is and help the reader who wants to approach this study.</p>
<p>Fisher wants to make it clear, above all, that the Philosophy of Fear is not a utilitarian theory and does not intend to offer a recipe that will free people from such a strenuous feeling/research.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the proposed (Fearism) Philosophy of Fear is not a substitute for abstract existentialism because, on the contrary, it originates as a real need of the philosopher.</p>
<p>In the text, some of the <span style="text-decoration:underline;">necessary prerequisites</span> for approaching the Philosophy of Fear are suggested:</p>
<p>- need to be humble when it is appropriate to learn something 'new' from everyone;</p>
<p>- need to study current theories in order to understand that this is a social philosophy that requires disciplined enquiry and research-based focus,</p>
<p>- need a maturity beyond one's own selfish needs, and, subsequently, an engagement with the community of other fearists;</p>
<p>- need to know methods/techniques derived from theories that enfold themselves with this philosophy;</p>
<p>- need to take risks and be honest intellectually.</p>
<p>The 'risk' that Fisher speaks of is the one that all intellectuals incur: studying a lot and always feeling dissatisfied; not being considered by a social system that favours telegenic faces and monetisable ideas.</p>
<p>The reader, however, can be assured that the study of Fear can lead every human beyond his/her inner boundaries.</p>
<p><em> "Fear is a mystery. It is as vast as the universe... It constitutes an impact on human tendency, action, and activities. Human activities done knowingly and unknowingly are heading towards it... The fearist perspective is a new dimension to look at life and the world... The purpose behind fearism [and fearists’ work] is to conduct continuous research, investigation, and invention in order to make life more comfortable."</em> (quoting Desh Subba in Fisher's <em>Introduction</em>, <em>p. 1</em>) </p>
<p style="text-align:center;">****</p></div>Philosophy of Fearism: A Primer (New Book by RMF)https://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/philosophy-of-fearism-a-primer-new-book-by-rmf2022-08-29T22:09:34.000Z2022-08-29T22:09:34.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}10796070452,RESIZE_1200x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}10796070452,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="10796070452?profile=RESIZE_710x" width="776" height="389" /></a> </p>
<p>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! </p>
<p>Order from <a href="https://www.xlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/747454-philosophy-of-fearism" target="_blank">Xlibris Publishers</a> (Australia) and/or online booksellers e.g., <a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/philosophy-of-fearism-r-michael-fisher/1142049448">https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/philosophy-of-fearism-r-michael-fisher/1142049448</a></p>
<p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}10796070680,RESIZE_1200x{{/staticFileLink}}">BTW </a></p>
<p>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 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyeVeEHtqO4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyeVeEHtqO4</a></p></div>Philosophy of Fearism: A Primer by Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/philosophy-of-fearism-a-primer-by-fisher2022-07-12T02:48:41.000Z2022-07-12T02:48:41.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}10639602097,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}10639602097,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="483" height="329" alt="10639602097?profile=RESIZE_710x" /></a></p>
<p>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: </p>
<p>CONTENTS</p>
<p> Preface</p>
<p> Acknowledgements</p>
<p> INTRODUCTION: What’s in a Name?, Why Focus on Fear(ism)?</p>
<p> Time For a Primer on <em>Philosophy of Fearism</em></p>
<p><em> </em>The Search for Fear-Plus</p>
<p> Fearism Complicates Fear</p>
<p> Risking to Care Deeply for Fear</p>
<p> </p>
<ol start="2">
<li>HISTORY and PEOPLE Behind the Philosophy of Fearism</li>
</ol>
<p> Fearism: A Mixed History</p>
<p> Fisherian Fearism</p>
<p> Subbaian Fearism</p>
<p> Subbaian-Fisherian Fearism</p>
<p> </p>
<ol start="3">
<li>An INTELLECTUAL MOVEMENT in Philosophy and Beyond</li>
</ol>
<p> Founders: From Dyad to The Triad</p>
<ol>
<li>Michael Fisher</li>
</ol>
<p> Desh Subba</p>
<p> Samuel Nathan Gillian Jr.</p>
<p> Vignettes of the Three Philosophers: Discovering Fearism</p>
<p> </p>
<ol start="4">
<li>FEARISM THEORY</li>
</ol>
<p> What Philosophers Would Think of Fearism?</p>
<p> A Few Fearists’ Imperatives</p>
<p> A Few Theories Within Fearism</p>
<p> Some Philosophical Assumptions and Principles</p>
<p> Some Critics of Fearism</p>
<p> </p>
<p> FEARIST’S QUOTES</p>
<p> Basic References</p>
<p> Brief Glossary</p>
<p> Index</p></div>Ernest Becker's Fearist Choice (?)https://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/ernest-becker-s-school-of-fear-choice2022-06-12T17:15:15.000Z2022-06-12T17:15:15.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}10564197099,RESIZE_584x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}10564197099,RESIZE_584x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="10564197099?profile=RESIZE_584x" width="583" height="476" /></a></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong>Introduction: Fear Studies and The Fearist's Dilemma</strong></span></p>
<p>And, I have been struggling cheerfully (mostly) with trying to figure out this <strong>Beckerian (fear) problem</strong> ..since late 1989.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>This has been with my latest serious encounter and re-reading of the work of the late <strong>Samuel Nathan Gillian Jr.</strong> And, I'm still trying to make up my mind. I also have always had problems with the <em>binary</em> 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).</p>
<p>You may know, the <strong>fearists</strong> [1] that have been collecting around the work of <strong>Desh Subba</strong> [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]. </p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong>Which Way To Go: Positive(?) vs. Negative(?)</strong></span></p>
<p>Studying (see last two FM blogs) the work on fear by <strong>Sam Gillian Jr.</strong> (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 <strong>Ernest Becker</strong> in the <strong>"Fear-Positivist" camp</strong> 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) "<strong>Fear-Negativists</strong>." The latter, would <span style="text-decoration:underline;">reject t</span>he claim that Subba (for e.g.) makes that: "life is conducted, directed and controlled by fear." That is <span style="text-decoration:underline;">too negative</span> 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 <span style="text-decoration:underline;">choice of direction</span> (camp) taken, deeply impacts how we design our organizations, our cultures, and how we institute socialization, education and live our lives. No small consequences. </p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><u>Earliest of the Historical Fearists</u></span> [5]: The work of Ernest <strong>Becker</strong> in the <strong>1960-70s</strong> especially ought to be regarded as the <span style="text-decoration:underline;">first</span> <strong>(proto-) fearist philosopher</strong> we have to draw upon in the West--although, he was writing with a modernist's universalist perspective in his claims. <strong>Desh Subba</strong> and<strong> I</strong> came along <span style="text-decoration:underline;">two-three decades later</span> to build our own <em>fearist </em>philosophizing, of which a few others (in the East) have followed in our tracks. <span style="text-decoration:underline;">Gillian, uniquely followed Becker's fearism.</span> He did <span style="text-decoration:underline;">not</span> 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 <span style="text-decoration:underline;">no influence</span> on him and his writing and teaching. We clashed on some basic issues, although we agreed on others.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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 <strong>human "Negativists"</strong> 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 <span style="text-decoration:underline;">not</span> believe as the <strong>human "Positivists"</strong> 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. </p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong>Becker and the Fear Problem: "Terror" at the Base of Human Nature (Existence)</strong></span></p>
<p>When I read in Becker's Pulitzer prize winning book <em>The Denial of Death</em> (1973), published at the end of his life (died early due to cancer), that he layed out the argumentation of both the human <em>Positivists</em> and <em>Negativists</em> (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:</p>
<p style="text-align:center;">"I frankly side with this second school--in fact, this whole book is a network of arguments based on the universality of the</p>
<p style="text-align:center;">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]</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">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. <strong>Gillian is a real hard-core fearist</strong> (even though, he did not use that label). </p>
<p style="text-align:left;">I wonder where he would have gone with this Fear-Positivist <em>and</em> 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:<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Becker" target="_blank">Ernest Becker</a>); 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 <em>Homo sapiens sapiens</em>, 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 <strong>human being is an animal,</strong> 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 <em>Homo sapiens</em> can best be characterized and rather uniquely (in Becker's words): </p>
<p style="text-align:center;">The result was the emergence of man [sic] as we know him: a hyperanxious </p>
<p style="text-align:center;">animal who constantly invents reasons for anxiety even when there are none. [8]</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong>So Vulnerably Human</strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Humans (<em>a la</em> 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]</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">One the other hand, the human Positivists rally <span style="text-decoration:underline;">against</span> 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? </p>
<p style="text-align:left;">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 <strong>primal depths</strong> 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 <strong>Repression Problem</strong> 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 <span style="text-decoration:underline;">pragmatist truth</span>: humans are afraid to die and <strong>"fear of death"</strong> 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 <strong>unique (vulnerable) animal</strong>--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. </p>
<p style="text-align:center;">[to be continued... perhaps...]</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Endnotes</strong></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">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). <em>Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. </em>Australia: Xlibris. </p>
<p style="text-align:left;">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). </p>
<p style="text-align:left;">3. Note, I did cite Becker's famous book <em>The Denial of Death</em> as one vector of inquiry, essential in developing the sub-field of Fear Studies; see, Fisher, R. M. (2006). Invoking 'Fear' Studies. <em>Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, </em>22(4), 39-71.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">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 <em>The Beauty of Fear</em> in <em>Ernest Becker Foundation Newsletter,</em> 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). <em>The beauty of fear: How to be positively afraid. </em>Phemore Press; and Gillian, S. N. (2005). <em>Terrified by education: Teaching children to fear learning</em>. Phemore Press. </p>
<p style="text-align:left;">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. </p>
<p style="text-align:left;">6. Becker, E. (1973/97). <em>The denial of death. </em>NY: Free Press Paperbacks/Simon & Schuster.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">7. E.g., correspondence in 2020 with Dr. Daniel Liechty and Dr. Jack Martin. </p>
<p style="text-align:left;">8. Becker (1973), p. 17.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">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). </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p></div>Fearism: Fisher's 3 Hypotheseshttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/fearism-fisher-s-3-hypotheses2021-10-26T15:27:42.000Z2021-10-26T15:27:42.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}9738826089,RESIZE_584x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}9738826089,RESIZE_584x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="9738826089?profile=RESIZE_584x" width="533" /></a></p>
<p>Fearologist, RMF tells in his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsRDzeXXvVg" target="_blank">new video</a> of "why" the concept of <strong>fearism</strong> likely evolved in the 1990s onward and is here to stay. </p>
<p> </p></div>Domestic Fearism: The Problem That Won't Go Awayhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/domestic-fearism-the-problem-that-won-t-go-away2021-01-09T14:33:52.000Z2021-01-09T14:33:52.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}8405420058,RESIZE_930x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}8405420058,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="8405420058?profile=RESIZE_710x" width="710" /></a></p>
<p>By now most of the FM ning readers will have seen and/or heard of this (somewhat 9/11-like tragic and disturbing event)--that hit the Washington, DC city and Capital Hill (the White House of the USA Government) on Jan. 6, 2021. </p>
<p>The purpose of my short blogpost here is to put in my 'vote' for all of us to be very aware, smart, and fearless in our thoughts and imaginations about what happened that day (Jan. 6, 2021). I say this after my research on fear and fearlessness (and fearism [1]) for the last 25 years or so and how it is so important to not just fall into all the rhetoric, tropes and narratives being "spun" by all kinds of agendas, and politics, and extremisms. So, I call the Jan. 6 event an example (with more to come) of the organization and dynamics of how 'two sides danced' (i.e., opposites that have made an enemy out of each other for a long time)--to create this phenomenon now recorded in US history and recorded as a 'message' to EVERYONE--that, "Domestic Fearism" (my term for it)--is not going away (for it also has been a process, a phenomenon, boiling in the base of the mountain and awaiting to explode in the classic hurling lava of rage, fear, hate, call it what you will--violence, by any other name. The chaos and irrationality laying just below the surface. But wait... even I am susceptible to fall into easy narratives, I could even so easily pick sides in the "battle" on Capitol Hill (and, everywhere in America, at least)-- I too could fall into the fear-based 'design' of perception, thinking, valuing, worldview and rhetoric and actions of those all who are clearly upset by what happened that day--and, prior. </p>
<p>This is all I'm going to write on this today, to just start FM ning members thinking about this all--and, the perennial problem in all forms of governance from the beginning of human history, you know I'm talking about <em>when people don't get along</em>--when conflict is part n' parcel of living in groups. Oh, but today, I trust we can be a lot more intelligent in figuring our way through this crisis of governance which this demonstration above truly shows--our failure in a lot of parts of governance. It is no one's (only one's) fault that any of this symptom exists and erupts--sure, some will be spear-head leaders but they are "not the problem" in the roots of the phenomenon, I will continue to call "Domestic Fearism" --a more nuanced and critical conception rather than calling it "Domestic Terrorism" as many (including Michael Moore, Marianne Williamson[2]) have already chosen to call it. Let's keep having a deep conversation on this, and preferrably from a fearlessness standpoint (rare and difficult as it may be to pull off)--rather, than the classic and habitual fear standpoint. Let's talk... </p>
<p>Addendum: </p>
<p>I just made a video on Michael Moore's intense emergency raw talk on Jan. 6/21 events and what is following soon. You might want to watch this but I'd suggest do it with a friend, ally or group, as it can be quite terrifying and traumatic material. I am both supportive and critical of how Moore does this work. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgP1aDxLeag">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgP1aDxLeag</a></p>
<p>Notes: </p>
<p>1. "Fearism" is my specialty and conception of choices (amongst other frames and terms and theories)--because I am convinced it will be emancipatory for all human beings (and yes, all citizens, and yes, all who are on either side of the current enemy-making that is actually 'storming the entire nation' --of America--but also around the world). There is a lot of writing on "fearism" and "philosophy of fearism" on the internet and on the FM ning (just do a search here on our FM ning front page for more info.). I am particularly pointing out in my title for this blog that of one expression of fearism that is--<strong><em>fearism-t</em> </strong>which is the toxic form of "fearism" (as Desh Subba has coined)--see our book for more on this distinction: Fisher, R. M., & Subba, D. (2016). <em>Philosophy of Fearism: A first East-West dialogue. </em>Xlibris. To be very short, "domestic fearism" is the best way to understand "domestic terrorism"--and, that applies as well to finding a better way to understand terrorism in general--as fearism is the underbelly, the more quiet and less dramatic dynamic and reality that is always going on in oppressive societies--building up suppression, repression and violence of many forms--all of which, when built up enough, some eruption will come from that fearism and 'blow' to become an obvious form of terrorism (e.g., like what was seen Jan. 6). If we only try to understand terrorism without fearism, that will lead inevitably to such a partial and distorted analysis of the problems going on and that of course will undermine finding a real set of solutions deeper below the surface where fear breeds--and, virtually everyone on this planet is (more or less) a contributor to the "manufacture of fear" (and, fearism-t). </p>
<p>2. For more background on my interest and study of Williamson's work and her political ambitions etc., see my upcoming book soon off the press: <em>The Marianne Williamson Presidential Phenomenon: Cultural (R)Evolution in Dangerous Times</em> (New York: Peter Lang, 2020). </p></div>"Fearism": Introductory Discussionhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/fearism-introductory-discussion2020-12-09T21:08:06.000Z2020-12-09T21:08:06.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}8267342487,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}8267342487,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="8267342487?profile=RESIZE_710x" width="623" /></a></p>
<p>James, host of Hermitix, does interesting 'beyond-the-box' podcast interviews with philosophical types; and, I was glad to have this chance to chat with him:</p>
<p>go to: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPB9oVZnI4A">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPB9oVZnI4A</a></p></div>Fisher's Recent Talk: Ecology & Fear OR Fear & Ecologyhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/fisher-s-recent-talk-ecology-fear-or-fear-ecology2020-12-01T02:47:17.000Z2020-12-01T02:47:17.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p>The following <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNyEQZJ-JT4&t=4728s" target="_blank">link</a>, will guide you to my recent Dr. A. V., Varughese Memorial Lecture (2020) in Kerala, India</p>
<p>To listen to my lecture you best start the video at the 21:20 mark </p>
<p>My talk is about ecocriticism as a newly emerging field in the last few decades, that involves literary criticism and ecology. I focus on a particular way I interpret this field and how it can better be holistic-integral in integrating the work on fear, fearism, and fearlessness. Fear as a vector in ecocriticism, and literary criticism, ought to take into account a term I coined in the talk, called Egocriticism. It is the combination of Ecocriticism and Egocriticism that I believe will be the better way to go in the future for truly critical analysis that really cuts through. The last 1/2 of the video is made up of questions from the audience and me answering them. </p>
<p>-enjoy, </p>
<p>M. </p>
<p>p.s. If you want my edited version, with me talking about my lecture in commentary, go to: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVpArm2cwPw%C2%A0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVpArm2cwPw </a></p></div>Dr. Faranda's New Book on Fear as Potenthttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/dr-faranda-s-new-book-on-fear-as-potent2020-09-28T01:24:56.000Z2020-09-28T01:24:56.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}7976056271,RESIZE_400x{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}7976056271,RESIZE_400x{{/staticFileLink}}" alt="7976056271?profile=RESIZE_400x" width="323" /></a></p>
<p>I haven't read this new book but will take a peek at it in the next while and make comments. You may also want to do so. Use the FM ning "Comment" feature here to create a discussion. NOTE: See "Comment" below this blog for my latest thoughts on reading some chapters on Faranda's book.</p>
<p>I've enclosed below the book publisher's description, note that I put in larger font a most interesting thesis Faranada makes about fear and the future. The book looks on first glance like an important contribution to the emerging sub-field called Feariatry (a la Subba & Fisher): </p>
<p><strong>#1 New Release in Evolutionary Psychology and Buddhism ─ Fear, Contemporary Society, and its Consequences</strong></p>
<p><strong>For anyone suffering from the global pandemic anxiety surrounding the new coronavirus, comes a long awaited exploration of one of the most powerful and primitive human emotions.</strong></p>
<p><strong>A history and culture of fear.</strong> Over the last five hundred years, life for the average human being has changed dramatically―plagues no longer wipe out entire families, and no longer do we empty our chamber pots into the street. But, progress in the West has shown that no matter how many dangers we neutralize, new ones emerge. Why? Because our level of fear remains constant.</p>
<p><strong>Fear in contemporary society.</strong> For years, Dr. Frank Faranda studied a state of fearfulness in his patients―an evolutionary state that relentlessly drove them toward avoidance, alienation, hypercriticism, hyper-control, and eventually, depression and anxiety. He began to wonder what they were afraid of, and how embedded these fears might be in contemporary society. This book aims to break us free from what he found.</p>
<p><strong>Fear not.</strong> Faranda’s Fear Paradox is simple―even though <span style="font-size:12pt;"><strong>fear has a prime directive to keep us safe and comfortable, it has grown into the single greatest threat to humanity and collective survival.</strong></span> As a consequence, fear is embedded in our culture, creating new dangers and inciting isolation. With global pandemic disruptions and rising anxiety levels, now is the time to shine a light on our deepest fears and examine the society that fear is creating.</p>
<p><strong>But fear not―inside, you’ll learn about:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>The fear of pain and the fear of the unknown</li>
<li>How fear has driven progress in the West</li>
<li>The price paid to eradicate fear</li>
</ul></div>New Arrival: “INDIA, A NATION OF FEAR AND PREJUDICE”https://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/new-arrival-india-a-nation-of-fear-and-prejudice2019-07-11T03:17:49.000Z2019-07-11T03:17:49.000ZB.Maria Kumarhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/BMariaKumar<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3272375444?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Author Trio:</p>
<p>B.Maria Kumar, R.Michael Fisher & Desh Subba </p>
<p>Here’s <a href="https://www.xlibris.com/Bookstore/BrowseSearchResults.aspx?Category=POL000000" target="_blank">the book</a> back-cover note:</p>
<p><br /> “So many nations today, large and small, are faced with compelling global and local circumstances, breaking acute crises, and lingering long-term chronic problems that demand leaders and followers to cope as best they can. However, there’s a growing suspicion in most everyone’s minds—from the higher classes to the lower classes, across races, religions, and various differences—where there is a deep feeling that something big needs to change. From real threats and tragic events like violence, crime, wars, global warming, mass extinctions to more specific problems of population densities to health concerns and economic near-collapse, people know that living in fear is not a quality way to live. India is a unique and great nation, with its tragic realities in the past and present, haunting its future. B. Maria Kumar, born and raised and having worked all his career in the streets, knows India well and knows what needs to change. He writes from great intellectual acumen, an understanding of history and mythology, and with vision for a better India. He has invited two colleagues to respond to his analysis of problems and solutions, each of them (Subba, a Nepali philosopher and poet living in Hong Kong, and Fisher, a Canadian philosopher and educator) to respond to his views. This book brings a trifold synthesis of how the nature and role of fear is critical to the shaping and destiny of India. Not enough development theories or thinking have invoked “fear” as a major construct to analyze, as a new way to interpret culture, religion, policies, plans and governance overall across the world. India seems the perfect location to start a new critical and creative consciousness that sets goals that the three authors believe are essential for India to make progress into the twenty-first century. Growing insecurity, uncertainty, mistrust, and corruption that accompany them is no way to build a nation resilient for the major challenges coming. In the face of a daunting task, the authors step-up boldly into the dimension of vision and realities facing a nation. They don’t shy away from saying what needs to be named, for only then will such honesty clear a path of fearlessness forward. This book will serve as a guide for many in India and its allies to rethink the ways they have understood the problems in India’s development.”</p></div>Call for a Study of "Eco-Fear": Long-term Projecthttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/call-for-a-study-of-eco-fear-long-term-project2019-05-18T22:39:22.000Z2019-05-18T22:39:22.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><strong>HOW AFRAID SHOULD WE BE?</strong><a id="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a><strong>:</strong> <strong>Case of Climate Change Today</strong>               - rmf May 18/2019</p>
<p> <em>The fear of eco-turbulence is the greatest one.</em></p>
<p><span style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit;"><em style="font-weight: inherit;">This eco-fear must be made positive fear to prevent the possible disaster. </em></span><strong>                                                                                                                                                           </strong>- Bhawani Shankar Adhikari<strong><a id="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a></strong></p>
<p>         <span style="font-size: 12pt;">    Preamble</span></p>
<p> I too, like Adhikari and other fearists (of recent expressions), am seeing something powerful amidst the current <em>zeitgeist</em> on the planet in general, of something which could be called “<em>eco-fear</em>.” This is the fear related to eco-issues (i.e., environmental and global issues of great ecological consequence to quality of life (and Life itself) in the early part of the 21<sup>st</sup> century).</p>
<p>I have written about this topic off and on, not the least of which was my series of technical papers on what Simon Estok calls “ecophobia” and its importance in literary criticism and beyond.<a id="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> Many issues are thus being raised about the relationship between <em>eco</em> and <em>fear</em> that require more analysis and perhaps ‘better’ guidance than so far offered by anyone thinking about this. I’ll attempt to move forward this discussion and offer some direct guidance as consulting to eco-fear—and, I think I can do that best through a case study, albeit, it is more imagined for me personally at the moment than real. That is, climate change education (CCE) of which some in the literature refer to it as merely “climate education” but it is assumed they are speaking about “change” and big changes in climate—that is, global warming and the human-causation of that phenomena and the issues around how humans can mitigate the impacts of global warming crises upon us now and that are to become increasingly severe by most scientific predictions in the next decade or less—to the point, where mass extinctions of species and perhaps, more or less, our own species is immanent as is the product of great risk of toxification that will destroy life-sustainability on planet Earth.</p>
<p>I will not here, go into an analysis of the toxification problem, that is global warming as part of the CCE curriculum per se—if anything, I will focus on the issue of “fear toxification” as one particular angle in the discussion, whereby over the last several years I have made the direct analogy between CO<sub>2</sub> rising levels of threat to Fear rising levels of threat<a id="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a>—both, with their interdependent relationship and mutual causality (arguably). I’ll not pursue this relationship in this paper further than this mention. There are other concerns I am focusing on here and they can simply be wrapped-up in and around the question I ask myself in this context of toxification, <em>How afraid should we be?—</em>while, I realize that is not the only or even the ‘best’ question—it is one I think is rich with heuristic value to pursue.</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">My First Thoughts and Question(s)</span></p>
<p>If I (or any fearist) puts themselves into the situation of answering this question, several things arrive to be clarified, if not answered with a powerfully thought through rationale and direction:</p>
<p><strong>(a).</strong> in concrete, if I am teaching and/or advising the teaching of say “climate education” today (as it is sometimes called” and, I am also answering to the critique “Climate Education is Screwed Up” as a recent video announces [5] – I am also having to answer philosophically and pedagogically <em>how afraid should the students of such a</em> climate education (CE) be at the first, in the middle and at the end of the class or course, or lecture? How does “fear” (i.e., fearfullness) enter into CE and specifically my way of ‘best’ teaching CE and/or advising others to teach CE?</p>
<p><strong>(b)</strong> what theoretical and philosophical grounds (e.g., philosophy of fearism, and/or a General Fear Theory) can I draw upon to help analyze this questioning and calling as a fearist—and, how might I compare that guidance I seek be compared to some other guidance from other theoretical and philosophical grounds?—and, thus in that comparative analysis how I could make my ‘best’ recommendations to others in CE and/or follow the findings to my own curriculum and pedagogical design in the classroom?</p>
<p><strong>(c)</strong> if I was to analyze the already prevailing general critique (since the mid-1990s) that is substantive amongst diverse critics of a growing “culture of fear” phenomena –a critique that at times takes the provocative label by some writers as <em>“Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?” </em>[6]—there seems to be an important point of analysis required (fearanalysis) as to “why” and “how” this latter phenomenon is functioning already and this was showing itself (as a symptom) in a historical time when “climate” and the crisis around “global warming” were there but only minor in the <em>zeitgeist</em> of planetary consciousness—at least, it was much less than it is today and in the last decade of the 21<sup>st</sup> century’s unfolding... then, to analyze this I have to bring forward problematic issues that are in that particular historical discourse, and then bring them into light of my own search in (a.) above and ultimately to answering (b.) above.</p>
<p>No one has pursued, to my knowledge, this kind of in depth research project that (a.), (b.) and (c). involve—and, the time has come for this work to be done, and the sooner the better. It will take a dedicated number of individuals and a team (perhaps) to do a good job of this and prepare the material for publication. I’m inviting interested researchers and thinkers to consider my proposition. I myself have already begun this venture, however, I am only in the very early stages of organizing and designing how to proceed. It would also be great to acquire “gifting” and “funding” supports for such an initiative.</p>
<p> ****</p>
<p>NOTES</p>
<p><a id="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> See my recent 2019 teaching video : “The Great Collapse: How Afraid Should We Be?”</p>
<p><a id="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Excerpt from April 25, 2019 FM blog (which Desh Subba and other fearists endorsed enthusiastically).</p>
<p><a id="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> See Fisher (2018) tech papers No. 66-70.</p>
<h3><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong><a id="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> For e.g., <a href="https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/photos/co2-fear-chart">CO2 FEAR chart</a> Posted by <a href="https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher">R.Michael Fisher</a> on September 11, 2015.</strong></span></h3>
<p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>[5].  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXuzdoKs9pI" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXuzdoKs9pI</a></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">[6] For e.g., Cohl, H. A. (1997). <em>Are we scaring ourselves to death: How pessimism, paranoia, and a misguided  media are leading us toward disaster. </em>NY: St. Martin's Griffin. </span></p>
<p> </p>
</div>"Fearism" Coined in 1990: New Discoveryhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/fearism-coined-in-1990-new-discovery2019-04-16T12:02:08.000Z2019-04-16T12:02:08.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}2029807957,original{{/staticFileLink}}" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}2029807957,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="710" /></a></p>
<p>Figure 1  "Fearism" First Coined (in excerpt from an Unpublished book ms by R. Michael Fisher, Sept. 10, 1990)</p>
<p><strong>      HISTORY OF THE COINING OF "FEARISM" </strong></p>
<p>The newest discovery of the first use of the term "fearism" came the other day while I was searching an old book ms. never completed or published. The date, Sept. 10, 1990, it was entitled <em>Journey Into Fearlessness: Towards a Meta-Service Healing Model" </em>and was part of my first year of writing and publishing on fear and fearlessness post-In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989 - ). The excerpt (Figure 1) makes an interesting claim and choice of words: "Egoism is fearism" (p. 4). I have included here the entire Preface <a href="{{#staticFileLink}}2029986614,original{{/staticFileLink}}" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fisher Meta-Service Healing Model 1990.pdf</a> from which this excerpt comes from, showing my deep connection at the time to understanding the nature and role of fear in the field of human services, of which I and my partner at the time (and co-founder of ISOF Project) were working in the field and researching as young scholars wanting to improve things. This was my third career, after my first in ecological and environmental biology, and second in education. </p>
<p>Although, in re-reading this Preface (above) it is clear that I was imagining this expansive conceptualization (and theory) of "fear" as "fearism" just like of "ego" as "egoism," there was no further use of the term in my ms. at that time. However, often the text and thinking in this ms. indicates I was using "toxic fear" (amongst other such expressions) and referring to fearism, more or less. Note: Desh Subba's coining of the term "fearism" in 1999 in his literary work and later philosophical work is not quite the same as my early uses. When I connected with Subba in late 2014, just after his book <em>Philosophy of Fearism</em> was published and transl. into English, we then corresponded and I joined my views with his views somewhat to enable the East-West emergence of a "philosophy of fearism" as one philosophy with many branches (see our book in 2016 <em>Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue</em>). Subba and I agreed to use <em>fearism-t</em> (toxic form), to distinguish from his generic coining of the term in 1999, to refer to the earlier pre-Subbaian coining of fearism and what has followed as use by many authors in scholarly work since [1]. </p>
<p>The <strong>history of the coining of "fearism"</strong> now needs to be <span style="text-decoration: underline;">revised</span> with this new 1990 discovery. The history as tracked out in Fisher & Subba (2016), pp. 12, 106, 120-23, 128, needs revision and has some errors. Here is the best information I have now to give the history of its coining in brief summary: </p>
<p><strong>1990</strong> - (Sept. 10), Fisher (Canada) uses the term in one sentence, linking it with "egoism" and a "toxic fear" formation with ideological overtones in meaning but nothing more is written specifically by him using the term "fearism" again until 1997</p>
<p><strong>1992</strong> - an American political writer (T. Hiss) used it once in <em>The New Yorker</em> magazine article and it was later cited by a scholar (J. K. White in a book 1997, p. 74) (see Fisher & Subba, 2016, p. 12, 153)</p>
<p><strong>1997- </strong>Fisher (Canada) used it once referring to it as a "social dis-ease" in his unpublished <em>Spectrum of 'Fear' </em>book ms. </p>
<p><strong>1999-</strong> Subba (Nepal) uses the term in a literary ms. and then develops it into a full-blown philosophy</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Note</p>
<p>1. For an inventory of uses of "fearism" by scholars, the latest update is Fisher, R. M. (2017). "Fearism": A critical analysis of uses and discourses in Global Migration Studies. Technical Paper No. 64. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. </p>
<p> </p>
</div>WET-THINKERS 31: No Longer Fearing the Futurehttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/wet-thinkers-31-no-longer-fearing-the-future2019-02-12T15:39:45.000Z2019-02-12T15:39:45.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">You've heard of wet-nurses... well, then imagine wet-thinkers... and, </span></p>
<p>In this blog I wish to introduce to the world a new kind of thinker and thinking--I'm calling "Wet-Thinkers 31" --a group yet to evolve but there in the waiting, because our world today is in such crises (and lots more to come)--that a new "fearless thinking" and thinkers of great critical capacity and creativity are required. </p>
<p>Where did this strange name come from? Wet-thinkers offer <strong>wet-thinking</strong>! That came from the hypnopompic state of trance-based learning that took place last night in bed. I first had a dream that I was watching a photocopy machine or printer producing sheets of paper coming out that had in big black type "BABY BOOMER" and I thought that was interesting messaging (as I am a 'baby boomer' born in 1952; and, it so happens that Marianne Williamson is also a baby-boomer; see my prior post)-- then out came the next sheets and they read "BABY THINKING" and that really caught my imagination. I awoke and in a trance state (the hypnopomic) 'in between' consciousness not asleep and not awake to the normal light of day--I layed in this state for a long time and thoughts started to associate and elaborate and soon I came to the analogy of what the world needs now (and, what I have to lead) is a new kind of "Baby Thinking" but what came to me for various reasons was an even better, more appropriate term for the times we are in and are going into as humans on this planet--and, what emerged was <strong>wet-thinking</strong> as a play from wet-nursing. It was perfect! </p>
<p><em>Wet-nursing</em> is the (very female) orientation to the future that I believe the world quickly has to shift to or things are not going to turn out well at all. Wet-nursing is an orientation of <em>unconditional gifting</em> of one female (mother) to another female (mother) because the one is willing to nurse their child (temporarily or until weaned). This is breast milk gifted because... because the child requires a good future. Breast milk, either from the original mother, or from the wet-nurse, is the future!. It is white, thick, rich and full of all the ingredients and immunological properties for true prosperity for new life to flourish. Wet-thinking is likewise, a gifting of nourishing that is the future--the future right now! An idea of wet-thinking is an idea of a good future-life now which makes the future--as sustainble because of the TRUSTING gift of fearlessness that a mother and/or wet-nurse passes on automatically, for they are mothers. The concrete aspects of this gifting and wet-nursing are also metaphorical of a new female (mothering) way of relating to all --and, through wet-thinkers there is future-thinkers being raised and nourished and flourishing with ideas that make the next 1000 years a reality of goodness for all children who are exposed to this wet-thinking. So far, mostly, men-thinking is not wet-thinking but dry-thinking. I'll let you play with that metaphor and the unbalanced direction and unsustainability that latter type of thinking has taken us to... a 'cliff' at the end of the dead end... not much of a future--and, a threatening future to worry about and that's what is on the mind of just about everyone these days everywhere in the world. Be it nuclear war threat, climate change and global warming etc. The Anthropocene era is now fast becoming the Worry-scene era. A world of dry-thinking has left us bereft of the gifting of the wet-nurse (thinking)--the feminine, female, mothering love--which, I reframe as a wet-thinking that is a fearless leadership towards and into and with the making of the future now. </p>
<p>WET-THINKING 31 ... what is that? It is a project, a group consciousness, that thinks now for the next 1000 years, that's where 31 comes from in this name, it is the addressing of the now for the 31st century--that is the kind of qualitative shift, to get us beyond the 21st century thinking (mostly dry-thinking of the future)--and, it is a kind of gifting being that is called for that senses the future in the same way that the wet-nurse does not think of death when they give milk to another's child--they do not think that I'm giving this milk but it really won't help and the future is going to be deadly sooner than later. Yes, of course we all will die. But that is only when you think in dry-thinking of the isolated individual body of a child--they are also a soul and part of the World Soul--of the total collective and the eternal. That's a healthy whole systems kind of thinking and the wet-thinking is when we gift our thinking today as adults (or anyone) to the next generations for 1000 years (symbolically, much like the Indigenous tribes that I have heard posit the ethical basis of thinking and acting now with the thought of what impact it will have on 7 generations)... I also like the number 31, for so many reasons, not the least of which on Oct. 17, 1931, an esoteric group (of wet-thinkers?) emerged in New York City and started The League for Fearlessness, if you believe it or not (yes, I have the brochure they wrote then). This group seems to have disbanned but their vision, at least for me, has not disappear, and I have not abandoned the "Fearless Society" and "Fearless Age" (as Desh Subba called it)... an age of the future, in say 1000 years is our aim for acting and thinking today. </p>
<p>Do you get the idea? Do you get the vision? I realize I am barely describing the dream-like vision and qualities and some sense of what this aim is... but if you take time to contemplate the beauty so natural of wet-nursing as an evolutionary phenomenon found in many mammal species (perhaps?) but at least it is know for humans from the earliest records of history--women did this kind of thing--as a gift--the milk of life passed on and the future made for a child in this goodness in the now--as offering that flourishing. </p>
<p>THE PROBLEM--is a FUTURE OF FEAR--that ihas tainted 'the milk' of the societies of the 21st century (and long before that)... where, when I listen to political leaders, and I listen to the population (e.g., in the Alberta future discussion last night on CBC TV)--it was so apparent that the premier Rachel Notley, the panel experts on the economy and and the audience--they are all coming from so much fear of the future --that is, the economic state of Alberta which is spiraling precariously and not bringing forward the 'growth' and 'jobs' for a stable future. People are suffering. Yes, indeed. But the world is suffering too. The dry-thinking, based on fear of the future tomorrow... short-term, really was so evident and WORRY (deficit, shortage, greed)--seemed so much a part of self-preservation thinking that poured out of the auditorium and all the world could watch this tv show--this stage of Fear's domination. It is understandable fear--sure. But it is so typical of today, where the future is now seen as so threatening on so many levels, including the problems in Alberta around oil and gas, energy, and sustainability and diversification needed in the economy. But what I saw in that room was a dark swirl of lack of vision for the 31st century. A wet-nurse was needed--but on the thinking level--on the creative imaginary level--and, there was none to be found in that room of folks grappling with are they going to make it in the next month, year, maybe 10 years... the future vision of goodness of the wet-nurse gifting was not there. If I was a young child or even a teenager sitting in that room listening to all the adults and the leaders of those adults--what would I pick-up? I'd pick up everyone is trapped in worry (some trying to be hopeful)--and, I saw not the spirit of Fearlessness--not the 31st vision and aim of a peoples who are there looking to create a world that is 1000 years from now. I saw people trying to keep the status quo--which, has already well been proven to be dysfunctional and inflated and out-of-touch with reality--and certainly out-of-touch with the laws of Nature and wet-nursing gift economies which bring flourishing to the environment (future) that we are gifted now. I saw no sacredness. And the so-called "Indigenous" young man on the panel seemed not to be able to say anything important beyond the dry-thinking of all the rest. </p>
<p>It's nothing to blame anyone about. This is my critique. I'm glad they were in that room doing what they were doing. But they now need to re-think what they were thinking and saying, and ask themselves: If a child or teen were in that room, what inspiration, what fearlessness would they see? What are we really offering to young people, to the future, when we are so worried about the future it captures us into fear-based thinking and energies that are barely anything I would want to share and 'dump' on the next generation--on the baby. This is not 'good milk' that was passed on. I say that from the point of view of being a Wet-Thinker 31. I invite you to also become one. </p>
<p>[Note: Wet-thinking is my latest feminine, matrixial, way of conceptualizing thinking and teaching thinking in our educational systems and in general socialization. I am a professional educator, and a couple of years ago I published an article that introduced 500+ ways of thinking about thinking--essential to a truly holistic-integral approach to the future. Young people deserve this kind of expanded thinking--beyond worry and fear and mistrust of the future. See: </p>
<p>Fisher, R. M. (2017). Two hands, two decks, and a theory: Expanding thinking vocabularies of learners in the 21<sup>st</sup></p>
<p>            century. <em>Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 15</em>(1), 6-16.</p>
<p>note, as well, my dissertation was on "fearless leadership" in education and beyond... and, that was in 2003, when after the 9/11 tragedy and the worse post-9/11 aftershocks and changes in governments and people's future imaginary--there was a need to call out for "fearless leadership" ... and, so, you can see I have been on this for awhile... see:</p>
<p>Fisher, R. M. (2003). Fearless leadership in and out of the 'Fear' Matrix. Unpublished dissertation. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia.</p>
</div>Psychological Problem in America: New Politics of Love (and Fear)https://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/psychological-problem-in-america-new-politics-of-love-and-fear2019-02-03T14:58:43.000Z2019-02-03T14:58:43.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}952159515,RESIZE_930x{{/staticFileLink}}" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}952159515,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="710" /></a></p>
<p>"Emotional civil war" ... a very interesting (?) campaign quote... and, what does she really mean by this? And what is a fearologist's perspective of her rhetoric, intention, and potential for presidential victory and/or at least influence in American culture and politics. See my new youtube video on <a href="https://youtu.be/EjyENboIzxc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">"Ethical Leadership: Marianne Williamson"</a></p>
<p>In the INTRODUCTION of Fisher & Subba (2016), p. xxxi [1], you will read a philosophy of fearism (and fearlessness) perspective on Marianne Williamson, and you will see that I have (in particular) been following her philosophy and social media following for a long time. She is a close friend with the media star Oprah Winfrey, and many others (see picture below on this webpage of FM ning). In that Introduction, Subba and I ask : "WHY FOCUS ON FEAR, NOT LOVE?" and then we begin the chapter with a quote from Williamson:</p>
<p>"Crossing the bridge to a better world begins with crossing a bridge inside myself, from the addictive mental patterns of fear and separation, to enlightened perceptions of unity and love. I have been trained by the world to think fearfully, and today I choose to think with love." (from <em>A Year of Miracles</em>), and, many of you may or may not know that she is a 'big' promoter and teacher, supported by A Course in Miracles movement. In this spiritual movement "love" is placed as the answer to "fear" and all of our problems. The dialogue between Subba and I now moves on in the Introduction to show how unreliable, if not distorted, from a fearist perspective, this emphasis on love is the answer approach to personal and world transformation. We risked to critique, in a mild way in this chapter, a person (and ideology), who is now running for the 2020 American political presidency under the Democratic party. She is a populist leader, with no experience in politics per se, althought a few years ago she ran for a local congress position in California but never made it very far. Now she is going for the 'big' position. It will be interesting to watch, but more importantly it will be interesting to see how her work (as part of the Fearlessness Movement) will emerge on the 'big' stage of American politics in a time of crisis.</p>
<p>I for one, will keep analyzing her work and offering her and her supporters ideas of how to better bring about a challenge and intervention to disrupt that problem of being (in her words) "trained by the world to think fearfully"... and, challenging her movement to look at fearism and fearlessness to better inform their own philosophy and politics.</p>
<p>Notes</p>
<p>1. Fisher, R. M., & Subba, D. (2016). <em>Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue</em>. Australia: Xlibris. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>ADDITIONAL NOTE - M. W. is also an endorser of one of my favorite philosophers Ken Wilber, for e.g.</p>
<p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}1096972783,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}1096972783,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="295" />And, in 2007... they met:  (Marianne & Ken)</a></p>
<p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}1097105708,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}1097105708,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="557" /></a></p>
<p>---------</p>
<p>OH, interesting The Washington Post (a rather conservative major newspaper in USA)... wants to spin the story of MW's campaign in the ruts of the traditional right winger folks like Dobson's "tough love" pitch for parents, which a lot of people bought hook line and sinker back 30 years ago... and, also if you see the headlines (below) on The Washington Post interview (and the photo shoot which really is a 'joke' and 'play' on MW, not taking her really seriously)--and, then you get the headlines... which one thinks she is again being played with by this media journalist and well... you can make up your own mind... I'm so skeptical of who is behind these newspapers--owned by a handful of the very elite she criticizes :</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="{{#staticFileLink}}1158854369,RESIZE_1200x{{/staticFileLink}}" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img class="align-full" src="{{#staticFileLink}}1158854369,RESIZE_710x{{/staticFileLink}}" width="710" /></a>Feb. 19/19 by Anna Peele:</p>
<p>[Peele talks about miracles] [a small excerpt from her text for this article, which I nearly gag on]:</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 174px 1.33em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.25rem; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 1.6em; color: #2a2a2a; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">Today, it’s the eve of the 66-year-old’s declaration that she will be seeking the highest office in our country, during what is arguably one of its most terrifying times. Since Williamson is sitting at the head of the table, close enough to touch my arm, it feels like an appropriate moment to ask her to act as my own spiritual adviser. Not because I believe in miracles. Because I<em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 20px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"> want</em> to believe.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 174px 1.33em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.25rem; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 1.6em; color: #2a2a2a; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">“I’m afraid,” I tell Williamson. Afraid about how bleak things feel under our current president; afraid of how angry people are. “I’m afraid of what will happen to the country,” I say. “And that there’s no going back.”</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 174px 1.33em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.25rem; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 1.6em; color: #2a2a2a; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[sure, I'm glad they are talking about "fear"... but Peele's approach is too much of a grand skit and makes me angry... I trust/hope MW doesn't fall for this stuff from the mainstream media... okay, one other quote, an accurate view from MW's mouth, that is, A Course in Miracles, she says to Anna at one point:]</span></p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 174px 1.33em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.25rem; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 1.6em; color: #2a2a2a; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">“Where there is light, there cannot be darkness,” Williamson says. “And where there’s love, there cannot be fear.”</span></p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 174px 1.33em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.25rem; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 1.6em; color: #2a2a2a; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">“We’re hallucinating. And that’s what this world is: a mass hallucination, where fear seems more real than love. Fear is an illusion. Our craziness, paranoia, anxiety and trauma are literally all imagined”?<em> </em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[says Williamson... her absolutist philosophy, belief, faith, religion, spirituality, ideology?]... </span></span></p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 174px 1.33em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.25rem; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 1.6em; color: #2a2a2a; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[If "fear is an illusion" a common claim of many esoteric religious teachings, E. and W., then what does that say about a philosophy of fearism and its claims... hmmmm... ?]</span></span></p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 174px 1.33em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.25rem; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 1.6em; color: #2a2a2a; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"> </p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 174px 1.33em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.25rem; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 1.6em; color: #2a2a2a; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">------- </p>
<p> </p>
</div>New Video on Fear Talk from Nigeriahttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/new-video-on-fear-talk-from-nigeria2019-01-26T16:54:38.000Z2019-01-26T16:54:38.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p>I congratulate Osinakachi Akuma Kalu for his work in spreading fearology and fearism in Nigeria and beyond. His latest (first) video is now available where he talks about his own story of thinking and writing about fear and its influences. <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/17G-NEd0tOb8m6KgUO4c8FJdKaqKMhIla/view?usp=drivesdk" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://drive.google.com/file/d/17G-NEd0tOb8m6KgUO4c8FJdKaqKMhIla/view?usp%3Ddrivesdk&source=gmail&ust=1548606205497000&usg=AFQjCNGPtFRzM1v3Qf0kVj9e2yfP9QPS8A">https://drive.google.com/file/<wbr />d/17G-<wbr />NEd0tOb8m6KgUO4c8FJdKaqKMhIla/<wbr />view?usp=drivesdk</a></p>
</div>India's Development: Role of Fearhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/india-s-development-role-of-fear2019-01-08T13:39:11.000Z2019-01-08T13:39:11.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/694694819?profile=RESIZE_710x" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img class="align-full" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/694694819?profile=RESIZE_710x" width="539" /></a></p>
<p>Recently B. Maria Kumar, a retired police chief of India, has approached Desh Subba and myself to respond to his first draft of a book on India and its developmental problems [1]. Kumar, is author of another book with Desh and myself on fearism and law [2], and there's a sense of us being a team of concerned people in different parts of the world, trying to solve some world development problems. We think "fear" is a major (not the only) issue that has to be addressed in development, be it for an individual, a community or an entire nation (in this case India is the topic).</p>
<p>At one point in the new ms. Kumar is head-author, he wrote of the ongoing insidious 'gap' between the weak and the strong in his nation India, which began in ancient times and seems to be ineradicable so far (e.g., the caste system as part of that). He noted that this 'gap' can be examined from the point of view that is interesting to me:</p>
<p>"The survival concerns of the lower castes made them to feel fearful for life whereas the power mongering anxieties [fear] of the upper castes emboldened them to be fearsome." (Kumar)</p>
<p>This is a topic Desh and I will write about in this new book initiative as we three authors would like to produce a small and practical book that would help India (and perhaps other countries) to get onto a more healthy recovery and sustainable and just developmental trajectory.</p>
<p>I found one recent article [3] which discusses the views of various experts inside and outside of India, on the status of India, and questioning whether it is still a "developming nation" relatively on the planet and why has it in many areas "failed" to grow and mature on many dimensions from economic to social improvements (a point also made by Kumar). Here is one excerpt from this recent article:</p>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; color: #121212; font-family: 'Guardian Text Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">As the world's largest democracy prepares to go to the polls, we've invited five people from India, the US and the UK who have expertise on economics, women's rights, youth movements, disability rights and urban development to answer the question: "Do you perceive <a class="u-underline" style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color: #ab0613; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none !important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid #dcdcdc; transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s;" href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/india" data-link-name="auto-linked-tag" data-component="auto-linked-tag">India</a> to be a developing country?"</p>
<h2 style="margin: 1.6875rem 0px 0.0625rem; font-size: 1.25rem; line-height: 1.5rem; font-family: 'Guardian Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-weight: 900; color: #121212; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><a class="u-underline" style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color: #ab0613; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none !important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid #dcdcdc; transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s;" title="" href="https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jayatighosh" data-link-name="in body link">Jayati Ghosh</a>, professor of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi</h2>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; color: #121212; font-family: 'Guardian Text Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">"The development project in India is nowhere near complete – indeed it has barely begun. It is still a poor country: per capita income iremains below $2,000 (£1,206) at actual exchange rates, and there is still widespread destitution. Development is supposed to involve job creation, with more workers in formal employment in large units, but that has not happened.<br />
Manufacturing still counts for less than one-fifth of both output and employment. More than half of all workers languish in low productivity agriculture, while another quarter or so are in low grade services. About 95% of all workers are in informal employment, and roughly half are self-employed. What's more, the recognised and paid participation of women in working life has actually been declining in a period of rapid income growth.</p>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; color: #121212; font-family: 'Guardian Text Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">This basic failure helps to explain several other failures of the development project so far: the persistence of widespread hunger and very poor nutrition indicators; the inadequate provision of basic needs like housing, electricity and other essential infrastructure; the poor state of health facilities for most people; and the slow expansion of education. Growing inequalities do mean that a rising middle class is emerging, but this should not blind us to the lack of fulfilment of basic social and economic rights for the bulk of people."</p>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; color: #121212; font-family: 'Guardian Text Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">[my point: We ought to be asking about the development of a nation as to whether it has achieved a philosophy, policy, and practice of fearlessness to the degree necessary to get it out of the 'impoverished' (and destructive) fear-based mentality]</p>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; color: #121212; font-family: 'Guardian Text Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">Notes:</p>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; color: #121212; font-family: 'Guardian Text Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">[1] The current book by B. Maria Kumar, R. Michael Fisher, & Desh Subba has the tentative title: <em>India, a nation of fear and prejudice: Race of the third kind.</em></p>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; color: #121212; font-family: 'Guardian Text Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">[2]. Fisher, R. M., Subba, D., & Kumar, B. M. (2018). <em>Fear, law and criminology: Critical issues in applying a philosophy of fearism.</em> Australia: Xlibris.</p>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; color: #121212; font-family: 'Guardian Text Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">[3]. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/apr/07/is-india-still-a-developing-country">https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/apr/07/is-india-still-a-developing-country</a></p>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; color: #121212; font-family: 'Guardian Text Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; color: #121212; font-family: 'Guardian Text Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>"Root of Fear in Reason Itself": Precursor to Fearismhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/root-of-fear-in-reason-itself-precursor-to-fearism2018-11-08T22:34:36.000Z2018-11-08T22:34:36.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/133755696?profile=RESIZE_180x180" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img class="align-full" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/133755696?profile=RESIZE_180x180" width="224" height="343" />Book by Francisco Jose Moreno (1971/77)</a></p>
<p>I appreciate being notified of this book by Dr. Randy Auxier, philosopher at SIUC, as he informed me that he was reading Moreno and found the first two chapters to be all about fear at the base of the human condition and of reason itself. Moreno (1971/77), a political philosopher (Mexican-American?) wrote, "Fear is one of the fundamental motivating forces behind our actions. The history of [hu]mankind is to a very large extent the history of our attempts to deny, repress, or escape from fear" (p. 1). "The fear resulting from our ability to reason [i.e., awaken to uncertainty and our own vulnerability] affects us so profoundly that it permeates our whole existence. This fear, which we struggle to suppress...never [completely] abandons us..." (p. 6). </p>
<p>FEARISM: Roots (Precursors) of a Philosophy of Fear</p>
<p>Although Desh Subba points to several sources of theories and philosophies in his 2014 book [1] that somewhat point to the central importance of fear, Subba is not able to find any distinct "roots" that satisfy him that the "philosophy of fearism" (he coined) has a forerunner. This makes philosophy of fearism a unique creation for sure and that is worth celebrating. However, it also makes me question as to whether there are not indeed "roots" (forerunners) that already existed before 1999 and Subba's subsequent development of fearism. I am currently writing on this topic. It seems there are some authors, and Moreno (1971/77) is one of them, that may indeed be precursors to a philosophy of fearism. Because I just got this book in the mail today, and haven't read it, but only read reviews of it, I'll keep you all informed of my findings--but the two quotes above by Moreno are indeed compelling evidence that Moreno was "onto" a form of philosophy of fearism nearly a quarter century before Subba's fearism notion arose. </p>
<p>All fearists, of any scholarly pursuit, will want to look at this little book (129pp) from the 1970s, from an original thinker--not because he identifies fear as at the source of distorted thinking "but in locating the root of fear in reason itself" --that is what makes his philosophy of uncertainty (i.e., of fear) a unique and important and courageous contribution (quotes from Michael A. Weinstein, in the "Introduction"). Such a claim by Moreno is going to really challenge all the "rationalists" and believers in "reason" as the best way to manage fear. Moreno seems to be turning that common and dominating thesis upon its head.</p>
<p>As I read these brief comments and quotes, at this point, I am strongly sensing Moreno is a precursor philosopher (from the political field) who sees through, and sees beyond fear of fear itself--and moves forward to articulate a philosophy of the human condition where <em>fear is central</em> and it is this fear that is the glue that links Reason and Faith--it is fear that is in between Reason and Faith (the psychic and cultural (and intellectual) defenses of individuals and collectives that try to repress fear and its impacts; that try to deny fear is central but prefer to put reason and faith first and central).  </p>
<p> End Note</p>
<p>1. Subba, D. (2014). <em>Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear.</em> Australia: Xlibris; see also Fisher, R. M. & Subba, D. (2016). <em>Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue</em>. Australia: Xlibris. </p>
<p> </p>
</div>Fearism: A Philosophy of Basic Fear at the Corehttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/fearism-a-philosophy-of-basic-fear-at-the-core2018-10-31T01:19:53.000Z2018-10-31T01:19:53.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/131197081?profile=RESIZE_930x" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img class="align-full" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/131197081?profile=RESIZE_710x" width="710" /></a></p>
<p>I recently found this image (as Halloween, or 'Day of the Dead' or Hallomas or Samhain) on the internet. The title was provocative and speaks to the concept of which this blog is all about: that is, the proposition (if not theory) that the <strong>basic core of the human condition is fear</strong> (or fear-based) (?)</p>
<p>The philosophy of fearlessness (Fisher) and philosophy of fearism (Subba) [1] is arguably a combination of supportive philosophies for the above claim. Others, like Eneyo who in part takes some aspects of the Fisher-Subba philosophies in his own "philosophy of fear" prefers to make the core of the human one of love, yet he agrees fear is also core but secondary [2]. The Fisher-Subba position is not opposed to Eneyo's claim but is more a nuanced branch of a philosophy of fear that situates understanding the human by focusing on fear over and above focusing on love [3].</p>
<p>My point of writing this very short blog is to say that there is still not an adequate (referenced) scholarly synthesis of important writing (philosophy and theory) on the proposition in the internet poster and/or in the authors' work mentioned above. There are fragments of support references for their claims but not yet the document that is needed to give scholarly credibility (at least, not as far as I am concerned).</p>
<p>I am of late beginning to see some critical thinkers in the early 1970s that I will be documenting their positions and arguments, theories, and works...coming from backgrounds in philosophy/anthropology/political science/theology... it is still too early for me to make my case for their support of the Fisher-Subba position re: fear is the core of the human condition and history itself is the unfolding of that human-fear relationship--as one of, if not the most powerful relationships on this planet (i.e., fearuality, fearological reality).</p>
<p>I'll keep you updated as this paper (booklet) I'm writing evolves.</p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<p>1. Fisher, R. M. (2010). <em>The world's fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century.</em> Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Subba, D. (2014). <em>Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear.</em> Australia: Xlibris. Another young budding philosopher of this synthesis with his own nuances is Osinakachi Akuma Kalu (with his two books on fear in the last two years; e.g., <em>The First Stage of the</em> Fearologist. Amazon CreateSpace).</p>
<p>2. Eneyo, M. (2018). <em>The philosophy of fear: A move to overcoming negative fear.</em> Australia: Xlibris.</p>
<p>3. For a brief intro. discussion of Fisher and Subba on fear and love, see <em>Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue.</em> Australia: Xlibris (2016), p. xxxi. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>Getting to Fear as Universal Problem: And It's Solutionhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/blog/getting-to-fear-as-universal-problem-and-it-s-solution2018-09-26T16:53:21.000Z2018-09-26T16:53:21.000ZR.Michael Fisherhttps://FearlessnessMovement.ning.com/members/RMichaelFisher<div><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/127036609?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img class="align-full" src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/127036609?profile=original" width="311" /></a></p>
<p>Dr. Sheldon Solomon, social experimental psychologist (re: Terror Management Theory = TMT)... is one of several very important researchers on "mortal terror" (i.e., fear of death) as the universal ("proven") core of all malignant human behaviors individually and collectively--at least, that's what has been suggested by TMT research and the existential philosophy behind it for the last 40 years or so (thanks to writing of the late Ernest Becker). I have followed this work off and on and found it very insightful and yet to be truly tapped in 'Fear' Studies ... </p>
<p>I recommend going to this video talk on the dim future of humanity ahead (unless we solve the Fear Problem): <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuJhD5TkX-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuJhD5TkX-0</a></p>
<p>Note: I agree with much (not all) of TMT... much of the basis of TMT is supported, I'd argue in the philosophy of fearlessness (Fisher) and philosophy of fearism (Subba) and philosophy of fear (Eneyo) and others... I agree with TMT in its depiction and theory (supported by a good deal of cross-cultural evidence) that "culture" is a fear management strategy overall. In my Fear Management Systems Theory (Fisher, 2010), I give this more differentiation based on v-memes (worldviews) theories in Spiral Dynamics integral (theory).  </p>
</div>