Once again, in "Comments" on the previous blog post by Michael Eneyo, a philosopher of fear from Nigeria, FM ning readers can read his interpretation of my "Comment" on his blogposting--in particular that he posted of Ben's analysis of Eneyo's new book.
I say once again, because Eneyo comments (critiques) my commentary respectfully, which I appreciate, yet misses central aspects of my work on a fearlessness theory (since 1989). His interpretation continues, I say, once again, to mis-interpret basics of my position. He does get some parts of my work, but major aspects he mis-interprets quite in the wrong direction and thus there is nothing to debate him on because of his insistence on his critique.
I say once again, because our contentions have been rooted in various exchanges going back near 3 yrs or so. And a culmination of exchanges was summarized in our exchange, via Eneyo (2020) and my Response to his Rejoinder (Fisher, 2020) ; and, so I am not going to spend more time on the same issues Eneyo keeps reproducing about my work that skew it because of his reading of core aspects of my theory. I recommend readers interested follow-up on your own reading of our exchanges in the above journal articles. And may readers feel free to post their thoughts on the FM ning.
Once again, in the Comment of Eneyo in this latest FM ning exchange, he repeats that I am avoiding, ignoring, or trying to go around negative fear and only want to keep positive fear, unlike his binarist position he claims that we need both to have good philosophy, theory, practice. Nothing could be further from the truth of my position which in the late 1980s began with my reading of Rinpoche Chogyam Trungpa (Tibetan Buddhist teacher) and a reading I most respected called Chapter 4 "Fear and Fearlessness" from the ancient wisdom teachings of Tibetan Buddhism--and, so I'll quote Trungpa who (like Krishnamurti) teach that any fear (whether we assign it negative or positive) is important and not to be avoided, slipped around, or to be eliminated in some absolute intervention-- rather, both they and myself teach to what is most important is to learn from fear and learn from the ways we think about it that may in fact trap us in its grip in very limiting if not pathological ways (e.g., as 'fear' patterning). I'll admit that my work has gone way beyond Trungpa and Krishnamurti in its postmodern (and post-postmodern, integral) constructions since the late 1980s , yet, I am assuring readers who see otherwise, that I am not at all trying to avoid fear via fearlessness or anything else. I call for a fear management/education (full curriculum from kindergarten to university level as compulsory fear education actually). So, here is Trungpa's quote, I'll leave you all with to see also where my original and core premise starts from:
Trungpa wrote: "Acknowledging fear is not a cause of depression or discouragement. Because we posses such fear, we also are potentially entitled to experience fearlessness. True fearlessness is not the reduction of fear, but going beyond fear." (p. 33) 
1. Eneyo (2020) and Fisher (2020) see International Journal of Fear Studies, 2 (1) pp. 49-63.
2. Where Trungpa and Krishnamurti and others (like Eneyo) are not thinkers in full alignment with my work, is mainly because they have not constructed in their theories anything (virtually) beyond a psychological or psycho-spiritual framework for understanding fear. I am much more a cultural theorist than they (see my teaching video on "fear is social" and fearlessness theory of late https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyKwoFJb9UE) and thus 'fear' is essential to my work, and it differentiates from fear (as normally understood in the psychological domain of knowing). Again, you can read my many works on cultural 'fear' patterning and the theory of healing, fearlessness, and transformation behind it and in counter-hegemony to 'fear' patterning (or 'Fear' Project).
3. Trungpa, C. (1984/2007). Shambhala: The sacred path of the warrior. Shambhala Publications.