Blog

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) [1]; 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 [2], 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) [3]

 Endnotes

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.

My critique notes, as a fearologist, of two pages on the evolutionary paradigm used by TMT core theorists and researchers [1] from pp. 66-67 in their recent 2015 book. As much as I respect TMT (terror management theory) and its universal attempt to understand human behavior (drawing heavily on Ernest Becker's work)--I find more and more  there are deep philosophical (theoretical) problems in this work and in TMT's very lens it uses to try to understand human behavior--of which it overtly focuses on fear management as a primary shaper of human behavior in human evolution and history (which I agree on as that primary shaper). However, how the TMT folks go about their argumentation is troublesome in that it seems not to be self-reflexive as to its bias as Fear Management System-5 [2] itself doing the discourse construction of the fear management (i.e., terror management) that they are describing. I won't say more... I know the above image cuts off lots... my scanner cannot figure out how to not do this... and, so, whatever, the case I am making is based on a fearological position and theory of Fear Management Systems which is core to my own theorizing on fear management/education and beyond. 

I share this note-taking and text from their book--so as to stir up and truth out what is actually going down with TMT these days, as it grows in popularity and applications, but needs a lot more critique than it gets, but that ought to come from specialized fields like fearology that study fear management--from a transdisciplinary perspective--unlike TMT itself which is still social psychology-based, and what I point to in my notes here somewhat, it is dominated by existential-cognitivism (and, the ideology of that way of thinking, of that empiricial paradigm of experimentalism and of general modernist thinking for the most part)--these, latter terms I throw out here because they need a lot more clarification as critique of TMT, I realize, but they are coming to me as I study TMT more and more. I'll leave this here... a much larger work is required for a thorough challenge to these dominating hegeomonic and paradigmatic components of TMT, which is a terror management theory (i.e., fear management theory) that is dubious on several grounds, as I say, its bias as FMS-5 itself and as existential-cognitivism. Oh, and on top of that, I keep wondering if Ernest Becker himself, if he were alive today, would be 'happy' on all levels as to the integrity (or not) of TMT, which the latter is supposed to be based on Beckerian philosophy and theories. Questions need to be asked. Another question I keep asking myself and have not fully answered it is: What would make a fearlessness psychology today? And, I look to TMT, and other theories, and I am not satisfied they would meet the criteria, although, they may not even want to--yet, they are, as I see it, on the way to such a fearlessness psychology--arguably, the latter takes humanity beyond fear-based psychologies (and FMSs) themselves. The Fear Problem cannot be solved by fear-based psychologies (and their concomitant fear-based curricula of fear management/education; and TMT is included because it is FMS-5 under my classification system). 

[p.s. for more FM blogs on TMT search this website and/or go to https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/fearanalysis-2-wilber-s-induction-to-terror-management-theory

Notes: 

1. Solomon, S., Greenberg, J. & Pyszczynski, T. (2015). The worm at the core: On the role of death in life. Random House. [although TMT has many authors and researchers now a days, these three are the core co-founders of the theory]; and note, they do not cite my 31 years of researching fear management

2. Fear Management Systems theory, way too complex to outline here, is evolutionary too--but best to check my thinking out as delineated in general in Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world's fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education in the 21st century. University Press of America/Rowman & Littlefield; note, my cursory classification of the discourse domination in TMT (using pp. 66-67 as exemplar) also includes, besides FMS-5, some FMS-6b (typical of most all existentialist discourses on fear management). FMS theory, revolves around and upon the evolution of consciousness theorizing of Ken Wilber, integral philosopher, amongst others. In my version of FMS theory there are ten evolved 'structures' for doing fear management (or terror management, it matters not), I name them FMS-0 to FMS-9. You can see, TMT's largely FMS-5 is modernist and 1/2 way in terms of complex fear management systems available on this planet. That's great ,but in a sense it is 'half-baked' or 'half way' on the way to even better fear management systems. That said, FMS theory (integrally-informed) holds that no one FMS of the ten is absolutely more functional than any other--all have a role to play in the evolution of consciousness (individuals, and cultures).