To Listen to this 40 min. interview go to: https://noliesradio.org/archives/172012
[RMF note:] Likely THE MOST COMMON assumption in looking at the “great divide” of ontology, epistemology and axiology in world history, especially in the historical era of documenting human behavior, is probably the divide between “materialist” vs. “spiritualist” worldview perspectives. Much of philosophy and theology has been particularly involved in this debate. In many ways each of us lives out this dynamic, more or less consciously, each and every day--influencing who we think we are and what is most important. It ought not be ignored today as still very complex and important in our growth and development processes.
More and more others (like Luke Barnesmoore) are questioning the structure of that debate itself and re-visioning a more useful, and arguably more “nasty” debate that we ought to be having in terms of going from an ‘old story’ to a ‘new story’ of human reclamation and re-building a ‘new’ society that is truly sustainable. Barnesmoore, over several years of his graduate work on philosophy intersecting with geography and his own contemplative experiential journey of discoveries has synthesized a somewhat coherent way to categorize the distinction he thinks is crucial to the future of our species and to guide the necessary changes in our worldviews that then will help change our behaviors individually and collectively. I think there is much merit to his work, and, most particular I am interested in his adoption of the “Fearlessness” and “Fear” distinction(s) he often makes, which are evident below:
“The Natural Worldview: 1. The order of (human) nature is inherently good. 2. Natural order as the basis for virtue and wisdom. 3. Order through emulation of natural order. 4. Power with. 5. Order through reciprocal collaboration between sun (breath, active, relatively masculine1516 [from the finite human perspective], pollen, sperm, mind, etc.) and moon (blood, latent, relatively feminine [from the finite human perspective], flower, egg, emotion, etc.). 6. Rooted in being. 7. Deliverance through return to natural order. 8. Fearlessness (love) as guiding principle of action. (Four Arrows)
The Artificial Worldview: 1. The order of (Human) nature is inherently evil (sic. fallen). 2. Natural order as the barrier to virtue and wisdom. 3. Order through domination (sic. ‘improvement’, ‘completion’, ‘destruction’, etc.) of natural order. 4. Power over. 5. Order through hierarchical domination of moon17 (blood, latent, feminine, emotion, etc.) by sun (breath, active, masculine, mind, etc.). 6. Rooted in privation of being. 7. Deliverance through conquest and colonization (Warrior 1989) of the ‘other’ (sic. the natural, the feminine, the heart, etc.). 8. Fear as guiding principle of action. (Fisher and Barnesmoore 2018)”
[Note: “Where the above tables attempt to differentiate between the Artificial-Domineering Worldview that extends back through the history of hierarchical civilization and the Natural-Indigenous Worldview so as to illustrate that the essential worldview divide is not along the line of spiritual-materialistic but along the line of whether order is to be manufactured through hierarchical domination (the Colonial Modernist materialism that rose out of the hierarchical domination side of this essential worldview divide has surely increased the stratification between the natural and indigenous worldviews, but this was not the original divide)...” (Barnesmoore, p. 18-19).]
Reference Cited: Fisher, R. M., & Barnesmoore L. 2018, “Hierarchical security: Problem of fear of the Eternal”, In R. Michael Fisher, D. Subba & B. M. Kumar, Fear, Law and Criminology: Critical Issues in Applying the Philosophy of Fearism, Australia: Xlibris.
Title: Nomadic Explorations V1: Essays in the Craft, by Luke R. Barnesmoore Founder/Co-Director, UBC Urban Studies Lab Founder/Executive Director, Center for Critical Interdisciplinary Studies PhD Student, UBC Department of Geography. This V1 is available at:
B.Maria Kumar, R.Michael Fisher & Desh Subba
Here’s the book back-cover note:
“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.”
This is the latest update (2018) of the diagram in Fisher & Subba (2016), Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue. We invite further ideas on this ever evolving integral model as we look for all the ways to apply the philosophy of fearism to large domains of societies and individual's lives. The latest addition is "Fearcriminalysis" (all issues to do with law and order). For full definitions of these all, you can consult our book for some, but there will be an upcoming FMning blog that will define these.
For full length article (and rest of this issue of Participation (journal) click onThe True Gift of Education
Over a year and half ago I sent a copy of these notes on working philosophical premises to Desh Subba, although he has not responded, I think they are still worth more inquiry, whomever is interested. I'm sure if I thought more about these today, I'd add more new ones, but this is lots for starters. As a serious scholar and proponent of the philosophy of fearism since late 2014, I wish to see more philosophy and less rhetoric, opinions, and such... as this philosophy is going to need a good deal of rigorous thought before it will be accepted seriously by an real philosophers or graduate courses today in higher education, and in the future. The aim I have is to make philosophy of fearism justifiable through testing it empirically, as well as arguing it rationally. The high gold standard in this I have witnessed over the years in watching Ernest Becker's existential philosophy be eventually translated into social psychology (i.e., terror management theory) and 'proven' that his philosophy has some valid truths that are very important to our world today.
PHILOSOPHY OF FEARISM: 9 Premises (version 1.0)
R. Michael Fisher, Aug. 18, 2015
[Note: none of these premises are fixed in stone; I chose them to build common ground in each of our diverse understandings of fearism and its philosophy; they are presented here only as working ideas to be changed and grown as we gain input from various sources/research, experience and good critiques.]
A philosophy of fearism has the basic agenda of raising conscious awareness of the nature and role of fear in our lives and helping us to understand it better, in order to improve the quality (happiness) in our lives along a path to potential “fearless” existence. To do so, claims are made, often with premises that are not yet fully examined—this is the underlying purpose of this philosophical exercise. Volumes could be written on any one or a few of the premises, and sub-sections, as well as the interconnectivity of all of them together. Other premises and sub-sections also exist and can be added, but this is at least a start of examining a core of them more closely.
Premise 1 – Fear actually is the predominant motivator of the foundational aspects of human existence/behavior.
1a. Should we not therefore build a philosophy (e.g., fearism) around the predominant (if not, the greatest) motivator?
1a (i). What if Love is the predominant motivator? How do we know?
What implications do the Love vs. Fear dynamics portend?
1b. Humans are always, more or less, for better or worse, managing fear(s)
1c. If 1, 1a, 1b are true, then, what kind of fear management/education (and socialization and governance) is best suited to these truths?
Premise 2—Humanity, in general, is experiencing a precipice of extreme fear at this time in history, of which it is thought to be a most serious crisis that cannot be put off analysis without grave danger to our species and the planet’s ecosystems.
2a. What reliable and diverse (cross-disciplinary) sources can we accrue in order to reasonably invoke the crisis of the current Fear Problem, without panic?
Premise 3—The current state of knowledge about fear is inadequate to the demands of the Fear Problem, and this has caused a great deal of unnecessary suffering
3a. Philosophy of fearism is the best way to remedy this crisis and better than alternative philosophies, myths, religions and other ways of trying to manage
the Fear Problem—in that sense, how can we justify a “dephilosophy” agenda within the current philosophy of fearism critique?
3b. Contradictions in our society’s general knowledge of fear need to be revealed and arguments (based on the philosophy of fearism) made that
respond to them and “correct” them if possible
3c. Where is the philosophy of fearism most weak, philosophically? and/or scientifically?
3d. How can a philosophy of fearism self-reflexively “correct” itself in order to avoid becoming an ideology (embedded in ideologism)?
Premise 4—A philosophy of fearism is unique (and important) because it recognizes the Fear Problem not merely as an individual psychological problem, but as
central to evolution itself and developmental conceptualizations of human nature, the human condition and human potential.
4a. As with some other perspectives, a philosophy of fearism accepts there is no one and only right definition or meaning of fear, but it is multiple and will
likely always be such.
4b. What is a substantive ontology of fear that is useful to, and consistent with the defining and making meaning of fear within a philosophy of fearism agenda?
4c. What is a rigorous epistemology of fear consistent with the philosophy of fearism agenda?
4d. What is a rigorous axiology of fear consistent with the philosophy of fearism agenda?
4d(i). How do we know whether fear is positive or negative in value?
4e. the dialectical nature of fear and fearlessness ought to be understood within the evolution of the global concept of a “spirit of fearlessness” and the world’s
for discernment of quality, if not liberation.
5a. Is there a way to accurately discern and evaluate “fear-based” feeling, thinking, acting? If so, how? What practical applications as well?
Premise 6—Fear evolves (develops) “naturally” towards Fearless (i.e., a telos), at the level of individuals, groups, and entire eras of history
6a. We are currently (globally) in a peak of an “Extreme Fear Age”
6b. Is a philosophy of fearism a ‘natural’ response to the Extreme Fear Age?
6c. Is there a precedent for what we are going through in history, that may be useful to us as a global community?
6d. Is the East or West more matured (evolved) generally, to best assist us through this "Extreme Fear Age" (a la Subba)? Why?
6e. Are the less developed nations less fear-full than the developed nations? And Why? And, what implications does this have for world developmental theories and practices?
Premise 7: The evolution of consciousness, like fear, is moving toward a "Fearless Age" and Society (a la Subba)—not that it will occur all at the same time in the same
places but it is at least probably, expectable, but not totally inevitable.
7a. On what substantive, and diverse grounds, can such a positive claim of telos be defended by a philosophy of fearism?
7b. And on those same grounds, what arguments can be utilized to counteract the predominant discourses that suggest no such movement or telos exists?
Premise 8: The greatest fear is humanly created, in the mind, and thus, the greatest corrective to fear is humanly created, in the mind.
8a. On what substantive, and diverse grounds, can such a claim be made?
8b. And on those same grounds, what alternative arguments could also be put forward that are different but complementary to a philosophy of fearism?
8c. What alternative arguments would go against (and/or modify) Premise 8?
Premise 9: The philosophy of fearism (as currently articulated) is adequate to being called a legitimate, new, and essential philosophy to the betterment of
humankind and the earth ecosystems.
9a. What arguments are for this and what arguments are against accepting this
 Through out these premises, as building a defense for this philosophy, I am using Desh Subba’s (2014) version of a philosophy of fearism (sometimes, he refers to as a theory of fearism)—this, is an exercise intended to ferret out the thinking and support for claims he has made, of which I mostly agree but realize they need at times to be filled-out in creating a better convincing defense. My own theory of fearism-t is not included here.
 This is particularly (if not uniquely) important to Fisher’s philosophy of fearism conception based on the groundwork of his research on a philosophy of fearlessness.
I finally received a first published hard copy of my new co-authored book Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue (of which I have written previously on this FMning). I glanced it over and opened the book randomly at a few places and started reading. It's a little shocking to read one's own published work sometimes: "Who wrote that?" The overall impression is positive and that's a good sign. I happened to think (with all modesty and objectivity as I can muster) that there is no book more important on the topic fear and its management on the planet right now (that I know of). This short blog will say a few words (and quote from the new book) about why I think this is true. Btw, I thank my co-author Desh Subba (a Nepalese philosopher, novelist, poet) for his dedication to developing a philosophy of fearism and his openness to include me in that conceptualization and project. I see myself dedicating the rest of my working years (maybe 15 left until I'm 80) on this new philosophy.
So the pages I happen to open to at random come from Chapt. 4 (pp. 98-100) which is unique in the book because Desh encouraged me to re-vise but basically republish a 2014 essay I wrote on a "Theory of Fearism" (Technical Paper No. 51) (note: theory of fearism as distinct from, but related to, a philosophy of fearism). I begin with a Foreword to Technical Paper No. 51:
p. 98: "In Chapter 3 of this co-authored book there is a controversial message: "There is something wrong in the field of fear management" [a phrase I penned in my first major scholarly book The World's Fearlessness Teachings in 2010, p. xxvii]. I go on to talk about why we need various theories of fearism (mine, which I call fearism-t) in order to have a healthy philosophy of fearism, and from that a healthy set of practices of fear management (and fear education). Yes, I could just have easily written: "There is something wrong in the field of fear education" (i.e., fear education used in a positive way, analogous to sex education). So, how controversial is this claim? What do I back it up with?
Let me first say, the phrase "something wrong" is hyperbole in a sense to attract attention on a problem in the field of fear management. In retrospect, I am not sure this is a good way to get attention, because the very discourse of labeling something "wrong" is highly problematic in terms of its long history (especially in the West) of being a way to put something, some group, some policy, some person (and their behavior or values) down. It is a criticism. And it carries a lot of fear-based baggage (garbage, toxicity) that tends to easily slide from saying "something is wrong" to "someone is wrong" and I would not want to perpetuate such a notion. I think it is too partial of a claim and it tries to paint the entire reality of something or someone as "wrong" in an absolute sense. And, it immediately raises the question of who (and from what perspective) can anyone judge that anyone is wrong--same applies to something. The use of the label "wrong" (often with emotional discharge behind it) is clearly an attack to putting something down and "diss it", more or less. I won't go on and on with this but to say the use of the term (hyperbole or not) is a dangerous one of bringing more injury into human society--and that means concomitantly bringing more fear with it. Arguably, it is "fear talk" to blame, shame and make someone or something "bad" (the opposite of good, and it may even mean making it "evil").
So, I used the phrase as hyperbole, and I could have (more sensitively) said: There is something wrong in the field of fear management, even though there is a good deal of something right in the field of fear management. Then, that would be both more fair, and less re-stimulating of our hurts and fear itself. Especially, in that I am not intending to attack anything or anyone per se who practices fear management as a professional, theorist, etc. Nor, would I want anyone who teaches and designs fear management curricula to feel I am attacking them and their work and their motivation. Criticism alone is usually not very useful and does more harm than good. Critique however, in contrast to criticism, is when you point out the negative and positive at the same time, in proportion to a healthy engagement with someone, rather than trying to put them down. I intended to offer a critique in my new book re: the state of the field of fear management (or, equally of fear education). I think if anyone reads my books they will find I can get passionate and critical and even slip into criticism but that if they read on it is more critique I offer overall. But I'll leave others to assess my work overall, as I am too close to it to tell.
Returning to the point of this blog, I am taken with my clarity in the new book (scanning pp. 98-100), of how simple (and controversial) the message is that I have argued. It is worth repeating again but maybe I'll do it in a more readable way here in this blog. Things need to be said many times, and in many ways, in order to communicate. Sometimes a reader will hear it anew, from a different time and place and with some different language. As an educator myself, I am dedicated to not giving up on anyone, even when they tell me "I read your book and I don't really understand it." Okay, to the basic simple message in these couple pages, which really well represents my overall project--it all boils down to something like this:
1. there is something wrong in the field of fear management; and that is skewing how we understand best how to know fear and thus, manage it well
2. that something wrong (or missing) is ....... a "harmful violent ideology" (p. 98) that over-shadows the entire study of fear
3. a theory and philosophy of fearism (e.g., Fisher and Subba) can address this ideology and ensure a 'correction' to what is missing (wrong) in fear management
4. no one else has pointed out the above problems (gaps, errors, "something wrong" or missing), until now, in this new book .... etc.
Okay, there's the basics of the my work I am so passionate about. Would this excite anyone else, to the point where they would dedicate some time, or a lot of time to helping clarify the problem in the field of fear management (and, in every day life as we manage fear, more or less consciously)? With this new clarification, we could then develop interventions more healthy re: fear, and its study and management. We could create a re-evaluation of everything we think we know about fear, and run it all through a new deconstruction and reconstruction--that is, through a new theory and philosophy of fearism.
On p. 99, I have a sub-title: Fearism-t and Epistemic Violence: Reconstructing Fear Management. That speaks to a greater articulation of all of the above. And, about now, one gets the creeping feeling that this all is about to impact the way one perceives, thinks, and acts in regard to fear. That's pretty major in implication to our everyday life. That involves being a lot more consciousness and self-reflective (and critical) about everything to do with fear--and, especially what others tell you about fear (e.g., authors, teachers, parents, ministers, psychology clinicians, policemen, lawyers, government leaders, business corporate heads, and so on).
The simple notion is there. But will we talk about this further, or merely read about it? Will we talk about "a 'harmful violent ideology' surrounding the study of fear--and, in particular, the construction and dissemination of the knowledge about fear and its management and education" (p. 98)? Another way to put the problem is something like this:
A lot of authors/experts on the topic of fear management (and researchers) often say: It is not fear that is the problem, it is how we manage it that matters most. Such a claim has become ever-popular in layman and professional circles today. It is partially (in my view) good wisdom but to a point. I (and Subba) tend to stretch this quite a lot more to a critical perspective on that claim itself (which, btw, those who utter the above predominant wisdom of the day, never reflect on themselves and offer readers some opening (cautionary) of critical inquiry into the claim and its potential limitations, if not distortions--they seem to not be aware of a perspective beyond their own favorite one--which gets repeated by others who think like they do). So, on p. 98-100 in the new book, I offer another entirely different angle (and I think a much better one): The problem with fear and how we manage it is that we lack a critical awareness and vocabulary (i.e., guiding methodology) that operates outside of the fear-based structure of the field of fear management. And thus, we return to the 4 points I listed re: the basic problem--which, you can see is articulated much differently than the popular wisdom problem articulation above. Introducing a notion of a harmful violent ideology surrounding the study of fear--becomes a very simple but also complex intervention I throw into the soup pot. The main ingredient missing in the popular wisdom is a notion of fearlessness (but that's a much longer story, of which I write about in my other WFT book).
From this point forward, my work (and Subba's) is essentially different from anything else out there. It is also in that sense, critical of anything else out there. Now, in the long-run, time and experience will prove if it is better, as we both think it is. And, any such "proving" will only occur when others (beyond Subba and I) take serious interest with the necessary support of resources to help test the theory and philosophy of fearism. There's no doubt in our minds, that many theories and variations of philosophies are required to cover the huge territory of fear (and/or 'fear')--or what I like to simply call The Fear Problem today. So, I am not looking for only "followers" (yes, they are helpful for the cause), I am looking for allies who think critically (and have healthy doubt) about everything--including everything I just wrote in this blog!
Give me a call or email [618-529-1166 email@example.com] if you want to talk seriously (or even playfully)... and co-create with me and this work.
It has been an intense 10 mo. working on this new book Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue (2016, just published by Xlibris International). I have written a few prior times on this blog site about the book, and I just posted a photo and short write up as well. The following is going to be something more raw and fresh as I have been writing today about the 'birth' of this book, and how I see it is significant. I know everyone who encounters the book will make up their own mind about its significance. I hope you write me if you want to tell me and others what you think. This blog can be a location to document those conversations.
So, the writing about the book here is from my journal, writing unedited, and spontaneous for the most part:
On the simplest concrete level one merely sees an image of a book cover, Philosophy of Fearism: A First East-West Dialogue, and if they don't take time to dwell with it and better yet read it, they are going to likely be missing so much. It's a shame that will happen, inevitably, as I have known it to be the case with my other prior book, published 6 yrs ago (The World's Fearlessness Teachings). I wish I could be there to encourage everyone to dwell with this new book and see beyond the surfaces of words and images, and imagine deeper. It is troublesome I know for most to do so. Philosophy and fearism together as words, concepts, is a strange mix but then there is the purpose of the book, perhaps even stranger.
The book is intended to outline (epistemologically) the necessity for a new kind of philosophy (practical and social) that human history has not seen before, and in that light it is so incredibly radical. For me, a lifer-kind-of accomplishment. I am most curious what it will do for the reader, layperson, academic, philosopher but that is all unknown at this point, other than the few folks who reviewed the ms before publication. It is going to be an odd book for me in that I am interpreting Desh Subba's work a lot (Philosophy of Fearism, 2014) and he comes from another culture and part of the world (the East, Nepal, and living in Hong Kong)... he's a poet, novelist, writes in Nepalese... and all these factors, now, bring his work as a philosopher of that 'strange' part of the world into my life and writing and thinking... philosophizing... and this book is the outcome of all that, including my original work on a philosophy of fearlessness. But, now I return to think about the reader of this book. I realize now, which I didn't realize before when writing it, that this book is not so much for the individual. It is for the World Soul, the collective-social-communal aspect of our psychic-soul reality. It is hard to say that. I didn't write that in the book itself. But it is there.
Fear has never been treated at the center of a philosophy before, not anywhere near the extent as in this new book. It marks a new awareness and calling in the World Soul of which is mostly unconscious. It is important in that the time has arrived, as Subba and I have written for decades, to make fear this important. We are needing a new philosophy that recognizes this, and develops these ideas we present. We are in (as Subba says) an Extreme Fear Age historically, and collectively. That tells me of the 'pressure' that is building in the World Soul dimension. Feartalk is "ego-talk" and Fearlessnesstalk is "soul-talk"-- this book is all about the latter, and it is articulated, unbeknownst to most everyone, that it is crafted from a Fear Management System-7 (i.e., Integral). I also made sure this was the case in the gaze I brought to The World's Fearlessness Teachings book in 2010, and most everything I have written on the topic since 1989. But, most people will look to see what the book offers individually, and yet, that would mis-interpret the scale and register of the purpose of this book --for the World Soul.
How could writing a book for the World Soul, make a difference globally, as we are on the cusp (as Subba says) of a Fearless Age? These and many more questions are lurking in the new book, even if we don't bring them to the surface for discussion. I guess, that's what I am most curious about in the next months and years ahead as this 'soul child' of a book enters into the world and energizes the World Soul-- and, in that, the soul of which everyone cannot tap from their individuality to their collective meshworking... gravity, history, geography, and all the psychophysical and emotional and philosophical threads are there--and like a web of eternal time and space, perhaps, I believe (or am only guessing)--this book will hold a weight in that net--across time and cultures, universally... and ... and... and...
Words run out at this point... the World Soul does not operate on the Symbolic Code (the phallic lens)... and, now, it is all poetry, art, aesthetics... at least, for me and for those who may dwell with just the 'strange' combination and emphasis which this book brings forth now in human history (herstory)...
Here's the cover image of the new book I just wrote (with Desh Subba)... soon to be published Jan. 1/16... keep checkin' in, as I'll write a few blogs about it... looking forward to engaging with you all on this new philosophy for the world... a world in the 'grip of fear.' (btw, I designed the cover with my art work from a 2007 art series I called "Emotospheres"...
Note: this page contains paid content.
Please, subscribe to get an access.