3.2 Brief Journey into Fearology

1. MICHAEL FISHER

                               Founder of The Fearology Institute    

         DESH SUBBA

The Founder of Fearism Study Center

Since the origin of academic enterprise, for while people of different epoch look at reality from different perspective, the reality of fear was paid little or no attention. There has not been any branch or field of thought that studied about the reality of fear holistically. And so most persons have misconceptions about the events of life which in recent time, some critical minded persons have taken it upon them to rationalized and scientifically demonstrate the need for understanding the reality of fear. This act or scientific demonstration is fearology. In the words of Fisher, “fearology is the transdisciplinary study of the relationship of fear and life (could include other beings including non-living)- usually, refers to human experience but does not have to be restricted”[1]

Hence, fearology is the art or science of critical analysis of the connection of fear and that which is. This is to say that there is always a link between an object or subject and that which fear. This link always has a gap for decision making. And so, in this gap is our ability to manage our fear positively or negatively. The objects of fear are those things which posses fear while the subjects of fear are fear mongers[2]. It is important to note that, groups can also pose fear which leads to tension, conflict and at times terrorism. These states of being can metamorphose into fear culture/ climax. And so, those who critically examines analyze and treat or rehabilitate group(s) of people who fear – fearer are fearologists.

In recent time the greatest fearologists are R. Michael Fisher from Canada, Desh Subba from Dharan Nepal, the fearologist of literature Rana Kafle from India and their disciple Osinakachi Akuma Kalu. For them scientists, futurists, psychologists, doctors or physiologist cannot give a good account of fear connection because they study fear in part and not as a whole. Hence, such an investigation leads one to fallacy of composition[3]. This is why all must tend towards the fearologist for a better analysis of fear and how it affects the human person and the society at large.

Fear is not just an ordinary emotion. The place of fear in human existence is inseparable and thus as important as life. Building on this backdrop, it should be given a proper attention. This is why Michael Fisher studied it for close to 40 year and Desh Subba for close to 25years. For Fisher, fear is what we ought to get rid of by being fearless. This is to say that, it is only on the level of fearlessness can one live to the fullness of his being. On the other hand, Desh Subba understands fear to be a motivator, that which direct and control human actions. For him, fear is both positive and negative but the positive outweighs the negative. This is why he believes that fear drives development and sustains reality.

In the understanding of Pooja Soni an Indian born researcher on Consciousness, fear is like a form of defense mechanism, this she began by looking at fear as part of emotion that cannot but exist without “simulatively” reacting towards something. Hence, she asserts in a descriptive form that, “an emotion is how an entity is present in a vicinity of a particular stimulus or how it escapes from that vicinity of the stimulus. Every entity strives to increase its presence in relation to other entities. And so the purpose of experiencing fear is to protect the self from potential danger”[4] . As a way of not mixing two concept, she explained further saying, “anxiety is when the self is still in anticipation of being subjected to a potential danger while fear is the ability to flee from the vicinity of the stimulu”[5]. Soni’s distinction between fear and anxiety is fearologically not the case. Fearologically speaking, not all fear leads to anxiety. This is because some scenario that creates fear often leads to development. One who is in a state of anxiety may not clearly give account of what led to it but one in a state of fear can to an extent.

For Zeeshan Hussain a Xinjiang Medical University trained medical doctor, "fear is nothing but man-made limits. I personally believe we can conquer anything as long as we are willing to rise above the limits we have limited ourselves to. Fear can do no harm unless we let it do otherwise. A strong determination and commitment can make impossible, possible. The best way to get rid of phobia is to expose oneself to it more often and by doing so there is no doubt that one day we will be no more afraid to it, because frequent exposure will make us used to it”[6]. He also pointed out the importance of fear management in the field of medicine stressing that, such practice is definitely pivotal for patients’ recuperation. Fear management should be practiced. Guess what, we prescribe antidepressant for patients the night before planned for surgery the following day. If we could lessen or totally kill fear in patients, outcomes of Surgery are also positive and it does help in swift recovery. Sometimes anxiety and fear are used interchangeably but I personally think, it is fear not anxiety. For example, a patient came to me a couple of days ago with immense fear of his brain been atrophied. Actually, this patient was young and someone had told him that he had accident years back and if such trauma happens, it definitely brings brain atrophy. It might be true but not in every single case. This patient was this worried because he was afraid, that I advised him to see a psychiatrist.

Building on their shoulder (Desh and Fisher), I realized that none of them are wrong in their understanding of fear. However, for me, fear is like a pointer. It serves as a universal harmony which direct things positively or negative. Ones management of his /her fear aids development or destruction of the self, Other[7], society or the universe at large. This is because, a state of fear effects the psychic conditioning of the emotive man who is a rational being. As an emotive being, no one can claim not to have an iota of fear. It requires nothing but existential suspension to be in a state of courage or bravery which is not the absence of fear but a way of being in another mood or state.

Having experienced so much fear in the face of danger and challenges of life, I took it upon myself to help people who are in the same shoe with me to overcome their fears. As a result of this, I started by trying to understand what fear really is by buying books, researching, reading, discussing and writing about fear. During my reflection and meditation period, I always try to make connections, linking what I have studied with the reality of my time especially concretizing it based on my worldview.

​            This desire, led me into writing about fear. The first set of books I read was How to Overcome Fear by Er M. K Guputa, Culture of Fear by Furedi, Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard and virtually all the encyclopaedias that contain any material on fear. These works influenced my notion about fear as something ipso facto bad.

​            This influence was reflected in my first book: Conquering the Beast Fear: A Philosophical cum Psychological Approach and some of my articles and poems. This is because the definition of fear by most of the encyclopaedia as a negative emotion or as an unpleasant feeling makes it impossible for one to conclude that fear has any positive dimension. Hence, any researcher making use of them is likely to see fear as something BAD, DANGEROUS etc.

A clearer understanding of fear came after reading the work of Lars Svendsen’s Philosophy of Fear, where he quoted Francis Bacon’s saying, “Dolendi modus, timendi non item” meaning “to suffering there is limit, to fearing, none”. He went further to write that “…a creature without the capacity to feel fear will have a worse chance of surviving and procreating. It is obvious that fear can often be a great assistance to us.”

In reaction to this book, I wrote so many articles trying to prove that such conception of fear by Lars Svendsen is mistaken until I met Desh Subba, a fearologist. With several academic discussions on fear with Desh Subba coupled with my intellectual ruminations on fear especially after reading his book, Philosophy of Fearism: Life is Conducted, Directed and Controlled by Fear, a scale literally fell off my eyes as it happened to Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian philosopher after reading David Hume the thorough going empiricist, and my perception of fear was shifted. This book made me to understand that the place of fear in man’s existential struggle was pivotal and so cannot be conquered but controlled or credibly managed. This is because the opposite of fear being courage does not connote the absence of fear as Nelson Mandela opined.

​            In my quest to deepen my knowledge of the phenomenon fear and how it can be controlled or managed, I enrolled into the Fearism Study Centre Dharan Nepal, under the aegis of Desh Subba. After a period of fearological voyage, I became the coordinator of the fearism movement in Africa under the direction of Desh Subba.

Owing to my relationship with my master, Desh Subba, he introduced me to another fearological elder whose work is technical in the person of R. Michael Fisher. This man is one of the intellectuals I respect. He has written over hundred articles on fear with over eighty technical papers.

​            Fisher who wrote his doctoral dissertation on Fear introduced me to his World Fearlessness Movement and I became a major contributor to the body. I see him as a father and he relates to me as a friend and academic contemporary. Building on this backdrop, he always sends me works to study so as to improve myself in that field.

As a result of our constant effort to give fearology a sure foundation in our time, we normally discuss on how to bring this noble intention of ours to fruition. Owing to the growth of our lexicon, some terms like “defearing”, “fearontic”, “feraontology”, “fearological Exhortation”, “defearologize” etc., which I coined are being worked upon for inclusion in the dictionary.

Whatever I am in the fearological milieu is because I rested on the shoulders of two great men, R. Michael Fisher and Desh Subba. Thus, as the first stage of my fearological career emerges after my program with the Fearism Study Centre, Nepal. My studies in this institute has made me see the “centrality” of fear in our lives and has led me equally to see fear as a pointer to the existence of a Supreme Being who is the creator and sustainer of the universe. Thus, I have learned, that though fear can be dangerous to humanity be delimiting people from achieving their potentials, yet at the same time, fear has contributed so much in the development of man by instilling in him constantly the need of self preservation which in my opinion is the driving force of civilization.

3.3 My Own Definition of Fear after Contact with Desh and Fisher

After my perception of fear has been modified by my meeting and reading the works of the fearological elders, I began the search for my own definition of fear. With the publication of my first article in the World Fearlessness Movement blog, I made my intention known which prompted Michael Fisher to write,

The ever energetic Kalu is at it again, and I look forward to seeing what his results are from this piece of research. I have long 'played' (seriously) with the problematics of how human beings "define," "conceptualize," and "operationalize" something called "fear" (by any other name, and, I am using English here because it is the only language I speak and know of, while admitting it is horribly biased from a global perspective of multiple languages, cultures and ways of knowing). I have published already on this search of mine, which is never ending. One thing I have mind-shifted on over the years is to focus less on the question "What is fear?" (as the only way to search for a definition or description, with a tendency toward only a rational-minded and logical deductive approach) to the question I find more fruitful "How do we best know fear?" (this latter, emphasizing an epistemic-based approach)--of course, both questions are useful for inquiry, and maybe there are even better questions to ask--that is what philosophers tend to always search for, and less a search for "the" answer per se. Kalu, in my view, has taken two avenues of expression and good research attitude in this study of his: (1) "creative definitions or descriptions" - yes, we really need to be creative with this and, (2) his title "Search for a Tentative Definition of Fear" -- I love this open-minded approach! Good for you, Kalu.”

In my first publication, I defined fear as, “the state for which someone is calculating so as to agree with what he or she thinks is positive and sidelines what he or she thinks is negative[8]”. This calculation can lead to miscalculation because the presence of fear will not allow the mind to uncover the bumps of the situation at stake due to the presence of unpleasant emotions caused by fear. The unpleasant nature of an emotion creates confusion in a person. Fear can never be a happy companion for most of the moments of our lives because the beast is wicked.

However, after meeting with Subba and Fisher, this my perception of fear changed. Hence, I define fear as an emotive process that exists between an object and a subject, which influences the subject’s decision either to improve, remain stagnant or degenerate in existence.

In this definition, it is important to explain the key terms used in it for a better comprehension of the definition:

Emotive Process- this is a process that is characterized by emotion; an operation that affects the mental content. Fear sends signals through this emotive process, which in turn affect the decision someone makes.

Object and a Subject- The object is “being”- concrete or imagined (whatever thought of) that makes one afraid. On the other hand, the Subject of fear is the one who is affected by objects of fear.

Improve – The human person tends towards self preservation when in the face of fear. This makes him to gear towards preserving or improving his existence, thereby working hard to not just to prevent the perceived danger that may occur, but equally working hard to improve on what is.

Remain Stagnate- For while fear helps man to improve in his existence, it also makes him helpless before danger (concrete or imagined). Putting him in a confused state, that makes him to remain in a particular state of existence. Thereby, making him to degenerate, because an unimproved existence cannot match with or survive in a world that gears towards improvement of existence.

[1] R. M. Fisher and S, Desh, Philosophy of Fearism- A First East – West Dialogue, UK, Xlibris,2016,p.158

[2] One who is involved habitually, consciously or unconsciously, in the act of perpetrating fear unnecessarily, cf., R. M. Fisher and S, Desh, Philosophy of Fearism- A First East – West Dialogue, p.156

[3] Fallacy of Composition simply means using an aspect of reality to make a general judgment.

[4] A discussion on fear and anxiety with an India female researcher and writer on consciousness. Cf., https://m.facebook/Pooja.Soni.

[5] Ibid

[6] A LinkedIn chat with Dr. Zeeshan Hussain on “Fear”, https://ng.linkedIn.com/feed/, Retrieved 1/26/2018

[7] Other from the existentialists views point. It means humans living with one in the society or the world

[8] Osinakachi Akuma Kalu, Conquering The Beast Fear: A Philosophical Cum Psychological Approach, Port Harcourt, EJ&Sons Publishers, 2016, p.22-23

The Fearism Study Center offers Professional certificates to students who engages in research studies(6months, 1year, and 2years) on the main three courses of Fearism:

1. FEAROLOGY- The transdisciplinary study of the relationship of fear and life (could include other beings including non-living)- usually, refers to human experience but does not have to be so restricted; serves as one of the pillar technologies or disciplines of practice under the umbrella of the philosophy of fearism and philosophy of fearlessness.

There's a good series of blogposts by academic/psychologist Darcia Narvaez, Ph.D., on "primal wounding" and its relationship to fear, addictions and many of the problems we face as societies, especially in the West today. I have copied an excerpt on how she speaks about fear in relation to primal wounding (trauma): [for the full article go to: http://kindredmedia.org/2018/01/tales-primally-wounded/ ; and you'll find links to the 6 part series]

"A primally-wounded society is filled with fear-promoting stories.

Stories, tales or narratives guide all societies. “We people” stories are passed down from generation to generation. Shared stories are part of what a culture entails (along with shared practices and shared beliefs). In the past, wise elders and designated storytellers held the society together with stories that humanized animals and promoted social cooperation, contributing to group survival.

Note that these stories decreased fear and focused attention on group goals for flourishing.

We live in a different era now, one in which elders have been displaced by bureaucratic systems of control, systems that tell tales to increase fear—fear of stepping out of their bounds.

When storytelling is taken over by high-powered and moneyed interests, fear promotion becomes dominant. These stories seem true because they have been repeated so often. We are shamed if we question them and eventually we self-censor our higher aspirations, succumbing to the heart-numbing tales, keeping the system alive through our action or inaction.

We primally wounded people are especially susceptible to fear-promoting narratives. We are trying to escape primal pain and alleviate distrust with some certainty somewhere. Fearmongering tales give us certainty."

Thanks to a few FM ning members for their donations to me to pay for the yearly cost of running the ning ($300 US): Fram, Barb K., Jan S., Hugo, Four Arrows, the Fearlessness Movement ning will go for another year (it's 4th).... yeah!!! And, if there are others who would like to make a donation to that cause, they can send funds through PayPal, or e-Transfer or mail a check or money order. Just e-mail me (r.michaelfisher.52 [at] gmail.com) to arrange the payment. I am still short about $80 dollars Can. to make up the cost of the FM ning. But, if I have to donate that amount I am fine with that too. -rmf

Education and the Fear Problem: An Investigation of “Truths”

 R. Michael Fisher

Technical Paper No. 71

 Editorial Note: The original plan was to publish this article with the Journal of Unschooling & Alternative Education. After submitting the draft, published here in full as Technical Paper No. 71, it was clear to me that the editor of that Journal and the philosophy he has toward critique and research, was not at all compatible with my intent to publish a piece that was investigative and revealing of a problem with educators, and in this case “visionary” educators. After reading the editors very harsh critique of my work in this paper and his common concern I was “unfair” (repeated three times in his letter response), it was clear to me that being fair or unfair is not the way to get to truth of the matter. After a phone call with the editor, and I appreciate his candor and his openness to discuss this article, that I just could not revise it and try to soft-sugar coat what I have been attempting to show is the case (now empirically) that educators as a whole (and now even so-called “visionary” educators) are just not very interested and not very competent to discuss the current 21^st century Fear Problem. The editor’s approach to a politically correct and more institutionally restrained addressing of this problem, if not censoring “truths” I have come by hard-earned in this fearwork and critique I do, are not a hopeful sign that anything is going to change much. I would rather let history judge the worth of this article, than one editor or a scholarly reviewer (whom I also asked to look at the draft and he was more or less also wanting me to soft-sugar coat it)—but two other scholarly reviewers I sent the piece to were not of that opinion and thought it was a good study and critique that needed to reveal what it does about educators and the topic of fear. Therefore, after 3 weeks consideration, and even trying to re-write another version of this paper, much softer, I just felt I was betraying the essence of my creative and investigative journalism approach in this study. Of course, I am not saying at all that the study herein of 15 visionary educators is flawless and did all the right things so-called. That’s minor compared to the truth it reveals—and, of course, some may argue it is only my “truth” being shared, as they will not like my interpretation of the larger truth that is exposed in this piece. Also, to be clear, this editor is not the first in my 40 years publishing, to attempt to challenge my style of research, writing and my philosophy of truthing. To say the least, I don’t find many souls out there who agree with my approach. I have chosen to send a copy of this Technical Paper No. 71 to all “visionaries” involved in this study. Finally, I am gravely concerned with the losses of quality critique that are happening in academia and society as a whole because of a growing over-protected culture of fear and its tendency to censor sometimes raw “truths” that need to be seen so we stay in touch with reality. I am no support of unethical or mean behavior and treatment of others, but I also am not about to pamper adults who teach and write in the public sphere. I too am one of those and I am as accountable to critiques of peers and others, just like everyone else I critique in this study. Thanks to the participants who responded, in whatever ways they responded. I know they all are doing good work out there in the world. I also know we can always do better in some areas. The Fear Problem is one area that needs a lot of work by educators. Thanks to Dr. Ricci for being willing to chat with me, and discuss the problems of this study on the phone as well. -rmf

 Abstract – This article summarizes the results of an initial qualitative research Fear survey of 15 North American “visionary educators” in late-2017. The purpose was to determine how they think about and define the Fear Problem today in the field of schooling, unschooling and in society-at-large. The author argues that although the 20% of respondents to the Fear survey demonstrate a basic “in-touchness” with the Fear Problem, postmodern research perspectives on “fear” suggest the visionary educators have yet to keep up with the trends and complexity of how “Fear” is now a major shaping force of individual and collective domains of reality. The author suggests directions for improving upon the reliance on promoting love and hope as solutions to the Fear Problem, which unfortunately, characterized the visionaries responses.

Four Arrows and my work recently is mentioned in "Stories That Heal Primal Wounds",

in Psychology Today magazine (2018 blogpost) by Dr. Darcia Narvaez 

Professor of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, IN, USA.
To read this interesting blogpost by her go to:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201801/stories-heal-primal-wounds

Distortion, or at least, inadequacy of representing the path of fearlessness (which this topic is my specialty) can be found in virtually every article, book, or video or course I have seen on the topic [1]. This continues in a recent video from a course by a young Zen buddhist practitioner who is very successful with some 2 million followers on the internet (apparently). He is putting out a new course "Path of Fearlessness"... so I took a short look at his write up on it at his website and then one of his intro. videos. I have so many critiques. But that said, I so appreciate the spirit of this fellow's offering to the world and his sincerity that is evident. I'll let FM ning followers decide their own critiques, if they have any or not. But just as a hint you will hear this Zen practitioner teaching that fear is such a great force and inhibition to humanity, then he immediately drops in to discuss "fears" (as concrete manifestations in the plural), and at that point, he has already gone off the road of authentic integral fearlessness critical inquiry as far as I am concerned. Another hint of the faux nature of this video and so many others out there is they all suggest explicitly in their introduction that there are no other tools or experts on the topic, other than themselves. The egocentrism and ignore-ance is very evident. Too bad they are so popular but that's the way consumerist society works, I guess. It is more what you can convince people of that "sells" than what is actually accurate and good depth offering.

p.s. I really like his policy on copyright and uncopyright, worth reading on his website! 

Here is the video blog you can check out on his work if you wish: https://seachange.zenhabits.net/course/fearlessness/

As well you can read any of my other writing on "fearology" as a nascent field of inquiry (e.g., see note 2) and for another critique of writers/teachers on "fearlessness" see Fisher (2010), pp. 22-25. [3]

Notes: 

1. See prior FM blog critiques I wrote on the "many" courses on fearology and fear management at https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/many-courses-on-fearology-and-fear-management and epistemological issues re: fearlessness https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/issue-of-adequatio-fearlessness

2. http://www.wildculture.com/article/disappear-fear-quick-fix-fear-pill-and-its-discontents/1276

3. Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world's fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 

This is the first in what will be a short series of blogs I'll write on the "Brief History of Fearology" [1]. As you may know, I have recently posted on the FM ning Forum a piece about the vision of the Fearology Institute. This is only a vision [2] but may easily become a reality in history in the next decade. I will do everything I can to assist this growth and development and I appreciate any others who will help with this venture.

My task in this series is to articulate a comparison of Fearology with Sexology and Thanatology. The reasons for this comparative historical overview will become apparent as the series unfolds. In the first instance of historical facts that underlies the development of Fearology, I turn to the history of "fearuality" as a major turning point for humanity and it own self-awareness of the importance of the nature and role of fear (a similar importance as brought forth by Desh Subba with coining and elaborating the first text on philosophy of fearism [2] between 1999-2014 and beyond).

In Fisher (1998) I began a glossary where I defined two key terms relevant directly to this series of blogs. The first was: fearuality- "a term created in the early 1990's [by RMF] to give the study of 'fear' a serious forum and name. This term is used analogously with 'sexuality' which burgeoned only in the last few decades [but began to flourish post-WWII, see below] as a legitimate area of [specialized] study--the study of sex and sexual behavior. This term ['fearuality'] gradually evolved into transpersonal phobosology, and eventually in 1997 with phobosology" [see below] [4]

The second term in Fisher (1998) was phobosology- "is the 'study of 'fear' and its interrelationship' with Life. This new discipline was named in 1995 originally as "transpersonal phobosology" and renamed as [simply] "phobosology" in mid-1997 by Robert M. Fisher [RMF]. The roots of this focus of attention on a systematic study of 'fear' (and fearlessness) goes back to as early as 1993 when Fisher was calling this field fearuality that was a way to look at 'fear' and study it just like sexuality, the latter which had become a field to study the phenomenon of 'sex' in the late 20th century [even earlier; see below]. Both fields are intriguing because they involve topics that are almost like 'taboos,' and do not have serious critical discourses (though this has changed in the last 10 years). A taboo is a 'fear' of something and it is thus avoided. So, the taboo against knowing 'sex' (and sexuality) seemed an appropriate analogy to the taboo against knowing 'fear' (and fearuality). 'Fear' actually seems to do everything it can to not know itself." [5]

In Fisher (1998) I continued to mark out bits of philosophy, theory and history around phobosology, so I'll quote it all, including the first philosopher to comment on my notion of phobosology (before it became labeled fearology; see this blog series 2 coming soon on the use of fearology):

"Phobosology is the first discipline to grow out of the spectrum framework of the transpersonal theory of Ken Wilber (see Appendix IV). Phobosology applies the spectrum or integral theory of consciousness [a la Wilber] and attempts a synthesis of all the disciplines and ways of knowing 'fear'--honoring each approach as part of the Whole or Reality. For an overview of the literature on phobosology (see Fisher, 1997c) [6]. These are all publications by Fisher, for as yet no one else has declared themselves a phobosologist ('fear' hunter, 'fear' researcher per se). The field is very new and this encyclopedia [Fisher, 1998] is one of the more important contributions to the field of a systematic study of 'fear'. A key task of phobosology in the next while is to define 'fear.' For we have to know what we are talking about when we use the term, and when we explore the interrelationship of 'fear' with Life.

Currently Fisher is planning a professional international journal for phobosologists [7] and anyone interested in 'fear.' The journal is likely to be called 'Fear' Spectrum: A Critical Journal on the Nature and Role of 'Fear'. This field of inquiry takes an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach to knowing 'fear.' The intention is to create a full scale public critical dialogue on 'fear' and its place in our society and future. All evidence seems to indicate that 'fear' is growing rapidly on this planet and we will have to learn much more about it. Ken Wilber, transpersonal [and integral] theorist wrote [after I sent him my brief proposal of this new field of study phobosology]:

Dear Robert, I think your transpersonal study of fear is a terrific idea. You are a meticulous researcher and the world would benefit considerably if you published all of this material that you have been collecting for over a decade--as well as your conceptual summary in terms of the fear spectrum. It all sounds great to me. My only negative criticism is the name, 'transpersonal phobosology'. That's a bit much... phobosology? Sounds like a disease of the nose. Anyway, good luck with this endeavor." - Ken Wilber, personal communication, 1995 [8]."

To end this first blog in this series on a brief history of Fearology, I draw your attention to an excerpt I took from the internet on the brief history of Sexology. Again, because from the beginning of my work in 1989 on fear (and 'fear') and fearlessness, the analogy of studying fear the way humans have studied sex, be it formally or informally, is useful. I like reading texts on sex and sexuality and sexology, then going in to the text and replacing the work sex with fear in all instances. This gives a kind of legitimation to the study of fear so seriously as have others done with sex. It always leaves me feeling more assured that someday, even with resistances (as you can read below in the history of sexology and taboos against knowing) that fearology will someday emerge as a distinct field of scholarship, professional practice and basic education for all. It must be added, of course, that thanatology (the study of death and human relationship to it) is also a similar analogy and taboo of sorts, which I will write about in another of this series of blogs.

So as you read the below, on sexology, try replacing fearology, and on sex, replacing fear, just to get a feel for how this analogy may be very useful in guiding future understandings and research on fearology. What is clear is that there is a politics of knowledge/power pervasive in any society and when it comes to taboo topics (e.g., sex, death, fear) there is going to be resistance to the development of awareness, education and knowledge that promotes better sex, death and fear management. It is of course to me an irony this is the case, because I also see that humanity (in the long run) also wants to advance its knowledge and skills in managing these topics.

[below excerpt from: http://www.davidmckenzie.ca/about-sexology/a-brief-history-of-sexology]:

"A Brief History Of Sexology

Clinical sexology has its roots in mid-19th Century England and Germany. Havelock Ellis (1859-1939), an English medical doctor, surgeon and sexologist, was one of the first researchers to challenge the sexual repression of the Victorian Age (generally considered to span the time of Queen Victoria's reign, 1819-1901) along with its taboo against masturbation (now considered by sex health experts to be a normal sexual behaviour, essential for healthy sexual development).

In 1919, Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, a German physician and clinical sexologist, founded the first Institute for Sexology in Berlin (Zentrum fur Sexualwissenschaft). The Institute accumulated a vast body of research on human sexual development as well as the treatment of sexual concerns and dysfunctions. It was the first such Institute to offer a clinic for the specific purpose of treating sexual problems.

On May 6, 1933, under orders from the Nazi High Command, Brownshirts broke into the Institute and carried away its vast collection of books, research material and clinical files to be destroyed at the infamous May 10, 1933 book burning on Berlin's Opera Square. The Institute was immediately closed. In passing, it must be stated that the later institutes, clinics and research of the great 20th century sexologists, Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, and Masters and Johnsonhad their forerunner in Hirschfeld's Institute.

After World War II, there was a renaissance of sexology in both America and Europe. In 1948, Alfred Kinsey and his associates founded the Kinsey Institutefor sexual research at the University of Indiana. In 1967 and in 1970, medical researchers and sexologists William Masters and Virginia Johnson published their vast, groundbreaking research in two separate volumes entitled Human Sexual Response and Human Sexual Inadequacy. They also founded a teaching Institute and treatment clinic. In 1983, Humbolt-Univeritat zu Berlin opened the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology to the public.

The science of sexology is now a well established and widely taught discipline in many of the world's leading universities. If you are interested in discovering just how widespread sexological research is, please visit the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology Website. You will find an exhaustive resource for learning about sexology's history and scientific research, and more links to the growing worldwide list of universities and institutes studying clinical sexology."

Now, I'll include the Wikipedia brief summary of Sexology:

Sexology is the scientific study of human sexuality, including human sexual interests, behaviors and functions.^[1] The term sexology does not generally refer to the non-scientific study of sexuality, such as political science or social criticism.^[2][3]

Sexologists apply tools from several academic fields, such as biology, medicine, psychology, epidemiology, sociology, and criminology. Topics of study include sexual development (puberty), sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual relationships, sexual activities, paraphilias, atypical sexual interests. It also includes the study of sexuality across the lifespan, including child sexuality, puberty, adolescent sexuality, and sexuality among the elderly. Sexology also spans sexuality among the mentally and/or physically disabled. The sexological study of sexual dysfunctions and disorders, including erectile dysfunction, anorgasmia, and pedophilia, are also mainstays.  [extract from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexology]

In the next series blog I will write a critique of these notions of sexology, of which I believe fearology can improve upon in its early conceptualizations in order not to fall into a [scientific and clinical] reductionism I interpret above in this discourse on sexology. Okay, until next time...

Notes:

1. An extensive history of fearology (before it was named this) has yet to be written but is very important to document. Some aspects of this history are available in my book (Fisher, 2010) where I arc out a transdisciiplinary and transcultural historical and evolutionary view of humans and their attempts to understand and manage fear. See Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world's fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. See also Subba (2014) for some historical overview of this as well [in end note 2.]

2. Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Australia: Xlibris. See also Fisher, R. M., and Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris.

3. Historically, and arguably, one could say that the world's first fearology institute, before I used that naming structure with fearology as primary, was the 1991 In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute I founded in Calgary, AB, Canada. The ISOF Research Institute still exists and facilitates research scholarship, writing, teaching on all issues related to fear and fearlessness in the broadest and deepest sense--of which, fearology per se is only part of.

4. Fisher, R. M. (1998). 'Fear' encyclopedia. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute, p. 84.

5. Ibid., p. 75.

6. Fisher, R. M. (1997). Phobosology: A basic introduction to written materials. Unpubl. paper.

7. The latest version of such a journal is still alive in vision. See https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/steps-to-becoming-a-professional-fearologist

8. Fisher (1998), p. 75.

I will not try to elaborately explain his ideas about fear because his ideas about fear are clearly explained in his much celebrated book Philosophy of Fearism. After about an hour's exchange of views I have an impression that he regards fear as 'causative agent' to actions of all kinds. He uses the word 'fear' as a force guiding us to all our actions. Though I agree with his idea, I do not necessarily share his idea simply because he uses fear in place of 'lack of something'. For instance, he believes that a rich man fears being poor thus doesn't want to be poor. In this example you can replace fear with 'lack of richness' and it would mean the same. That is, a person who doesn't want to be poor knows how it is to not be rich. The absence of something or knowledge about something he says is fear.I pointed out to him that I believe that fear originates from knowledge from the past and projects itself as a plan of action to be pursued in the future. So in order for the person to fear he has to think in the future, he necessarily has to 'expect' something to happen, whose outcome being uncertain leads to fear, where fear is the uncertainty of the future itself. Desh Subba to this replies that he doesn't think in all cases 'expectation' leads to or is itself fear. He simply believes fear 'causes' a person to pursue a certain task or action. As I said before I would let Desh Subba's book do the talking when it comes to explaining in detail his views. I am interested in the process of fear thus I write only a few points pertaining to my interest. I also continue with the idea that fear is fleeing mechanism with regard to the stimulus phenomenologically speaking. I hope Desh can clarify any misunderstanding if there are any...Thank you -Pooja Soni

Jennifer Gidley is a futurist-educator of the highest calibre as a thinker and with great experience in educational alternatives and critique of education systems that are largely a couple of hundred years out-of-date with the challenges young people face in the early 21st century. I agree and applaud so much of what she has offered over the years, including her latest book Postformal Education: A Philosophy for Complex Futures (2017).

That said, my brief book review here is going to focus on what I think are major flaws in her philosophy of education, her use of Integral Theory, and developmental psychology discourse in general. The quickest way to say my critique in a nutshell is: Gidley is a political liberalist and it influences most every interpretation of education, of Integral Theory (e.g., of Ken Wilber's work) and of developmental psychology and evolution I read in her work. In other words, she is so enthralled with cognitive development of the higher orders (e.g., vision-logic, postformalism, fifth-order thinking) to analyze and solve the world's problems, she ends up not very radical at all. I find her quite a liberal thinker. I also find this true of Integral Circles and Schools of thought today, most everywhere. They are "gutted" for consumer culture (i.e., marketability) not so much for radical pursuit of the "truth" and liberation. Sure, she is critical of neoliberalism and its take-over of much of education today. Good. But it is not a very sophisticated critique or a good ideological and political critique (using critical theory) as background context for how she pursues educational philosophy and postformalism in general. I like Kincheloe & Steinberg's views of postformalism somewhat better in terms of critical and radical perspectives [1].

So, I am disappointed again in an integral book on education, that is supposed to be for the betterment of future generations. I am not pleased how she defaults on "love" as so core to her integral future curriculum design and how she says nothing of any depth about "fear"--many of you reading this will know that I am a big critical of all kinds of folks using the love-default and general pc positivism [2] in their philosophies to save the world. But let me return to the "politics" that she so ignores (or skirts around). 

To keep this critique short (someday I may write a longer critique of this book): Gidley's book does not have in the Index terms like "oppression" or "emancipation" or better yet, "liberation." I find this tells of just how "gutted" and "watered down" his her philosophy, theorizing of "integral" and her thinking in general. Her curriculum is anything but radical from this perspective, because she has no philosophy (or psychology) of oppression and liberation at the core of her curriculum conceptualization. I am convinced her training as a professional psychologist all these decades has muted and liberalized her radical-edge which is truly sitting there in her work and writing but not quite blossoming; she seems afraid to let it out. And, of course, one would be much less financially successful if they took the liberation path fully and spoke truths that are prophetic and very uncomfortable to the masses and even the liberal leftists, etc. 

For my part, I put the 'Fear' Project as the major oppressive force on the planet. It is worse in negative impact today than ever before because of complex structuration and new media means of public pedagogy that puts people in so much fear that it hampers how they perceive, think, learn, and believe and act on fear-based messages from elites and others. Unfortunately, most do not see the fear ('fear') construction everyday. It is called the context of the postmodern era--that is, the context of the "culture of fear." (Again, I have written lots about that). Gidley doesn't mention this context at all. She operates without a radical identification of oppression and liberation. I end my critique there. It is not a book worthy of a future that she wants and most of us want where people are "free" and a healthy sane and sustainable society is potentially unfolding. She thinks cognitive development (leading) and some emotional and social development etc. will take us out of this nightmare of the culture of fear--or, at least, it appears to me she thinks so. The politics of such cognitive development (and healing of cognitive pathologies of the old paradigms) is not an easy task and will not be accomplished without a powerful "shadow" work. I do not see Gidley entertain depths like this in her book and any of her writing. 

Yes, much of her book can be useful in the future of curriculum design, teaching and learning theories, etc. Fine. But neoliberalism, which she admits is gutting Education everywhere in very negative ways, has to be 'hooked' to its root in a society extremely anxious, if not terrified of the future--especially, of economic security. That is, a culture of fear and neoliberalism cannot be unhooked as she does--or ignores the fact of it. Many critics (like Henry Giroux) have said as much as I am. However, none of the educational critics has given a critical integral attention to analyzing how fear ('fear') moves in and shapes all things today on massive scales to micro scales of operations. Education is a reproducer of that fear-based structuration--that is, what I have called the 'Fear' project. So, we need a counterhegemonic Fearlessness Project--and Movement. 

Honestly, I would rather Gidley (and her many followers) look carefully at how to build a curriculum and philosophy for a liberational futures and not get so distracted by complex futures. That's my ultimate critique of this book and Gidley's project. I think with good open dialogue, her and I and others may bring our work together and move forward in a truly prophetic and pragmatic futures education for all... one that has a theory of oppression and liberation at the core--not complexity alone. 

Notes

1. Kincheloe, J. L. & Steinberg, S. R. (2011). A tentative description of post-formal thinking. In K. Hayes et al. (Eds.), Key works in critical pedagogy: Joe L. Kincheloe (pp. 53-76). Amsterdam, Holland: Sense Publishers.

2. My complex theorizing on "positivism" is way beyond the rational positivism notion in epistemology but includes cultural hegemonic formations of everything from political correctness (and identity politics), be gentle loving and caring and be positive (e.g., positiive thinking) ideologies that have flooded North American culture (at least) for the past 3 or more decades. It is like one cannot say anything really "critical" because victim culture that accompanies the positivism ideology will attack you for being mean and saying something offensive to some one (while, they themselves attack with viciousness because you are not conforming to their positivism). 

I have been asking people in a short survey: "How would you define the Fear Problem?" 

Feel free to answer this here and wax on at length; I'm really curious.  -Thanks.

Without going into the technical and philosophical tradition of critique of adequatio in knowledge pursuit in general, let me say that this concept refers to the questioning of methodology, approach, attitude, assumption, discourse, perspective, worldview, and so on--and, how these impact the claims of knowledge we make as thinkers. 

How adequate is a person's thinking (including, methodology, etc.) to take on with adequacy a particular task, and in this case my questioning revolves around the task of gaining truth(s) about Fear and Fearlessness. I'll focus on "Fearlessness" because this is what this ning, and the historical Fearlessness Movement is all about. 

How does one both pursue knowledge about Fearlessness, define Fearlessness, conceptualize it (and ourselves in relationship to it both individually and collectively, and historically, culturally, politically, etc.)? This is a methodological question. A research inquiry into Fearlessness can be loose and sort of an anybody and everybody say what they want and make claims. There is a place for that free-for-all pluralism alright in any topic as long as there are not too severe of consequences regarding what claims are to be made and implications--based on context and subject matter under investigation (e.g., a problem).

My interest has always been to let people claim what they may, inquire as they may, and let's put all that information together and see if it helps us sort out Fearlessness. However, that is a very limited methodology and approach itself, which when the stakes are high, as I believe they are today with the exacerbated Fear Problem on the planet, there may have to be less encouragement of that wide pluralistic way and focus on a more systematic way of knowledge, knowing, and understanding of Fearlessness. It is just too important of a concept and phenomena, arguably, to let anyone make claims without them being challenged by more systematic expertise and careful thought. 

So, I have spent decades on this epistemological issue of adequatio when it comes to Fearlessness. The PRACTICAL suggestion of my writing this blog on adequatio is for all writers on fear (who are serious) to locate themselves, their methodology, perspective, etc. in up-front ways, so that others can assess the limitations of one's claims made because of those methodological structurations and biases.

The book I have co-authored with Desh Subba (2016), Philosophy of Fearism: An East-West dialogue is one of the shorter but good summaries of a lot of my thinking on these issues. I also wanted to leave readers here with an excerpt from my new book [1] about to come out in 2018 in the next few months. It is an excerpt on my (imaginary) discussion with Four Arrows (aka Dr. Don Trent Jacobs) an very important Indigeneous scholar and educator who has developed his own notions of Fear and Fearlessness over 30 years: 

Four Arrows: I am noting the tension in the responses as to what we should be focusing on, Love or Fear or Fearlessness. A Fearlessness philosophy is something I have not specifically ever thought about until meeting Michael some ten years ago. I would say, Indigenous philosophy is primarily at core, in motivation and inspiration, a Fearlessness philosophy, yet I know that isn’t going to fly in the academy, and certainly not amongst philosophers. Yet it is true. Unfortunately, “Most of the education about [an] Indigenous worldview that incorporates the importance of courage does not say much about fearlessness. Nonetheless, Indigenous worldview holds that courage leads to fearlessness at a magical point when the commitment to act on courage is irrevocable. It is a kind of trust in the universe that is a legacy for all of us. We face a situation in the world that demands that we re-embrace this perspective as best we can.”[i] I have already published on my critical views about Western philosophy and the Dominant worldview re: fear and courage and how there are a lot of “half-truths put forward by Aristotle and Socrates” which just about all philosophers in the West picked up and pass on, right up until this day. Greg Cajete, Jongmin Lee and I critiqued current neurophilosophy and neuropsychology for its inadequacy and how they are so biased, requiring a radical different perspective to integrate with science that the ancient knowledge of Indigenous Peoples offers about reality.[ii] So, come to think of it, I suppose that was my ecophilosopher-self challenging philosophy as a field to ‘wake up’ to its hegemony and the dangerousness of that course. The other starting place to research on a fearlessness philosophy is to notice how these same philosophers seem to have no respect for Fearlessness, at least the way Michael and I use it.

 Michael (M): I wrote a technical paper on the West’s fear of Fearlessness, and/or its lack of interest in it.[iii] You know there are multiple scholars writing a history of fear but none have written a history of fearlessness. This is a “gap” that a Fearlessness philosophy will have to address and as Rafiq said so well, we have to ask if philosophy and its methodologies as we know them today, especially in the West, can adequately research Fearlessness, including a sacred perspective, at least as Four Arrows and I have been conceptualizing it.

I just read Chapter 4 in a 2013 dissertation by Merlin B. Thompson, a musician and music educator [1]. This work is an excellent description of a phenomenological-hermeneutical inquiry into the practice of "authenticity" in teaching/learning experiences, but what most interested me is how the researcher was eventually confronted with what they did not previously in their 25 year career look at seriously or critically in a self-reflection. Thompson writes in Chapter 4, "I depart from the previous chapter's personal viewpoint to consider the implications of an additional concept that interrupted my research process....an investigation into the relationship between authenticity and fear" (p. 16). 

I attach the dissertation for your reading, especially of Chapter 4 (and what Thompson comes to call "The Black Hole of Fear" experienced).

I end this short blog with a self-reflective discovery Thompson (2013) made: 

"Fear is not an abstract, objectified concept that somehow manages to superimpose itself upon an individual. Fear is the name given to intensely unpleasant, worrisome, and apprehensive real life reactions that individuals experience for themselves and about themselves. The individual's experience of fear acts like a kind of spotlight that illuminates or draws our attention toward characteristic features of who we are as individuals. Through fear--that is, the experiencing, addressing, overcoming, ignoring, and avoiding of fear--the individual gets important clues regarding one's self, no matter how accurate or inaccurate, noticed or unnoticed, complete or incomplete such clues might be. 

How we respond to fear gives us an indication of who we are as individuals....Fear stimulates or intensifies the individual's self-perception, not by validating or nurturing the individual, but by threatening or disrupting the individual's sense of personal safety and security. With the idea of fear as provoker of personal awareness and authentic disruption in mind, I return to the continuation of the above narrative." (p. 115)

"Looking back at my experience with the eruption of the black hole of fear, the subsequent recognition of a pattern of downgrade-downplay-denial, and finally the purposeful validation of fear as integral to my successful achievements, what stands out is that fear has played an ongoing role in my personal and professional life--much like a disruptive character who appears unexpectedly in the various chapters of my life narrative. More importantly, however, is the observation that the disruption of fear and my ability to accept fear into my life allowed me to develop both philosophical and practical resolutions to the uncertainty, insecurity, and failure associated with the experience of fear. 

Recognizing fear, not as an undesirable tension but as a characteristic of life, there is something appropriate, essential, and self-revealing about the experience of fear that speaks to who we are as human beings, to the individuals sense of self, to authenticity....fear functions as an agent of personal transformation. Fear operates as a catalyst for learning about one's self..." (p. 116)

[I am struck by Thompson's authentic self-reflection and vulnerability in disclosing their relationship to fear, and the turn around to realize Fear is so important to self-awareness and self-knowledge. This is confirming of Subba's philosophy of fearism. And, it reminds me of how the value of Love may also help this process of self-awareness and self-knowledge but Fear is at least equally important in that journey.]

Note: 

1. Thompson, M. B. (2013). Authenticity, teaching relationships, and Suzuki. Unpublished dissertation. Calgary, AB: The University of Calgary.

Nigerian author Osinakachi Akuma Kalu has just published a new book: The First Stage Of The Fearologist (2017). He has been writing books within the Fearism genre in the past couple years. His last book was "Conquering the Beast Fear A Philosophical Cum Psychological Approach" (2016). This book is the first book looking at fear as philosophical aspect. His second book explores more aspects of fear.

These two books will be recognized tomorrow as a part of Philosophy of Fearism/Fearlessness/Fear Psychology/Fearlessness Movement. It is my understanding that he is a rising philosophical author from Africa already at age 24. We are a team of Philosophy of Fearism. I hope some more authors will join us in the future. He is one of the best nurturerers of Philosophy of Fearism in the world.

I will describe below another interesting, albeit somewhat terrifying, experience psychologically that has been with me for the past 48 hrs. I am alright, just a little shaky and mostly exhausted.

I suspect, there are some potentially useful insights in these experiences for learning about fear and fearlessness. I see them as engagements or encounters with the "edge" --or, you might say, with the 'surprise' in one's life where the ontological and existential disruption of the rational and one's sense of normal identity is challenged. The first of these phenomenological inquiries I post here on theFM blog Oct. 12/17 Spontaneous Fear "Practicing" in the Unconscious. That may be a good article to read before this one. Note, all this work "practicing" fear at the edge is perhaps useful to Feariatry work.

I suggested in that first article that "fear" has more than a genetic (primal) and/or learned (conditioned) dynamic. The common rational view would be to stick with those two categories as they are empirically studied phenomena, of which psychology has well documented. As partial truth. I suggested the unconscious (via psychoanalysis) is also itself a dynamic field of fear/terror production amongst other things.

The typical rational psychologist, philosopher or thinker rarely penetrates the phenomenological depths of the fear experience--or what Kierkegaard so rightly labeled the exigencies of "fear and trembling" that go with being human in a world of 'surprises' and great emotional and felt explosions (including deep love for, and loss of, another). The mystics of all religions and beyond religions have often written about these disturbing experiences of altered states and/or some incursion of unconscious aspects into their 'normal' and/or 'spiritual' experiences. At times shaking or shattering their identities. At times, with the right conditions, the unconscious seems capable of causing one to simply lose it. 

In this blog I'll describe my fresh almost 'losing it' (at the edge) experience. Then I'll follow with some theorizing and philosophizing from a fearlessness perspective--and, keep in mind, that a philosophy of fearlessness is my long-term project of which you will want to know that it requires great vulnerability to practice, embody, live and be at times overwhelmed by because of extreme methodological procedures[1]. I'll return to that in the last part of the blog.  

The focus of my last 48 hrs is on somatic experience. But before I get to this, I want to contextualize this experience. My body was (is) 'breaking down' and that is part of a longer-term medical diagnosis recently in the past month of being told by doctors that my little symptom of "shortage of breath" at times is actually a very serious heart disease problem that finally is manifesting. I have genetically-based coronary heart disease. Most all my family members on my dad's side (males only) die of early heart disease and diabetes in their 50s or 60s and/or they get open heart surgery. My brother is a case in point. Apparently, now, I am one of those too.

It's understandable that this disease would eventually catch up to me and throw me for a loop. Again, nearly a month ago I was diagnosed and that came after many medical tests, all of which I cannot stand doing. I have a loathing (and fear) of medical systems for a lot of reasons. I don't like being out of control, and having to give up Authority to the system and establishment which has most all the power when it comes to physical illness and dysfunctions.

My doctors have told me that I am "lucky" to not have had a serious heart attack because I am "a heart attack waiting to happen." I now (apparently) have this medical (problematic) identity to live with--a medical institutional inscription based on something I cannot even see (except on an ECG or with fancy imaging technologies). This of course is a 'surprise' totally to me as I am quite a fit person who rarely goes to the doctor more than once a year for the basic medical examination. I'm a healthy self, body and somatically I love that experience of being relatively strong and fit. Of course, with age (now I'm 65) there is an increasing sense of physical vulnerability as things continue to wear out and/or at times not working so well in the body. I give all this information as context for my structuring of a self-ascribed (self-empowered narrative) to a 'normal' identity as the somatic level, or what could be called a somatocentric "self" (one of my multiple selves). 

It is amazing how the health of the body is foundational to a sense of ontological (psychological) well-being--at least, it has been for me. Now I am disabled. I take 5 medications daily or twice daily. I can never get away from my sickness by this practice. I want to resist it all. But I also live with my wife who cares about me. I have daughters and a grandson, etc. This sense of "healthy" identity is all now up in the air. So, my schedule is all thrown off--now, it is abnormal--and I have an image of myself at my end of life--and, at times I even contemplate choosing death and not having the open heart multiple bypass surgery. The tenuous of my existence, with the image of the heart with clogged arteries is with me now every moment as the medical technology showed me and doctors the disease of several arteries on my heart. I could be in the next second in pain with heart seizure because of shortage of blood to the heart muscles. I could be on the operating table which is in late January (though, I don't yet have a schedule for it) and die on the table in the institution. The post-op recovery time is horribly long and painful, from all accounts of others and what doctors are warning me. 

So, with this context of a barrage of fear-based messaging about my condition and my future--altering everything I know about myself rationally and somatically--I look fine, there is a shaking of ontological and self-identity going on now like I have not experienced ever before. So, then 48 hrs ago or so I got a cold. My wife's young friend Zoe had it when she visited us. Barbara then got it. Then I got it. Barbara had a rough time with the cold symptoms, but I really got hit by it all. Notice the sense of 'surprise' as being 'hit' that I could get this sick. I don't get colds very often, but I don't remember one like this with so much head pain and sinus swellings and weariness--the latter, all part of the drug cocktail I am on as well because of my heart condition. In particular, fear/terror (almost a subtle panic attack) came upon me during the day trying to sleep. Barbara was away working at the studio all day. I was coping with the horrible symptoms that totally dragged me down. I couldn't think or write and get work done on my computer. I tried sleeping because the night before I didn't sleep at all, maybe but a few minutes--the cold symptoms kept me awake and breathing was hard. Yet, then I started to get a fever as the old body tries to fight off the infection. I have not had a fever, with spells of hot flashes, like this for a very long time. 

I could not sleep again, and again and again. I'm exhausted. This really showed through in what I experienced as 'losing it' last night in bed, like a small child, my mind racing and disturbing thoughts, the whole set of changes of my normal routines, of lack of normal sleep and having to take all kinds of extra treatments that Barbara was giving me. I wasn't myself. And, I didn't know who I was as I laid in bed in the dark alone. Barbara was in the bathtub. I felt I was doing so many things for other people, and that included doctors. I was losing who I was, and I was panicking because of disorientation--ontological disruption and being overwhelmed by all the changes going on at the same time. Barbara and I are continually having to talk about medications, treatment, how to prepare for the operation and afterwards because it is a big burden on care-givers. I hate being a physical burden on anyone. I like being the helper not the helped. Or so it seems... these are the kinds of things that led to me having to tell Barbara "I'm scared." I rarely ever say that anytime in my life and not to my partner. 

I went through that needy feeling of dependency, of losing it (meaning, losing my full rational self-control)--of losing my mind, of the irrational and arational elements pouring over me--and, 'surprising' me to such an extent that I could go so low as to be so helpless or needing care from another to comfort me. It was very humbling. I didn't get much sleep again but I am able to write this blog. It is my therapy of trying to find some 'normalization' of what it is I like to do and who I think I am. I get to be the fearologist, the philosopher the rational person. At least, it is a semblance of such. But I think when I walk back into the dark bedroom alone today, and feel all the overwhelming changes of my identity and my body, and the threat of continually wondering is my heart going to seize in the next 5 weeks before the operation, oh, my it is not a pleasant thing to go into that dark with my vulnerable and exhausted body ... and, eventually, if I don't sleep my mind will (more or less) breakdown. I have been terrified on several occasions in my life by people having mental breakdowns (e.g., panic attacks, psychoses), including my love-ones. I know this experience well. I never thought I might be the one to go through such--though, I always knew it was possible. I feel "victimized" all around. Not that I want to feel that way. It is irrational, and arational, and it is from the unconscious and circumstances of multiple 'big' changes all at once. Fear (unconscious-based) emerges with and alongside many sources. 

So a philosophy of fearlessness, has always been a philosophy of vulnerability as true and authentic courage to live and breakdown and die--the latter, is happening all the time, but we keep that in denial and at bay and when we are young and healthy we sure don't think about it much. So, I am now both not young and not healthy. That's totally weird but it is a good chance to practice philosophy of fearlessness. I cannot rely on rational deduction or thinking to get me through. I know my body needs to heal through a lot of distress, and trauma, still... because I am convinced, as fearlessness says, that our worst fears are from old wounds that are often being triggered in the present by stressful circumstances. This painful reminder is our existential condition. Suffering exists. There is no relief. But fearlessness is also joy found in the midst of that suffering and fear/terror--even panic. I am learning from this all. I trust my experiences may help others. I have learned, as the philosophy of fearism also says, there is no need to try to escape from fear-- it is the foundation of everything. 

A philosophy of fearlessness thus would say that "fear" experience, phenomenologically, is essential to our human condition and it is a great way to grow and mature if we handle and manage fear well. Doing so by feeling in and through the depths of the vulnerable, the deconstruction of one self, the failure of one's skills, and finding many selves, and finding there is no "solid" self identity to depend on-- all these things are part n' parcel of developing what I call existential and emotional competency and humility. But such skills and meta-skills of competency to 'walk through' and 'fall through' and 'break down' are only built by dropping down into the out-of-control feelings and losing it! Even going crazy to some degree is real too. It doesn't have to be a clinical diagnosis (or identity) that psychiatry puts on it (on us) as the final meaning.

I wish in my life to follow this path and feel and experience what I do because it is this diversity of being in control and losing control that make for wisdom and compassion. I will admit, that I have been not well-balancing my skills in the domain of losing it. I've been too in control for too long. I have been the strong one for Barbara and others. I have been the leader and caregiver. And, now, I have to go through my own disability and needs to be taken care of. I have to realize I may get strong again, but not until after I have this operation and put my 'heart' and my 'life' literally in the hands of others--they are the experts, they are the powerful authorities. I have to let go. This latter quality is deeply ingrained in the mystical paths (universally) of what I call the path of fearlessness.

The rational philosophers tend to stay away from this messy interiority of life and experience, but the existentialists have been more the courageous explorers in that territory. Philosophy of fearlessness goes beyond what the existentialists have to offer, I believe, because there is a path and map of the soul's journey that goes with philosophy of fearlessness [2]. It is a developmental philosophy and requires we do our development work with credibility, with integrity, and mostly with vulnerability. How could I really trust a philosopher or philosophy that has not deeply gone into and through the fear/terror experiences of 'surprise' and losing it? 

Notes

1. The implicit argument is that 'authenticity' is the hallmark of this orientation to philosophy and psychological living experiences, and not just alone but in relationships. In my dissertation (2000-03) I totally immersed myself in studying the "culture of fear" phenomenon using an arts-based performative method called a/r/tography. The qualitative research method was also heuristic inquiry which demands one steep their entire lives in the study of their subject, which includes themselves and the co-mutual interactions going on. In the end, my dissertation was labeled by colleagues as "authentic" but was too disturbing or difficult to understand. I ended up labeling my methodology (i.e., practicing fearlessness) a "voluntary performative schizoidal praxis" (Fisher, 2008, p. 145). See Fisher, R. M. (with Quaye, S. J., and Pope, B.) (2008). "Fearless Leadership": R. Michael Fisher's story. In Four Arrows (Jacobs, D. T.) (2008). The authentic dissertation: Alternative ways of knowing, research, and representation (pp. 143-48). NY: Routledge.

2. I am referring to my map in Fisher (2010), p. 48. The traveling from stages of victim, to survivor, to warrior to lover. My wife Barbara and I have been discussing with this recent major turn of events (and life transition) that I now have to work more closely with her to find the way from my 'warrior' identity to 'lover.' It's rocking my boat. See Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world's fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 

Introduction

Right from the origin of intellectual enterprise, especially from written history, there has been always this curiosity to speculate on the primary sources of all things. This search which started in the earliest times of human intellectual activity and which received different notions culminated in the medieval era when the primary sources or the primordial force of all things was understood and interpreted as “God”[1]. Theocentrism or divinism was the dominant throughout that period.

            Between the late 14^th and early 15^th century, the Renaissance[2] emerged, and so there was a sudden transition from “divinism” to humanism: then emerged later was the modern era when the existence of the medieval “God” was questioned with a flurry of refutations.

            Hence, while this write-up does not join issues with any of the mainline traditional God-talk arguments, it charts a new course by trying to demonstrate that the emotive tendency of man is a pointer to God’s existence. This is what is called fearological  pointer to God’s existence.

            Nevertheless, this argument which in not inductive but deductive, is written based on the validity of the arguments; and not based on the soundness of the argument or the truth of its proposition.

Definition

According to this argument, since the reality of fear in man is inevitable, and he strives towards perfection and sustainability of himself and the universe; then there must have be the existence of an absolute being who orders all things emotively, which is called God[3].

The Argument

The human being (in contradistinction to other persons- robot or algorithms)[4] as a rational being is capable of doing anything within his reach for self preservation. This tendency continues to the point that even the Seven Wonders of the World no longer beat the imagination of the civilized unless those who have not witnessed the “techno-scientific surprise packs”, which is as a result of the reality of the time, that is, the “age-of-minutest-techno-wonder”.

            A critical examination of this human tendency concludes that it is as a result of ‘fear’[5]. This is because; it is fear which spurs man’s intentionality’s, strivings or desiring[6]. And so, this striving gears towards self and societal preservation. However, since the creative cum domineering nature of man makes him to sometimes take things  to their extremity, such as construction of bombs, missiles, acids and other weapons of mass destruction, fear now spurs man to produce defensive tools and methods as well as offensive tools; which is motivated by fear.

            Therefore, this sense of protecting and improving on life with regards to self-preservation is a pointer that there must be an absolute being who must have instilled this emotive feeling in man for the preservation of humanity (even though they use it maliciously) and its sustainability. This absolute being is called God.

The Syllogistic Demonstration

The human person has the self-consciousness of his emotive feeling of fear.

His emotive feeling of fear spurs him to self and societal preservation and sustainability: which cannot be non-teleological. The teleology of the emotive feeling of fear of the human person must be ordered by an absolute Being.

Therefore, this absolute Being is called God.

My book (above) was published in 2010 by University Press of America, an imprint at the time of Rowman & Littlefield. Although this imprint press was a vanity press where I had to pay retail price for the first 100 copies, I felt it was worth compiling 25 years of my research on fear and fearlessness in one volume. The below blog information gives you an update of what this book is about, and what has happened to it since then.

First, here is what the back cover of the book says: The World's Fearlessness Teachings addresses the human fear problem in a truly unique and insightful way, summarizing the teachings on fearlessness from around the world and throughout history. The author then utilizes critical integral theory (a la Wilber) as an approach to categorize the developmental and evolutionary spectrum of fear management systems known thus far. The author has spent twenty years researching the timely topic of fear and how to best manage and transform it. From this experience, he offers an educational healing vision to address the challenges of a dangerous 21st century. Fear's empire has taken rule. It is time to resist it using the best intelligence from both sacred and secular traditions, as well as the transformational theories humanity has to offer. Fisher maps out ten fear management systems that will benefit future-positive leaders everywhere.

   From the Amazon books website:

I found [Fisher's] dilineation of the historical and theoretical contexts of "teaching fearlessness" affirming. They provide a strong staging area for discussion on the role of fear and emotional intelligence in transformational learning. (Mary O'Hara, Ph.D., sociologist, activist, and teacher)

This book is an important one. I'll not teach a curriculum theory class without it in the future. (Clifford Mayes Ph.D, Psy.D, Retired Professor of Educational Psychology, BYU and author)

   About the Author

R. Michael Fisher is a self-proclaimed postmodern fearologist with graduate degrees in rehabilitation studies, adult education and curriculum philosophy and design. He currently researches, writes, and consults as a private human development consultant.

The original retail price was $49.00 US. After 7 year, the price has gone up to $74.75 - up to 88.61 US for soft cover, which is a substantial increase of which I have no idea why that is the case, but I guess it tells us that the book is perceived on the market place as worth increasing value with time, like a good piece of art. And, I am glad about that. However, I wish it was more affordable to more people. The Kindle e-book Canadian version costs only $ 54.99.

To my delight, however, the book is available free to browse many of its pages at https://www.amazon.ca/Worlds-Fearlessness-Teachings-Management-Education/dp/0761849157

As well, copies are available from me at the original $49.00 US (plus shipping)--unfortunately, it is too costly to send copies by mail overseas outside of the US or Canada. email me: r.michaelfisher52 [at] gmail.com. However, free copies are available to read from college, university and public libraries around the world. Currently, a search of my book on Worldcat website shows that 175 libraries (mostly universities) are available in Ecuador, Malaysia, China, Hong Kong, Australia, S. Africa, Europe, etc. As well as in most states in the USA and provinces in Canada. It is great to see that international academic libraries found the book attractive to purchase. Unfortunately, this is not the case for books on Philosophy of Fearism by Desh (2014) or by both of us as co-authors (2016). This latter problem is due to Desh and I publishing outside of good established publishing houses, like Rowman & Littlefield because the latter know how to distribute flyers to the buyers.

Unfortunately, no scholar has written a book review of The World's Fearlessness Teachings and likely it is too late for that to happen any more. However, 4 people (all I know personally) have written book reviews on amazon.com. Here they are:

This book is the most comprehensive compilation of information, experience and critique of fear and fearlessness I have ever seen. For anyone who works with people, this book is integral. For anyone who has struggled with fear and courage, this book is very useful. For anyone curious about personal growth, human potential, the human condition, this book will become a reference you will return to over and over again. I'm about to read it again!  -Jan Sheppard, (clinical counselor) 2015

Fisher tackles a subject that ought to be talked about --and practiced -- more. When someone focuses on a specific topic in such depth, and over such a long period of time, the product is usually worthwhile, and this is no exception. If you want to learn about how you can move from simplistic ideas about managing anxiety, towards a comprehensive approach to becoming fearless, then read this book!   -Durwin Foster (clinical counselor) 2015

Dr. R. Michal Fisher is an artist, writer, counselor, human development consultant and public intellectual. He is a co-founder and director of the "In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute" since 1989. He is a Canadian citizen. He is one of the leading Fearist writers of world. He has been writing on fearlessness and fear management/fear education since 1989.

His book "The World's Fearlessness Teaching, A critical Integral Approach to Fear Management/Education for The 21st Century" is master piece book for fear management. It was published by Universal Press of America in 2010. I have never seen such a deep book on fear. There are many technical books of fear. This is one of the best. It will serve in the future guidance as a core textbook on fearlessness and what he calls “fear education.”

There is not only fearlessness as the focus topic but there are some detailed explanations of fear education and fear management. He introduces child fear as well. Since 1989, he is persistently devoting himself to introduce this theory and philosophy of fearlessness. He offers important discussion on “culture of fear,” and a unique notion of the ‘Fear’ Matrix is important to the framework for his book.

His primary focus is on an improved fear-free education and life. But nobody can obtain a fear-free environment when surrounded by a fearful environment. Which unfortunately is so common today. To have a good quality life and education our fear must now need to be properly managed. He is one of the profound thinkers of fear and his offers graphic and artistic presentation of his models. He has tried his best to provide proof of fear in its complexity in this world. After reading his book, I felt, he has taken fear as overly negative at times, but that is because he uses a culturally-modified understanding of ‘fear.’

He has published another book "Philosophy of Fearism- a First East-West Dialogue" with Desh Subba in 2016. During my study of Philosophy of Fearism, I didn't have any idea of fear management and fear education and management systems. It is missing in my research. His scholarly theories can be quite difficult to understand for general and literary readers, yet, there is always something to learn. This is the best book for fear education and fear management, and would serve as a good textbook for upper levels university students and other serious readers. - Desh Subba (fearist) 2017

Chorlton [Terry Biddington]

20 May 2012

****

Dr. Margee Kerr, a sociologist, who professionally studies fear. 

Kerr says, "We have a negative bias" by which she means, given a choice in certain experimental studies of visual stimuli, most people will pay more attention to a negative (scary) image than a beautiful one. Psychologists have said this for a long time and shown it true in experiments. Now, to assume this is our human nature (or natural)? is another question Kerr does not debate but merely reads Psychology unproblematically, which is the problem I have with her "scientific" bias as a sociologist. That said she does look at the culture of fear in this short video worth watching "The Science Behind Why We Live in a Culture of Fear." go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQIgToDwL-o

I attended one of her lectures at SIUC some years ago, and I questioned her on her bias in studying fear. She was reluctant at best to engage me. Several emails later, and trying to have a good quality conversation with her and for her to look at my work, she ignores all contact. Too bad. I wonder what she is afraid of? From what I can tell she has built her growing career (and income) as a "horrorologist" of sorts, in that she likes to promote the good things that can happen when people enter into fearful experiences, like at horror shows and extreme sports or entertainment events like horror houses (that was the topic of her dissertation). I am very critical of all of that in ways she isn't. 

I bow down and support the women coming out now to say, "No more fear of men's sexual abuse"--especially, the men in leadership, and workplace powerful roles and identities. Yes, it is a great landslide for a major (r)evolution of this world. I always knew women would have to do it, would have to lead. And, I will and have always said in my 28 years as a teacher of liberation, "I will back you up." 

This is simply a message I want to articulate on this FM ning site for historical reasons. I have no doubt that the women's liberation movement is more powerful than any other--it always has been, it's just (unfortunately) been controlled by "fear of men" and that means not just men but all the 'strings' of power and economic livelihood the men have controlled for the most part in the public sphere. 

Courage and bravery is now walking the streets in feminine and female shoes, and sure I know others like in the queer and color communities likewise are making great moves as well to overcome he "fear of the normal" pressures in our world and its phobia of difference. Tomorrow, I suspect, with time and maturation, and good fear management/education new generations of young people will be so against exploitation of women (females) --that the society will transform and flip ever so slowly to becoming a culture of fearlessness, instead of a culture of fear. And, what role men can play in this (r)evolution led by women? That's what men need to be asking themselves, individually and collectively.

The current flood of women coming out and going after their sexual abusers in 'high places' is a current of the soul, of the spirit of fearlessness... it is not about women only. I assure you I have sniffed out this coming of the spirit of fearlessness... and right now it is mostly bravery and courage--two of the more immature forms but essential forms for further great developments ahead... into fear-less, fearlessness, and fearless... 

I have long argued in my work that to just look at fear(s) is a biased and distorted approach to fear management/education (FME). I have worked for 28 years to bring a more complete and dynamic view to the area of FME. Unfortunately, the resistance within the dominating fields of Psychology, Medicine (Psychiatry) and just about all 'normal' common sense discourses on "fear" tend to default (conveniently) to only a simplistic view and thus an incomplete ineffective FME.

Yes, I am a critic of all things to do with "fear" that get tossed around as 'the way it is' or 'this is the truth'--my approach is to question everything about fear--take the best, and scrap the rest. Ultimately, my goal is to come up with something better, of course. No easy task to "prove." It seems worth the effort to attempt the improvement because by all records and experience it is pretty clear to me (and a good number of other critics) that fear has got the better of us and our societies. I'm going to only speak here about the Western world (North American in particular where I have been born and grown up in). 

You ought to know that "proving" that something is better, as in a dynamic approach to FME, that challenges the status quo is going to scare people who already think they know the "best" ways to understand and manage fear. They have the supposedly 'proven' long track record. They often also have the status power positions in academic and research organizations and they have funding and assistants to do the research and write and publish. However, outside of that system of power/knowledge are the alternative and often critical approaches that are by people like myself with no funding for research, doing it all voluntarily and often alone without paid assistants. For the most part, it is this very real economic and status limitation that keeps much of my work in the hypothetical, philosophical and theoretical realm of argumentation. I have little empirical proof. However, I do have life experience and a lot of research but it is just not the usual kind that gets into the "scientific" kinds of journals of proving certain things about the nature and role of fear. 

The Problem of Human (Anthropocentricism) Fear Projection [1]

My point in this short blog is to bring up one part of my critique of just how simplistic and distortive (from my perspective) is the common discourse on fear(s). A 2014 article in a popular "scientific" magazine (Discover) on "Six Things We're Born to Fear" (like so many articles) goes on to tell of how "fear" was and still is instinctual, and that the same basic fears in humans are universal (e.g., fear of loud noise, fear of falling). The major interest in these articles is to confirm to us contemporary humans that we are not alone in being fearful--because all other creatures are too. It is genetic and predetermined. One biologist on a blog "Ask the Biologist" responded: "A baby bird in a nest is frightened of everything, which is sensible because they are almost completely helpless." Again, we hear the implicit justification for a very simplistic view, and defense mechanism, that it is natural to be fearful of everything (?)... or, at least most things. Evolution, say these biologists and psychologists, operates on the default mechanism to that is better to be cautious (aka "frightened") than not and trust only after you have learned it is okay to do so. [2]

There are many critiques to be made about this biopsychological and so-called evolutionary theory of "fear." I am more than skeptical when human beings living in a "culture of fear" today are projecting their fear onto Nature, and arguing that the bird chick in the nest is "frightened of everything"--as if this is all the time, and as if this is equivalent to human experience. How do we know what fear is for a bird chick? How do we know that the bird chick is in fear? Are we imposing our view (i.e., ecophobia) [3] and in particular our individual psychological perspective onto a bird chick in a nest. For the first thing, a bird chick is totally connected to its environment and its parents in an ontologically grounded and very trusting way. Fear is not its modus operandi of perceiving the world. Again, I won't go on and on with these points here. I want to merely raise them so that we are very cautious about projecting the word "fear" and how that concept/idea has been taught to us, and thinking that we can so completely assuredly, as the biologists and psychologists portray, make the claim that this is what the bird chick in the nest experiences. 

The Problem of One-Sidednes: Lack of a Dynamic Systems Perspective (and Fearlessness Movement)

The discourses so common in popular articles and in the discourses on fear by biologists and psychologists (for e.g.) fall into a naming and labeling of fears. They also fall into trying to set a preconditioned (genetic) default explanation for why creatures (supposedly) are mostly fearful most of the time. My own observations in Nature for 50+ years as a naturalist and ecologist, tell me that this is not the case. Creatures are on "alert" more or less, for sure. Nature is built on eat and be eaten; nothing escapes this. However, creatures in the wilds in my experience do not carry around a neuroses complex about danger and thus live in fear. The wild organisms are so attuned to a natural trust in all things they rely upon and live in with. They are so not "isolated" and "alienated" from Nature as humans as a species have become (again, I'm primarily talking about North American life-styles in the last millenium or so). There is little that can be compared between wild creatures and urban alienated human beings. 

The one-sidedness of the reports and advice on FME thus is obviously disconnected from the natural organismic systems that are going on. When a creature is in fear (e.g., running from a predator), which is rare, they are in a high alert response system that works to potentially free them from such a fate, but also at the same to which is working to heighten their spirit of fearlessness (as I call it). All my research shows that what has happened in evolutionary systems is a dynamic (dialectical) interplay of forces of Fear and forces of Fearlessness (of which, the latter has many forms, bravery, courage, and so on). There is no one without the other. They both always exist in a systems flow together, mutually working off of each other. The fearlessness aspect is one way to think of what I have called the Fearlessness Movement (a liberation process from a fear-based reality). The analogy (if not homology) is the fact that stress moves in organismic systems in a way that it is equally engaged with de-stressing natural mechanisms. Same with Fear, it has de-fearing mechanisms right there with it. I teach this in a phrase (law): When fear arises so then does fearlessness. 

My point, if you read 99% of the articles and books and listen to videos on fear(s) that are universal and natural in humans, etc., all there is in these articles is this documenting that's how fear is. There is no dialectical or complexification and systems perspective as I have said, a dynamic view is essential if we are to understand the nature and role of fear as best we can--that is, holistically. Of course, many of these simplistic approaches will try to pitch that you ought to will to be brave and courageous in the face of fear, or some will even say bravery and courage come with fear if we only tap into it (and, they are partially accurate)--but none that I have seen have a theory of the dialectical instinctual notion of the "spirit of fearlessness" as I do. I ask you to be very critical of all that 99% of the writing on fear(s). And, to be equally critical of my teaching and theorizing. Everything can be improved. Watch for Fear Projection via anthropocentricism, watch for the individual psychologizing of creatures in Nature (as if they think like humans today). And, as a learner of FME yourself, consider how we can better talk about Fear/Fearlessness in one breath--in one natural theory of FME, instead of separating these two components of living systems. 

I realize this is a brief picture and critique above. If you want the long version of my arguments for this dynamic relationship of Fear/Fearlessness and add even more complex components to it (via my Fear Management Systems Theory--which is really a meta-theory) go to my 2010 book The World's Fearlessness Teachings: A Critical Integral Approach to Fear Management/Education for the 21s century (Lanham, MD: University Press of America). 

Of course, I'd be glad to enter discussion with any of you here on the FM ning about this most basic critique I've been creating... 

Notes:

1. From a fearanalysis point of view (including psychoanalysis), defence mechanisms of Freud's work include "projection"--well, worth studying because it like all the defence mechanisms he uncovered in his work are fear-based (arguably). 

2. Underpinning my systems theory of Fear Management Systems is a hypothesis that in actuality "humans" (today) are the most fearful of all creatures in Nature and that the sooner we as a species admit this, we actually might learn the best lessons on fear management from Nature. This view is also somewhat (in part) held by my colleague Dr. Don Trent Jacobs (Four Arrows) and his Indigenous worldview perspective on Fear and Fearlessness. We have a new book coming out next year on this called "Fearless Engagement" (an intellectual biography of his life and work). He is one of the FM members. 

3. See the last several FM blogs on ecophobia as part of ecocriticism discourse today in the academy.