Blog

Here is the 5th (last) of the series on ecocriticism as related to my work on Fear and Fearlessness. It is entitled: "Ecocriticism, Ecophobia and Indigenous Criticism" - Technical Paper No. 70. 

Below is the abstract for this paper:

R. Michael Fisher

Technical Paper No. 70

Abstract – The author addresses some of the ways he has come into the field environmental education and the study of perceptions of humans towards nature, noting that fear of Nature is paradoxically situated with love of Nature in most people. He summarizes, using a brief fearanalysis, the Indigenous perspectives on ecocriticism and then proceeds to show the great influence of Four Arrows’ provocative de-hypnotizing method to help us get beyond the worst aspects of “ecophobia” (Estok’s hypothesis). He makes a few cautionary recommendations in the Conclusion as to how we can reclaim “indigeneity” by listening to and studying the more than human being (Nature) as guides to becoming “connoisseurs of Fear.”

Art work by Charles Cutting.

There is a fascinating "Operation Project Fear" as an Open University educational curriculum out of the UK, check out their website. The tag line for the novel (and an animation film as well): "An uncertain world. Can systems thinking free us from fear?" The website description in general read: "We are all victims of fear. Project Fear has been with us for hundreds of years. Find out how fear is weaponised and targeted and how to avoid making things worse!" 

This image above is an excerpt of the cover of a graphic novel by Dr. Simon Bell (and Charles Cutting's illustration)--available free if you sign-in to The Open University website. Bell, Professor of Innovation & Methdology (in Dept. of Engineering & Innovation) is a systems thinker who is bringing his background to the Fear Problem (aka Fear Project). He is someone I recently discovered through reading some of his book online- see "Formations of Terror" (2017). Unfortunately, this e-book is over $100. However, if you go on Google Books you can read parts of it for free.

It is fascinating that another "systems thinker" is applying their craft to the Fear Problem, as I recently posted a blog here on Dr. Bhandari doing the same thing. Oh, by the way, British Politics has apparently had this public discourse going of use of the label "Project Fear" in the past few decades, according to Wikipedia:

The term "Project Fear" has been used in British politics, notably before, during and after the 2016 UK referendum on EU membership by those campaigning to leave the European Union. It denotes the alleged scaremongering and pessimism employed by those in favour of remaining in the EU.^[1] The phrase was coined by Rob Shorthouse, who was the "Better Together" campaign's director of communications during the Scottish independence referendum, and was later used by 'remain' supporters in the buildup to the "Britain Stronger In Europe" campaign during the EU membership referendum campaign. [see more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Fear_(British_politics)

I am sharing a brief email conversation I had with Dr. Gokul Bhandari, from the Business faculty at University of Windsor, as we have mutual interests in bringing about a higher quality curriculum in higher education today (especially, in Business) that centralizes "Fear" as a subject and important force in determining so much about what is going on in higher education. Our first conversation on email (below) accompanies the diagram/model (above) that I have extracted from the ppt presentation Bhandari gave in Hong Kong recently with Desh Subba (founder of "philosophy of fearism")... Bhandari has a great interest in cybernetic systems and communication and would like to apply his quadrant model to "Fear" (I added the word "Fear" in the middle of his model).

Hi Dr. Bhandari, 

Here is the 4th Technical Paper in the series of five articles on ecocriticism: "Fearanalysis and Ecocriticism in the Light of Terrorcriticism" (Technical Paper No. 69). See Abstract below. 

R. Michael Fisher

Technical Paper No. 69

Abstract – After a brief review of the author’s conceptualization and praxis of fearanalysis (different but analogous to psychoanalysis), he applies this method to ecocriticism (especially, Estok’s “Ecophobia Hypothesis”) in the “Age of Terror.” A study of books using “Age of Terror” in their title and other discourses on “terror” (especially, but not only post-9/11), convinced the author that there was need for terrorcriticism a new branch of literary criticism contextualized within ecocriticism (but not restricted to it), that could offer useful critical analysis of the “Age of Terror” discourses and representations of terror and the human-planetary future. Fearanalysis as previously configured is being challenged to expand to a greater inclusivity of excess-extremes for the 21^st century (e.g., an “Age of Terror”), of which terror conceptualization and its problematics provides a most useful platform to the author’s agenda of promoting the global Fearlessness Movement for manifesting a “Fearless Age.”

This Technical Paper No. 68, "Eco-Philosophy of Fearism and Ecocriticism: In an Age of Terror" is the 3rd in a series of five Technical Papers on ecocriticsm and how it interrelates to my work on fear and fearlessness. In this paper the focus is on how ecocriticism, ecophobia, and eco-issues are relevant to Desh Subba's philosophy of fearism. I propose an Eco-Fear Problem concept throughout this series of papers and end up herein sketching out the beginning of a new branch I am calling "Eco-Philosophy of Fearism." See Abstract below: 

R. Michael Fisher

Technical Paper No. 68

 Abstract – This is the 3^rd technical paper in a five part series on “ecocriticism” as it relates to the author’s work on fear and fearlessness. Technical Paper No. 68 addresses both his focused engagement with Desh Subba’s philosophy of fearism in the last three years, and with his attempting to link Subba’s notion of “fearism” and the “fearist perspective” (lens) with ecocriticism (especially, Estok’s view). The synthesis is one that has led the author to propose herein a very basic description and outline of what is a new branch of thought called Eco-Philosophy of fearism. 

Continuing on with the series of five technical papers on ecocriticism, I am pleased to offer this 2nd one: "Ecocriticism, Ecophobia and the Culture of Fear: Autobiographical Reflections" (Technical Paper 67). 

R. Michael Fisher

Technical Paper No. 67

Abstract – This second of five Technical Papers on ecocriticism, and in particular with a critical focus on discourse(s) on ecophobia (e.g., Estok’s “Hypothesis of Ecophobia”), is intended to assist the author and reader to integrate the basics from the postmodern field of ecocriticism. The author utilizes a brief autobiographical and historical ‘coming out’ as an early ecocritic and eventual academic critic of the larger phenomenon of the “culture of fear” as central to the author’s project (since 1989). He contends that despite not having accessed the ecocriticism scholarship over the past three decades or so, he has been attracted ‘naturally’ (from his late teens) to critiquing the very environmental and ecological (‘green’) movements he so loved. Though, mostly, he critiqued the mainstream society and media in how it depicted these movements. Within this autobiographical narrative the author brings in several theoretical guides (e.g., primary influence of the integral philosopher Ken Wilber) and shares his own theorizing on the “culture of fear” (and its critics), and ‘Fear’ Studies.   

I have recently come across the notion of "ecophobia" thanks to Barbara passing on a popular magazine article. The more I looked into what "ecophobia" meant, the more complex my research got and it stirred up many things of interest to me and my work on fear and fearlessness--and, the philosophy of fearism. I have attached the Technical Paper 66 I just wrote: "Why Ecocriticism Now?: Pathways to the Eco-Fear-Problem and Ecophobia."

R. Michael Fisher

Technical Paper No. 66

Abstract – The very recent discovery by the author of the field of postmodern “ecocriticism” within literary criticism, is a welcomed avenue for creative growth. It offers a site of critical reflection upon the authors’ own research and teaching trajectory to define the Fear Problem over the past 28 years. This paper has two main objectives: (1) to outline a series of five technical papers on ecocriticism, of which No. 66 is the first introductory work and, (2) to inquire into the what, who, why of “ecocriticism” as it is portrayed in literary criticism, emphasizing a two-way (or split) in the thinking about its nature and function, especially in regard to the concept of “ecophobia” (i.e., via David Sobel contra Simon Estok). The author is particularly aligned with Estok’s general direction of thinking to the point of reconceptualizing the Fear Problem within the immanent crises of a tragic global future called the Anthropocene era, as meta-context. With this influence, focus shifts to articulating the Eco-Fear Problem. Implications lead the author to an eventual invoking of a new branch of Subba’s philosophy of fearism field of study to what Fisher is calling eco-philosophy of fearism. Overall, throughout this series of technical papers, and beyond, the author desires to add a rich set of layering and lenses to bring into the field of ecocriticism, to enable a mutual cross-fertilization with the richness of ecocriticism and in particular Estok’s “Ecophobia Hypothesis.”  

--------------

ECOFEMINISM response to the cascading "extinction" crises now and coming... is a bit of a different angle on the eco-fear problem, and that is that women may generally prefer to work on eco-grief... so I included the work here of Heidi Hunter as someone to read, watch her video and find guidance from through these times--along with the more masculine approaches (like my paper above)... http://www.heidihutner.com/ecofeminism-mothering/2015/11/29/eco-grief-and-ecofeminism

Many, including myself, have used the terminology re: enhancement of the human potential as "moving from Fear to Fearlessness"--and, there are some variations, but here is another version by the Hendricks couple in their therapeutic and educational work. Katie is using "moving from fear to flow".

Gay and Katie Hendricks, psychologists, have for over two decades been counseling and coaching couples for love. They have set up The Hendricks Institute as a place to carry out this work. I have not taken courses from them, nor read much of their work, but I have heard of them off and on for decades. No doubt they operate with a lot of integrity, but I am not in a position to sanctioned or recommend their work. 

However, I am always interested in what people offer in understanding fear and how they prescribe fear management. Gay Hendricks (see Photo on the FM ning lately) has come out with a strong message about fear and its impacts on love and the way couples communicate, handle conflict and so on. In her video "FEAR MELTERS" (and how to recognized the signs of "FEAR SIGNATURES" or symptom expressions) she goes so far as to say:

"I've come [after all these years] to be obsessed with fear in the last year or so because I've noticed that when I'm in fear, or other people are in fear, that I react in ways that just keep the conflict going, or the drama going." She then talks about how important she has found "presencing within myself" (or a type of centering in the present moment and recognizing, as a witness, what the body is doing, feeling, and what the mind is onto, that is, catching habitual tendencies in the early stages before they act out destructively). She offers then her own observation and categorization (not that it is original) on 4 types or "expressions of fear":

[she notes most of us have heard of the first two] : (1) FIGHT or (2) FLIGHT and, then adds two more less known by most people (3) FREEZE and (4) FAINT. 

I won't comment more on these, but to say that are a good beginning to gain a conscious relationship with "fear" (expressions, behavioral responses, reactions)... however, this is still a model and discourse typical of the field of Psychology and is inadequate in many respects. My own work extends two more (rarely known by most) expressions: (5) "tend and befriend" -as a more female/women's way and (6) fearlessness. All that for a much larger discussion. 

This is a preliminary essay intended to invoke further interest in what Fisher & Subba (2016) have called feariatry; we defined it (a term first named by Subba (2014)): feariatry (feariatric) - refers to the study and application of fear-disease relations in the mental health and wellness fields; analogous to psychiatry and psychiatric [1]

"Feariatry" is one of the sub-branches of a triad under FEAROLOGY, the latter which is one of the triad ("three pillars") identified in Fisher & Subba (2016) as an Integral Model of Relationships that are important to health and wellness, liberation and a better way to understand fear and create new knowledge about fear (p. 141).  Feariatry has the least development conceptually (theoretically) and practically relative to the other triads. For previous writing on feariatry search this blog [2].  

What is Feariatry? 

This is an open question that has not near been answered in the short-life span (a couple of years) of its growth as a concept. I won't summarize here everything Subba has published on it nor myself. I merely want to share some of my latest thinking. Feariatry is a re-calibration of the nature and role of fear (utilizing a philosophy of fearism) within its applications to health and wellness, medicine, psychiatry, therapy and psychology. The impetus behind this concept (and field of inquiry and care service) has been that fear requires a 'new' revision from its place in these areas, especially the field of psychiatry. Subba and myself argue that most all mental health problems and/or disorders (e.g., phobias, and other disorders in the DSM-V Manual that psychiatrists and psychologists use) are basically at their roots different forms of "fear-disease" relations.

In other words, the ecology of fear has been messed up, made errors as a "defense system" or "motivation system" and the result of those errors (intrinsic and extrinsic) are psychopathologies of fear (often with physical pathologies). Fear is at their root cause, and therefore, fear management/education is their primary or at least important treatment. Psychiatry as it has developed in modern times, and its following under the Biomedical Paradigm (Model), has left us with a psychiatry that is not that attuned or well-informed to the way fear operates in psychopathologies in general and in particular psychopatholgies like phobias, etc. Obviously, psychiatry sees the powerful nature and role of fear in psychopathologies like neurosis, psychosis, phobias, panic, anxiety disorder, but in actual theory and operations of treatment psychiatry doesn't pay that much attention to how to best work with the ecology of fear as a whole system of dynamic interactions, both intrinsic and extrinsic, both individually and collectively, and objectively and subjectively--all operating as impacting on the way fear is shaping and controlling life process (including nearly all psychopathologies). 

Feariatry ought to include the best of what psychiatry has to offer, but it also ought not be caught following only, or being dominated by, psychiatry and the Biomedical Paradigm. Feariatry, like the philosophy of fearism, is something new in perspective--one that uses a "fearist perspective" or lens. There is to be an open-mindedness, creativity and imagination for fear like never before in history. In that sense, feariatry ought to be transdisciplinary in approach to gathering data, knowledge, and assessing outcomes of feariatric treatments on patients. Psychiatry and its domination of the definition of fear and ways of managing fear are seen now as too restrictive and dismissive of the findings of the philosophy of fearism. We want this relationship to change, and we want more dialogue between theorists and practitioners from psychiatry and feariatry. Well, fact is, we don't have any one practitioner at the moment who claims to be a feariatrist. There isn't yet training for them. Meaning, we don't have a curriculum and pedagogy already prepared and planned for such training of feariatrists. But it is slowly developing and I am personally very interested to help lead this work and teaching. 

What is the Biomedical Paradigm?

This is a long and complex topic. When I suggest (as have several other critics) that the field of Medicine (and Psychiatry) are deeply embedded in the assumptions, premises and culture of a paradigm of Science as supreme over other forms of knowing, knowledge, and paradigms--then, that's where there is a conflict that needs to be understood, with a history going way back. Anthropologists tell us that around the world there have been "medicines" and "medicine peoples" in all tribal cultures for most of human history. Indigenous medicine (as therapy) is ancient and has its own Indigenous science basis, which many Indigenous scholars are now reclaiming and documenting in writing. Most of that wisdom is oral tradition, passed on from masters to initiates. There has also in the last several decades been a challenge to Western Medicine by the Eastern approach to Medicine (or wellness and health). Again, this is a large topic, but the point is to say that the worldviews behind these different approaches have different value systems, beliefs, assumptions about reality, and about the way disease and cures are related. These different worldviews and their paradigms of operations are also different in how they view the nature of fear and how best to manage fear. They have different ways of theorizing the fear-diseases (i.e., what diseases or dis-eases are caused mainly by fear and which are not). 

The biomedical paradigm, at least in the Western world began in the early first millenium and especially in the 16th century, as "Science" was becoming thought by many (not all) to be the best method to find out the truth, to diagnose the true illness and find the true cure. Experimentation was systematized using new means of statistics, data analysis, validating procedures, etc. The history of diseases and cures is fascinating and gives one a larger perspective when practicing any kind of curing --therapy--etc. So, I encourage all psychiatrists and feariatrists to be philosophers and historians as well as practitioners. Keep an open mind, and especially with regard to the nature and role of fear in disease(s) and in health and cures. 

So, may feariatry move along and develop, and do so in part because of its open-dialogue with psychiatry. As for how hard that is going to be, I predict it will be very hard because psychiatry isn't very open in my experience to other paradigms for understanding medicine, wellness, health, therapy. Of course, I could be just as critical about Psychology today, especially in the Western world. 

I look forward to further dialogue. 

Notes: 

1. Fisher, R. M., & Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris, p. 157. See also Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Australia: Xlibris.

2. For e.g., I have written: "Advances in the Psychopathology of Fear" (FM blog Apr. 19/17); "Feariatry: A First Conceptual Map" (FM blog Aug. 26/16). 

In 2007, the well-known sociologist of fear (in the UK), Frank Furedi, published a catchy article in both the prestigious American Journal of Sociology 32, and on his own blog site "Spiked" online. The title: "The Only Thing We Have to Fear is the 'Culture of Fear' Itself" (which is obviously his play on U.S. Pres.  F.D. Roosevelt's quip from 1933). I have followed Furedi's work on fear since the late 1990s. This article in 2007 (10 years ago) still speaks well to the phenomena that is going on today around the world, but especially in the UK and USA (even Canada): here it is: Furedi pdf  

As far as I can see over the years, and from my correspondence with Furedi, he has utilized much of my research on fear to expand his own work but never once has he cited my work. I have virtually always cited his work since the late 1990s. Anyways, despite that unfortunate turn, I agree with lots of his notions on fear and disagree with lots too. He's a sociologist and not transdisciplinary enough for my liking when it comes to the complex Fear Problem.

That said, I really like what he says in this 2007 article: "Fear is often examined in relation to specific issues; it is rarely considered [in academia and social sciences especially] as a sociological problem in its own right"--leading, he continues, "to a stituation where people are talking about fear (and risk, etc.) and doing so via "under-theoritisation of fear." Right on! 

Here is a link of an activist reflecting on the presence of fear in the USA after a year of activism for change.  https://jenniferhofmann.com/challenge-do-this-single-radical-democratic-act/

I just found a new 300pp doctoral dissertation entitled: "Fear: A Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Therapy" Starkstein2016%20Fear.pdf by Dr. Sergio Starkstein, out of Murdoch University, Perth, Australia. Wow... I have not read it but I highly recommend it to all serious students of fear, fearism, fearology... etc. I look forward to some of you posting about its content and approach on the FM ning in the coming weeks... Below is the Abstract (and brief Bio):

Abstract Fear is a critical emotion in everyday life as it permeates many of our minor and major decisions. Explicitly or implicitly, fear is one of the emotions that most strongly shape human life. In this thesis fear and its philosophical remedies will be analysed through the work of western philosophers and thinkers selected based on their overall contributions in conceptualizing fear and suggesting therapies for reducing its more damaging effects. The study will show how Epicurus, Cicero and Seneca considered fear as the main obstacle in achieving peace of mind, and their ethical systems were primarily focused on dealing with this emotion by proposing eclectic philosophical therapies. Montaigne presented a humanist therapy of fear instrumented as a critical self-analysis. In contrast, a reductionist trend in thinking about fear emerged during the 17th century with the growth of materialistic philosophy. Thomas Hobbes reduced fear into a necessary tool for social control, whereas René Descartes demoted fear to a secondary emotion enacted by a dualist mechanism. This trend continued with William James’s conception of fear as a sensory-somatic reflex, and with Sigmund Freud’s hypothesis of a neurotic fear resulting from universal unconscious laws. I will also discuss how current neuroscience has reduced fear to decontextualized neural changes, and how the dominant trend in psychiatry has reified anxiety into arbitrary nomenclatures of unclear validity. On a completely different tack Ludwig Wittgenstein provided a broad ‘perspicuous presentation’ of fear, but his nuanced analysis has been largely ignored in philosophical studies. Overall it can be seen that, in keeping with the scientific revolution, the influential perspectives throughout the philosophical history of fear change from understandings that philosophy itself and reason are the best therapies for fear towards the medicalization of fear that is dominant today. By following these specific and diverse historical convergences, however, their criss-crossing insights and oversights, the thesis aims to enhance the conceptual understanding of fear and the variety of perspectives and therapies available for accommodating its enduring influence in our lives.

*****

Bio (I asked Sergio about his background to this Ph.D. and he graciously wrote back:)

Dear Michael

Thanks for your kind words. I am a neuropsychiatrist working in Perth, Western Australia. I started my philosophy studies in Buenos Aires in the year 2000. I resumed my studies after migrating to Australia at the University of Western Australia, where I obtained my B.A.(Hons). I then transferred to Murdoch University to do my Ph.D. in philosophy, which took me 8 years to complete, as I work full time. This is in a nutshell my story.

I was always interested in philosophy, which I enjoy reading and practicing. Fear and anxiety are in my blood, as is usually the case with Jews living in South America, although I spent half of my professional life abroad (5 years at Hopkins in Baltimore and 15 in Australia).

Many thanks for posting my abstract. The dissertation is now in book format, and I am awaiting a (hopefully positive) referee report before it gets published by an English printer.

This is all I have to say!

cheers

sergio

(Oct. 28/17)

Sergio,

I just read an interesting, and troubling, recent article in Psychology Today magazine "The (Only) 5 Fears We All Share" by K. Albrecht (Ph.D.). It is based in a psychology (very Western modern) discourse formation (i.e., psychologism ideology), and that is both revealing and concealing, if not distorting the knowledge on "fear."  But rather than get into the long critical arguments I could make on this, let me say a few things about Albrecht's model and the contradiction which is glaring in his own article (and model). 

First, it is great he is working on trying to figure out some kind of universal human hierarchy of fears, and then labels his model the "Feararchy" (I have not seen anyone use that concept (theory) before, so I tend to like these kinds of developmental and evolutionary hierarchical theories/models and so I like the basic notion of this). Here is the model diagram he proposes: 

Albrecht starts the article off saying, "When we know where they [fears] really come from, we can start to control them." Hmmm... there's the Western dominant masculine (?) obsession to control and dominate--even to dominate emotions. That's one concern I have, but not the main one here. Then he begins to quote former U.S. President F.D. Roosevelt from the 1930s, and the iconic quote in so many fear discourses-- re: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" (very much repeated ad nauseum)... and he (Albrecht) says, in his own conclusion: "I think he [FDR] was right: fear of fear probably causes more problems in our lives than fear itself." 

So, here is Albrecht beginning his thesis and strong positioning that "fear of fear" probably is our worst, or near most worst of the fears (and it's universal, he implies). There are lots of troubling issues in this claim, but I also tend to agree with it basically. So, let's then move to the model of simplification that Albrecht is presenting. And, be clear, he is a "SIMPLIFIER" type of person/thinker/theorist when it comes to fear and its management, and he says so, from the start of the article too: "Fear has gotten a bad rap among most human beings. And it's not nearly as complicated [aka 'bad'] as we try to make it." Again, I could take issues with how this is a dubious positioning. Yet, if I grant him that he may be this simplifier (vs. COMPLEXIFIER, of which I would place myself), then lets see where he makes the most contradictory (error) in the article. 

Look at his diagram model, The Feararchy (above). Okay, I'm not seeing him placing in this model the very universal fear he opened the article with--that is, "fear of fear" as what he declares is what "probably causes more problems in our lives than fear itself." Hmmm.... what happened, why is this fear not included in his hierarchy, if it is as important as he says? So, there begins ... more troubles with this article by Albrecht. 

You can read the article and make up your own critique. Feel free to share it on the FM ning. 

Authors Interview

https://independentauthora.wixsite.com/authorspotlight/single-post/2017/10/18/Author-Kalu-Osinakachi

https://independentauthora.wixsite.com/authorspotlight/single-post/2017/10/15/Author-Desh-Shubba

"Fearing the Gull" a digital mash-up poster -by R. Michael Fisher 2017

For the last 2+ months I have been working on a research project, using my arts-based inquiry approach, plus my naturalist (birder) approaches, and a whole lot of other philosophical thinking and analysis as to why humans insist on using "animal distress calls" that are recorded and mounted in public spaces to scare away unwanted species (e.g., my study involves the Ring-billed and California Gull species in the N.E. part of Calgary, Alberta, Canada). I believe there is a strong metaphor and teaching to be had from critically examining how humans [1] so easily turn wildlife into "the Other" (i.e., a "fear of the Other") complex patterning of relationship, which allows humans to then justify the most subtle and gross brutalities. 

This blog is not an explanation of this project, and recall it is only in its infancy, but I will tell you how it got started and where it is emerging in direction. This past summer, as I was riding my bicycle down a busy street in N.E. Calgary, just 1/2 block from the Peter Loughheed Hospital, I heard gull voices (one or more) that were nearby but I couldn't quite tell where. They were stark and loud and sounded like a predator was eating a bird alive. That's exactly my intuition and my experience of listening to wild animals of all kinds all my life. I can tell "distress" (emotions) often in the call and behaviors. But because I could not see anything, I only could go on the basis of sound that something very painful (i.e., suffering) is happening to a fellow creature in my midst. But where is it? How can I help?

I stopped and listened and then got a sense of the direction it was coming from. It was in a huge parking lot of a commercial business (who's name I won't reveal at this point). I spent several minutes riding in between buildings and parked cars, and could not see anything. In fact, I noticed I wasn't seeing even a gull of any kind. Just people going in and out of their cars and into the commercial building to buy things. The sound of the gull was piercing at times. I began to think this was perhaps up on the high roof top and beyond my ability to see what was going on. I did notice the stark gull crying sounds of distress cycled and changed. Stopped momentarily completely, then started up (seemingly with a 30 sec. or so periodicity). I had to go to an appointment so left. And I felt disturbed. 

Many hours later that day I rode back home and passed this same area. The same sound was going on, same intensity, etc. I thought this is impossible to be a sequence in Nature, but it was man-made, and surely must be a recording coming from the roof top of one or more buildings in that vicinity. Over the months I have re-visited and noticed the sound remaining, and noticed how far away it travelled (that's another story). I interviewed one employee at this building where I pretty much tracked down the origin of the sound recording. That's all I'll share at this point, but it really stirred up my blood and I've been investigating the use of "bird distress calls" or "nuisance" animal management techniques using "distress calls" and/or "predator calls." Clearly, the business in question wanted to scare away (frighten) the gulls in their parking lot and on top of their large flat roof surface. This business is not the only one doing this kind of thing. There are lots of studies on this. There are not enough studies on the impacts psychologically or physiologically of long-term exposure to these distress call recordings in public and or natural areas. I am deeply concerned about the effects of using "fear" to manage wildlife and/or to manage a business! 

If you have any insights or info. on this, share it on the FM ning or with me by email: r.michaelfisher52[at]gmail.com

I will be taking creative and strong action on the results of this research to prevent the unnecessary spread of "fear" ("distress") in our public spaces in this area of the city... and, beyond. 

Notes:

1. By "humans" I am generalizing, and in particularly focusing on modern, urbanized, humans overall; thus, I would exclude humans that follow the traditional Indigenous worldview in relation to their ancestors (all beings). 

There is plenty of literature in the fear management/education genre that more or less breaks down "fear" origins into genetic (primal) or learned (conditioned). I think there's lots of validity in those two categories, although I do not believe they are fully adequate to cover the more sublime phenomena and territory of fear origins. I have been carefully observing one of my own interesting "fear" experiences for several years now, and it has arisen only significantly as I have got much older, in early-60s is when it began. I think this blog speaks to issues in feariatry.

The fear experience I am speaking about is one that comes spontaneously out of the unconscious, and although it has no doubt some genetic and learned components, I would say it is unique in that it comes from within the dream state, when I am sleeping or very near sleeping (some call the hypnogogic). For e.g., last night I was deep in a dream of having sex and it being very pleasurable and I was very concentrated, yet relaxed, and suddenly with no clues or stimulus from within the dream narrative itself, my entire body jolted and woke me up, my heart rate jumped and I realized I was having a fear/startle experience that seemed to have no obvious cause at all. I listened intently and heard no follow-up real sounds in the awake state. I even got up and checked out all the windows to see if there were any prowlers trying to break in as maybe I heard a bang--that was my first intuition of why I bolted up from the dream/sleeping state. But nothing was there. I saw a white-tailed prairie hare feeding on the front lawn of the yard and it was totally relaxed and that cued me that there was nothing unusual going on in the real world, nor did a loud noise actually happen. My mind had made it up. That was my conclusion. 

As I say, I have had this rather disconcerting phenomena for several years now, which I don't remember having when I was young. Sometimes, I am certain in the bolting up from sleep/dreaming state that a gun shot or bang took place. Obviously threatening stimuli potentially. But no, my inspections after had me concluded that no such noise actually happened, but rather my mind made it up, and from what I can tell it did so without any external stimuli or material from within the dream itself that would warrant such a powerful fear/alert response. The whole experience can also sometimes include fairly loud voices of people, even somewhat distinguishable with words, but usually not. This is what might be called "hearing voices" that many psychiatric patients will talk about. These spontaneous productions are from the unconscious reservoir and what I would call the primal state below any dream narrative/imagery, etc. They literally seem to be illusions. They can totally fool my body into their "reality" and enough so to totally give me a fear/startle reaction with all the physiological equipment going into full gear. It takes me only 20-40 sec.'s usually to pull down the heart rate and calm down but they are strong enough illusions of "realness" to make me check out my environment in the house, again, often checking for burglars or some other event that is unusual and could be dangerous to myself or to others (e.g., neighbors). 

So, it is a kind of hyper-vigilance that is interrupting my sleep/dream states at times, and even more disconcerting is when I am only falling asleep and in that trance where the unconscious can throw these stimuli forward and a fear/startle with it that is amazing to me how it can produce this effect. I see why many people can get very freaked out with this kind of spontaneous unconscious experience which seems able to flood all other brain activity, even a sleeping calm body. Why does it do this when there is, as far as I can tell in my analyzing these experiences, no external or internal stimuli that I am aware of? And, because i watch and listen and record my dreams as a regular practice I do well remember usually what I was dreaming at the time of these spontaneous irruptions. So, I can say confidently, there was no imagery in the dream or semi-dream state (hypnogogic) that produced the high arousal of danger. Equally, but a little less confidently, can I say, there was no external stimuli in the environment at the time that was producing the arousal I experienced so suddenly. 

The WHY question remains, and I have this morning come up with a hypothesis that there are parts of the brain/mind/body system that are involved as source of these experiences I've been having. They could be from old (if not traumatic) circuits in the nervous system/tissues, that "replay" and "practice" both a threat and response to a threat, and these experiential loops of rehearsal and 'working through' seem to operate virtually on their own accord without any obvious reason coming from the physical environment or dream imagery and narrative--they have an independence. It is this latter trait, that verges on what could be called a mini-psychotic episode. Because I have lived with an x-spouse and worked with a few clients over the years who have psychotic experiences, my hypothesis seems reasonable and I also know how there can be this weird (if not subtle terror) that one is 'losing their mind' because of the information and experiencing going on in the aroused state that seems to have little to no cause that one can pin down as empirical or rational. Now, my experience of this min-psychotic 'break' is very minor compared to what some people I have seen go through when the flooding of material (e.g., loud sounds, voices, etc.) is highly intense and doesn't let up and it exhausts the fear-response system--and all other rational control systems as well. 

I share this to record and highlight what may be more common than people (so-called 'normals') may experience but don't report to others nor even give it the time of day to reflect upon. I am a fearologist and I like to make notes on these phenomenon for research purposes, but also to make sense of what is happening to me. In the hypothesis I present, I think it is useful (less terrifying) so suggest that I am not 'losing my mind' (and ability to keep in touch with reality) but that my primal fear-system is rather "practicing" now and then as like going to the gym to build up its skills in "helping" me when any real situation of threat comes along, no matter of how subtle. So, in this meaning re-frame, rather than believe maybe I am going psychotic, I prefer to explore the meaning of "practice" and that indeed, I (my ego) is not in control of the "practice" and "working out" that is going on. And, I am learning to be okay with not being in complete cognitive control of all my functions, especially the Defense Intelligence systems (e.g., like the fear/startle response). On the other hand, I will say, that in my analysis of these spontaneous irruptions and illusions I experience now and then, there is always a bit of cognitive linking that I am able to do as to possible causes of such an irruption based on something I saw on TV in a glance or heard of as bad news, or as dangerous somewhere in the world. No doubt, I am linked by "matrixial strings" to these irruptions that are real in the physical and psychical world of people somewhere, or even animals and plants... and, I maybe just attuning in the dream/sleeping state to those matrixial relationships and having an empathic experience. I don't want to rule that out as an explanation either. 

ECOLOGY OF FEAR - Experiments with Predator-Prey Relations

[this is related material to my earlier blog on "Ecology of Fear" and "birding"]

Here is a short article summary in a prestigious journal, The Scientist, -- another e.g., of subtle insidious effects that could have larger impacts than we have imagined before--at least, I am only beginning to imagine how Fear can work in ecological systems--never mind the metaphoric meaning of this research to cultural studies. Here is the short results: 

Looking at the interplay between living organisms and the soil chemistry that in turn supports life, researchers have found that stressed insects die with less nitrogen in their bodies, providing fewer nutrients to the soil and slowing the rate of plant-matter decomposition.  The study, published last week (June 14) in Science, suggests that insect interactions and diversity can have a dramatic impact on the soil fertility, and consequently, on ecosystem health.

“We were interested in bridging two subfields of ecology—organism ecology and biogeochemistry—in a way to make predictions about how food web structure can affect nutrient cycling,” first author Dror Hawlena of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem told Nature.

The researchers housed one set of grasshoppers together with predatory spiders, which had their mouth-anatomy glued shut so that the experimental grasshoppers would not actually be eaten, while another set was housed with no spiders. When the grasshoppers died, the researchers added their decomposing bodies to soil along with leaf litter.  After 3 months, the plant matter in the soil seeded with afraid grasshoppers had decomposed 200 percent less than the plant matter in soil treated with unafraid grasshoppers.

“The traditional view is that plants and microbes are the main players linking the biotic and the abiotic world, but here we have shown that predators can actually regulate microbes by affecting the chemical composition of their own prey,” Hawlena told Nature. 

Extract from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32228/title/The-Ecology-of-Fear/

Jagmeet Singh under attack by women (black t-shirt) at a pre-victory ralley (Sep. 6/17)

It is not too often we see a close verbal attack on a political leader like this in Canada. I don't know the details, someone just sent me this short 4 min video (go to: "Is Canada Ready for Jagmett Singh?" on Youtube). The disorder of the lady in black is disruptive, perhaps planned, or not. Yet, I found it very interesting to see how the new NDP leader handled the situation, and basically said, let her talk, this is not a problem, and then got the crowd chanting with him: "We're going to face them with love and courage" --meaning, all obstacles to success for the NDP and his leadership as a man of color and Sikh... I wish him the best, and sure, "love and courage" can go a long way in contradiction to the usual politics of order and fear, intimidation and shutting down voices of dissent. Of course, like all things, there will be a limit to how open and trusting and loving and courageous this leader and his followers will be when under attacks like this--and, perhaps, a lot worse in the future. I merely draw attention to this because it is a good show on his part of restraint and a "fearlessness" we require so much in this world of leadership. I would like to see the NDP in general get in touch with the Fearlessness Movement and start planning to really face "Fear" in new ways-- and I'm sure I'll reach out to them as well. 

Four Arrows - video still - SPAGO 2017 23 4Arrows 

Four Arrows (aka Dr. Don Trent Jacobs), an FM member recently sent me a short 4 min. SPAGO video of his activist work and philosophy: "I think fear is the biggest deterrent of both happiness and talent," he remarks in the 2017 film. This is definitely worth watching, and a fine production for which Amnesty International is now using this in their pr work.  

https://youtu.be/4rfd-Ac9EXw